The Andover Trial. 
 
 In the Matter of the Complaint against 
 Egbert C. Smyth and others, Professors 
 of the Theological Institution in Phillips 
 Academy, Andover. 
 
 Professor Smyth's Argument, 
 
 together with the Statements of Pro- 
 fessors Tucker, Harris, Hincks, and 
 Churchill 
 
BX 7243 .A62 S59 1887 
 Smyth, Egbert Coffin, 1829- 
 
 1904. 
 The Andover heresy 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/andoverheresyinmOOsmyt 
 
The Andover Heresy. 
 
 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST EGBERT 
 
 C. SMYTH AND OTHERS, PROFESSORS OF THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION IN PHILLIPS 
 
 ACADEMY, ANDOVER. 
 
 PROFESSOR SMYTH'S ARGUMENT, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 THE STATEMENTS OF PROFESSORS TUCKER, 
 HARRIS, HINCKS, AND CHURCHILL. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 CUPPLES, UPHAM & COMPANY, 
 
 BTJjc ©III Corner Bookstore, 
 
 283 Washington Street. 
 1887. 
 
JFrankltn ^rfS2 : 
 
 RAND AVERY COMPANY, 
 BOSTON. 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST 
 EGBERT C. SMYTH AND OTHERS, 
 
 Professors of the Theological Institution in Phillips Academy 
 in Andover. 
 
 May it please, your Reverend and Honorable Body : 
 
 By the Statutes of the Associate Foundation it is made 
 your duty " to take care that the duties of every Professor 
 on this Foundation be intelligibly and faithfully discharged, 
 and to admonish or remove him, either for misbehavior, het- 
 erodoxy, incapacity, or neglect of the duties of his office." 
 By the Statutes of the Brown Professorship, which I have 
 the honor to hold, this Foundation is made " subject to visi- 
 tation " in the same manner with the Associate Foundation. 
 In the libel filed by the complainants and which defines the 
 present issue I am not charged with misbehavior, incapacity, 
 or neglect of official duty. The sole issue is one of 
 " heterodoxy." 
 
 I desire to call your attention to the fact that I am not 
 charged with " neglect of the duties of my [his] office." It 
 is certainly possible that a Professor, enamored of some new 
 opinion neither out of "harmony with" nor "antagonistic 
 to " the Creed of the Seminary, might spend so much time 
 in maintaining and inculcating it as to neglect his duty in 
 respect to other truths. If this were the accusation in the 
 present case I am confident that I should have no difficulty 
 in meeting it. But wide as is the range of the present libel 
 it nowhere ventures upon such an aspersion. I stand before 
 
3 r ou, even in these calumnious days, absolutely without 
 reproach from any quarter in this particular. 
 
 I am charged before you with " heterodoxy " — nothing 
 more, nothing less, nothing other. If I am guilty of " hetero- 
 doxy " you can remove or admonish me as the issue of this 
 trial, according to your judgment and discretion. If I am 
 not guilty I am entitled to a clear acquittal. 
 
 It has been said that this is not a trial for heresy, but for 
 a breach of trust. A suit for a breach of trust would lie 
 more properly against the Trustees or Treasurer of the Semi- 
 nary. Not a cent of the Seminary Funds comes into my 
 hands save as I receive it from said Treasurer, who acts by 
 order of the Trustees. If there has been a breach of trust in 
 the management of the funds the custodians and disbursers 
 of those funds are guilty of this offence, and there are avail- 
 able and natural methods of prosecution. The arraignment 
 of five professors, and the interruption of their work in 
 the midst of a term of study, is not one of these natural 
 methods. This is a trial for heresy, or it is nothing. The 
 violation of solemn promises which is charged is simply an 
 issue of interpretation of a creed. The only charge in essence 
 and in form is the accusation of " heterodoxy." 
 
 It may indeed be suggested in qualification of what I have 
 said, that "heterodoxy" in the present instance is to be de- 
 termined by an unusual, particular and remote standard, and 
 that this criterion is not the test which would now be im- 
 posed, so that I might be orthodox according to the rule 
 which would be applied to-day, and yet heterodox according 
 to the rule prescribed in the Seminary Creed. I do not admit 
 that such a distinction is applicable in the present case. I 
 am advised by eminent legal authority that the word " het- 
 erodoxy " in the Statutes cannot be thus limited and de- 
 fined. But irrespective of this objection I must say that I 
 think better of our Creed, better of the Founders of the Semi- 
 nary, than such a contention would admit. The Creed bears 
 traces, doubtless, of controversies which no longer interest 
 the public, and unadjusted and even irreconcilable concep- 
 tions linger in some of its phrases. But to whatever criti- 
 
cisms it is fairly exposed, I " hold, maintain, and inculcate," 
 Mr. President, that it does not bind the Seminary to an an- 
 tiquated phase of belief, or to the " warts and wens " which 
 a living theology knows how to get rid of, but on the con- 
 trary, that it logically leads to those adjustments of orthodox 
 thought and belief which are now necessary, and in general 
 leaves an open path for such as the future may require. 
 Such a statement doubtless will strike with surprise some 
 who are the friends of doctrinal progress. There is abroad an 
 opinion which is founded, I am persuaded, upon a 'priori rea- 
 soning, and not upon scientific examination. It is like certain 
 theories of inspiration which are derived from what men 
 think the Bible ought to be and not from what it is. It 
 reasons thus : The human mind has made doctrinal progress 
 since the century opened. A creed written eighty years ago 
 must be antiquated. That depends. An a priori " must be," 
 science has taught us, is not always an "is so." It depends 
 on who says it, still more on what has been said. I am not 
 a eulogizer of the Andover Creed. Clothed in phraseology 
 which it requires much special learning accurately to inter- 
 pret, composed as a compromise, designed to admit under it 
 a great variety of philosophical theories and beliefs, expres- 
 sive at certain points by its silences even more than by its 
 utterances, balancing traditional statements by novelties of 
 doctrine, inserting some words to bar against regression and 
 others which make progress necessary, confessing the author- 
 ity of Scripture but not failing to emphasize the constant 
 revelation in creation, providence and redemption, it cannot 
 be rightly understood without a more careful study than its 
 critics have usually given to it, and whatever else it may be 
 I am persuaded that it is not the symbol of an antiquated 
 phase of orthodoxy, nor the chain and ball of an imprisoned 
 theology. I appear before you of necessity to make personal 
 answer to charges most of which are utterly false, charges 
 some of which, if true, would justly expose me to the accusa- 
 tion of heresy under the standards of a catholic orthodoxy, 
 but I have a larger contention and a deeper interest. I de- 
 sire to secure by your decision for those who may come after 
 
me the rights of a reverent scholarship in the study of God's 
 word ; the liberties of thought and life which are necessary 
 to fruitful biblical study ; the opportunity for that spontane- 
 ity and freedom in the discovery and acquisition of sacred 
 truth, without which the articles of any creed however ex- 
 cellent can never become the reality of present, personal 
 convictions and the living springs of knowledge, but must 
 always remain the dry and barren deposit of a dead past. I 
 believe the result at which I aim expresses the only correct 
 interpretation of the duties and rights of a Professor in Ando- 
 ver Seminary, as these obligations and liberties are defined 
 and guaranteed in the Creed and Statutes of the Founders. 
 
 Before, however, I venture out upon this larger field of 
 thought, I desire to meet the complainants upon the nar- 
 rowest line which they may select. I shall attempt to 
 show that, even when every indication from the Founders is 
 disregarded which points to that nobler conception of the 
 function of the Creed at which I have just hinted, the pres- 
 ent complaint is still futile and void. 
 
 In order to convict me under the present libel the com- 
 plainants must prove that I hold beliefs which are incon- 
 sistent with a valid acceptance of the Creed, or that I have 
 violated my solemn promise "that I will maintain and incul- 
 cate the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed ... so 
 far as may appertain to my office, according to the best 
 light God shall give me, and in opposition to " various 
 heresies and errors specified and unspecified, ancient and 
 modern. 
 
 The first requirement pertains to belief, the second to offi- 
 cial conduct in matters of faith. 
 
 To establish my guilt under the first requirement the com- 
 plainants must prove at' least two things : that I hold an 
 alleged belief, and that this belief is contrary to the Creed. 
 As I have intimated it will be contended in my behalf that 
 there is still a further condition of the validity of the accusa- 
 tion, viz , that this particular belief be shown to be heterodox 
 by a yet higher and more continuous and potent standard of 
 orthodoxy. Without waiving this point I shall not press it 
 
in what I here present. I am content to insist at the present 
 stage of the argument upon the two conditions first named, 
 the necessity of proving that I hold what is charged, and. 
 that such a belief contravenes the Creed. 
 
 To prove my guilt under the second requirement, — that 
 of official conduct, — still more must be established than un- 
 der the first. My official promise must be considered in all 
 its parts, and as a whole. No one can rob me of the convic- 
 tion that whatever have been my deficiencies I have endeav- 
 ored to maintain and inculcate so far as pertains to my office 
 " the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel " 
 as expressed in the Creed, "according to the best light God" 
 has given me, and in opposition to the various errors by 
 which history shows that these truths have been confronted. 
 I have preferred, however, to try and show what neglected 
 element of truth heresy may be thriving upon, and how it 
 may be healed by a larger truth, rather than merely to an- 
 tagonize it. I submit to your careful consideration this test 
 of the validity of any proof, advanced by the complainants, of 
 my " heterodoxy" as a teacher. It is a three-fold cord. Each 
 strand is necessary. It is weak as a broken thread if either 
 fails. It must be shown that I have "maintained and in- 
 culcated," that is, taught purposely and urgently, what is 
 charged ; that I have done this in my work as a Professor in 
 the Seminary; and that this deed is a violation of my prom- 
 ise to teach the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed 
 " according to the best light God shall give me," I ask you 
 in simple justice rigidly to apply this test to what on this 
 point the complainants may offer as proof. 
 
 You will pardon me also if I request you to bear in mind 
 that I am not on trial before you as an editor of the Andover 
 Review, or as a joint author of a volume called Progressive 
 Orthodoxy published by Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 
 4 Park Street, Boston. I would not draw any fine or arti- 
 ficial distinction between my utterances in the Review and 
 in the Lecture Room. No honest man, certainly no trustwor- 
 thy religious teacher, can hold a double and mutually contra- 
 dictory set of opinions, one for his pupils, another for his 
 
8 
 
 own privacy or for some other use. If I have taught in the 
 Review what is contrary to the Creed, I shall not plead that 
 I have been more reserved or utterly silent in my lectures. 
 I have, however, a point to make which may assume impor- 
 tance. It is this. In the field of literature I am amenable 
 to your jurisdiction only so far as it can be proved that what 
 I publish is contrary to the Creed, or actually violates, or 
 necessarily and evidently tends to violate, my obligations as 
 Brown Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Theological 
 Institution in Phillips Academy in Andover. In a volume 
 or review, for instance, I am perfectly at liberty to dwell ad 
 libitum on a single topic. I might co-operate in a temperance 
 journal, or one devoted to Civil Service Reform, and write 
 on one or the other of these subjects every month, provided 
 I neglected none of the duties of my office. Much more on 
 some living theological or religious question, under the same 
 condition. But it would be contrary to the duties of my 
 office to give such prominence to these questions in my lec- 
 ture room. So far as the Review or Progressive Orthodoxy is 
 now before you, the issue is not what prominence is given to 
 a subject, but whether any thing is taught which shows a 
 belief or beliefs contrary to the Creed, or a violation of my 
 promise as to conduct in my office. 
 
 Indulge me in one other preliminary remark. I regret 
 that the number and variety of the charges in the libel make 
 it impossible for me to be brief. I am charged with hetero- 
 doxy upon nearly all the distinguishing doctrines of our Holy 
 Religion. The indictment seems to be constructed on the 
 plan of somebody's note-books of a course of lectures in Sys- 
 tematic Theology, embracing the leading topics from the 
 Being of God to the final resurrection and the contrasted 
 eternal states. One of the signers, in the original complaint, 
 wrote " Trustee " under his name. He is a Trustee of the 
 Seminary, of many years' standing. Being a clergyman he 
 has been very often appointed by his associates to attend my 
 theological examinations. I have almost invariably, from 
 year to year, examined on the Church doctrine of the 
 Trinity. He knows, or is inexcusable if he does not know, 
 
what I have taught. He knows, or ought to know, that I 
 have taught from year to year the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 the Church doctrine ; and that I " hold, maintain and incul- 
 cate " it, as I have done all along. I am thankful that it does 
 not devolve upon me to occupy your time in trying to explain 
 why he has deemed it necessary to sign his name, in the pro- 
 fessed interest of honesty of subscription, to a charge that I 
 teach a modal Trinity, a charge which he knows full well, or 
 is inexcusable if he does not know, is baseless and false, but 
 unless he and his associates withdraw this charge and others 
 equally preposterous, I must take time to refute them. For- 
 tunately for the demands upon your time the strength of the 
 list is in inverse ratio to its length. 
 
 Believing that you will appreciate the necessity laid upon 
 me of reviewing in detail and with thoroughness these 
 numerous accusations, and reminding you again of the 
 two-fold, or three-fold necessities of evidence adequate to 
 establish any one of these charges, I now proceed to their 
 consideration. 
 
 The first particular charge is, that I "hold, maintain and 
 inculcate that the Bible is not ' the only perfect rule of faith 
 and practice,' but is fallible and untrustworthy even in some 
 of its religious teachings." 
 
 What has there been in the evidence submitted on this 
 point by the complainants which proves either that I hold 
 what is charged, or that there is any thing in the article or 
 citations adduced which affords any presumption that I thus 
 teach, or that any thing which I teach or for which I am 
 responsible is contrary to the Creed ? I have not been able 
 to detect a scintilla of evidence for either of these positions, 
 each and all of which must be established or the charge 
 falls. 
 
 Take first the article in the Revieiv entitled " The Bible 
 a Theme for the Pulpit." How or where does this show 
 that, so far as appertains to my office, I fail in upholding 
 the supreme authority of sacred Scripture? In what lies 
 the proof that in the chapel pulpit, or in my lecture room, 
 
10 
 
 or in any public utterance whatsoever, I oppose the decla- 
 ration of the Creed "that the word of God contained in 
 the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only 
 perfect rule of faith and practice"? Not only is no connec- 
 tion of this sort traced by the complainants, they have done 
 nothing to lay the foundation for a presumption or sugges- 
 tion in favor of such a connection. For there is no expres- 
 sion anywhere in the article of the thing charged. It 
 contains not a syllable adverse to the requirement of the 
 Creed. On the contrary, the article was written in the in- 
 terest of the doctrine affirmed in the Creed. Its occasion 
 was the discovery that some ministers, recognizing that many 
 of their hearers hold to the old theory that the Bible in 
 every part is equally authoritative and in every statement 
 is infallible truth, and knowing also that such a proposition 
 cannot be maintained, out of prudential motives have with- 
 drawn from the teachings of the pulpit any instruction as to 
 what the Bible is as the only perfect rule, and how it has be- 
 come such a rule. The writer endeavored to enter into the 
 thoughts and feelings of such ministers, to appreciate the 
 reasons which influence them, to state those reasons, in order 
 to point out to them that there is a better way, and one 
 which it is the duty of the ministry of intelligent churches 
 to follow. What now is the use made of this article by the 
 complainants? First, five sentences are detached from that 
 portion in which the embarrassments of the preacher are 
 depicted. Then, a skip is made to the close of the article 
 and a sentence picked up and so connected that its object is 
 precisely reversed. It was written as a suggestion, at the 
 close of a brief article, how, by pursuing a particular method 
 of pulpit discussion, men disturbed by the results of modern 
 critical study may be helped to a firm and immovable con- 
 viction of the trustworthiness and perfection of sacred Scrip- 
 ture as a rule of faith and practice. It is quoted as though 
 it were designed to favor a treatment of the Bible "preju- 
 dicial to its sacredness and authority." 
 
 One is reminded that there is still need of the irony with 
 which a bishop of the English Church two centuries ago 
 
11 
 
 discoursed upon "The Difficulties and Discouragements which 
 attend the Study of the Scriptures in the way of Private Judg- 
 ment; Represented in a letter to a young clergyman." He 
 will subject himself to much toil in study, will be likely by 
 the results of his labor to disturb the peace of the church 
 and bring upon himself the reproach of being a heretic, " a 
 term which there is a strange magic in. ... It is supposed 
 to include in it every thing that is bad ; it makes every thing 
 appear odious and deformed ; it dissolves all friendships, ex- 
 tinguishes all former kind sentiments however just and well 
 deserved. And from the time a man is deemed a heretic, it 
 is charity to act against all the rules of charity ; and the 
 more they violate the laws of God in dealing with him, it is, 
 in their opinion, doing God the greater service. ... A search 
 after truth will be called a love of novelty. The doubting of 
 a single text will be scepticism ; the denial of an argument 
 the renouncing of the faith. ... In a word orthodoxy 
 atones for all vices and heresy extinguishes all virtues. . . . 
 Turn yourself to the study of the heathen historians, poets, 
 orators and philosophers. Spend ten or twelve years upon 
 Horace or Terence. To illustrate a billet-doux, or a drunken 
 catch ; to explain an obscene jest ; to make a happy emendation 
 on a passage that a modest man would blush at, will do you 
 more credit and be of greater service to you, than the most 
 useful employment of your time upon the Scriptures ; unless 
 you can resolve to conceal your sentiments, and speak always 
 with the vulgar. . . . You have two ways before you. One 
 will enable you to be useful in the world, without great 
 trouble to yourself. . . . The other . . . will draw on j r ou an 
 insupportable load of infamy, as a disturber of the church 
 and an enemy to the orthodox faith, and in all probability 
 end in the extreme poverty and ruin of yourself and 
 family. Which God forbid should ever be the case of one 
 who has no other views but to dedicate his life to God's 
 service." 
 
 Who has forgotten the abuse which was rained upon Pro- 
 fessor Stuart for his biblical studies ? Writing (Oct. 7, 1813) 
 to Dr. Spring, the son of a principal author of the Seminary 
 
12 
 
 Creed, he says — referring to the "exegesis of Canticles:" 
 " For my humble self, if I doubt whether the forty-nine senses 
 can all be applied to this book . . . and must be a heretic on 
 this account, I say with Vitringa, Ego sum in line hceresi. . . . 
 "I certainly," he continues, "do not think it worth the 
 trouble of writing this to save myself from the imputation of 
 heresy, among those who make all divinity heretical that is 
 not triangular. . . . ' What, said Father Paoli to his brother 
 Jesuit, who was less dexterous in combating for the mother 
 church than himself. What did Scarpi say at the meeting 
 of the order? — He said he doubted whether the infallibil- 
 ity of the Church could be predicated of the Pope alone, or 
 whether it resided in an ecumenical council. — Most abom- 
 inable! and what did you tell him? — I told him that the 
 Pope was the successor of St. Peter. — Well, and what said 
 he ? — He said that he did not read in the New Testament 
 of Peter's having appointed any successor, and challenged me 
 to produce the passage. — Challenged you to produce the 
 passage ! — Yes ; and I was not able to recollect it. — 
 Able to recollect it ! why did you not tell him that the 
 Fathers believed as we do? — I did. — And what said he? 
 
 — Why, that the Fathers were not the Pope, and so were 
 not infallible. — Why didn't you tell him that he would 
 endanger the faith of the whole Church by such innovations ? 
 
 — I did try to argue with him about them. — Argue with 
 him ! you stupid blockhead (fatuus Diaboli) — argue with 
 him! Why did you not call him Heretic . . .? These here- 
 tics are to be confounded by blows, not by arguments (fusti- 
 bus non argumentis confutandos).'' 
 
 " Thus," adds Professor Stuart, " believes brother Romeyn, 
 as truly as Father Paoli, and for as good a reason. If you 
 think strange of this, you have only to recollect that two 
 pennyweights of brains are a sufficient apparatus for the 
 purpose ot guiding a march through the whole round of hard 
 names and abusive insinuations, while it needs several pounds 
 to manage an argument." . . . 
 
 May it please your Reverend and Honorable Body I have 
 searched diligently through the printed specifications under 
 
13 
 
 this charge about the Scriptures, and have listened carefully 
 to catch any, even the faintest, suggestion of some utterance 
 for which I am responsible, which militates in the least 
 against the divine authority of the Scripture, but I have not 
 discovered it. Where is it found? Is an attempt to show 
 how a divine revelation has come to us, an attack upon rev- 
 elation ? The most cursory reading of either of the articles 
 named or cited, shows by constant incidental expressions, 
 and by its whole structure and design that the mind of 
 the writer assumes that we have in the Bible a trustworthy 
 and authoritative expression of the mind and will of God. 
 The complainants have not read to understand even that 
 which is perfectly patent and plain, much less to mark and 
 inwardly digest. They have been in search for means of 
 attack, on a rampage for accusations. Sentences are twisted 
 from their connections, quoted by jumping backwards and 
 then forwards, 1 divorced from qualifying declarations in the 
 immediate context, begun with capitals by omission of im- 
 portant connections and obliteration of every indication that 
 in the book they are not thus independent. It is easy to make 
 a slip in citation, as experience shows, and no generous critic 
 will deal severely with a mere inadvertence. But where 
 errors are numerous, where they .always favor one side, where 
 they are artificial, they are properly regarded as evidence of 
 lack of candor. That the quotations are adduced for the pur- 
 pose of specification does not help the matter. They are none 
 the less unfair citations. 
 
 I will adduce instances in point. 
 
 The third quotation from Progressive Orthodoxy — com- 
 mencing "• Even if" — begins, in the book, "And even if," con- 
 necting with a different and natural explanation of our Lord's 
 method of reference to the Pentateuch and Isaiah. The sixth 
 citation, — beginning "When we recollect" 2 — is the sec- 
 ond member of a sentence, whose first member reads " But 
 the slight blemishes in the very finest optical instruments 
 do not prevent our obtaining from them data which to the 
 human mind of finest training are exceedingly exact; and 
 
 i pp. 231, 227, 228. 207, 208, 209. 213, 214, 221, 222. 2 Prog. Orth., p. 209. 
 
14 
 
 when " etc. Half a sentence is taken, the connective omitted 
 without indication, and the whole covered up by altering the 
 capital letter. 
 
 The fifth quotation is followed in the paragraph from 
 which it is taken by an antithetic sentence, beginning: "But 
 this feature ... is not its weakness but its strength," and 
 by further qualification in the next paragraph in the words : 
 " If the question mean, 'Must not such sin as still dwelt in 
 the apostles have tinged their religious conceptions and 
 teaching with error?' — we reply, This could not have been 
 unless they were more under the influence of moral evil than 
 we have any reason to suppose them to have been." That is, 
 the answer ' Yes ' is quoted and the answer 'No' omitted; 
 and this when the negative refutes the charge of holding that 
 the Bible is " fallible and untrustworthy even in some of its 
 religious teachings." 
 
 The seventh quotation, — beginning, " The views of Christ," 
 — recognizes that other ages than the apostolic have been 
 blessed with men in whom dwelt the Spirit of wisdom and 
 revelation. It is overlooked that before the paragraph closes 
 allusion is made to ancient prophets, and that it is added : 
 " No teacher in the church has ever arisen or can ever arise 
 so filled with the Spirit as not to depend upon the apostles 
 for conceptions of God. We can see that their situation and 
 their exceptionally exalted life make following teachers de- 
 pendent upon them as they were not dependent upon any 
 predecessor except Christ ; that their conceptions of our Lord 
 are the framework into which all the subsequent thoughts of 
 his church, about Him and his work, must be set ; and the 
 norm by which the teaching of the church must shape itself." 
 And then the writer goes on to show that this follows "ne- 
 cessarily " from their historical relation to the Incarnation ; 
 that beyond this intimate personal acquaintance with the 
 " Word of life," there was added " the inner revelation " 
 and "pre-eminent endowment of the Spirit;'''' that the hope 
 even must be excluded of other teachers arising superior to 
 them ; that their conditions of spiritual endowment were 
 " absolutely unique ; " that the greatest thinkers of the 
 
15 
 
 church have never been able to correct one of their concep- 
 tions of Christ and that in them was fulfilled Christ's prom- 
 ise to lead them " into the whole truth." 1 
 
 I will not go on with this exposure. These citations are 
 wholly insufficient for their purpose. They are vitiated, first, 
 by their irrelevancy. They fail, every one, as they stand, to 
 prove the charge, or even to specify it. They are wholly 
 defaulted, secondly, by being garbled. When taken in their 
 proper connections they turn into a positive refutation of the 
 charge — a refutation which would be repeated again and 
 again by further citation, by passages for instance which 
 may be found on pp. 10, 207, 214, 227, as well as on those 
 already adduced. 
 
 The specifications show only this, that sometimes in Pro- 
 gressive Orthodoxy the word imperfection is used, or its equiv- 
 alent, whereas in the Creed the adjective "perfect" is em- 
 ployed. But it is not thereby shown that the book affirms 
 to be imperfect what the Creed says is perfect. The Creed 
 affirms perfection of the Word of God contained in the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testaments as a rule of faith and 
 practice. I take no advantage, though I might on the theory 
 of a merely literal interpretation, of the words "contained 
 in." To me the Bible is the Word of God. But the perfec- 
 tion ascribed to it in the Creed is one of use and function. 
 It is the only perfect guide in a religious life, " in faith and 
 practice." 
 
 This formula did not originate with the framers of the 
 Seminary Creed. The Westminster Standards declare Holy 
 Scripture "to be the rule of faith and life," 2 "the only rule 
 of faith and obedience," 3 " the only rule to direct us how we 
 may glorify and enjoy Him." 4 And among the questions to 
 candidates for ordination is this one: "Do you believe the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of 
 God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice ? " This last 
 formula appears occasionally in local New England creeds. 
 The founders apply the word infallible to the "revelation 
 
 i Prog. Orth., pp. 210-213. 2 Confession, Art. II. 
 
 3 Larger Catechism, 3. 4 Shorter Catechism, 2. 
 
16 
 
 which God constantly makes of Himself in his works of cre- 
 ation, providence and redemption." Their phrase respect- 
 ing the Scriptures is, "the only perfect rale of faith and 
 practice." It is the Westminster formula with the change 
 of "infallible" to "perfect." But the formula is older than 
 the Westminster Standards. It summed up the universal 
 Protestant contention against the Roman Catholic doctrine 
 of Scripture. The Council of Trent exalted Tradition to a 
 place of co-ordinate authority with Scripture. The Bible 
 was not the only rule because there was another. It was 
 not the only perfect rule because it was not a complete rule 
 but partial. Practically it was not even an infallible rule 
 because it needed to be supplemented by Tradition, and to be 
 authoritatively interpreted by the Church, and with the 
 Bible alone as his guide a man might go astray from its in- 
 sufficiency. This great controversy brought into use such 
 expressions as I have cited from the Westminster Standards, 
 and similar ones with which we are familiar in our local con- 
 fessions. If you will look into Chillingworth's great work 
 on " The Religion of Protestants," in which he contended 
 for the famous maxim that the Bible alone is this religion, 
 you will find passim the expressions "a perfect rule of faith," l 
 "the only rule" and also abundant evidence that their mean- 
 ing is what I have just explained, viz., that Sacred Scripture 
 is " the only perfect rule of faith and practice," because it is 
 a complete rule, needing no supplementing by tradition, a 
 plain rule requiring no infallible interpreter, whether church 
 or pope, council or creed, a sure rule for whoever follows 
 its teachings will believe and do what is acceptable to God 
 and find eternal life. In a word the formula as expounded 
 by this acknowledged master has a negative and positive 
 side. It denies that other rules are necessary for men either 
 as a co-ordinate source of religious knowledge or as an indis- 
 pensable interpreter, and it affirms that Scripture can make 
 the man of God " perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works." 2 Scripture is thus " the only perfect rule of faith and 
 practice." 
 
 1 See particularly Pt. I., c. 2. 2 2 Tim. iii. 17. 
 
17 
 
 In perfect consistency with this exposition, Chillingworth 
 opens the door for all the liberty that a sound historical criti- 
 cism requires in the investigation of the method in which the 
 Bible became such a rule of faith. There is not an utterance 
 cited by the complainants which is not covered in principle 
 by his masterly statement, and when the complainants attempt 
 to put such expressions as they quote from Progressive Ortho- 
 doxy and the Review into antagonism to the Creed they are 
 not only ineffective, but they show their ignorance of princi- 
 ples which were formulated in the beginnings of Protestantism 
 and long since settled by one of its universally recognized 
 and foremost champions. Why, even so familiar a book as 
 Professor Stuart's Old Testament Canon contains many a sen- 
 tence just as much and just as little objectionable as those 
 picked out and up by the complainants. 
 
 Let me present a few of these which have been handed to 
 me by one of my colleagues : 
 
 In regard to drawing the line between what is abrogated in the 
 Old Testament and what is now of divine authority and obliga- 
 tion he says : " The ultimate appeal, then, is to understanding and 
 reason ; not in order to establish the principles in question, for 
 Christ and his apostles have established them, but to make a dis- 
 criminating and judicious use of these principles in determining 
 what still remains in full force." (p. 386.) 
 
 All that refers to Old Testament rites and forms of worship is 
 abrogated. "It remains now only as the history of what is past, 
 not the rule of action for the present or the future." It unfolds " in 
 what manner divine Providence has been educating the human race ; 
 by what slow and cautious steps religion has advanced, and how 
 utterly impossible it is for a religion that abounds in rites and 
 forms to make much effectual progress anywhere, either among 
 Jews or Gentiles ; still more impossible that it should be a religion 
 to convert the world." (p. 391.) 
 
 So too all statutes and ordinances that pertain merely to the 
 form of the Jewish ecclesiastical and civil state, (pp. 404-405.) 
 
 " Rarely will one find an} 7 considerable portion of the Old Testa- 
 ment where there is nothing in it of the local and temporal that 
 must be abstracted, in order for us to reduce it to practice." 
 (p. 404.) 
 
18 
 
 The devotional psalms, "the Psalms of complaint, of thanks- 
 giving, of imprecation, and others, all have something which savors 
 of time and place and circumstances. These we must omit, ex- 
 cepting that in the exegesis of the Psalm we must treat them as 
 essential, but not in the practical use of it." (p. 405.) 
 
 " It is so with the Mosaic laws." 
 
 " Even the ten commandments are not altogether an exception 
 to this." The reference here is to visiting iniquity to third and 
 fourth generation, and to the promise that thy days may be long 
 in the land. 
 
 With reference to the question what is of present practical value in 
 the Old Testament he says : " How few [of the commentaries] have 
 satisfied the claims of the reason and understanding of men ! " 
 
 "A commentary that would give us simply what is fairly to be 
 learned from every part of the Old Testament in respect to present 
 duty, or as to doctrine ... is one of the things yet to be ; for I 
 cannot think that it now is.'/ (p. 406.) 
 
 " What can we say of those teachers who find just as full and 
 complete a revelation in the Old Testament of every Christian 
 doctrine, as in the New? (p. 407.) Instances Trinity, Immor- 
 tality and Future State. 
 
 "We must attribute no more to the Old Testament than belongs 
 to it. The glory of the gospel is not to be taken away and given 
 to a mere introductory dispensation." (p. 408.) 
 
 " We should regard them (Old Testament books) in the light of 
 a preface or of an introduction to the Gospel." 
 
 Of current abuse of Old Testament texts: "Books of such 
 a peculiar nature as Job and Ecclesiastes, for example, are resorted 
 to with as much confidence for proof texts as if they were all pre- 
 ceptive and not an account of disputes and doubts about religious 
 matters." (p. 409.) 
 
 " The Psalms that breathe forth imprecations are appealed to by 
 some, as justifying the spirit of vengeance under the gospel, instead 
 of being regarded as the expression of a peculiar state of mind in 
 the writer, and of his imperfect knowledge with regard to the full 
 spirit of forgiveness." 
 
 He deprecates the "violence done to the understanding and 
 to sober common sense " in exegesis, and says it " will be certain 
 to avenge itself at last." (p. 410.) 
 
 " There are not a few persons, who seem to feel that if the Old 
 Testament is a work of inspiration it must stand on the same level 
 
19 
 
 with the New, and be equally obligatory. There is something of 
 truth in this, and not a little of error." (p. 413.) 
 
 " We have a new and a better Testament than the ancient. In 
 itself it is a sufficient guide." (p. 414.) 
 
 " Of one thing I am full}' persuaded, which is, that a proper use 
 of the Old Testament will be made in all cases, by no one who 
 cleaves to the notion, that because the Hebrew Scriptures were 
 inspired they are therefore absolutely perfect. Such perfection 
 belongs not to a prefatory or merely introductory dispensation. 
 It is onby a relative perfection that the Old Testament can claim ; 
 and this is comprised in the fact, that it answered the end for 
 which it was given. It was given to the world, or to the Jewish 
 nation, in its minority." (p. 415.) 
 
 "With the exception of such sins as were highly dishonorable 
 to God and injurious to the welfare of men, the rules of duty were 
 not in all cases strictly drawn." 
 
 "The Old Testament morality, in respect to some points of rela- 
 tive duty, is behind that of the Gospel " (p. 416). 
 
 " The Gospel is ever and always the ultima ratio in all matters 
 of religion and morals. It is . . . the highest tribunal. What- 
 ever there is in the Old Testament which falls short of this . . . 
 is of course not obligatory on us " (p. 417.) 
 
 "The spirit of New Testament doctrine, morality, modes of 
 worship (so far as modes are touched upon), is always to be 
 applied to judging of our obligations to the ancient Scriptures." 
 
 "There are imperfections in the ancient system; but the}' are 
 such as the nature of the case rendered necessary. They are in 
 accordance with the principle of the slow and gradual amendment 
 of the race of man." (p. 418.) 
 
 In arguing against Norton he emphasizes the divine origin and 
 authority of the Hebrew Scriptures as admitted by Christ and his 
 apostles and Christians generally and then says : " Mr. Norton has 
 scanned Old Testament matters in the light of New Testament 
 revelation, and then passed sentence of condemnation upon the 
 imperfect, because it is not perfect. Is this equitable dealing? 
 ... Is it any satisfactory objection against this or that specific 
 thing in the Old Testament that the New has better arranged or 
 modified it? Is it conclusive against the history or character of 
 David and other potentates, that they did things in war, which 
 were common in those days, but which the Gospel and a better 
 state of things now forbid? " (p. 419). 
 
20 
 
 Particular 2. The complainants quote from the Andover 
 Review^ May, 1886, p. 522, but overlook the statement on p. 
 524: 
 
 " So long as the doctrines of universal sinfulness, of redemption 
 and eternal life only through Jesus Christ the Saviour, who was 
 true God and true man, and the doctrine of eternal condemnation 
 to those who do not believe on Christ, — so long as these doctrines 
 are faithfully and generally preached we must conclude that the 
 pulpit which is orthodox in name is in the best sense orthodox in 
 fact." See also Progressive Orthodoxy, pp. 22 sqq. 
 
 Particular 3. In the words " are not found " (quoted from 
 Progressive Orthodoxy, p. 47), there is an obvious reference 
 to what is learned from history and observation. The dis- 
 cussion does not concern itself with exceptional cases, but 
 with the broad and patent fact of the moral helplessness of 
 mankind apart from Christ. 
 
 Pages 54-56 are then cited ; but the extract opens, if we 
 interpret aright the reference, with the declaration : 
 
 "But Christ's power to represent or be substituted for man is 
 alwaj-s to be associated with man's power to repent. The possi- 
 bility of redeeming man lies in the fact that although he is by act 
 and inheritance a sinner, yet under the appropriate influences he 
 is capable of repenting. The power of repentance remains, and 
 to this power the gospel addresses itself." "It is to this power 
 that Christ, the hoi} 7 and the merciful, attaches himself." " Now 
 the power of repentance, which, so far as it exists, is the power 
 of recuperation, is superior to the necessities of past wrong-doing 
 and of present habit." (p. 55.) 
 
 It is indeed stated that " Man left to himself cannot have 
 a repentance which sets him free from sin and death," and 
 that the race, without Christ, " would be hopelessly destitute 
 of" the requisite "powers for repentance and holiness." 
 But here the writer is evidently contemplating a radical and 
 complete restoration of men to sonship and freedom. Com- 
 pare Paul's account of his own experience in the seventh of 
 Romans, and these words in Ephesians ii. 11, 12, "Where- 
 
21 
 
 fore remember, that aforetime ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, 
 . . . were at that time separate from Christ, having no hope 
 and without God in the world." 
 
 With the language quoted from p. 58, compare what is 
 said on pp. 59 and 60 : " Christ brings God the Person to 
 man the person, and in such manner that God is known as 
 the God of holy love, the loving and holy Father. The 
 goodness of God leads men to repentance." " Or reversing 
 the order and advancing to the ultimate fact that redemption 
 originates with God, we may say that man is the penitent 
 and obedient man because God in Christ is the reconciling 
 and forgiving God." The discussion deals with the great 
 facts of human recovery from sin. The distinction between 
 natural ability and moral inability is important ; but the 
 original Hopkinsians never thought of putting the stress 
 upon it which some later theologians have laid. Of one of 
 these it was said, when the remark was made that he claimed 
 to represent the Hopkinsians, ' Yes, with this difference : 
 they exalted divine efficiency; he, human efficiency.' The 
 writer of the article in Progressive Orthodoxy seeks to ap- 
 prehend the real saving powers in the cross of Christ. His 
 critics appear to be fumbling over the distinction of natural 
 and moral ability. 
 
 Following their usual method, these complainants next 
 turn back a few pages and pick up a sentence on p. 55, and, 
 as is not unusual with them, overlook other sentences on the 
 same page which ought to have entirely relieved their dis- 
 tress. We need not quote over again what has just been 
 presented. Finally the sentence is taken from p. 126 ; 
 " Where in the realm of natural law, can the Spirit find 
 material or motive fitted to this most difficult of all tasks 
 — the convincement of sin ? " As this is a question we 
 might wait perhaps for the complainants to answer it. Any 
 contribution they may thus make to Christian theology will 
 be cordially welcomed. Agassiz seems to have doubted 
 whether nature alone gives " any very clear mark of the 
 character of the Creator." 1 But this is not the point to be 
 
 1 See Allen's Our Liberal Movement in Theology, p. 157. 
 
22 
 
 here discussed. What is there in all that is adduced which 
 shows any contrariety of opinion to the statements of the 
 Creed? Man's natural powers of moral agency are not 
 denied, but asserted. It is everywhere assumed that men 
 are responsible for their sins. The discussion of the book 
 relates to a different question, namely, How is man saved ? 
 The following extract from the early pages of the article on 
 The Atonement, from which nearly all the specifications are 
 taken, sufficiently shows this : 
 
 "Now the message of the gospel unquestionably is that man 
 is not bound under ethical in the sense in which he is bound under 
 physical necessity ; that forces are available for the moral and 
 spiritual life by which man can be delivered from the worst conse- 
 quences of sin, and can become a new creature. Transformation 
 may be rapid and complete. Man may be translated from the 
 dominion of merciless necessity into the life of freedom and love. 
 The new and higher force is the revelation of God in Christ, 
 through which the power of sin is broken and the penalty of sin 
 remitted. If all this is true, the gospel gains a profounder mean- 
 ing than it has ever yielded before. The church comes now to 
 man, well aware that he cannot be separated from custom, habit, 
 heredity, fixedness of character, the social organism of which he is 
 part. It is seen that redemption must be grounded in reason, and 
 must meet the actual conditions of life and character and society. 
 Atonement must express and reveal God as the supreme Reason 
 and perfect Righteousness, who cannot deny himself, and who 
 cannot disregard nor annul the moral law which is established in 
 truth and right. Christian thought, having established itself on 
 the intrinsic, absolute right and on the inexorableness of law 
 so firmly that these may be accepted as postulates in all the in- 
 quiry, agreeing so far forth with Anselm on the one hand and with 
 the latest natural ethics on the other, is going forward now to learn 
 if any ethical ends are secured by the revelation of God in Christ, 
 and secured in such a way that God energizes in man and society 
 for a moral transformation so radical and complete that it may be 
 called salvation, redemption, eternal life, divine sonship. . . . 
 
 "This is the question to-day concerning atonement, — What 
 moral and spiritual ends are secured by the sacrificial life and 
 death of Christ? How does God's attitude towards man change, 
 
23 
 
 and man's attitude towards God change, so that there is sufficient 
 power for the transformation of ethical and spiritual life as against 
 the tendencies of moral corruption ? Evidently the result is of a 
 kind that cannot be brought about by sheer omnipotence, but only, 
 if at all, by truth and love. Thought must move in the spiritual, 
 not in the physical realm." 
 
 We add without comment a few sentences which show the 
 point of view and the care exercised to suggest necessary 
 qualifications. 
 
 " Regeneration thus acquires a large and an exact meaning under 
 Christianity. We would not deny the existence of regenerate life 
 outside Christianity. ... If we say the least, we can say no less 
 than that when we pass beyond the method of the conscious re- 
 newal of the spiritual life in Christ, we pass at once into what is 
 exceptional, vague, and indeterminate, (pp. 127, 128.) 
 
 ' ' The moral and spiritual recovery of mankind even as an aim 
 of benevolent purpose, presupposes the provision of a power in 
 motive, and a use of this power proportionate to the evil to be 
 confronted, and the good to be accomplished. ' It was the good 
 pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell.' 
 The fullness was set over against the need. Christianity is not a 
 matter of words, but of deed and of power. Whatever we may 
 think of antecedent revelation the apostle teaches us the large fact 
 and truth in the case when he says, even of the days of Jesus' 
 earthly ministry, ' The Spirit was not yet given, for Jesus was not 
 yet glorified.' " (p. 121.) 
 
 The Creed affirms "that every man is personally de- 
 praved;" "that being morally incapable of recovering the 
 image of his Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is 
 justly exposed to eternal damnation ; so that, except a man 
 be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God ; "' " that 
 ... the Son of God, and He alone, by his suffering and death, 
 has made atonement for the sins of all men;" "that the 
 righteousness of Christ is the only ground of a sinner's justi- 
 fication ; that this righteousness is received through faith ; " 
 " that regeneration and sanctification are effects of the creating 
 and renewing agency of the Holy Spirit;" . . . "that the 
 
24 
 
 ordinary means by which these benefits [of redemption] are 
 communicated to us, are the word, sacraments, and prayer;" 
 " that God's decrees perfectly consist with human liberty ; " 
 "that man has understanding and corporeal strength to do all 
 that God requires of him; so that nothing, but the sinner's 
 aversion to holiness, prevents his salvation." 
 
 Progressive Orthodoxy recognizes man's responsibility for 
 his sins, affirms his moral ruin, and emphasizes the right- 
 eousness which is by faith in Christ and the renewing work 
 of the Spirit. I am unable to see wherein this book fails to 
 conserve the principles enunciated in the Creed on these 
 topics. They seem to me to gain a new depth of meaning 
 and a higher degree of reasonableness from the fact that the 
 authors give to the universalit}' of the Atonement and to the 
 Incarnation the primary and central place in theology. Man's 
 moral agency becomes the activity of a child of God, and sov- 
 ereignty blends with fatherhood. The reality and guilt of sin 
 grow darker, as the way of escape grows brighter. I do not 
 the less accept the principles of moral agency contained in arti- 
 cles of the Creed which I have cited because they become 
 more profound and far-reaching by reason of a doctrine which 
 the Creed also contains, though without indicating its power 
 of illumination ; I refer to the article on the universality of the 
 Atonement. If the Eternal Son became Man and died for all 
 whose nature He made his own, then moral agency, in a world 
 or age in which this is the central and supreme revelation of 
 what is divine, necessarily transcends the bounds of either a 
 legal or imperial sovereignty. I think that the fundamental 
 principle of Progressive Orthodoxy is in the Creed, and that we 
 have a right to interpret other associated doctrines by it. I 
 maintain also that these doctrines, so far as they are not in- 
 consistent with this principle, are better held the more they 
 are connected with it and systematized by it. 
 
 Particular 4- I have already, in my Reply, called atten- 
 tion to the way in which the quotation marked as from page 
 64 is made up. I have also affirmed my belief that "every 
 man who sins is lost, and is in danger of being remedilessly 
 lost." I will now simply add a few quotations, several of 
 
25 
 
 them lying between the two page references, 55 and 64, which 
 are given by the complainants in connection with this par- 
 ticular. Their point, it will be borne in mind as I read, is, 
 that I hold, maintain and inculcate that men are not sinners 
 unless they have heard of Christ, or at any rate are not "in 
 danger of being lost." On page 44 and again on page 47 
 sinfulness is predicated of man universally. On page 48 it is 
 said : " The consequences of holiness and of sin cannot be set 
 aside by the will of God. On page 54 the garbled paragraph 
 opens, in its second sentence, with recognizing " the fact " that 
 man " is by act and inheritance a sinner," and its concluding 
 sentence says that "on account of Christ man can be deliv- 
 ered from condemnation'' 1 On the opposite page (57) we 
 read : . . " God cannot be regardless of law nor indifferent 
 to sin in saving man from punishment.'''' On the next page 
 it is said : " The ideal relation of God is love, but the actual 
 relation is wrath ;" on page 60, " He who is not moved to 
 penitence and faith by Christ is under a greater condemna- 
 tion ; " on page 61 : " It is on account of Christ that God can 
 forgive, on account of Christ that men are not left helpless 
 and condemned under the necessities of unchangeable law." 
 On page 177 the cause of missions is recognized as resting 
 on "the postulates of universal sinfulness, universal atone- 
 ment, and the indispensableness of faith." And in the con- 
 cluding article of the book these postulates are re-affirmed, 
 and it is added : We have accepted these postulates in their 
 length and breadth. We have not reduced but rather have 
 magnified their meaning." And yet in the face of these ex- 
 plicit statements we are charged with teaching that men are 
 not sinners " save as they have received a knowledge of the 
 historic Christ ! " 
 
 Particular 5. I do not think that I need give any addi- 
 tional references here, and I will merely re-affirm the reply 
 already submitted. 
 
 Particular 6. On page 33 there is a distinct recognition 
 that the Apostle Paul teaches the propitiatory nature of 
 Christ's sacrifice ; and on page 48 an equally clear acceptance of 
 the Anselmic principle of a " necessity . . . in the ethical being 
 
26 
 
 of God . . . which even his will cannot contradict nor super- 
 sede." "... God cannot be regardless of law nor indifferent 
 to sin in saving man from punishment." When it is said, " It 
 must be confessed, however, that it is not clear how the suffer- 
 ings and death of Christ can be substituted for the punish- 
 ment of sin," this is not a suggestion of doubt as to the fact 
 of Atonement but a statement of the problem, and the key to 
 the reasoning which follows. The complainants have con- 
 fused two lines of approach to the subject (p. 57), and 
 failed to observe that the familiar one, on which their own 
 thoughts more naturally travel, is recognized but not pur- 
 sued because it is so well understood. Perhaps if they 
 would kindly endeavor to think out what is suggested by 
 the word " realizing," in one of the closing sentences of the 
 article from which they quote, — "In the Atonement God 
 promised redemption for the world by realizing his holy love 
 in the eyes of all the nations" — their apprehensions would be 
 relieved. Will they suggest a thought or expression that 
 more deeply penetrates into the nature of the mysterious 
 sacrifice on Calvary than that by which it is opened to our 
 reverent gaze as a Realization in the fullness of time, at the 
 turning point of human history, through an incarnate Re- 
 deemer and for the purpose of man's redemption, of God's 
 righteous and holy love ? 
 
 And then will the complainants, in addition, please to 
 point out what is the theory of the Atonement made binding 
 in the Creed as a condition of a trust? Where is it found, 
 and how is it expressed? 
 
 Particular 7. The most charitable interpretation of this 
 accusation is, that it is a sheer blunder, a blunder however 
 which nothing but the oppressive exigencies of this " friendly 
 suit " could have led sensible men to commit. It appears 
 that it was not the original intention of the complainants to 
 file charges and specifications themselves, but when your 
 Reverend and Honorable Body decided that, if they thought 
 the matter presented by them so serious as to require investi- 
 gation, they should reduce their accusations to definite form, 
 their embarrassments became such that a civilized commu- 
 
27 
 
 nity will treat their mistakes with appropriate lenity. It is one 
 thing to indulge for four years in the almost unlimited license 
 of vague accusation permissible in the columns of religious 
 journalism, to call men Semi-Unitarians and Semi-Univer- 
 salists, and the like. But it is quite a different affair to make 
 a specific charge and to attempt to prove it. The editorial 
 habit, however, could not be easily resisted. A Semi-Unitarian 
 — what is he ? He must be a Sabellian. This is particularly 
 convenient, for the Professors at Andover promise to oppose 
 Sabellians, and we want in a friendly way to establish a vio- 
 lation of solemn promises and a breach of trust. We will 
 charge them then with holding that the Trinity is modal. 
 But either some special urgency of timeliness in pressing the 
 complaint, or some occult influence of superior power, or 
 some wholly mysterious cause, required such extreme rapid- 
 ity of execution, that these busy, active men, charged with 
 so many grave responsibilities, found no time to look up in 
 their Seminary note-books or some familiar text-book what is 
 the exact meaning of the words " modal and monarchian," 
 as applied to the Trinity. They were caught by the word 
 " mode." just as before they had been, when dealing with the 
 Scriptures, with the word "perfect." The Creed says the 
 Bible is a perfect rule, the Professors talk of imperfections. 
 The Creed condemns Sabellians. Sabellians — perhaps they 
 remembered this much of their Seminary lore — hold to a 
 modal Trinity. Let us look and see if these same Professors 
 who have so trifled with Sacred Scripture are not equally 
 guilty in respect to the Holy Trinity. Thus searching they 
 discovered and triumphantly produced, when required so to 
 do, in the amended complaint, two passages from Progressive 
 Orthodoxy, each of which contains the word " mode " in appli- 
 cation to a Person of the Trinity. Here surely is set forth 
 a modal Trinity, and a modal Trinity is Sabellian ! Quid 
 obstat? But I respectfully submit, Mr. President and Gen- 
 tlemen, this question to your decision, whether any tyro in 
 theology could not have told these men that the distinction 
 between a modal or real Trinity is conveyed by the use of 
 the phrases mode of manifestation and mode of bein^-. He 
 
28 
 
 who affirms the latter predicate of a distinction in the God- 
 head uses the formula than which no other is more firmly 
 established in Christian Theology as the best word to dis- 
 criminate the church doctrine from every form of Monarchi- 
 anism. And this precise formula, or its equivalent, is the one 
 twice employed by the writer in Progressive Orthodoxy whose 
 sentences are quoted to prove that I hold to a modal Trinity. 
 It is as absurd as an attempt to prove that President Lincoln 
 was a believer in absolute monarchy because he used the 
 word government when he spoke at Gettysburg of govern- 
 ment by the people. 
 
 The phrases I have used are, in the first passage cited, 
 " the divine nature as possessed by the Logos, or in that mode 
 which characterizes his existence." You have there all the 
 most characteristic forms of speech by which the Church 
 doctrine of the Trinity has been expressed for fifteen centu- 
 ries. The Logos possesses, has as his own, the divine nature. 
 He possesses it, however, in a peculiar way or mode. This 
 mode of possession characterizes his being. It is his personal 
 property as the Larger Catechism says, — his characteristic. 
 In the next quotation the phrase employed is, " a particular 
 mode of the divine being," not, you observe, mode of mani- 
 festation, or relationship ad extra. 
 
 I think I need not stop to discuss the question of the mean- 
 ing of the word " Person " as applied to the Holy Trinity. 
 When the article quoted from, referring to the three distinc- 
 tions, or modes of being, in the godhead, affirms that " Neither 
 in itself is a Person," it uses the word Person as employed 
 when we speak of the one absolute Person, God. I hold, and 
 the writer of the article, judging by his language, agrees with 
 me in holding, that each distinction is personal, but that each 
 is a Person, (in the ordinary sense of personality, and as this 
 idea finds its supreme realization in the Infinite and Absolute 
 One), only in, with and through the other distinctions and as 
 possessing the one divine nature. And the orthodoxy of 
 this position can easily be established by the most approved 
 writers. A doctrine antagonistic to this, and at the same 
 time admitting personal distinctions, is sheer Tritheism, not 
 Trinitarianism. 
 
29 
 
 I will subjoin a few quotations from authors of acknowl- 
 edged standing and ability, which I have taken almost at 
 random. 
 
 Dr. Shedd teaches that the word Person, as applied to 
 the Trinity, designates a species of existence "anomalous," 
 "unique," "totally sui generis. " 1 
 
 Dr. Schaff explains the doctrine established by the great 
 Councils thus : 
 
 "In this one divine essence there are three persons, or, to use a 
 better term, hypostases, that is three different modes of subsistence 
 of the one same undivided and indivisible whole. . . . Here the 
 orthodox doctrine forsook Sabellianism or modalism which, it is 
 true, made Father, Son, and Spirit strictly co-ordinate, but only 
 as different denominations and forms of manifestation of the one 
 God." 2 
 
 In 1819 Professor Moses Stuart, in his "Letters to the 
 Rev. William E. Charming," gave this representation of the 
 views of Trinitarians : 
 
 "The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is, ' That 
 there are three Persons in the Godhead.' In your comments upon 
 this, you have all along explained the word person, just as though 
 it were a given point, that we use this word here, in its ordinary 
 acceptation as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself that 
 this is doing us justice? What fact is plainer from Church History, 
 than that the word person was introduced into the creeds of ancient 
 times, merely as a term which would express the disagreement of 
 Christians in general, with the reputed errors of the Sabellians, 
 and others of similar sentiments, who denied the existence of any 
 real distinction in the Godhead, and asserted that Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost were merely attributes of God, or the names of 
 different ways in which he revealed himself to mankind, or of 
 different relations which he bore to them, and in which he acted? 
 The Nicene Fathers meant to deny the correctness of this state- 
 ment, when they used the word person. They designed to imply 
 by it, that there was some real, not merely nominal distinction in 
 
 1 History of Christian Doctrine, I. 365. 
 
 2 History of the Christian Church, III. 675. 
 
30 
 
 the Godhead ; and that something more than a diversity of relation 
 or action, in respect to us, was intended. They used the word 
 person, because the}- supposed it approximated nearer to express- 
 ing the existence of a real distinction, than any other which they 
 could choose. Most certainly neither they, nor any intelligent 
 Trinitarian, could use this term, in such a latitude as 3*011 represent 
 us as doing, and as you attach to it. We profess to use it merely 
 from the poverty of language ; merely to designate our belief of a 
 real distinction in the Godhead ; and not to describe independent, 
 conscious beings, possessing separate and equal essences, and per- 
 fections. Why should we be obliged so often to explain ourselves 
 on this point? ... I could heartily wish, indeed, that the word 
 person never had come into the Symbols of the Churches, because 
 it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary dispute and 
 difficulty." 1 
 
 John Calvin, in his Institutes, remarks as follows : — 
 
 " The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same 
 thing as the Greek imoaraaig, it betrays excessive fastidiousness 
 and even perverseness to quarrel with the term. The most literal 
 translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in 
 the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person 
 confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church, in like 
 manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have 
 taught that there are three npiyomna (aspects) in God. All these, 
 however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the 
 words perfectly agreed in substance." 2 
 
 " Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware 
 lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting 
 them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all 
 would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are 
 one God, and } T et that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit 
 the Sou, but that each has his peculiar subsistence \_proprietate~] . 
 I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words." 3 
 
 •■ But, if we hold, what has been already demonstrated from 
 Scripture, that the essence of the one God, pertaining to the 
 Father, Son and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and again, that 
 the Father differs in some special propert}' from the Son, and the 
 
 1 Op. cit , pp. 21-23, 2d ed., 1819. 
 
 2 Op. cit. I. p. 148. Calv. Traus. Soc. Ed. 1815. * lb. pp. 150, 151. 
 
31 
 
 Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arins and Sabel- 
 lius, as well as the other ancient authors of error." 1 
 
 Particular 8. Perhaps I need do no more than repeat my 
 previous reply : 
 
 " The accusation is that I hold the work of the Holy Spirit to be 
 ' chiefly confined to the sphere of historic Christianity ; ' or, as 
 more definitely specified by the citation, with its context, that the 
 ' efficacious,' regenerating, saving work of the Spirit is thus ' chief- 
 ly confined.' The opposite proposition would be that this work is 
 'chiefly confined to' paganism, or Judaism, or both. There can 
 be no doubt which of these propositions is more accordant with the 
 Creed, with orthodox}', or with ' consistent ' Calvinism as explained 
 in the Creed. Substituting the words ' conducted within ' for 
 ' confined to,' and not doubting a universal work of the Spirit, I 
 should admit the accusation." 
 
 I will only add that the subject is discussed in Progressive 
 Orthodoxy in the light of history, observation and missionary 
 experience — that is, as a question of fact. So far as we have 
 evidence, or judged by its fruits, Christianity alone offers the 
 requisite material in motive for the transformation of man- 
 kind into a spiritual temple and kingdom of God. 
 
 I think that this is implied in Pentecost, that it is the 
 teaching of John vii. 39, and of much Scriptural authority 
 besides. " Only when Jesus was glorified," is Dr. Milligan's 
 comment on the passage in John's Gospel (Dr. S chaff's Popu- 
 lar Commentary*), . . " would men receive that spiritual 
 power which is the condition of all spiritual life." 
 
 Particular 9. I reaffirm but do not find occasion to ex- 
 pand my previous answer, save to add a few references to 
 passages on pp. 56, 57, 60, and 61, where the sinner's condem- 
 nation under law is abundantly recognized. 
 
 Particular 10. I repeat my former reply, and refer also to 
 my acceptance of the statement in the Creed that the Scrip- 
 tures are the " only perfect rule of faith and practice." A 
 reasonable being must be guided by reason, but it is the dic- 
 tate of reason to submit to the word and authority of God. 
 
 i lb. p. 173. 
 
32 
 
 I believe, however, that reason is at the bottom of all things, 
 the reason of the universal Creator and Redeemer. There- 
 fore human reason may explore and question and hope to 
 find more and more fully the truth. If the charge intends — 
 which I do not allege — to cast a slur upon reason in matters 
 of faith, I beg leave to refer to the nobler maxims of the leader 
 of the party which had most to do with shaping the Semi- 
 nary Creed. I quote from Dr. Park's Memoir of Samuel Hop- 
 kins. 
 
 " Our author's strength of character induced him to give an 
 unusual prominence to the more difficult parts of theology, and 
 thus it shaped his entire system. Whether his speculations be 
 true or false, he has done a great work in promoting manly discus- 
 sion, in convincing his readers that piet3 r is something more than 
 a blind sentimeutalism, and that theology is something better than 
 a superstitious faith. He has encouraged men to examine intricate 
 theories, and the examination has saved them from scepticism. 
 Hundreds have been repulsed into infidelit}', by the fear of good 
 men to encounter philosophical objections. Hopkins was too 
 strong for such fears. He had that sterling common sense which 
 loves to grapple with important truths, cost what they may of toil. 
 The great problem of the existence of sin early awakened his curi- 
 osity, and moved the depths of his heart. A weaker man would 
 have shrunk from the investigation of such a theme. But he was 
 ready to defend all parts of what he loved to call ' a consistent 
 Calvinism.' His readiness to encounter the hardest subjects and 
 the sturdiest opponents, was foretokened by one of his early corpo- 
 real feats. It is reported that an insane man, stalwart and furious, 
 was once escaping from his keepers with fearful speed ; but the 
 young divine intercepted him, and held him fast until the maniac 
 gave up, and cried, ' Hopkins, you are nrv master.' 
 
 "Throughout the unpublished and published writings of Hopkins, 
 there breathes a masculine spirit, which refuses to be satisfied by 
 assertion instead of argument, and insists on the legitimate use of 
 the faculties which God has given us. At the age of sixty-five, he 
 writes to Dr. Hart : ' I ask what faith I shall have in the power 
 of God, or what belief of any revealed truth, if I do not so far 
 trust to my own understanding, as to think and be confident that I 
 do understand that God has revealed certain truths, and what they 
 
33 
 
 are.' In his thirty-fifth year, Hopkins seized at what he deemed a 
 tacit concession of Dr. May hew, that Arminianistn could not be 
 sustained by reason. He writes to Bellamy : ' I think he [May- 
 hew] says that which may be fairly construed as a crying down 
 of reason, under the name of metaphysical, or some epithet tanta- 
 mount." Hopkins was too vigorous to leave such a concession 
 unnoticed. He turns the tables on his Arminian opposers, and 
 the}' censure him for his argumentative style, — the very thing for 
 which the}' have been censured, again and again, by their antago- 
 nists. Our stout champion says, that ' Pelagians and Arminians 
 have been, in too man}' instances, treated so by their opponents, 
 the professed Calvinists. The former have gloried in their reason- 
 ing against the latter, as unanswerable demonstration. The latter, 
 instead of detecting the weakness, fallacy, and absurdity of the 
 reasoning of the former, and maintaining their cause on this 
 ground, as well they might, have endeavored to defend themselves 
 from this weapon by bringing it into disgrace, and rejecting it 
 under the name of carnal, unsanctified reason, etc. This has been 
 so far from humbling or giving them the least conviction of their 
 errors, that it has had a contrary effect to a very great and sensible 
 degree. And no wonder ; for this was the direct tendency of it, 
 as it is an implicit confession that they felt themselves worsted at 
 reasoning.' " x 
 
 Particular 11. It is evident from a few extracts from Pro- 
 gressive Orthodoxy to which I will immediately call attention 
 that our views upon the subject here introduced have not 
 been presented in the unguarded way which is here assumed 
 to be true. What I am to read is a caveat to which marked 
 prominence is given in the book against such a misrepresen- 
 tation. In the "Introduction " pains was taken to say : 
 
 " Problems are above the horizon which are not yet clearly 
 within the field of vision. Even their provisional and relative 
 solution is at present impracticable. Too early an attempt to 
 define and systematize is likely to cramp and repress inquiry, and 
 to promote a dogmatic self-satisfaction which is a deadly foe to 
 progress. The aim, accordingly, of the writers of these papers has 
 been to keep clearly within the range of w^at is immediately 
 necessary and practical. For the most part, a single line of 
 1 The works of Samuel Hopkins, I. pp. ±A3-178. 
 
34 
 
 inquiry hns been followed, under the guidance of a central and 
 vital principle of Christianity, namely, the reality of Christ's per- 
 sonal relation to the human race as a whole and to every member 
 of it, — the principle of the universality of Christianity. 
 
 " This principle has been rapidly gaining of late in its power 
 over men's thoughts and lives. It is involved in the church doc- 
 trine of the constitution of Christ's person. It is a necessary 
 implication of our fathers' faith in the extent and intent of the 
 Atonement. It is an indisputable teaching of sacred Scripture. 
 It lies at the heart of all that is most heroic and self-sacrificing in 
 the Christian life of our centuiy. We have sought to apply this 
 principle to the solution of questions which are now more than 
 ever before engaging the attention of serious and devout minds. 
 We have endeavored to follow its guidance faithfully and loyally, 
 and whithersoever it might lead. We have trusted it wholly and 
 practically. By the publication of this volume we submit our 
 work to the judgment of a wider public. If we have anywhere 
 overestimated or underestimated the validity and value of our 
 guiding principle, we hope that this will be pointed out. Or if we 
 have lost sight of any qualifying or limiting truth, we desire that 
 this may be shown. On the other hand, if we have been true to a 
 great and cardinal doctrine of our holy religion, and have devel- 
 oped its necessary implications and consequences, we ask that 
 any further discussion of these conclusions should recognize their 
 connection with the principle from which they are derived, and their 
 legitimacy, unless this principle is itself to be abandoned." 1 
 
 On page 39 "a better understanding of the revealed central 
 position of Christ in the universe, and of the absoluteness 
 of Christianity," is claimed as a characteristic of the " New 
 Theology." The presentation of the theory of future pro- 
 bation is prefaced by these remarks : 
 
 " At this point the discussion might terminate. The principle 
 of judgment in accordance with which the destinies of men are 
 determined we believe to be that which has now been defined. . . . 
 We could stop here, but for a related question which has long per- 
 plexed and disturbed believers. It is a question as to the judg- 
 ment and the destiny of those to whom the gospel is not made 
 
 i Prog. Ortk., pp. 3, 4.cf. pp. 13, 14, 16. 
 
35 
 
 Known while they are in the body. We must consider the discus- 
 sion, then, in order to consider, as it may seem to deserve, this 
 difficult question. It is, in our opinion, to be looked on as an ap- 
 pended inquiry, rather than as an essential question for theology. 
 Still it is not wanting either in practical or speculative importance, 
 and, at any rate, is at present much in dispute. 
 
 " B. A Related Question. 
 
 " What is the fate of those millions to whom Christ is not made 
 known in this life, and of those generations who lived before the 
 advent of Christ? 
 
 " This may, perhaps, be only a temporary question. The time 
 may come, we think will come, when all will hear the messages of 
 the gospel during the earthly lifetime, and will know the gospel so 
 thoroughly that knowledge and corresponding opportunity will be 
 decisive. Then there will be less occasion for perplexity, as there 
 will be no apparent exclusion from those opportunities which at 
 present are given to only part of the great human family. 
 
 " The question we have raised is not new. Nor are any of the 
 proposed answers new, although some of the reasoning is the out- 
 come of a more profound thought of the gospel than has been 
 gained in preceding periods. An instructive lesson for impress- 
 ing the difficulty of our inquiry is a history of the various opinions 
 which have been held during the Christian centuries by honored 
 leaders and revered saints ; such an historical sketch, for example, 
 as Dean Plumptre gives in his recent book entitled, ' The Spirits 
 in Prison.' No answer which has yet been given is entirely free 
 from objections. Every one, unless he declines to accept any solu- 
 tion, has an alternative before him, and must rest in that conclu- 
 sion which seems to him most nearly in accordance with the laro-e 
 meaning of the gospel, and which is exposed to the fewest serious 
 objections. Certainly, any one should be slow to condemn those 
 whose opinions on this vexed subject do not agree with his own 
 hypothesis. There is no explicit revelation as to the destiny of 
 those who on earth have had no knowledge of Christ. Therefore 
 any inference that is drawn from the doctrines of the gospel, and 
 from the interpretation of incidental allusions of Scripture, must 
 be held with confession of some remaining ignorance on the part 
 of the reasoner. The theory which we shall advance presently is 
 offered under these conditions." 
 
36 
 
 It is evident from these quotations that in our reply we 
 might have met this entire charge by a simple and sheer 
 denial. It is patent, by the book, that we do not, in the 
 unqualified manner of the charge, make any opinion we en- 
 tertain respecting future probation a central doctrine. In 
 the strictest sense we do not treat it as a doctrine at all, 
 but only as an inference from a doctrine or fundamental 
 principle. 
 
 I do not wish, however, to avail myself of any refinements 
 at this point. I claim full liberty under the Creed to hold in 
 this matter whatever a true interpretation of Scripture, and 
 of the "revelation which God constantly makes of Himself 
 in his works of creation, providence and redemption," may 
 make probable, and with a degree of faith as exactly propor- 
 tionate to available evidence as I can measure ; nay, I do not 
 think I shall commit any sin against reason and Scripture 
 and the God who speaks in Scripture and reason, nor violate 
 any obligation under the Creed, if I allow myself to follow 
 with a perfect trust wherever with the heart as well as with 
 the head I can discover any traces of his holy and reconciling 
 love. 
 
 I have not therefore in my reply availed myself of the 
 opportunity given by the extravagance of the accusation to 
 make a square denial of it. I have said : " In this unqualified 
 form I do not admit that I hold, maintain and inculcate ' that 
 there is and will be probation after death for all men who do 
 not decisively reject Christ during the earthly life;' and that 
 this should be emphasized, made influential, and even central 
 in systematic theology." I have added : " God as revealed in 
 Christ is to me central in theology. Whatever encourages 
 hope that all men will have opportunity to be influenced by 
 the motive of an offered Saviour is chiefly valuable in theol- 
 ogy* as a reflection of the character of God." 
 
 A theologian's duty, as well as a believer's, and indeed 
 every man's, is primarily to God. What He is in his char- 
 acter and in his will concerning us, is the great, and all- 
 absorbing question. This is emphatically a fundamental 
 principle of " consistent Calvinism." The question about the 
 
37 
 
 heathen has a deep interest to us because they are men ; 
 a deeper interest because they are men for whom Christ died, 
 each and every one ; the deepest interest because they are 
 children of the same God on whom all our personal hopes 
 depend and in whom all our lives are lived. A question of 
 this character is a fundamental question. Therefore when any 
 inquiry arises which in the smallest degree whatsoever in- 
 volves His character, I will not protect myself by any man's 
 want of skill in attacking me. So far as the question of the 
 heathen comes into the sphere of the ethical character ot 
 God and just so far as it is within even the faintest circles of 
 light which we may discern if we will, it is a part of the one 
 and the only central and fundamental question for every 
 man : What is God ? And I beg leave to emphasize that 
 this is the real central question we have discussed in Pro- 
 gressive Orthodoxy, and not the mere issue about Probation. 
 
 That there may be no ambiguity as to my position because, 
 on a question so vital, my assailants have blundered, I deny 
 even the last part of this accusation with this measure of 
 qualification. 
 
 The first part I deny, in my answer, by calling attention to 
 the fact that what I hold is an inference from what appears 
 to be evident, and is a reasonable inference, and that it seems 
 to be implied in the universality of Christ's Person, Atonement 
 and Judgment. This is a suggestion by example of the 
 grounds of hope, and the method of it. I then deny that 
 such an inference is inconsistent with any thing in the Creed. 
 
 Upon this basis there arise two questions. First, have the 
 •complainants shown that we " hold, maintain and inculcate " 
 any thing more or other than what is here conceded ? No 
 -evidence to this effect has been adduced, nor is there any. 
 
 Second. Is the drawing and accepting this inference such 
 a departure from the Creed as brings me into disharmony 
 with it, or into antagonism to it in my official service? 
 
 It devolves upon the complainants to prove such dishar- 
 mony or antagonism. They must show, if they are to make 
 out their case, that the inference in question is necessarily 
 hostile to the Creed, that I cannot entertain it without being 
 
38 
 
 hostile to the same, that I cannot receive it without violat- 
 ing my solemn promise " to maintain and inculcate the Chris- 
 tian faith as expressed in the Creed, . . . so far as appertains 
 to my office, according to the best light God shall give me, 
 and in opposition to " various errors. 
 
 In reviewing the effort to establish such antagonism I have 
 a right to demand from the complainants entire definiteness 
 of statement, and conclusiveness of argument. They must 
 show that I actually take positions in what they prove, or in 
 what I admit, that I hold, which contravene my official obli- 
 gations under the Creed and Statutes. 
 
 Under the Creed. The question is not one of contrariety to 
 opinions commonly held when the Seminary was founded, nor 
 even to opinions held by the Founders, but simply of antagon- 
 ism to what they have prescribed in their Statutes. Professor 
 Park has said that the Professors at Andover " are now under 
 the safeguard of that Creed. They cannot be required to be- 
 lieve more than is involved or implied in it." This is a car- 
 dinal principle. Not the opinions of the Founders, but what 
 they have prescribed or implied in their Statutes, is the stand- 
 ard by which the charge of " heterodoxy " is to be tested." 
 As I have previously stated I do not hereby waive or dis- 
 credit any claim that may arise from a larger interpretation 
 of the word heterodoxy, I simply disregard it for the present 
 discussion, meeting my opponents on their chosen ground. 
 
 Coming now to the accusation I notice (1) that the Creed 
 contains no explicit declaration upon the question at issue. 
 
 It says nothing whatever about the condition of men who 
 die without opportunity to hear the gospel, or to accept or 
 reject an offered Saviour, in the intermediate state between 
 death and judgment. All that it affirms about men who do 
 not die in faith is contained in these words: "but that the 
 wicked will awake to shame and everlasting contempt and 
 with devils be plunged into the lake that burneth with fire 
 and brimstone forever and ever." 
 
 This is Biblical phraseology. It is the only instance in the 
 entire Creed (with one possible exception which would con- 
 firm my argument) in which such a resort is made. Every- 
 
39 
 
 where else the framers use their own terms, or the traditional 
 language of the Catechism. An awe seems to come over 
 them when they come to the awful destiny of incorrigible 
 sinners. They will prescribe nothing themselves. Whatever 
 their own interpretations of Scripture they will not introduce 
 them into a Creed which they intend shall not be altered, 
 and which they hope will endure till the end shall come. It 
 probably never occurred to them that men would arise who 
 would reject their doctrines as antiquated, and then claim that 
 it is a breach of trust to follow the Scripture which they in- 
 serted in the Creed rather than to follow their opinions which 
 they did not insert. I repeat : they simply on a subject so 
 grave and terrible, use the phraseology of the Bible. Unin- 
 terpreted by them, left in its original form, it has the mean- 
 ing of Scripture, as they quote it, and this meaning only. 
 
 I claim that this disposes conclusively, finally, of the whole 
 question. I have no right, you have no right, to add to this 
 Creed ; to put an interpretation on this Scriptural language 
 other than the language which is cited bears, to give it a 
 meaning which they did not prescribe, and when they chose 
 to leave it uninterpreted. 
 
 I know of but one qualification. It may be that a correct 
 interpretation of the Hebrew original, whose translation in 
 King James's version the Founders use, would make the 
 passage less relevant than they supposed. It would not of 
 course be fair to the Founders for any one to take an advan- 
 tage of this — if such a supposition may be pardoned. For it 
 obviously was the intention of the Founders to introduce 
 into their Creed an article upon the final state of the wicked. 
 They used for this purpose a passage about whose meaning 
 they supposed there was no reasonable doubt. It is a text 
 which in its phraseology as they accepted it plainly refers to 
 the final resurrection. It was commonly so understood in 
 their time, and by the best commentators with whom they 
 were familiar. They would not have quoted it, if they had 
 supposed it possible that it could refer to a revival of the 
 Jewish nation under Antiochus Epiphanes, or any thing in 
 the history of the Hebrews. 
 
40 
 
 Beyond this they cannot go. The}'- quoted what they un- 
 derstood to be plainly an eschatological passage, and left it 
 wholly uninterpreted. No man has a right to go beyond this 
 clear intent. All the language they used, as they use it, 
 refers to the final resurrection and judgment. 
 
 This appears from an examination of it. " The wicked " — 
 who are they? The " incorrigibly wicked at death," it has 
 been argued. This is an addition. Besides, who are the 
 incorrigibly wicked "at death"? The article speaks of 
 the resurrection and final judgment. "The wicked" is 
 the Founders' phrase, and they add no comment. It is a 
 Biblical phrase. In the New Testament (King James's ver- 
 sion), it is used but once with an eschatological reference. 
 " So shall it be at the end of the world : the angels shall 
 come forth and sever the wicked from among the just." 
 "At the end of the world." This is the point of view of the 
 article in the Creed, and to select any other is to read into 
 the article what this phrase does not require, and what the 
 context excludes. The article continues : " the wicked will 
 awake to shame and everlasting contempt," quoting the lan- 
 guage of the prophet Daniel, which was understood to refer 
 to the general resurrection at the end of the world, " and 
 with devils be plunged into the lake that burnetii with 
 fire and brimstone for ever and ever," employing still Bibli- 
 cal language which describes what follows upon the final 
 judgment. 1 There is in all this no allusion and no hint of 
 an allusion to what ensues at death in the case of men who 
 have not heard the Gospel, nor had opportunity to learn of a 
 Saviour. Not a syllable. All reference to such a subject 
 here is something added to the Creed, and is wholly without 
 warrant or authority. 
 
 The case cannot be made stronger, but it is noteworthy 
 that, as we should expect, such a necessary construction of 
 the language harmonizes with the context. 
 
 The state of believers is considered at three stages, — in 
 this life, at death, and at the resurrection. The state of un- 
 believers is considered at but one, — the final outcome of 
 
 Rev. xxi. 8 ; and perhaps Matt. xxv. 4. 
 
41 
 
 their wickedness. The Shorter Catechism which is here 
 followed so closely says nothing about the destiny of the 
 wicked. The framers of the Creed were led by it through 
 the three stages in the history of believers. They added 
 something as to the final state of unbelievers. They had 
 been brought to the final state of the righteous. They put 
 in sharp contrast with this, and in Biblical and in part figu- 
 rative language, the final state of the wicked. No one can 
 rightfully add to their work as a condition of their trust. 
 
 2. The Creed contains no implicit declaration adverse to the 
 tenet that those who have had no opportunity to learn of a 
 Saviour in this life may be granted such opportunity in the 
 other life. 
 
 It is contended that such an adverse conclusion may be 
 deduced from the statement that " they who are effectually 
 called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and 
 sanctification, and the several benefits which do either 
 accompany or flow from them." This language, it is argued, 
 implies that all who are saved are saved in this life. Conse- 
 quently none can be supposed to have an opportunity of 
 salvation beyond this life. 
 
 This is an attempt to find in the Creed a doctrine which 
 is not taught in the place where it properly belongs. In an 
 instrument so carefully drawn as the Creed, so well arranged, 
 so studiously elaborated, such an endeavor is open to suspi- 
 cion. The presumptions are against an incidental deliver- 
 ance upon a question which, if the intention had been to 
 pronounce upon it at all, would have certainly received the 
 same pains-taking treatment which is everywhere else 
 evinced. The character of the men who made the Creed 
 and the character of the document are strongly adverse to 
 the supposition that there was any purpose in this article to 
 settle an important doctrine of eschatology. Such indirec- 
 tion is not the method of the Creed, nor is it the method of 
 the men who composed it, nor of the theology of their time. 
 In general, an incidental clause found in an article concern- 
 ing one doctrine, ought to be inevitable and irresistible in 
 its inference in order to make it equivalent to a direct state- 
 
42 
 
 ment which is wholly absent when and where it properly 
 belongs. 
 
 It is further to be noticed that the object of the article cited is 
 not to affirm, nor does it assert, that the effectually called are 
 called iu this life. This may be implied, but the purpose of 
 the article is to state that certain blessings come in this life 
 to the effectually called. The obvious purpose of the article 
 therefore is not friendly to the supposition that it was intended 
 to decide a wholly different question, namely whether some 
 persons may be effectually called and saved in another life. 
 
 This brings to view another difficulty. The article before 
 us does not deal with the number of the elect, or make any 
 statement or involve any implication on this subject. Its 
 purpose is not to define or determine who are effectually 
 called, but simply to assure believers that the gospel has for 
 them great and heavenly blessings which they may partake 
 of in this life of conflict and toil. It is forcing language 
 written for such a use to make it serve as the statement of a 
 dogma respecting the question what opportunities may exist 
 for the implantation and beginning of saving faith. The 
 article is written for Christian believers. It is taken directly 
 from the Shorter Catechism. It deals solely with believers, 
 and presupposes their existence. The heathen are no more 
 within its view than the angels. It is a violation of the ac- 
 cepted canons of interpretation to make it cover and decide 
 questions of a different order, relating to a different class. 
 
 I think these considerations are sufficient of themselves to 
 warrant the rejection of this method of proof. We are not, 
 however, merely warranted in thus discarding it. A careful 
 and thorough examination of the article leads to conclusions 
 which absolutel}' require such a result. For it becomes evi- 
 dent that the interpretation I am opposing not merely forces 
 the meaning of the article but makes it contradictory to the 
 Standards of which its original formed a part, and puts it out 
 of harmony with the Creed to which it has been transferred. 
 
 The article, as I have stated, is simply appropriated from 
 the Shorter Catechism. Unless there is some decisive reason 
 to the contrary it must bear the meaning as transferred 
 
43 
 
 which it has in its original appearance. Any interpretation 
 which it is impossible to give to it as first written certainly 
 cannot he necessary when it is simply repeated ; and when, 
 in addition, we find that the same impossibility also appears 
 in its new connection, we are compelled wholly to reject such 
 an explanation. 
 
 It will perhaps make my argument more clear if I first 
 reduce the reasoning I am opposing to the syllogistic form, 
 and then show where it fails. It may be stated thus : 
 
 The effectually called are the elect. 
 
 The effectually called receive salvation in this life. 
 
 Therefore the elect receive salvation in this life. 
 
 The elect are saved in this life. 
 
 None but the elect are saved. 
 
 Therefore none are saved except in this life. 
 
 This reasoning confuses certain specified blessings of sal- 
 vation with the beginning or principle of salvation. But 
 letting this pass it is valid only in case the minor premise 
 of the first syllogism must mean : All the effectually called 
 receive salvation in this life. But this indispensable exten- 
 sion of the minor premise is impossible on any just principles 
 of interpretation of either the Catechism or the Creed, and 
 therefore the reasoning breaks down. For if there may be 
 some who are effectually called, and therefore are of the elect 
 and therefore will be saved, who do not receive this salvation 
 here they must be saved elsewhere ; which is precisely the 
 hope of Progressive Orthodoxy. 
 
 The Westminster Standards affirm that "elect infants, 
 dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through 
 the Spirit, who worketh when, where, and how He pleaseth. 
 So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being 
 outwardly called by the ministry of the word." 
 
 Now if the " effectually called," in the article quoted from 
 the Catechism and adopted into the Creed, include all the 
 elect, then we must hold that elect infants receive in this 
 life the blessings which are enumerated, and so also must 
 
44 
 
 all other elect persons who are incapable of hearing the 
 gospel. What now are these blessings ? The article before 
 us enumerates them in part. They are "justification, adop- 
 tion, and sanctification and the several benefits which do 
 either accompany or flow from them." In the Shorter Cat- 
 echism these " benefits " are explained to be "assurance of 
 God's love, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace and 
 perseverance therein to the end." 
 
 If, then, the effectually called referred to in the article 
 under consideration embrace all the elect, and, as is ex- 
 pressly stated, there are "elect infants " and elect " other per- 
 sons " who never are " outwardly called by the ministry of the 
 word," it follows that all these infants who die in infancy, 
 and these other persons who never hear the gospel, receive 
 in this life the blessings included in justification, adoption 
 and sanctification, and the other benefits described ; — that is, 
 they experience in this life 'conviction of sin, enlightenment in 
 the knowledge of Christ, renewal of will, the Spirit's persua- 
 sion and power to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered in the 
 gospel, pardon and acceptance as righteous in God's sight, 
 the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is received 
 by faith alone, reception into the number and admission to 
 all the privileges of the sons of God, ability more and more 
 to die unto sin and live unto righteousness, assurance of 
 God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, 
 increase of grace and perseverance therein to the end.' 
 Blessed infants! But who in his senses can think of putting 
 an interpretation on this article which commits it to such 
 absurdities? 
 
 We are still however far from being through with these 
 consequences. For there is another alternative. If the 
 " effectually called " in the article before us are all the elect, 
 and all the elect consequently receive all these blessings in 
 this life, it follows that only those are effectually called to 
 whom such a description applies. Now it is impossible to 
 apply it to the experience of infants and persons who know 
 nothing of Christ. Hence we must conclude that there are 
 no " elect infants," and no " other elect persons " beyond 
 
45 
 
 the reach of the Christian ministry — not a soul imprisoned 
 here from the light which is so pleasant and the truth which 
 is life, among the elect ; not a pagan child or woman or man, 
 — not one elected ; and therefore all are forever lost ! 
 
 The simple truth is, as I have said, that the Catechism 
 was written for believers and their children, for Christian fam- 
 ilies and peoples. It was not composed before the Fall, 
 or the Incarnation, nor in Africa. Torture its definitions, 
 extort an unnatural meaning, and you make a consistent 
 interpretation of the Westminster statements concerning 
 effectual calling impossible. 
 
 It is important to notice that the Seminary Creed recog- 
 nizes the Westminster and Savoy distinction between the 
 ordinary means of grace and those which the Spirit may 
 employ at his good pleasure. It thus requires for its consist- 
 ent interpretation that the article respecting the benefits 
 received in this life by the " effectually called " be not pressed 
 beyond its original purpose and scope. Where the Creed 
 speaks of the way in which men become " partakers of the 
 benefits of redemption " it says : '• the ordinary means by 
 which these benefits are communicated to us are the word 
 sacraments and prayer." The phrase " the ordinary means " 
 is from the Westminster Standards and recalls the antithe- 
 sis already noticed. 
 
 The article in the Creed connects thus with the same 
 larger circle of thought recognized by the Westminster 
 divines. It would be against the whole stream of history to 
 put upon a Creed prepared in New England at the beginning 
 of the nineteenth century as a basis of union of all phases of 
 Calvinism, a narrower construction than that intended for 
 the same words by theologians a century and a half earlier. 
 The Westminster divines admitted a wider working of God's 
 grace than they could define, and now the Andover Creed 
 which copies their words, and at the same time teaches a 
 universal atonement, is to be interpreted so as to shut the 
 door which even the men who held to a limited atonement, 
 to say the least, did not close ! 
 
 And after all, supposing that the article before us were 
 
46 
 
 tli us perverted from its purpose, and made inconsistent with 
 its history and the Creed, it would not then teach that the 
 heathen can have no future opportunity of grace, but simply 
 that they will not avail themselves of it any more than do 
 the non-elect who have this opportunity here. And who 
 can believe that the Founders both bungled and were irrev- 
 erent in this fashion, as would be true of them if they 
 intended to have this article construed as proposed. 
 
 A statement certainly ought to be absolutely decisive to 
 justify an interpretation loaded with so many difficulties and 
 even impossibilities. As it stands, so far is it from being 
 thus conclusive that such a use of it turns it from its appar- 
 ent purpose, attributes to it a design unsupported by evi- 
 dence, puts it into contrariety with other declarations in the 
 same Standards, and requires an interpretation of the Creed 
 that makes it a condition of office at Andover to teach what 
 never has been taught there from the beginning, namely, 
 that all who do not hear the gospel in this life, including 
 all infants and young children, and multitudes of the unfor- 
 tunate who have lived in Christian lands without the requi- 
 site organs of mental and moral life, are not among the 
 " effectually called," and therefore are not of the " elect," and 
 therefore are lost forever. And such logic is to be applied 
 to the Creed in order to squeeze out of it, if possible, what 
 the framers of it would not write in it when they composed 
 the article respecting the doom of the wicked. 
 
 Besides this inferential argument, I know of but one other 
 which is employed in order to render it impossible for a Pro- 
 fessor at Andover to hope that a universal gospel may have 
 some provision of mercy for the millions upon millions who 
 do not hear of it in this life. 
 
 It has been supposed that the Founders defined pretty 
 clearly in their Creed the doctrinal test which they desired 
 to impose. Until very lately no other has been so much as 
 suggested. But the same ingenuity which has extracted a 
 modal Trinity out of phraseology which used the long estab- 
 lished and technical nomenclature of an ontological Trinity, 
 and which has treated the articles of Progressive Orthodoxy 
 
47 
 
 as though they were a bushel of words out of which children 
 might construct sentences to suit themselves, has discov- 
 ered in the Statutes a new Creed. We have had. before 
 disputes over the Original Founders' Declaration, and the 
 Creed of the Associate Founders ; but now there appears 
 a third one, never before known, nor suspected. Certainly 
 these Statutes are progressive, if Orthodoxy is not. This 
 new Creed is discovered in the Preamble to the Statutes. 
 
 In the deeply interesting, and I may say affecting, Pream- 
 ble to the Statutes of the Associate Foundation, the Associate 
 Founders mention some of the motives which led them to 
 consecrate their gifts to the purpose of " increasing the num- 
 ber of learned and able Defenders of the Gospel of Christ, 
 as well as of orthodox, pious, and zealous Ministers of the 
 New Testament." Among these considerations they mention 
 the fatal effects of the apostasy of man without a Saviour, 
 the merciful object of the Son of God in assuming our nature 
 and dying for our salvation, the institution of the Christian 
 ministry, and the fact that " notwithstanding this appoint- 
 ment the greatest part of the human race is still perishing 
 for lack of vision." These latter words have been seized 
 upon and turned into an article of faith and a condition of 
 the trust which has been instituted. 
 
 Such a use of them when explained will strike every can- 
 did mind as illegitimate. They are not a part of any declara- 
 tion, creed or promise which these men saw fit to require of 
 those to whom they committed their trust. They are simply 
 declarations of a motive by which they were actuated in 
 making their gift, to be respected as such, to be regarded so 
 far as they express a permanent law and motive of Christian 
 conduct, but not to be exalted to a position which the Found- 
 ers themselves did not assign them ; viz., that of a required 
 article of faith. 
 
 I say this chiefly as a protest against the method of this 
 argument of the complainants, rather than against its matter. 
 For I " hold, maintain and inculcate," as my own belief and 
 as a motive in life, that men are perishing for lack of vision, 
 i.e., for the want of a knowledge of the gospel. Every sinner 
 
48 
 
 is perishing, and is in danger of perishing everlastingly, and 
 will thus perish save as redeemed by Christ. Paul, as a 
 friend has suggested, goes so far as to say, " For as many as 
 have sinned without law, shall also perish without law." 
 This is stronger language than that of the Founders. I sub- 
 mit to the Apostle. But how would Paul, were he on the 
 earth, rebuke men who still persist, after the clearest demon- 
 stration that such was not his teaching, in claiming that his 
 words compel us to hold that all the heathen actually perish, 
 that not one will be saved. He believed that men were per- 
 ishing for lack of vision, but not that this exhausted the di- 
 vine purpose concerning them. Many of them did not perish, 
 for through this same Apostle they heard of Christ, and be- 
 lieved in Him. Multitudes now are perishing, but whether 
 everlastingly or not, depends on something not taken into 
 account when such language is used. 
 
 It states the truth, but not the whole truth. It presents a 
 motive which every Professor at Andover should be governed 
 by, but it is not a statement of a doctrine which rules out all 
 hope for the heathen, any more than does Paul's stronger 
 declaration, " As many as have sinned without law shall also 
 perish without law," for to some of such he afterwards wrote 
 the letter known as the Epistle to the Ephesians, with its glow- 
 ing representation of the revealed mysterj' - , and its assurance 
 that Hhe dead in trespasses and sins, ivithout Christ, having no 
 hope, without God in the world, now had access by one Spirit 
 unto the Father, and had become a habitation of God through 
 the Spirit.' 
 
 There is one other consideration, or class of considerations, 
 to which I would invite your special attention before I leave 
 this particular numbered eleven. 
 
 In the reply which I filed Nov. 30, referring to "oppor- 
 tunity to be influenced by the motive of an offered Saviour," 
 the remark is made: "It seems to be implied in the univer- 
 sality of Christ's Person, Atonement, and Judgment." In 
 Progressive Orthodoxy, this universality is often spoken of 
 as a principle, "the reality of Christ's personal relation to 
 the human race as a whole, and to every member of it, — 
 
49 
 
 the principle of the universality of Christianity." This 
 principle is put forward as the key to the whole volume 
 (pp. 3, 4). 
 
 What I wish now to submit to you is, that this principle 
 is covered, and, I may say, is made prominent in the Creed. 
 
 The Creed affirms the Deity of Christ and his Eternal 
 Sonship. This Eternal Son became man and continues to 
 be God and Man in two distinct natures and one person for- 
 ever. This is as distinct a doctrine as words can contain of 
 the universality of Christ's Person in its constitution. He 
 is God, — you cannot limit his relation, therefore, without 
 circumscribing his divinity. I speak not now of limitation 
 in method of revelation, but in nature or essence. He is 
 man, but so that his manhood unites in one person with the 
 Eternal Son ; he is not an individual member of the race, 
 therefore, like you and me, but its universal head. Now 
 take a step forward with the Creed : " [I believe] that, agree- 
 ably to the covenant of redemption, the Son of God, and 
 he alone, by his suffering and death, has made atonement for 
 the sins of all men." I shall endeavor to show further on 
 that here we have one of the two distinctive notes of this 
 Creed, that if anything in the Creed must be taken with 
 absolute literalness and in the full force of its language, this 
 a fortiori must be. It is enough now to leave it with this 
 repetition of its words, Agreeably to the covenant of redemp- 
 tion, the Son of God, and He alone, by his suffering and 
 death, has made atonement for the sins of all men. 
 
 Now the inference which my associates and myself have 
 drawn in the volume called Progressive Orthodoxy, is to our 
 view a legitimate and even necessary deduction from the prin- 
 ciple thus emphasized in the Creed. So far were we from 
 supposing that we were teaching contrary to the Creed, that 
 we regarded ourselves as developing one of its most character- 
 istic principles, namely that of the universality of the religion 
 of the cross of Christ. We were fortified in this conviction 
 by the fact that there is another principle in the Creed which 
 also aids to our conclusion. It, too, as \ will subsequently 
 try to show, is a characteristic, a special note and feature of 
 
50 
 
 the Creed. I refer to the principle that God's government of 
 mankind deals with men as free moral agents, that sin and 
 righteousness are not transferable quantities or qualities, nor 
 passive states, but imply always personal agency. God deals 
 not only with man, but with men, every man, and deals with 
 each as a free moral agent. Put this and that together and 
 grant the universality of Christianity, and that every man is 
 dealt with in accordance with this universality as a free moral 
 agent, and we have the entire premise of our argument. And 
 this premise is not only in the Creed, but is there as its most 
 distinctive feature. 
 
 I suppose no one will question that we have a right to the 
 logic of the Creed. If a conclusion thus obtained contra- 
 dicts some statement elsewhere made in the same document, 
 a question of interpretation arises. But I need not stop to 
 discuss this question here, for the Creed makes no statement 
 inconsistent with our inference. We have a right, therefore, 
 to our conclusion so far as the Creed is concerned. That, at 
 any rate, does not estop us. It is not a condition of the trust 
 we have received that no such inference be drawn, even if 
 the inference be incorrect. The Founders have imposed 
 upon your Reverend and Honorable Body serious responsibil- 
 ities, but I think you will not regret that you are not made 
 responsible for every instance of bad logic on the part of 
 each Andover Professor. 
 
 I know not that I need weary you with any detailed reply 
 to the remaining particulars in the Amended Complaint. I 
 seem to myself to have said all that is necessary concerning 
 them in the Reply which has been filed. 
 
 I think, also, that I have now covered the ground which 
 has been definitely chosen for the present issue by the com- 
 plainants. Everything else which they have introduced is 
 not sufficiently specific and plain as an accusation to enable 
 and require me to answer it. 
 
 I claim therefore that upon every one of the charges which 
 are properly in issue the complainants have failed to show 
 
51 
 
 that I " hold, maintain and inculcate " in my office as Pro- 
 fessor anything not in harmony with or antagonistic to the 
 Creed and Statutes of the Seminary, and that I am therefore 
 entitled to a complete acquittal. And here I might safely, 
 I doubt not, rest my case. 
 
 But I ask your indulgence in the peculiar position in 
 which I am placed, in submitting some further considera- 
 tions, strictly relevant, as I conceive, to the preceding 
 issue, but derived from a broader range of views than has 
 been possible in following one by one particular accusations. 
 
 The official pledges and promises at Andover do not 
 require the Professors to think and teach in all respects 
 alike. They do, however, make it imperative that we should 
 open and explain the Scriptures to our pupils with integrity 
 and faithfulness. They impose upon us the sacred obliga- 
 tion to unfold the truths of the Creed in opposition to past 
 heresies and current errors which are hazardous to men, 
 according to the best light God shall give us. This is a law 
 for the conscience of every Professor. 
 
 This 1 have promised. How am I to keep this promise? 
 This inquiry involves these practical questions. How am I 
 to accept the Creed of the Seminary? How ought I to 
 accept it? How ought you to require me to accept it? 
 
 I raise deliberately this larger question, with all that it 
 includes. I should have been glad, if instead of compelling 
 me to wander through the long and tedious list of preposter- 
 ous charges which I have reviewed, the complainants had 
 raised directly the vital issue, although it is perhaps credita- 
 ble to their sagacity that they have not. 
 
 I maintain — you will pardon me if, under the conviction 
 of the utter unreasonableness of the attack which has been 
 made upon our fidelity and our liberties, I do maintain — 
 that we are entitled at your hands to something more than a 
 technical acquittal. We have endeavored, in sincerity and 
 good conscience, to put our Lord's money out to usury. It 
 has well been said that if there are perils in such a course 
 there are greater perils in the opposite course. The man 
 who buried his talent was very faithful and very conserva- 
 
52 
 
 live, as some men understand fidelity and conservatism, but 
 our Lord applied to him other designations. We have 
 received the Creed of the Seminary as a sacred trust. We 
 have sought to put its truths out to usury. No man, in my 
 humble judgment, really takes the Creed of the Seminary, 
 no man is fit to be a teacher of young men on its founda- 
 tions, who does not thus endeavor. It has been said, that 
 eventually there will be two sets of Professors at Andover ; 
 one who will take the Creed and do little else, another that 
 will give the lectures. I may be wrong, but I have not sup- 
 posed, this to be the " true intention " of the Founders. 
 
 Permit me then to state the principles by which I have 
 been governed in my acceptance and use of the Creed, that 
 is, in fulfilling my promise to maintain and inculcate the 
 Christian faith as expressed in the Creed ... "so far as 
 may appertain to my office, according to the best light God 
 shall give me ..." 
 
 1. I accept the Creed as it is written. I have supposed my 
 first duty to be to understand what it says, to gather its 
 meaning from its own words, interpreting them by the ordi- 
 nary and established rules of interpretation. With this 
 understanding of the formula I take the Creed literally. I 
 reject as dishonest the theories of creed-subscription desig- 
 nated by the phrases " private interpretation," " non-natural 
 sense." 
 
 2. I accept the Creed in the outcome and completeness of its 
 meaning when compared part with part. I do not find its 
 meaning in one article alone, for there are, besides the Dec- 
 laration, thirty-six distinct articles. I subscribe not merely 
 to the words of the Creed, but rather to the meaning which 
 the words yield when part is compared with part, article with 
 article, clause with clause. Occasionally a single technical 
 word may modify an entire article, as the word " consti- 
 tuted " which may be understood to contain a theory going 
 back to the Council of Trent and into the scholastic dis- 
 putes between the followers of Aquinas and those of Duns 
 Scotus, or the word " Person " in the article on the Trinity, 
 which has <t history from the days of Tertullian ; or the 
 
53 
 
 word " personally" in the article on Depravity, which has in 
 it the outcome of disputes between different schools of Cal- 
 vinism, as well as between Calvinists and Arminians, which 
 had been going on for centuries. 
 
 Whatever is the outcome of the Creed as a whole I accept. 
 
 An opposite, or apparently opposite theory of subscription 
 has been asserted with great positive ness and argued with 
 much force. It is that a Professor in signing the Creed 
 accepts each article by itself. I admit the obligation to 
 believe in every doctrine of the Creed, and to an acceptance 
 of every article as it forms a consistent part of the whole ; 
 but I deny the binding force of each individual statement, 
 taken apart from other statements. It is said : You affirm 
 your belief in each. My reply is, that I cannot be required 
 to believe in contradictions, and that the Creed must be 
 allowed to interpret itself. I cannot suppose that in the 
 same breath the Founders intended to require me to be a 
 " consistent " Calvinist and to take an inconsistent Creed. 
 They must therefore have intended to give me liberty of 
 interpretation as respects particular articles. 
 
 Let me make this clear by an example. When the Creed 
 comes to the topic of Redemption it takes three articles in 
 succession from the Catechism and adds a fourth original to 
 itself. The articles read : — 
 
 " [I believe] that God of his mere good pleasure from all eter- 
 nit} 7 elected some to everlasting life, and that he entered into a 
 covenant of grace to deliver them out of this state of sin and 
 misery by a Redeemer ; that the only Redeemer of the elect is the 
 eternal Son of God, who for this purpose became man, and con- 
 tinues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one person 
 forever ; That Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the office of a 
 Prophet, Priest and King ; that agreeably to the covenant of 
 redemption, the Son of God, and He alone, b} r His suffering and 
 death, has made atonement for the sins of all men." 
 
 Down to these last words we have the language, the ipsis- 
 sima verba, of the Catechism. And even in this article we 
 have the traditional formula " covenant of redemption." 
 
54 
 
 Now if you take these articles, each as it stands, giving to 
 each its natural, historical, full meaning, you are involved in 
 an insoluble contradiction of belief. The first three articles 
 state in unequivocal terms the doctrine of limited atonement: 
 the fourth expresses plainly the doctrine of universal atone- 
 ment. In other parts of the Creed it is claimed that phrase- 
 ology is employed broad enough to admit the theories of all 
 parties to the coalition, the Old or High Calvinists, the Mod- 
 erate Calvinists, and the Hopkinsian Calvinists. However 
 tli is may be, here, at least, the first party completely surren- 
 dered. It is just possible that if he had chosen so to do a 
 High Calvinist might have said " made atonement for " 
 means "sufficient for" and nothing more, but this puts a 
 strain upon the words. They signified much more than 
 this to the Hopkinsians. They meant more to the first Pro- 
 fessor of Christian Theology at Andover, who received his 
 nomination to their chair from the so-called Original Founders, 
 as appears from his celebrated missionary sermon at Salem in 
 1812, in which he emphasizes the motive of an atonement 
 not only " sufficient for Asiatics and Africans," but " made for 
 them as well as for us." We may not doubt that they were 
 understood in their evangelical sense by Moderate Calvinists 
 who aided in the counsels from which the Seminary originated. 
 Perhaps I spoke too strongly when I used of any Calvinist 
 who had a part in the construction or institution of the Creed 
 the word " surrendered " ; there may have been no resistance, 
 no disagreement at this point, though the earlier Calvinists 
 of New England, represented by Samuel Willard, spurned 
 even the concession that Christ's death was " sufficient " for 
 all. 
 
 We have thus in the Creed new language, expressing what 
 was still a novelty in Calvinistic doctrine, the truth that 
 Christ on the cross died for all men, thrust into immediate 
 sequence upon the established and traditional formulas which 
 had affirmed for nearly all the preceding generations in New 
 England that He died for the elect only. I say only, for 
 though this word does not occur in these formulas, its mean- 
 ing is indelibly impressed on them. It is there by the tech- 
 
55 
 
 nical and well-understood use of terms, there emphatically 
 by the necessary connection and logic of the chosen articles, 
 there unmistakably and completely. First you have the 
 decree of election, then the covenant of grace which in- 
 cluded the eternal covenant of Redemption between the 
 Father and the Son and the elect in Him ; then, in pursu- 
 ance of this electing decree, the incarnation of the Eternal 
 Son, who, as our Redeemer, i.e., as Redeemer of the elect, 
 executed the office not only of Prophet and King, but of 
 Priest, in which latter office, as the Catechism explains, and 
 the traditional theology fully agreed, He offered " up of him- 
 self a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to 
 God," all, 3 r ou notice, as Redeemer of the elect, and for the 
 elect, and in pursuance of the decree of election. I see not 
 how any man who takes these articles literally as they stand, 
 who sneers at taking the Creed " in the gross," and insists 
 on the acceptance of every doctrinal statement, can possibly 
 extricate himself from the necessity of first saying : " I be- 
 lieve that Christ executeth his office of priest under the 
 decree of election, and for the purpose of that election," and 
 then of immediately confessing " I believe that he executeth 
 this office of priest under a different decree and for another 
 purpose, namely, to die for the sins of the non-elect as well 
 as of the elect." There is, indeed, one supposable way out 
 of the contradiction, that of assuming that the whole race is 
 elected, or predetermined, to salvation, as Schleiermacher 
 believed ; but this is only a temporary escape, for, apart from 
 the difficulty of interpreting the word " some " as meaning 
 all, the closing sentences of the Creed are unfriendly to a 
 doctrine of universal restorationism, and the subscriber would 
 find that he had only exchanged one contradiction for 
 another. 
 
 This antagonism in the Creed of two doctrines of the 
 atonement might be confirmed by tracing in detail the devel- 
 opment of the two phrases "covenant of grace" and "cove- 
 nant of redemption," and of the doctrine of the order of the 
 divine decrees, but I have said enough by way of illustration — 
 I am satisfied that it is simply impossible to take the Creed 
 
56 
 
 in the way which I am opposing. I do not believe such a 
 method ever would have been thought of but for the exigen- 
 cies of controversy. There is a simple way out of these diffi- 
 culties, — simple, but like man}' another simple principle it 
 is found, when thoroughly applied, to be fruitful in important 
 results. It is the path which the framers of the Creed must 
 have intended should be followed, — its acceptance as a whole 
 and as it interprets itself. 
 
 3. I accept the Creed for substance of doctrine. I employ 
 this phrase under certain very careful restrictions. Were it 
 not for the phrases "federal head and representative," "cove- 
 nant of grace," " covenant of redemption," I should not need 
 to use it at all, and I am not sure but that what I have said 
 about taking the Creed as a whole comprehends whatever 
 qualification I give to these terms. Still, for the sake of the 
 utmost explicitness, I will state precisely what latitude I sup- 
 pose this mode of taking the Creed permits. I do not under- 
 stand that I am availing myself thereby of any other liberty 
 than the framers intended should be used, or than was exer- 
 cised while they were living and acting as Visitors, and than 
 has been acknowledged and practised ever since. 
 
 The phrase " for substance of doctrine " appears in the 
 Preface to the Cambridge Platform, adopted by the Synod of 
 1648. Referring to the Confession "agreed upon by the 
 reverend assembly of divines at Westminster," the Preface 
 says : " Finding the sum and substance thereof, in matters 
 of doctrine, to express not their own judgment only, but 
 ours also ... we thought good to present ... to our 
 churches . . . our professed and hearty assent and attesta- 
 tion to the whole confession of faith (for substance of doc- 
 trine)." The Synod also passed unanimously a vote ex- 
 pressing " consent thereunto, for the substance thereof." 
 From that early time on this method of accepting a Creed or 
 Platform has obtained in New England. In his letters to Dr. 
 Ware, the first Abbot Professor, enjoying the confidence of 
 both sets of Founders of the Seminary and pre-eminent in his 
 exertions to ensure the union, and writing only four years 
 after a "perpetual union " was "established," remarked: "As 
 
57 
 
 it is one object of these Letters to make you acquainted with 
 the real opinions of the Orthodox in New England, I would 
 here say, with the utmost frankness, that we are not perfectly 
 satisfied with the language used on this subject [Imputation] 
 in the Assembly's Catechism. . . . Hence it is common for 
 us, when we declare our assent to the Catechism, to do it 
 with an express or implied restriction." ! Dr. Woods subse- 
 quently modified his interpretation of the Catechism, but his 
 testimony as to the custom and feeling of the Orthodox at 
 that time and to his own liberty is not thereby affected. Dr. 
 Humphrey, President of Amherst College, and a Visitor of 
 the Seminary, once remarked, "No mortal man, with a mind 
 of his own, ever accepted the Westminster Catechism without 
 qualifications of his own." " He was right," adds Professor 
 Phelps, " the same is true of every Confession, — unless it be 
 some brief compendium of historic fact, rather than of doc- 
 trine, like the Apostles' Creed." 2 And the editor of the 
 Congregationalist, between four and five years since, 3 defend- 
 ing himself from the imputation of hostility to creeds, espe- 
 cially the Andover Creed, remarked, ..." for substance we 
 heartily accept it, as Professors Park and Phelps have always 
 done." 
 
 Even that stern censor of former Professors at Andover, 
 Rev. Daniel Dana, D.D., while contending against their here- 
 sies, made this noteworthy concession : " Nor will I contend 
 that the man who has taken a lengthened creed should be 
 trammelled by all the minutiae, which it may embrace. 4 And 
 Dr. Hodge, in the Princeton Review, speaking for the Old 
 School wing of the Presbyterian Church nearly a generation 
 ago, remarked (I use this extract on the a fortiori principle) : 
 
 " It is a perYectly notorious fact, that there are hundreds of min- 
 isters in our Church, and that there always have been such minis- 
 ters, who do not receive all the propositions contained in the 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms. . . . The principle that the 
 
 i Letters to Unitarians, Andover, 1820, p. 45. 
 
 2 Quoted by Rev. Dr. Fiske in The Creed of Andover Theol. Sem., 1882, p. 32. 
 
 3 June 21, 1882. 
 
 4 Sermon on the Faith of Former Times, 1848, note to p. 16. 
 
58 
 
 adoption of the Confession of Faith implies the adoption of all 
 the propositions therein contained ... is impracticable . . . "is 
 more than the vast majority of our ministers either do or can 
 do. To make them profess to do it is a great sin. It hurts 
 their conscience. It fosters a spirit of evasion and subterfuge. 
 It teaches them to take creeds in a ' non-natural sense.' It at 
 once vitiates and degrades." 1 
 
 A common method in New England may be illustrated by 
 an extract from the covenant of the Church in Salem, of 
 which Dr. Daniel Hopkins, the brother of Dr. Samuel Hop- 
 kins, was pastor from 1778 to 1814, — the church, it is of 
 further special interest to note, with which the Associate 
 Founder John Norris attended worship. 
 
 " Professing a belief in the Christian Religion as contained in 
 the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and embracing that 
 scheme of doctrine which is exhibited in what is called The Assem- 
 bly's .Shorter Catechism, as expressing, for substance, those impor- 
 tant truths which God has revealed to us in his holy word." And 
 again : " Knowing the necessity of order and discipline in every 
 body of fallible men, we promise to submit ourselves to the gov- 
 ernment of Christ in his church agreeably to the directions on this 
 subject contained in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, and as 
 more fully set forth in the Platform of Church Discipline drawn up 
 b} - the Congregational Synod, at Cambridge, New England, A.D. 
 16 18, which, in substance, we adopt, as agreeable to the rules and 
 spirit of the gospel." 2 
 
 In entire concurrence with the method familiar to Dr. 
 Hopkins and Mr. Norris at Salem, and in the line of the tes- 
 timonies already adduced, are the reminiscences and testi- 
 mony of the venerable Gardiner Spring, a son of Dr. Samuel 
 Spring, one of the authors of the Seminary Creed and one of 
 the first Visitors. He says, referring to the Westminster 
 Confession : 
 
 " Few, in this age of inquiiy, believe every word of it. Nor did 
 our fathers. I myself made two exceptions to it when I was re- 
 
 i Reprinted in Church, Polity, pp. 330-332. 
 
 2 The Covenant of Third Church of Christ in Salem, Salem, 1841, pp. 6, 7, 8. 
 
59 
 
 ceivecl into the Presbyter}- of New York fifty-five } T ears ago. Nor 
 were those exceptions any barrier to my admission. 1 I am no 
 bigot and no friend to innovations. Let our Confession and Cate- 
 chism stand. . . . Witherspoon, Rodgers, McWhorter, Smith, 
 Miller and Richards were not men of strife, nor did they lend their 
 influence to awaken jealousies, heart burnings, and chilling aliena- 
 tions among those who ought to love as brethren. We have no 
 Act of Uniformity to compel a perfect unanimity in every minute 
 article of so extended a Confession. There are shades of thought 
 and forms of expression, in regard to which men will not cease to 
 think for themselves. I could specify many points in which not a 
 few of our ministers and ruling elders do not exactly agree with 
 our standards. Yet they are all honest Calvinists, and receive 
 our standards as the most unexceptionable formularies ever drawn 
 up by uninspired men, and receive them as a whole with all their 
 hearts. The iron bed of Procrustes is not suited to the spirit of 
 the age. Some modern Theseus will 3'et be raised up, and show 
 to the church that there is small space for the couch of bigotry in 
 the nineteenth century. 2 " 
 
 I will add but one more testimony, and this not from a 
 clergyman, but from a decision of the Supreme Court of 
 Massachusetts rendered by Justice Thacher in the year 
 1815. 
 
 It was contended that a legacy to the Seminary was void, 
 because " the original design of the founders of the Academy 
 was to propagate Calvinism, as containing the important 
 principles ... of our holy Christian religion, as summarily 
 expressed in the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism ; 
 whereas, the design of the donors of the Associate Founda- 
 tion is to add to Calvinism the distinguishing features of Kop- 
 kinsianism, a union or mixture inconsistent with the original 
 design of the original founders of the Academy and of the 
 theological institution." It was further contended, that if 
 there were 'but one single article in the Creed contrary to 
 Calvinism, or a single article omitted from the Creed which 
 characterized Calvinism as understood at the time of the 
 
 1 i.e. 1810. Two years after the Associate Foumlatiou was established. 
 
 2 Life and Times 0/ Gardiner Spring, II. pp. 21, 22. 
 
60 
 
 foundation of the Academy,' the legacy was null and void. 
 The Court overruled and rejected the principle that a Creed 
 must be taken in its several articles irrespective of other 
 articles or equally required statements of doctrine. 
 
 It confirmed as of legal validity the principle which I have 
 stated already under number two (2). It further urged the 
 duty of " charity of construction," by which " technical prop- 
 ositions, should not be pressed, by a construction " astute, nar- 
 row and uncharitable," into an antagonism which could be 
 avoided ; and, applying this principle, the Judge said : " For 
 myself, I confess that I do not clearly perceive any other 
 sense than that in which the articles mean substantially the 
 same thing, notwithstanding some diversity of expression, in 
 which they can be said to be true and consistent with the 
 Christian religion." 
 
 I quote this last opinion, not merely on account of its 
 great weight as testimony, but because it indicates the true 
 sense and application in the case before us of the phrases 
 " substantially " and " for substance of doctrine." 
 
 These phrases are sometimes objected to, not without rea- 
 son, as vague. Dr. Hodge makes this criticism. But their 
 convenience and utility keep them in use, and as it were 
 compel it. Dr. Hodge, after rejecting them, gives illustra- 
 tion upon illustration which implies his acceptance of just 
 what they are commonly understood to mean. 
 
 These phrases do not mean that a signature for substance 
 of doctrine can cover a method by which the substance of a 
 creed is eliminated ; nor one by which any doctrine is rejected 
 which belongs to a creed when it is regarded as a whole. 
 They cover two points: first, a distinction between the 
 necessary, integral parts or doctrines of a creed and those 
 which are subsidiary and non-essential ; second, a distinction 
 between contents [substance] and form. 
 
 In the first of these two senses it may be thought that the 
 phrases " for substance of doctrine " or " substantially " can 
 have no place in the interpretation of a creed so precise as 
 that appointed by the Associate Founders. Such a use, it 
 may be feared, would run into the objectionable method by 
 
61 
 
 which a doctrine accepted "for substance" is "substantially" 
 rejected. I admit the necessity of care and explicitness. I 
 deny, however, that the phrases have no application, or are 
 of no service. They embody the principle expressed by Jus- 
 tice Thacher in the words " charity of construction." 
 
 A Creed like the Andover is not the work of one mind, but 
 of many minds ; not of one age, but of very many. Its tradi- 
 tional phraseology is the larger part of it. It deals with 
 many subjects which are only approximately apprehended by 
 the Church as a whole, and are somewhat differently appre- 
 hended by various schools of thought, and various theolo- 
 gians, all of whom, however, are in general agreement. Take 
 what are called the mysteries of Christianity — the Trinity, 
 the union of two natures in one Person. The Creed of Chal- 
 cedon, which is the standard orthodox symbol on this latter 
 mystery, is called in the records a " boundary." It is a defi- 
 nition in the sense of pointing out certain errors to which 
 faith is exposed and which the true doctrine will exclude, 
 certain limits on either side, which cannot be passed without 
 renouncing certain necessary elements of belief. The Creed 
 says: 'The doctrine is — there are two natures; hold this 
 theory or that, and you deny one nature or the other, the 
 divine or the human. The doctrine is: There is one person ; 
 hold this theory or that, and you come into contradiction to 
 this personal unity.' But no man in his senses ever thought 
 that this definition gives us an exhaustive statement of the 
 doctrine of the Person of Christ, or shuts up a man who con- 
 fesses it to every subsidiary formula which men have invented 
 in endeavoring more firmly to apprehend it, or more fully to 
 appropriate it. It lies in the nature of the truths confessed 
 in a creed, that they are not measurable nor ponderable nor 
 definable like the commodities or currencies of commerce, like 
 an acre of ground, or a house-lot, or a dollar whether gold or 
 silver. One does not sign a creed precisely as he signs a note. 
 There is a mischievous fallaciousness in the way in which 
 men use such comparisons, and then proceed to impeach their 
 brethren's honesty, simply because they do not know what 
 they themselves are talking about. 
 
62 
 
 This principle of " charitable construction " by which di- 
 versities of form in holding a doctrine are overlooked, has 
 been employed in the history of the Seminary and under the 
 eyes of its founders, so as to cover not merely a diversity as 
 to the form but as to the substance of subsidiary or unessen- 
 tial doctrine. One perfectly plain tenet of the Creed, if an 
 individual and important phrase is to be pressed, has never 
 been required. At one time I presume most of those who 
 subscribed, Professors and Visitors alike, did not accept it in 
 its proper meaning as it stands in the Creed. I refer to the 
 doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. 
 
 The Creed says: " [I believe] that the only Redeemer of 
 the elect is the eternal Son of God, who for this purpose be- 
 came man, and continues to be God and man in two distinct 
 natures and one person forever." Every Professor, every 
 Visitor, since the Seminary was founded, has signed this 
 statement. One of the earliest signatures is that of Moses 
 Stuart. In his Letters to Rev. William E. Channing (" 1819, 
 republished in five successive editions ") Prof. Stuart repudi- 
 ated, as is well known, the Nicene and historical church doc- 
 trine of Eternal Generation, or that the Son was always Son. 
 He admitted an eternal distinction in the divine nature, that 
 this distinction became incarnate and was called Son as in- 
 carnate, but denied that the name Son properly designates 
 this distinction considered as eternal. In a word, the words 
 Eternal Son did not mean to him what they had meant in the 
 church, what they meant in the Catechism, whose words are 
 here appropriated, what they meant in the traditional theol- 
 ogy of New-England, what they meant to Dr. Samuel Hop- 
 kins and to Dr. Samuel Spring, both of whom are explicit 
 even to the rejection and condemnation of any denial of this 
 established traditional meaning. I know of no evidence that 
 at the time the Creed was written they had gained any new 
 accepted interpretation. They require in the Creed therefore 
 their ordinary sense. 
 
 Professor Stuart rejected this tenet, and apparently without 
 any hesitation or misgiving. He defined his position in re- 
 spect to the creed of Nicea by saying that "the thing aimed 
 
63 
 
 at was in substance to assert the idea of a distinction in the 
 Godhead," which is perfectly true as the history shows. He 
 said later that the fathers were " in substance right, their 
 pneumatic philosophy plainly inadmissible." l He must have 
 explained to himself his disagreement with the language 
 of the Catechism in the Seminary Creed on the same princi- 
 ple. He held what the phrase " Eternal Son," in its tradi- 
 tional sense, stood for, viz., the doctrine of the Deity of 
 Christ. But the traditional form of this belief, as embodied 
 in this phrase, he denied. That is, he held to the substance 
 of the doctrine, as this is an integral and essential part of the 
 Creed, but he rejected a subsidiary, and as he regarded it, 
 unessential and unbiblical form of that doctrine in its sub- 
 stance, though this is a part of the substance of the Creed. 
 
 This was done by him while he was in most intimate rela- 
 tions with the early Founders of the Seminary, particularly 
 with the Associate Founder William Bartlet, who continued to 
 pay bills for German books, which Professor Stuart imported 
 almost by the cart-load, and who never was disturbed, I pre- 
 sume, because small men and narrow men cried out against his 
 Professor's neology. Professor Stuart was called to account 
 by Dr. Miller of Princeton, and in reply published a heterodox 
 book and assiduously followed up all this "heterodoxy" by 
 excursus after excursus in his commentaries, and by articles 
 in the Biblical Repository and the Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 I have had myself a little experience in relation to this 
 doctrine. I have been led to accept the ordinary church 
 doctrine, and that of the Catechism and the Creed. I do 
 not wish to 
 
 "Compound for sins [I am] inclined to 
 By damning those [I have] no mind to ; " 
 
 but I am persuaded that Professor Stuart was wrong in the 
 result of his exegesis on this point and in his interpreta- 
 tion of the history of the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. 
 I agree with the early Hopkinsians as well as with Charles 
 Kingsley and Frederick D. Maurice in thinking this doctrine 
 1 Bibliotheca Sacra, vii. p. 314. 
 
64 
 
 an important one, and its rejection an error of some conse- 
 quence. Coming early in my teaching at Andover to this 
 conclusion, I have maintained the Creed on this point as I 
 promised according to the best light God has given me. 
 I soon learned, by the fire of questions poured in upon me 
 that ray pupils had been taught otherwise in another lecture 
 room. I made no allusions to such teaching, but simply 
 kept on with my own. It never occurred to me that some- 
 body should be tried for "heterodoxy." If I had been a 
 lawyer, certainly if I could have been a judge, I should have 
 said that the article in the Creed was doubtless subscribed 
 by my pupils' teacher in Christian theology, who had sub- 
 scribed to the phrase " Eternal Son " in the Catechism as 
 well as in the Creed, on the principle of " charitable con- 
 struction," but being not a lawyer nor judge, but a Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History, I thought and still think that he 
 subscribed on the principle which he now so vehemently 
 repudiates, and which is expressed in the venerable New 
 England formula, " for substance of doctrine." 
 
 This will I think make clear the full extent of my mean- 
 ing. I reject all vague and loose applications of the phrase 
 " for substance," but it has, I hold, its legitimate place in 
 any requirement of subscription to the Seminary Creed 
 which has even a decent regard to past usage, whether at 
 Andover or in the church at large, or to the decisions of legal 
 tribunals, or to the true intentions of such men as founded 
 the Seminary whether Hopkinsians or Old Calvinists. 
 
 I know of but one important objection to this claim. It is 
 said that the purpose of the Hopkinsians, who put the 
 Creed into their Statutes, and came into the union on its 
 acceptance by the Andover Founders, was to compel the 
 Moderate Calvinists to greater strictness of belief at Andover 
 than could be secured by a general consent to the Catechism ; 
 that in their opinion a general subscription or assent had let 
 into the ministry a great many men who were doctrinally 
 unsound, and that they intended to bar out such looseness. 
 If now their own Creed is to be subscribed for substance, as 
 the Catechism had been taken, the desired protection is 
 
65 
 
 thrown away, and the assumed purpose of the Founders is 
 frustrated. 
 
 I think this is a fair criticism upon such interpretations 
 and uses of the formula, " for substance of doctrine," as I 
 have rejected and condemned. 
 
 But it goes no further. It overlooks important facts. 
 
 1. The fact that the Creed is a union Creed. What was 
 its origin and first form is uncertain. One account repre- 
 sents that it was constructed for the Newbury Seminary, 
 which was not intended to be a mere Hopkinsian affair, but 
 broader. Another alleges that it was first presented to 
 Dr. Spring by Dr. Pearson who represented the Andover 
 Founders. All accounts agree that it was not intended for 
 a mere party, and that it was finally accepted as a basis of 
 union. It has from early times been called a " compromise " 
 Creed. It certainly was designed to be comprehensive, and 
 this is a more honorable description of it. 
 
 2. The fact that the Creed contains traditional phraseology 
 which was accepted in its traditional meaning by some at 
 least of those who entered into the union. 
 
 3. The fact that these men approved of this language 
 being taken by other men with a new meaning, and that 
 those who thus took it consented that such language should 
 remain in the Creed. 
 
 One of these historical phrases is contained in the article : 
 " [I believe] that Adam, the federal head and representative 
 of the human race was placed in a state of probation and 
 that in consequence of his disobedience all his descendants 
 were constituted sinners." The phrase "federal head and 
 representative " is the symbol of a distinct type of theology. 
 In New England this had been, until the days of Jonathan 
 Edwards, and particularly of Samuel Hopkins, the established 
 system. It is the teaching of the Catechisms and the Con- 
 fession. It was undergoing changes, but its essential idea 
 that man's depravity comes to him not simply as an act of 
 sovereignty but of law and justice was not yet abandoned. 
 Emmons found it necessary to preach against it elaborately. 
 Nor was it excluded from the Creed by the phrases "in con- 
 
66 
 
 sequence of " and " were constituted sinners." The latter is as 
 old as the Vulgate. 1 It is Calvin's 2 language, and Turretin's. 3 
 Professor Park comments on it as though it were distinctive 
 of Emmons. He says : " In one and the same discourse the 
 doctor [Emmons] calls Adam ' a federal head of the race ' 
 and criticises the Assembly's Catechism for teaching that 
 Adam entered into a literal covenant with his Maker. So in 
 one and the same sentence the Creed excludes all that the 
 Catechism says in regard to the covenant of works, quotes the 
 very language of Emmons, that all Adam's ' descendants were 
 constituted sinners," 1 and also designates Adam as 'the federal 
 head and representative of the race '. One sermon of Emmons 
 is compressed into one article of the Creed." Unfortunately 
 for this representation the sermon referred to was not preached 
 until after the Creed was adopted, and the Seminary estab- 
 lished ; nor, so far as I can ascertain, was it published until 
 1860 in the edition of Emmons's works to which Dr. Park 
 contributed a memoir. It is also well understood that Dr. 
 Emmons was not entirely satisfied with the Creed. And, 
 apart from all this, every old Calvinist could use the phrase 
 "were constituted" and even "in consequence of," as well 
 as the Hopkinsians. So that the article might with less 
 forcing of its terms be harmonized with the Old Theology 
 than with the New. Yet, on the other hand, it does not 
 speak of the covenant of works, nor impute Adam's sin as 
 guilt to his posterity, and the general shaping of the lan- 
 guage in the context is all friendly to the new conceptions 
 of moral agency which the Hopkinsians were zealously 
 propagating. They too could live under this article in the 
 Creed provided they could be allowed to accept the federal 
 headship of Adam with a certain degree of latitude, in other 
 words " for substance of doctrine." Professor Park really ad- 
 mits this to be the true explanation. For he adds to the words 
 
 1 "Peccatores constitute sunt multi." Vulgate transl. of Rom. v. 19. 
 
 2 " Quemadmodum enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores con- 
 stituti sunt multi : sic et per obedientiam unius justi constituentur multi." 
 Com. on Horn. v. 19. 
 
 '■'■ " Eadem quippe ratione constituimur peccatores in Adamoqua justi con- 
 stituimur in Christo." Inst. Tlieol. Elenct., Pars Prima, Locus Nonus De 
 Peccato. Q. IX. § xvi. ed. Lugd. Batav. 1696, Vol. I. p. 681. 
 
67 
 
 I have just quoted the statement, "The disclaimer of a word 
 in a literal sense need not be a disclaimer of it in a figurative 
 sense," and earlier on the same page, he says : " Those Hop- 
 kinsians, however, did not believe in any literal covenant of 
 works. They could use the term figuratively, but would not 
 insert the language of the Catechism into their Creed." 
 Their Creed ! It was not theirs alone. It was the Creed of 
 the Federalists also, who could use the terms of this the- 
 ology as the Hopkinsians could not. So that we are shut 
 up to this conclusion. The Federalists put into, or found in, 
 the Creed their favorite phrase " federal head and repre- 
 sentative " ; the Hopkinsians at least consented to its remain- 
 ing there ; and each party understood not only that it might 
 bear a different meaning to the other, but that even if it did 
 so, and the Creed were thus taken, it was satisfactorily taken, 
 for it was accepted for substance of doctrine. Some criticism 
 has been expended upon the Founders for their consenting 
 to an ambiguous article. If the principle of the procedure 
 were that each party should find his own doctrine by catch- 
 ing at one clause and ignoring another, by interpreting federal 
 headship " figuratively " and constituted " literally," or vice 
 versa, I think the procedure could not be defended. I sup- 
 pose it to have been a larger, a firmly established and well 
 understood principle on which they acted, namely, that what- 
 ever special theories these technical formulas suggested, and 
 whatever preferences one person or another might entertain 
 as respects these subsidiary forms of doctrine, the great fact 
 was confessed of human depravity, so that men are acknowl- 
 edged to be " morally incapable " of self-recovery, and to be 
 in need of a Redeemer, and of regeneration by the Holy 
 Spirit. Admit that the Article I have been considering can 
 be accepted "for substance of doctrine," as I believe it has 
 been subscribed from the first, and you simply apply to the 
 Creed a well-known principle. Deny that this is legitimate, 
 and you make an honest subscription impossible for any one 
 but a Federal Calvinist, and discredit the entire history of 
 the Seminary. It is discovered that Dr. Emmons once or 
 twice, when he could not be misunderstood, used the older 
 
68 
 
 phraseology figuratively. And this is brought forward as a 
 reason for giving the phrase the same interpretation in a care- 
 fully drawn Creed. In other words, because a preacher, in 
 order to avoid a seemingly entire divorce of his thought from 
 inherited principles, uses a familiar term in a way which sug- 
 gests a connection between his own clearly explained and 
 new views and the older theology, we have a right to under- 
 stand such a phrase in a Creed to be figurative, and so are 
 enabled to sign it literally, and avoid the offense of taking it 
 substantially, as it has been taken from the time it was first 
 written. I claim the right to abide by the accepted usage and 
 the long established principle, and this not merely with refer- 
 ence to this article but wherever a similar exigency arises, 
 always remembering the restrictions I have acknowledged. 
 
 There is one other general principle in the acceptance of 
 theological creeds which was emphasized by Dr. Henry B. 
 Smith, and which is of importance now. I remark therefore 
 fourthly, 
 
 4. I accept the Seminary Creed in its historical se7ise. 
 
 I do not mean by this that opinions which it does not ex- 
 press may be read into it because they were entertained at the 
 time it was written, and perhaps by the men who composed 
 it ; nor that opinions which they put into it may be taken out 
 of it because, perchance, if they were living now, they would 
 appoint a different creed. 
 
 The Associate Founders reserved to themselves the right 
 for seven years to amend the Creed. The}^ prohibited sub- 
 sequent alterations. This does not define the nature of sub- 
 scription, as some have affirmed; but it doubtless does exclude, 
 indirectly or by necessary inference, any mutilation of the 
 Creed in its administration, either by adding to it a tenet 
 which it does not authorize, or subtracting from it one that 
 it requires. To this extent it supplies a rule for subscription. 
 
 I agree to this rule, and do not assert anything contrary to 
 it when I affirm the historical sense of the Creed. I intend 
 by this formula to emphasize several things. 
 
 (1) The language of the Creed must be interpreted histor- 
 ically. Its traditional terms, not otherwise explained, must 
 
69 
 
 have their traditional meaning. . Whatever of strictness, 
 whatever of liberality, belongs to them when thus under- 
 stood, enures to the subscriber now as at the first. 
 
 Such words and phrases are some already noticed : "only 
 perfect rule of faith and practice," " three Persons," " same 
 in substance," " equal in power and glory," " Adam, the fed- 
 eral head and representative," and so on. 
 
 Many Trinitarians hold to a personal or hypostatic subor- 
 dination of the Son to the Father. So long as this is not under- 
 stood to contradict what is affirmed by the phrase " same in 
 substance," there is nothing in the Creed to exclude such a 
 mode of belief. For the phrase " equality in power and 
 glory " historically interpreted does not exclude either official 
 •or personal subordination, but only essential. One who 
 •denies the true Divinity of the Son could not sign the Creed 
 honestly, but any believer in this doctrine, though a subordi- 
 nationist, might accept it. We have here, as very often in 
 the Creed, phrases which are not contracted but comprehen- 
 sive, leaving room for many minor modifications of belief. 
 
 So the term "federal head," which also is left undefined, 
 has a historical latitude of meaning. It came into vogue in 
 opposition to an extreme type of Calvinism. It represented 
 a new departure. It characterized a movement away from 
 scholastic Calvinism in the direction of a Biblical Calvinism. 
 It was a protest against an over-wrought doctrine of sov- 
 ereignty, in the interest of human freedom. A man is not 
 simply a creature, but a person, with whom God condescends 
 to make a covenant. A distinguished theologian, to whom 
 I have before referred, contends that the Creed must be taken 
 in all its details, and cannot be taken as other Creeds are 
 taken, but when he speaks of its federal terms he says, in 
 language already partly quoted, 1 that the Founders " believed 
 wisely in the ' covenant of redemption ' and in the ' covenant 
 of grace,' as these terms were understood by the divines 
 whom they deemed most authoritative. Those Hopkinsians, 
 however, did- not believe in any literal covenant of works. 
 They would use the term figuratively . . . ' Thus by a 
 
 1 The Associate Creed of And. Theol. Sem., pp. 44, 45. 
 
70 
 
 "wise'" interpretation and a "figurative"' interpretation, all 
 the " details" of the Creed can be accepted literally! 
 
 But there is no need of such latitudinarian canons. 
 
 Taken historically all these terms are way-marks of pro- 
 gress along the line of modern theology, as it has more and 
 more realized the true character of God as revealed in Christ, 
 his overstepping the bounds of instituted law in the promises 
 of his grace, his dealing with men as persons endowed by 
 Him with inalienable rights. Professor Park has been wont 
 to say that the covenant of works was made in Holland. It 
 was — and it has in it the principle of liberty for which the 
 Netherlander fought by land and sea. I would not miss from 
 the Creed Bullinger's "covenant of grace" or Cocceius's 
 " covenant of works " in the form of Adam's federal headship. 
 They are all there, and the signer of the Creed has his rights 
 under them and to them. They are still a standing protest 
 against an extreme type of Calvinism which after having 
 been modified by Federalism suddenly shot up like Jonah's 
 gourd in Emmonsism. The Creed, as Professor Park wisely 
 but not figuratively claims, is " protective," if historically 
 taken, and as a whole. 
 
 (2) Whenever traditional language is departed from and 
 new phraseology introduced we are brought into special 
 contact with the intention of the Founders. 
 
 In the legal interpretation of a document which is com- 
 posed of printed matter and written statements, the latter 
 have the preference in interpreting the author's purpose. It 
 more especially expresses his mind and will. 
 
 This is an important principle in its application to the 
 Seminary Creed. 
 
 There are three parts of the Creed in which these novelties 
 of doctrine appear — the part which relates to original sin, 
 the one which treats of redemption, and the part which 
 treats of God's universal moral government ; and the new 
 matter introduced consists of either an enlargement or cor- 
 rection of the traditional theology in respect to two points, 
 God's purpose of redemption, and the ethical principles by 
 which He is governed in dealing with men ; these two aspects 
 
71 
 
 of truth being indeed but one principle by which Theology 
 always makes what progress it achieves, namely, a more 
 thoroughly ethical or Christian apprehension of God. 
 
 The truth of what I have been saying will appear to any 
 one who examines intelligently a copy of the Creed, like the 
 one I have prepared which shows by Italics those portions 
 which are copied from the Shorter Catechism, by Roman 
 type and black ink where the thoughts of the Westminster 
 Standards are reproduced, and by red ink what is new. 
 
 " Every Professor on this foundation shall be a Master of 
 Arts of the Protestant Reformed Religion, an ordained Min- 
 ister of the Congregational or Presbyterian denomination, 
 and shall sustain the character of a discreet, honest, learned, 
 and devout Christian, an orthodox and consistent Calvinist ; 
 and, after a careful examination by the Visitors with reference 
 to his religious principles, he shall, on the day of his inaugu- 
 ration, publicly make and subscribe a solemn declaration of 
 his faith in Divine Revelation, and in the fundamental and 
 distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel as expressed in the 
 following Creed, which is supported by the infallible Revela- 
 tion which God constantly makes of Himself in his works of 
 creation, providence, and redemption, namely : — 
 
 " I believe that there is one, and but one, . . . living and 
 true God ; that the word of God, . . . contained in the 
 Scriptures of the Old and Neiv Testament, 1 is the only perfect 
 rule of faith and practice ; that agreeably to those Scriptures 
 God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, 
 wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth; that in 
 the Godhead . . . are three Perso7is, the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost ; and that these Three are One God, the 
 same in substance, equal in poiver and glory ; that God cre- 
 ated man . . . after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, 
 and holiness ; that the glory of God is mans chief end, the 
 enjoyment of God his supreme happiness ; that this enjoy- 
 ment is derived solely from conformity of heart to the moral 
 character and will of God ; that Adam, the federal head and 
 
 1 S. C, Testaments. 
 
72 
 
 representative of the human race, was placed in a state of 
 probation, and that in consequence of his disobedience all 
 his descendants were constituted sinners ; that by nature 
 every man is personally depraved, destitute of holiness, 
 unlike and opposed to God ; and that previously to the 
 renewing agency of the Divine Spirit all his moral actions 
 are adverse to the character and glory of God ; that being 
 morally incapable of recovering the image of ' his Creator, 
 which was lost in Adam, every man is justly exposed to 
 eternal damnation ; so that, except a man be born again he 
 cannot see the kingdom of God ; that God, . . . of his mere 
 good pleasure, from all eternity, elected so?ne to everlasting 
 life, and that he entered, into a covenant of grace to deliver 
 them out of this state of sin and misery . . . by a Redeemer ; 
 that the only Redeemer of the elect is the eternal S071 of God, 
 who for this purpose became man, and . . . continues to be 
 God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever ; 
 that Christ as our Redeemer executeth the office l of a Prophet, 
 . . . Priest, and . . . King; that agreeably to the covenant 
 of redemption the Son of God, and he alone, by his suffering 
 and death, has made atonement for the sins of all men ; that 
 repentance, faith, and holiness are the personal requisites in 
 the Gospel scheme of salvation ; that the righteousness of 
 Christ is the only ground of a sinner's justification ; that this 
 righteousness is received through faith, and that this faith is 
 the gift of God ; so that our salvation is wholly of grace ; 
 that no means whatever can change the heart of a sinner 
 and make it holy ; that regeneration and sanctification are 
 effects of the creating and renewing agency of the Holy 
 Spirit, and that supreme love to God constitutes the essential 
 difference between saints and sinners : that, by convincing us 
 of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds, . . . working 
 faith in us, and renewing our wills, 2 the Holy Spirit makes us 
 partakers of the benefits of redemption, and that the . . . 
 ordinary means by which these benefits are communicated to 
 us are the Word, sacraments, and prayer; that repentance 
 unto life, faith to feed upon Christ, love to God, and new 
 
 i S. C, offices. 2 S. C'., will. 
 
73 
 
 obedience are the appropriate qualifications for the Lord's 
 Supper, and that a Christian Church ought to admit no 
 person to its holy communion before he exhibit credible 
 evidence of his godly sincerity ; that perseverance in holi- 
 ness is the only method of making our calling and election 
 sure, and that the final perseverance of saints, though it is 
 the effect of the special operation of God on their hearts, 
 yet necessarily implies their own watchful diligence ; that 
 they who are effectually called do in this life partake of justifi- 
 cation, adoption, and sanctification and the several benefits which 
 . . . do either accompany or flow from them ; that the souls 
 of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and 
 do immediately pass into glory; that their bodies, being still 
 united to Christ, will at the resurrection be . . . raised up to 
 glory, and that the saints will be made perfectly blessed in the 
 full enjoyment of God to all eternity; but that the wicked 
 will awake to shame and everlasting contempt, and with 
 devils be plunged into the lake that burnetii with fire and 
 brimstone for ever and ever. I moreover believe that God, 
 according to the counsel of his own will and for his own glory, 
 hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that all beings, 
 actions, and events, both in the natural and moral world, are 
 under his providential direction ; that God's decrees perfectly 
 consist with human liberty, God's universal agency with the 
 agency of man, and man's dependence with his accountabil- 
 ity ; that man has understanding and corporeal strength to 
 do all that God requires of him, so that nothing but the 
 sinner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation ; that it is 
 the prerogative of God to bring good out of evil, and that he 
 will cause the wrath and rage of wicked men and devils to 
 praise him ; and that all the evil which has existed, and will 
 forever exist, in the moral system, will eventually be made 
 to promote a most important purpose under the wise and 
 perfect administration of that Almighty Being who will cause 
 all things to work for his own glory, and thus fulfil all his 
 pleasure. And, furthermore, I do solemnly promise that I 
 will open and explain the Scriptures to my Pupils with 
 integrity and faithfulness ; that I will maintain and inculcate 
 
74 
 
 the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed by me now- 
 repeated, together with all the other doctrines and duties of 
 our holy Religion, so far as may appertain to my office, 
 according to the best light God shall give me, and in opposi- 
 tion not only to atheists and infidels, but to Jews, Papists, 
 Mahometans, Arians, Pelagians, Antinomians, Arminians, 
 Socinians, Sabellians, Unitarians, and Universalists, and to 
 all other heresies and errors, ancient or modern, which may 
 be opposed to the Gospel of Christ or hazardous to the souls 
 of men ; that b} T my instruction, counsel, and example I 
 will endeavor to promote true Piety and Godliness; that 
 I will consult the good of this Institution and the peace of 
 the Churches of our Lord Jesus Christ on all occasions ; and 
 that I will religiously conform to the Constitution and Laws 
 of this Seminary, and to the Statutes of this Foundation." 
 
 4 It follows from such a study of the Creed as I have indi- 
 cated and from the application of the principle I have stated, 
 that where contradiction would otherwise exist the con- 
 trolling principle must be found in the interjected or new 
 statement. The old cannot fetter the new ; on the contrary 
 the new may liberate the old. 
 
 Take the article about "-federal head." If the Creed 
 must be taken in its every detail, it asserts, as we have seen 
 not figuratively but plainly and literally, the doctrine of the 
 covenant of works. You cannot take this theory and at 
 the same time accept one which contradicts it. But if any 
 one should arise and take up the contention once so vigorously 
 pressed against an Abbot Professor by Dr. Dana and Parsons 
 Cooke and others, and insist that the Catechism and the 
 Creed required that Professor to accept federal headship 
 not in a figurative but in a literal sense, and that for nearly 
 half a century he was guilty of a stupendous breach of 
 trust and of violating his repeated solemn promises, a his- 
 torical interpretation of the Creed will amply protect his 
 good name. For if there is, as is claimed, a contradiction 
 of theories in the Creed, the new formula has a superior 
 power to the old, and so the Professor was quite in accord 
 
75 
 
 with the Creed in his lifelong rejection of federal head- 
 ship and advocacy of the theory recognized if not with 
 entire distinctness in the other portion of the article, at 
 least in this when interpreted in the light of the promi- 
 nence elsewhere given to the principle of personal moral 
 agency. 
 
 Or take again the statement about a universal atonement. 
 You cannot evidently harmonize universal atonement and 
 limited atonement. Neither can you find in the Creed pre- 
 cisely the later theory of general atonement and particular 
 redemption. The general atonement of the Creed is some- 
 thing wrought out under the " Covenant of Redemption." 
 At the same time you cannot deny that under the phraseol- 
 ogy of redemption is introduced a universal atonement ; and 
 this" is not only unmistakably stated, but is the new element, 
 and therefore par excellence to be insisted upon. All the pre- 
 vious language, therefore, which embodies the older theory of 
 limited atonement must be qualified by this ruling article — 
 in other words the whole doctrine of the covenant of grace, 
 with particular election and redemption must be subsumed 
 under the doctrine of universal redemption, and this again, 
 so far as the covenant of redemption goes, must be adjusted 
 to personal responsibility and the doctrine of retribution for 
 the wicked at the day of final judgment. 
 
 Any one who takes the Creed in this way comes as near 
 as it is possible to come to the mind of those who framed it. 
 And it is no small honor to these men that at the early date 
 when the Creed was written they were willing thus to mod- 
 ify the traditional Calvinism in the interest of a new move- 
 ment of thought and to put two essential principles of the 
 New Divinity — Universal Atonement and Personal Agency 
 — into the Creed, and require all who taught in the Seminary 
 to be faithful to them. 
 
 (3). There is room for a progressive interpretation and 
 systemization of the truths of the Creed. 
 
 Dr. Park has enunciated the first and most important part 
 of this proposition. He says, speaking of the Hopkinsian 
 founders, " They were in favor of progress in the interpre- 
 
76 
 
 tation of the Creed, provided that the progress were toward 
 the Hopkinsian interpretation of it." * 
 
 The Hopkinsian elements in the Creed have been already 
 briefly characterized. They constitute the bulk of the addi- 
 tions to the Westminster statements. They include the 
 principles of a universal atonement and personal agency. 
 
 But who will presume to say that these great principles 
 had accomplished all their service for theology when they 
 were put into the Creed, or at the close of any later period 
 in the history of the Seminary? Who will doubt that the 
 influence they already have exerted on the interpretation of 
 other doctrines mentioned in the Creed must go on? 
 
 Historical interpretation gives us first the Creed in its 
 meaning as understood by its framers : it also gives us the 
 Creed as it proves to be a living fountain for others who re- 
 ceive it. No Creed is ever estimated aright or interpreted 
 aright, until the principles in it which were vital to the 
 authors of it are understood in their vitality, and vitality 
 means alwa} r s growth. 
 
 The other portion of my remark is no less true and im- 
 portant. The Creed admits of a progressive systematization 
 of doctrine. I think it incites to such progress. It makes no 
 attempt at systematic statement. It aims rather to enumer- 
 ate the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel. 
 Any work of systemizing is left to others. But its enumera- 
 tion is the fruit of systemizing ; and a historical interpretation, 
 bringing to light its distinctive characteristics, shows how 
 the inherited system is already modified, and how further 
 changes are prophesied. 
 
 Put into the creed of old Calvinism, universal atonement, 
 universal free moral agency, a higher conception of person- 
 ality, and the system cannot remain what it was. The Hop- 
 kinsian founders were determined it should not, and the 
 history of the Seminary proved they were right. 
 
 What a historical interpretation most emphatically suggests 
 is the line along which this progress will move — what the 
 direction of the systemizing process will be. It is from 
 
 1 The Associate Creed, p. M. 
 
77 
 
 the formal to the real ; from power to character, from work to 
 person. So it has been in the entire history of theology as 
 cultivated at Andover. Federalism gave way to the reality 
 of a divine constitution, to laws of heredity and ethical re- 
 sponsibility. The work of Christ becomes more and more 
 connected with his Person, the government of God with his 
 character. The Creed opens the way to a more and more 
 Christian conception of God and to a systemizing of all 
 religious truth under this inspiration and with this centre. 
 A Christocentric Theology — not a theology that centres in 
 what is commonly understood by the words historic Christ, 
 but one which centres in God as revealed in Christ — is just 
 as admissible under the Creed at Andover as in any Church 
 or School. For the Seminary Creed does not attempt to con- 
 struct a completed system, nor to point out and prescribe in 
 what the ultimate principle of the several truths it requires 
 is to be found. The new elements are naturally thrown into 
 special prominence, but they exclude nothing which is con- 
 sistent with them. An experienced eye detects at once in 
 this symbol the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, the 
 Creed of Chalcedon, the Augsburg Confession and the West- 
 minster Standards, as well as the " improvements " of Ed- 
 wards and Hopkins. And taking the whole into account it 
 will be found to be a truer order and conception of its teach- 
 ing to make the main historic root and stem of all Christian 
 Theology its root and trunk rather than some one of its fruit- 
 ful branches. Calvin had a true instinct when he arranged 
 the topics of Christian faith, in the first edition of his Insti- 
 tutes, according to the scheme of the Apostles' Creed. 
 
 4. The truths of the Seminary Creed may be adjusted to 
 a larger knowledge and life than were open to its framers. 
 A historical study and interpretation of the Creed shows 
 that these truths came to these men as living and fruitful 
 principles, and it is of the very nature of such truths to find 
 new application and service in new forms. 
 
 It is one of the constant surprises to a student of the 
 intellectual and moral history of man to find how differently 
 a system, which has been superseded, appears when it is ap- 
 
78 
 
 proached from the other side and followed through its period 
 of conflict to the time when it wins its victory, and for this 
 reason passes more and more out of sight. Its moving prin- 
 ciples are not thus lost, rather they are now appropriated 
 and assimilated and become a part of the life and working 
 power of the Church. What if a man sees a larger truth 
 in election than individual salvation, is he denying his Cal- 
 vinistic creed? What if he discern, that the principle of 
 probation, on the basis of atonement, when once admitted, 
 will not cramp itself to the meagre knowledge men had a 
 hundred years ago of the perishing millions of Africa and 
 Asia? Does he abandon this principle because he trusts it? 
 What if Christianity seems to him more and more to be the 
 key to history, more and more evidently to mean the powers 
 of recovery which God is pouring into the growing life of 
 the ages, and so with a simpler faith than ever before he 
 turns to the Cross and the Incarnation as the master light 
 of all his seeing, does he thereby renounce his connection with 
 men who could not stop when they had written the article 
 upon the doom of the wicked, but added a new close to their 
 Creed in this stately and comprehensive confession : " (I 
 believe) that it is the prerogative of God to bring good out 
 of evil, and that he will cause the wrath and rage of wicked 
 men to praise Him ; and that all the evil which has existed, 
 and which will forever exist in the moral system will event- 
 ually be made to promote a most important purpose under the 
 wise and perfect administration of that Almighty Being who 
 will cause all things to work for His own glory, and thus fulfil 
 all His pleasure " ? 
 
 When the controversy began, whose outcome is the present 
 trial, an editorial in the Congregationalist described the Semi- 
 nary Creed, with the Visitorial system, " as a complicated and 
 iron-bound endeavor to anchor the orthodoxy of the future 
 as by chain cable to one of its particular phases in the past." 
 The issue thus made in the beginning is the real question at 
 the end. It is a testing question for you, Mr. President and 
 Gentlemen, as well as for me. You are on trial no less than 
 I. The Seminary is on trial. Is it committed to the main- 
 
79 
 
 tenance of transient opinion, or is there a truer interpreta- 
 tion of its Creed ? Is your office like that of a tither of 
 mint, anise and cummin, or are you interpreters of a reli- 
 gious Creed whose words are to be understood in their con- 
 nections with, the life of the Church and with Him whose 
 teaching is Spirit and life ? 
 
 I plead for no license of interpretation, for no violation of 
 any just law of interpretation, for no departure from the 
 natural, grammatical, historic meaning of terms and phrases 
 — but I ask for breadth, insight and justice. I do not ask 
 you to make the Creed utter what we might suppose its 
 framers would say were they living now, but did not because 
 they flourished nearly a century ago — ita Lex scripta est. 
 This is the rule. But finding out what it says, I ask you to 
 interpret it as a whole, to admit the impossibility of making 
 every article in its obligation complete in itself, or any 
 phrase literally binding which is traditional and contradictory 
 to what is new in the Creed and therefore controlling, and I 
 especially ask your attention to the facts that at the begin- 
 ning of my acceptance of the Creed I am reminded of God's 
 constant revelation of Himself, and near its close I make this 
 solemn promise, that I will teach the Christian faith as ex- 
 pressed in the Creed . . together with the other doctrines 
 and duties of our holy religion, so far as may appertain to 
 my office, according to the best light God shall give 
 me. I have tried to follow this light. Until these recent 
 unhappy disputes I have never heard it questioned at Andover 
 but that the Creed could be taken on the principles I have 
 stated. I came with the understanding that it was thus lib- 
 erally interpreted and administered. I supposed such a 
 policy to be as much a recognized part of the institution as 
 having a library or daily prayers. I believe that it alone 
 really fulfils the true intention of the Founders. Among my 
 reasons for such a faith are these : 
 
 1. The Seminary was organized and its Creed drawn to be a 
 means of union of the various parties, or as they were called, 
 denominations, of Orthodox Congregationalists then existing. 
 Few realize how many and deep were the divisions in those 
 
80 
 
 (l avs — leaving out of account the great schism which was 
 hastening — how they fomented jealousies and suspicions 
 and separated brethren into cliques and factions and arrayed 
 them as supporters of this periodical or that, and even of dif- 
 ferent missionary organizations. The necessity *)f union was 
 paramount in the minds of the leading men who founded the 
 Seminary. It appears abundantly in their published corre- 
 spondence, and will not I presume be disputed. Dr. Bacon 
 at the Semi-Centennial of the Seminary expressed the com- 
 mon and undisputed opinion when he characterized the 
 establishment of the Seminary as " an epoch in the history of 
 New England theology," and added " It was founded, not 
 for the special interest of any one locality or district, nor for 
 the special system of any theological discoverer, but for the 
 common interest of the churches, and for the common ortho- 
 dox}' of Massachusetts and New England. It was pledged 
 at the outset to a large and tolerant orthodoxy, as distin- 
 guished from the intolerance and contentiousness by which 
 the little cliques and parties that arise in a particular locality 
 and around a particular great man are too often character- 
 ized.'" 1 Unless there can be room in its Faculty for men who 
 are loyal to what Dr. Bacon calls "the common orthodoxy of 
 Massachusetts and New England " (by which he does not 
 mean the ordinary opinion, or that of a majority), but who 
 differ from others of their brethren as Dr. Stiles differed from 
 Dr. Hopkins, or Emmons from Burton, or French from Spring, 
 all of whom Dr. Bacon regards as within the purpose of the 
 Creed, 2 the Seminary fails to fulfil the object for which it 
 was founded. 
 
 2. The general structure of the Creed and the clauses re- 
 specting God's constant revelation and the promise which 
 implies new light, favor the same conclusion. 
 
 3. The Constitution of the Seminary implies throughout the 
 faith of the Founders in the advancement of religious knowl- 
 edge. It bears throughout the impress of the broad and 
 
 1 Memorial of the Fiftieth Anniversary, Andover : Published by Warren 
 F. I »raper, 1859, p. 101. See also The Panoplist IV. pp. 372, 373. 
 
 2 Memorial, p. 99. 
 
81 
 
 liberal mind of Dr. Pearson, as well as of the generosity and 
 public spirit of the donors. It was founded to increase " the 
 number of learned and able Defenders of the Gospel of Christ 
 as well as of orthodox, pious, and zealous Ministers of the 
 New Testament." A three years' residence was deemed u a 
 period scarcely sufficient for acquiring that fund of knowl- 
 edge which is necessary for a Minister of the Gospel." Greek 
 and Hebrew were made obligatory through the course. Pro- 
 vision was made by which new foundations, whether chairs 
 of instruction or scholarships, should be increased. The cur- 
 riculum sketched at the outset is larger than has yet been 
 realized. A theological university, exceeding any thing before 
 known, was in mind. There was threatening what was re- 
 garded as a great religious defection. It was to be met not 
 simply with religious zeal and asserted authority of revela- 
 tion, but with all available weapons of reason and learning. 
 A perusal of Mr. Abbot's will by which the Seminary re- 
 ceived a most munificent bequest will satisfy any reader of 
 the generous purposes of knowledge with which the institu- 
 tion was started. But is it possible to suppose that all this 
 was done in the expectation that there would be no advance- 
 ment in the understanding of truth, or that men would not 
 be allowed, while holding fast to the principles of the Creed, 
 to put them in new relations and gain new results? 
 
 What actually was done is well known in the case of Pro- 
 fessor Stuart. His friends were at times anxious lest he was 
 verging to Sabellianism or rationalism, and he was always 
 under fire, but Mr. Bartlet went on with his remittances,, 
 and when once a Committee of the Trustees remonstrated 
 at certain offences committed in the first edition of his com- 
 mentary on Romans, Professor Stuart replied that he consid- 
 ered the interference " inquisitorial," and this ended the 
 matter. He taught in variance from the Creed all his life on 
 " The Eternal Sonship," and if, as I suppose to be true, his 
 opinion is now generally rejected, this also shows the wisdom 
 of trusting to the power of truth in such matters. 
 
 The character of the advisers of the Associate Founders, 
 their humility, and their faith in doctrinal progress, the school 
 
82 
 
 of theology to which they belonged, concur to the same 
 result. I have spoken thus far of the so-called Original 
 Founders particular^, but not exclusively, for the Associate 
 Foundation became a part of one and the same institution. 
 
 I turn now to the Hopkinsians. They had the spirit of 
 their great leader whose words I will quote from the memoir 
 by Dr. Park. 
 
 " When tired," sa3's his biographer, " of hearing the stale charge 
 that he had started new doctrines into life, he responds : ' I now 
 declare, I had much rather publish New Divinity than any other. 
 And the more of this the better, — if it be but true. Nor do I 
 think any doctrine can be " too strange to be true." I should 
 think it hardly worth while to write, if I had nothing new to s&y.' 
 In his ' Animadversions on Mr. Hart's Late Dialogue,' Hopkins al- 
 ludes to his having been falsely accused of propounding new 
 theories, and replies : ' This he [Mr. Hart] has done over and over 
 again, about a dozen times. He calls them " new doctrines," " a 
 new system or rather chaos of divinity," " upstart errors," etc. 
 And the teachers of them he calls "new apostles," "new 
 divines," " new teachers," etc. — If this were true, I see not what 
 reason there would be to make such a great outcry about it. 
 There is really no evidence against these doctrines. It is at least 
 possible, that there is some truth contained in the Bible, which has 
 not been commonly taught ; yea, has never been mentioned by 
 any writer since the apostles ; and whenever that shall be dis- 
 covered and brought out, it will be new. And who knows but that 
 some such new discoveries may be made in our daj r ? If so, un- 
 happy and very guilty will be the man who shall attempt to fright 
 people, and raise their prejudices against it, by raising the cry of 
 New Divinity. Indeed, I question whether an author can, with 
 a right temper and view, take this method to run an}- doctrine 
 down, by appealing to the prejudices of people, and keeping up 
 a constant loud cry of new, upstart divinity.' " 1 
 
 " ' There is no reason to doubt,' he says in his seventy-second 
 year, ' that light will so increase in the church, and men will be 
 raised up, who will make such advances in opening the Scripture 
 and in the knowledge of divine truth, that what is now done and 
 
 i Works of Samuel Hopkins, D.D. Boston, Doctrinal Tract and Book 
 Society, 1S52. Vol. I., pp. 177, 178. 
 
83 
 
 written will be so far superseded as to appear imperfect and incon- 
 siderable, compared with that superior light, with which the church 
 will then be blessed.' " : 
 
 It should go without saying that if a Professor, following 
 the best light which dawns upon him, finds himself wander- 
 ing away from the Creed he is not to set up his private judg- 
 ment and conceal his divergence, nor if the variation puts 
 him in contradiction to the essential principles and the intent 
 of the Creed do I raise any question as to his duty or yours. 
 
 What I maintain, and where I abide in good conscience is 
 this : I have not thus violated my obligations under the 
 Creed, even upon a close and technical construction of them. 
 And if, as I also maintain, the Creed is a summary of princi- 
 ples which are to be applied and developed from generation 
 to generation, I have done something far better and more 
 faithful than a literal repetition of them — I have used them, 
 and with them have confronted present great and important 
 questions of religious thought and life. 
 
 What is proposed to be done? To remove, directly or 
 indirectly almost, perhaps quite, an entire Faculty, and to 
 proclaim to the world that an institution started as was 
 Andover Seminary has outlived its usefulness. Not that men 
 cannot be found to fill its chairs who may think that they 
 are taking the Creed literally when they confess at once a 
 limited atonement and an unlimited one, a federal headship 
 which is figurative and an eternal Sonship which is temporal. 
 Not that others still, if necessary, cannot be discovered who 
 hold that when Paul says, " as many as have sinned without 
 law shall also perish without law," he cuts off all hope for 
 every heathen, and no offence need be taken at reading 
 the word all into the Creed when it says that the effect- 
 ually called receive the blessings of salvation in this life, 
 or who still adhere to the theology of the covenants — but 
 it will indeed be a new Andover when such principles of 
 interpretation of the Creed are sanctioned. And how long 
 can such a method of administration be perpetuated ? If 
 indeed the language of the instrument were perfectly plain, 
 
 i Ibid., p. 231. 
 
84 
 
 the argument from consequences would be irrelevant here. 
 But instead of a perspicuous utterance there is at most 
 silence, while for a liberal interpretation are the deep sug- 
 gestions of its great doctrines of atonement and moral 
 agency, of the Incarnation and an infinitely wise and benev- 
 olent and sovereign God, with his purpose binding together 
 the ages, and the declaration of God's larger and constant 
 revelation in his works, and the solemn promise exacted to 
 look for light, and the happy auguries and peaceful promise 
 and generous surroundings of its birth, and the expectation 
 of the Founders that they had established an institution 
 which should continue to bless the world so long as the sun 
 and moon shall endure. 
 
 I am conscious of no desire paramount to the good of 
 the Seminary. The finger of scorn is pointed at what is 
 claimed to be the small support gained for the opinions ex- 
 pressed in Progressive Orthodoxy. We do not set up those 
 opinions as a standard for Andover Professors. Some of our 
 colleagues, esteemed and beloved, may not hold them. I 
 really do not know where they all stand. And, besides, it is 
 a new thing for men who demand fidelity to the Hopkinsian 
 Founders to make the degree of present acceptance of a tenet 
 the test of its truth ! Writing in his seventy-fifth year Dr. 
 Samuel Hopkins said, 
 
 "About forty years ago there were but few, perhaps not more than 
 four or five, who espoused the sentiments which since have been 
 called Edwardean and New Divinity, and, since after some improve- 
 ment was made upon them, Hopkintonian or Hopkinsian senti- 
 ments. But those sentiments have so spread since that time 
 among ministers, especially those who have since come on the 
 stage, that there are now more than one hundred in the ministry, 
 who espouse the same sentiments, in the United States of America. 
 And the number appears to be fast increasing, and these sentiments 
 appear to be coming more and more into credit, and are to be un- 
 derstood, and the odium which has been cast on them, and those 
 who preached them, is greatly subdued." 1 
 
 i Hopkins's Works, I., 237, 238. 
 
85 
 
 His biographer adds that " the spirit of the new Divinity 
 was in the hearts of thousands, who did not favor it in all its 
 forms. The term ' Hopkinsian ' soon became the common des- 
 ignation of those evangelical or orthodox divines who favored 
 the doctrines of general atonement, natural ability, the active 
 nature of all holiness and sin, and the Justice of God in im- 
 puting to men none but their own personal transgressions. " 1 
 That is, in 1756 there were five clergymen who dared believe 
 that men are not punished for a sin they did not commit, and 
 that Christ died for all men, and now I suppose there are not 
 so many in New England who would be willing to be known 
 as holding the opposite. Universal atonement is the orthodox 
 belief. 
 
 It is idle to question that in all lands, in all evangelical 
 churches to-day the question of the personal relation of Christ 
 to the entire race for which He died is receiving an attention 
 never before given to it. The Church at large has never yet 
 passed upon it. It was not before the minds of the authors 
 of the Catechism or of the Seminary Creed. It could not 
 be. Providence shapes problems for the Church. It puts 
 this one before us. It would be at least doubtful whether if 
 the Creed contained some expressions which might be used 
 to exclude the new doctrine it would not be an unwarrant- 
 able use of an incidental phrase to make it interdictive and 
 decisive of a question out of the purview of the framers. 
 Fortunately there is no such difficulty to be settled. The 
 Creed admits by its silence and by its principles, at least as 
 a legitimate inquiry, all that has been contended for by me 
 in the Review and in Progressive Orthodoxy. 
 
 I offer this as a complete and full justification against the 
 charges of the complainants. 
 
 i Ibid., p. 238. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The following are the particular charges which are specially consid- 
 ered, or referred to, in the foregoing argument : — 
 
 Page 9. 
 
 "1. That the Bible is not ' the only perfect rule of faith and practice,' 
 but is fallible and untrustworthy even in some of its religious teachings." 
 
 Page 20. 
 
 "2. That Christ in the days of his humiliation was a finite being, 
 
 limited in all his attributes, capacities and attainments; in other words, 
 
 was not ' God and Man.' " 
 
 Page 20. 
 
 " 3. That no man has power or capacity to repent without knowledge 
 of God in Christ." 
 
 Page 24. 
 "4. That mankind, save as they have received a knowledge of 'the 
 historic Christ,' are not sinners, or, if they are, not of such sinfulness aa 
 to be in danger of being lost. (' Progressive Orthodoxy,' p. 55.) " 
 
 Page 25. 
 
 " 5. That no man can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ. 
 (' Progressive Orthodoxy,'' pp. 63, 64.) " 
 
 Page 25. 
 
 " 6. That the atonement of Christ consists essentially and chiefly in 
 his becoming identified with the human race through his incarnation, in 
 order that, by his union with men, he might endow them with the power 
 to repent, and thus impart to them an augmented value in the view of 
 God, and so render God propitious towards them." 
 
 Page 26. 
 
 " 7. That the Trinity is modal, or monarchian, and not a Trinity of 
 
 Persons." 
 
 Page 31. 
 
 " 8. That the work of the Holy Spirit is chiefly confined to the sphere 
 
 of historic Christianity." 
 
 Page 31. 
 
 " 9. That without the knowledge of God in Christ, men do not deserve 
 
 the punishment of the law, and that therefore their salvation is not 
 
 ' wholly of grace.' " 
 
 Page 31. 
 
 " 10. That faith ought to be scientific and rational rather than 
 
 scriptural." 
 
 Page 33. 
 
 " 11. That there is, and will be, probation after death for all men who 
 
 do not decisively reject Christ during the earthly life ; and that this 
 
 should be emphasized, made influential, and even central in systematic 
 
 theology." 
 
 The " Reply" to which reference is made on page 24 and elsewhere, is 
 the answer filed by the respondent with the Board of Visitors on Nov. 
 30, 1S86, and extensively published by the daily press. 
 
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR WILLIAM J. TUCKER. 
 
 Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors : 
 
 It is not my intention, nor the intention of the respondents 
 who may follow me, to traverse the ground covered in the 
 argument of our honored colleague. We adopt by common 
 consent the views therein expressed in regard to the Creed 
 of the Seminary, and the terms of subscription to it, and we 
 accept the answer therein made to the charges and specifica- 
 tions of the complainants. If now we make further demands 
 upon your time in this hearing — and our demands will not 
 be large — to meet the charges as preferred against us in 
 person, it is because of personal relations which we severally 
 hold to the Creed of the Seminary. There are obligations 
 which apply to us in common, and there are obligations and 
 requirements which derive a special meaning and force from 
 their application to the departments which we individually 
 represent. 
 
 Before I pass to my personal defense, I ask your indul- 
 gence for the moment to an incidental matter of general inter- 
 est. During the progress of this hearing, frequent reference 
 has been made in somewhat depreciatory language to the 
 interposition of counsel on behalf of the respondents. I call 
 up the fact of the employment of counsel not for apology but 
 for explanation. The first intimation which we received of 
 these proceedings was in the receipt of a communication from 
 your honorable body containing the charges and specifica- 
 tions of the complainants, accompanied by an order that we 
 file an answer within fifteen days. We had no knowledge 
 whatever of the affair beyond that which was conveyed in 
 
88 
 
 the communication before us. We knew nothing of the 
 origin or motive or resources of the prosecution. It seemed 
 to be an organized movement and representative of some- 
 thing, for one of the prosecutors signed himself " a trustee " 
 and the others "a committee of certain of the Alumni." 
 To this communication we made reply at the specified 
 time, not only without counsel, but without having taken 
 legal advice ; and each man made reply for himself, not as in 
 the answer to the amended complaint, when we united in a 
 common reply. It was not until the case began to assume a 
 judicial character under the subsequent orders of your Board, 
 that we introduced counsel, and from that time the case has 
 gone on upon its legal or theological side as either issue has for 
 the time been uppermost. I have recalled this fact, in refer- 
 ence to our first answer, to your knowledge, because iljfhas 
 been overlooked and obscured. You will bear us witness that 
 the original reply anticipated all legal procedures, and that it 
 was direct, frank and specific upon the theological questions 
 at issue. 
 
 The charge, Mr. President, upon which I appear before 
 you in this hearing, I now understand to be that of hetero- 
 doxy in respect to the Creed, involving the more special 
 charge upon myself in connection with Professor Smyth, 
 according to the terms of our foundations, that I am "not 
 an orthodox and consistent Calvinist." Up to the closing 
 argument for the complainants, there seemed to be no little 
 confusion between the complainants and their counsel as to 
 the exact nature of this prosecution, whether it were for 
 breach of trust or for heresy. The argument to which I have 
 referred seems to settle this question. The Counsel said ; 
 " There is no breach of trust suggested against Professor 
 Smyth by me, and there has not been. It must have been 
 only casually, by inference, if it has ever been introduced 
 into these proceedings. We never expected any such thing 
 would be done." And again " I should suppose that if any 
 doctrine, held as a distinctive doctrine by this interesting 
 company of persons, not intended in any way to be approved, 
 
89 
 
 commended or forwarded by the Foundation of the Andover 
 Theological Seminary, who seemed to be grouped here at the 
 end of the creed, almost on the principle of the tares, bind- 
 ing them in bundles to burn them, — ' In opposition not only 
 to Atheists and Infidels, but to Jews, Papists, Mahometans, 
 Arians, Pelagians, Antinominians, Arminians, Socinians, Sa- 
 bellians, Unitarians, and Universalists, and all other heresies 
 and errors,' — I should suppose that there could be no doubt 
 that if there were anything which could be included in that 
 list, could be proved and established in this theological dis- 
 cussion as having been taught by a professor at Andover, 
 you would have no difficulty about it." 
 
 Assuming from these admissions that the charge is that of 
 heterodoxy in regard to the Creed of the Seminary, I will 
 say that I accept without question, whatever of responsibil- 
 ity may attach to the publication of the articles, and of the 
 book, from which the citations in support of the charges 
 have been drawn. I make no distinction between what I 
 teach and what I publish, alone or in responsible connection 
 with others, save in this regard — and upon this distinction 
 I do insist — I endeavor to teach according to the natural 
 proportion of truth ; I publish according to the exigencies of 
 public discussion, claiming in this regard the unvexed right 
 of publication, subject only to fidelity to the Constitution 
 and Creed of the Seminary in the subject-matter of what I 
 publish. 
 
 My defense is twofold. It covers my personal and my offi- 
 cial relation to the Creed. 
 
 / answer first ; that the theology of " Progressive Ortho- 
 doxy " is a natural and legitimate outcome of the Creed of 
 the Seminary, especially at the point of greatest contention, 
 that of probation for all men under the gospel. I may be 
 allowed to say that there is a presumption in favor of this 
 theology as consistent with the teachings of Andover, be- 
 cause it is held and put forth by men who are theologically 
 the product of Andover or of the influences which made 
 Andover. 
 
 In the original form under which the charges were pre- 
 
90 
 
 ferred, three of the four complainants signed themselves as a 
 Committee of " certain of the Alumni." This term alumni 
 has in itself a significance which does not necessarily attach 
 to any merely official connection with the Seminary. It is 
 suggestive of the more sensitive, if less responsible, relations 
 of loyalty and affection. In this respect to be an alumnus 
 is more than to be a professor or a trustee or a visitor. 
 When therefore a case is made up of certain alumni against 
 certain professors, it seems to be a case in the interest of 
 loyalty. 
 
 But, in the present instance, of the five accused pfttfessors 
 four are alumni, and of the one who is not an alumnus, though 
 for a considerable time a graduate student, it may fairly be' 
 said that in what belongs to him by inheritance, and in what 
 he has earned by long and devoted service, he represents more? 
 than any other one of us, of this quality of affectionate loy- 
 alty. Another professor, I refer to Professor Churchill, passed 
 immediately upon graduation into the service of the Seminary. 
 And of the remaining three, Professors Harris, Hineks and 
 myself, graduating within two or three years of one another* 
 we came back into the service of the Seminary chiefly be- 
 cause we were alumni. We were not ambitious of the posi- 
 tions which we now fill. Content and satisfied in the work of 
 the pastorate we returned to Andover at its call because we 
 loved Andover. We had its traditions ; our roots were in 
 its soil. And coming to our chairs from the pastorate, not 
 from fields of speculative thought, but from contact with 
 men, we brought with us those conceptions of Christian 
 truth which we have since tried to unfold. For myself it is 
 absolutely true, that I am conscious of holding no other gos- 
 pel to-day, in any other spirit or with any other conclusion, 
 than that which I held in my active ministry, and it never 
 occurred to me, though in the course of my ministry I crossed 
 and recrossed the line of my denomination that Andover 
 would ever summon me to account for my holding of the 
 gospel as contrary to her traditions, her teachings and her 
 spirit. I speak now as an alumnus, not as a professor. And 
 in so speaking I think that I represent at least " certain of 
 
91 
 
 the Alumni." For I remember that when attempts have 
 been made at regularly constituted alumni meetings to 
 inaugurate proceedings like the present, they have ignomin- 
 iously failed. 
 
 I am singled out, Mr. President, in connection with Pro- 
 fessor Srnj'th upon the charge, related, I suppose to the 
 theory of a Christian probation, that I am not an " orthodox 
 and. consistent Calvinist." You will allow me to say, with- 
 out argument, that if I am not " an orthodox and consistent 
 Calvinist," according to the Creed, in my theological convic- 
 tions and methods, I am nothing. Without permitting my- 
 self to put that which is of a name or of a school above that 
 which is* of Christ, I believe in Calvinism, not as the Creed 
 found it but as the Creed tried to leave it. I believe in its 
 ruling idea and method as against the idea and method to 
 which it is historically opposed. I locate the hope of man 
 in the power and purpose of God, not in exaggerated and 
 unreal notions of man's ability. Christianity is to me above 
 all things a religion of motives. Calvinism is a religion of 
 motives. It emphasizes the " power of God " unto salvation, 
 though in its older and higher forms it limits the application 
 of the power, shutting it up within an arbitrary election. 
 The Creed takes up this idea of power which inheres in Cal- 
 vinism and gives it breadth and freedom. To me it is an 
 inspiration, remembering the struggle of which the Creed 
 bears ineradicable marks, which makes the Creed a thing of 
 life and not an instrument of bondage — to me it is an inspi- 
 ration to follow this idea of divine power and purpose, which 
 the Creed inherits from the Catechism, as it feels its way 
 along till it finds the gateway of universal Atonement, 
 through which it pours its now free and invigorating current. 
 The current which runs through the Creed is Calvinism. 
 The Creed widens its banks. And the natural culmination 
 of the Calvinism of the Creed lies to my mind in the very 
 hope of which I am chiefly called in question, the hope 
 which I reverently entertain without equivocation and with- 
 out excuse, that God according to the eternal purpose which 
 he purposed in Christ, will see to it that every soul comes 
 
92 
 
 into some real relation to Christ's atoning sacrifice before 
 any soul passes into the eternal condemnation. And in the 
 name of the Calvinism of the Creed I protest against the 
 contention of those who, reaching in some other way a like 
 conclusion, who are indignant if a theology with a narrower 
 conclusion is imputed to them, do yet charge me with being 
 heterodox toward the Creed, if I believe that God is saving 
 such as are being saved in the way of consistent Calvinism 
 and of orthodox Christianity. 
 
 I have used the latter term, orthodox Christianity, ad- 
 visedly. For as I believe the philosophy of those who deny 
 the possibility of a Christian probation to all men, leads 
 awa}' from orthodox Christianity. If there be any in these 
 days who accept the dogma of the universal perdition of the 
 race outside Christianity, these are removed from an} r interest 
 or concern in existing controversies. But among those who 
 refuse to accept the dogma, there can be but two parties, 
 those who look upon man as the subject of redemption, 
 and therefore accessible in some way and at some time to 
 the motives of redemption, and those who look upon man 
 as having a sufficiency of motive in himself under the light 
 of nature, and under the work of the Spirit independent of 
 the cross of Christ. Can there be any doubt as to which of 
 these theories is the more closely related to Calvinism and 
 which to Unitarianism ? Can there be any doubt toward 
 which the Creed of the Seminary inclines ? If Andover 
 Seminary was established to oppose and counteract any in- 
 fluence it was that of Unitarianism. For this object the 
 more extreme parties in orthodoxy were willing to sink their 
 differences and unite. This is an historic fact which none 
 will dispute. Now I do not charge upon those who hold the 
 theory of salvation under the light of nature that they are 
 Unitarians, but I do wish to suggest to you that in their ea- 
 gerness to use any and all arguments to combat the theory 
 of a Christian probation, they are making themselves exceed- 
 ingly familiar with the old time arguments of Unitarians in 
 regard to Christian Missions. And I wish to suggest further 
 that in the impending conflict in this country between Chris- 
 
93 
 
 tianit} r and Naturalism it is of some consequence which way 
 the influence of Anclover counts. The present controversy 
 may seem provincial. It is called so by some who have not 
 discovered its larger bearings. But it is the door through 
 which New England theology is to enter in and take its part 
 in the contention to which I have referred, the contention 
 between Christianity and Naturalism. And my study of the 
 Creed convinces me that Andover has in hand a weapon of 
 exceeding keenness and power if its edge is not turned in 
 the very opening of the conflict. 
 
 My second answer has to do with my official relation to 
 the Creed. I am a teacher of Homiletics. It is my duty to 
 instruct in regard to the subject-matter and the method of 
 preaching, and show how the truth can be made the instru- 
 ment of conviction and persuasion in bringing men to 
 Christ. 
 
 I answer then in the second place that the method of the 
 theology which is called in question best satisfies the require- 
 ments of the Creed in respect to the conduct of my profess- 
 orship. I am called upon in that Creed to teach the truth 
 in opposition to all errors which are " hazardous to the souls 
 of men." To me this is the most serious part of the Creed. 
 Even in the enumeration of errors which gives to the Creed 
 a somewhat belligerent tone one detects the earnestness and 
 scope of its intention. It was this part of the Creed which 
 chiefly arrested my attention when examining it with a view 
 to subscription. And the terms of my subscription, accord 
 ing to the testimony which I have given you, were in these 
 words — " The Creed which I am about to read, and to which 
 I shall subscribe, I fully accept as setting forth the truth 
 against the errors which it was designed to meet." How 
 was I to carry out the terms of my subscription? How was 
 I to fulfil the intention of the Creed? The question was 
 one of method. I tried to answer it according to my experi- 
 ence. I came to my professorship after a pastoral service of 
 twelve years. The two communities in which my pastorates 
 were served gave me ready and full access to the thoughts 
 of men, especially to the thoughts of men in their scepticism 
 
94 
 
 and oppositions to Christianity. And under the study which 
 this intercourse gave me I discovered that error has two 
 means of livelihood. A given error lives because of the 
 truth in it. No error is all error. And it lives because of 
 the error in the truth which opposes it. Error thrives upon 
 all insincerities and exaggerations in the holding of truth. 
 Mohammedanism, to take a remote example of the errors 
 which I am to oppose, lives upon the truth which inheres 
 in it, the truth of God in His unity and sovereignty : a 
 truth so profound and vital that it is impossible for any 
 but the purest type of Christianity to live beside it : a truth 
 which makes it, in the presence of an impure Christianity, 
 a perpetual "scourge of God." Take now an error speci- 
 fied in the Creed which is close at hand and most involved 
 in the present controversy, that of Universalisin. Upon 
 what does Universalism rely for its increase? Not simply 
 upon the truths which it holds, for most of these are held 
 in common with the Evangelical denominations. Universal 
 ism thrives upon the errors of orthodoxy, upon all exagger- 
 ated, untenable, insincere assertions of the orthodox faith. 
 My complainants charge " Progressive Orthodoxy " with 
 teaching toward Universalism. What is their alternative 
 under the Creed? The interpretation which they have 
 sought to put upon the Creed to counteract this tendency is 
 to be seen in their use of the clause respecting those who 
 are effectually called as in this life partaking of justification, 
 adoption and sanctification. What must this clause say to 
 be of use to them ? Why this, that those only who do in 
 this life share in the results of effectual calling, justifica- 
 tion, adoption, sanctification and the like, are effectually 
 called, that is saved : all others, including the mass of the 
 heathen, and, by logic, all infants are lost. Now if this is 
 the true interpretation of the Creed it is to be taught. I am 
 to teach my pupils to preach it. Suppose they do preach it ; 
 what better means can they take to build up Universalism ? 
 Is this the way to meet that error ? What is the intellectual 
 difficulty which Universalism seeks to meet and solve ? I 
 have not found many men who disbelieved in future punish- 
 
95 
 
 ment. I have not found it difficult to gain a response from 
 any congregation when preaching upon this doctrine. The 
 intellectual difficulty does not lie in the doctrine itself, fear- 
 ful as it is, but in the injustice and inequalities of appli- 
 cation which attach to it under some representations of it. 
 The state of the public mind in respect to this doctrine of 
 future punishment, so far as I have observed, is precisely 
 like that which existed fifty years ago in respect to the doc- 
 trine of election. Men were not then in revolt against the 
 sovereignty of God. They were in revolt against the nar- 
 row and arbitrary application of it. They are in revolt 
 to-day against a like narrow and arbitrary application of the 
 Divine justice ; they are in revolt against the assertion of a 
 dogma, which assigns the greater part of the human race to 
 perdition without the opportunity of accepting or rejecting 
 its Redeemer. 
 
 This much for the Creed on its apologetic side as related 
 to the pulpit. I am more concerned with the Creed on its 
 evangelistic side, for the great end which it has in view is 
 the conversion of men under the proclamation of the gospel. 
 But here it is charged that " Progressive Orthodoxy" takes 
 away the urgency of the gospel, that it changes the accent 
 of the gospel, in the emphasis which it naturally lays on the 
 present. To which I reply that the view there set forth 
 ought to produce, and does produce when accepted, precisely 
 the opposite effect. Why is the preacher able to say to men, 
 "Now is the accepted time." " Now is the day of salvation"? 
 Is it not because of the offer of salvation which has gone be- 
 fore? Suppose a missionary to go up and down Africa and 
 without first offering Christ to men to say to them " Now is 
 the accepted time ! " what meaning would his words convey ? 
 Words take their meaning from their connection. It is the 
 incoming of Christianity, the offer of salvation, which puts 
 such a meaning into the " now " of men's lives. So the Bap- 
 tist as he saw the Jewish skies beginning to flush under the 
 dawn of Christianity cried out with a new meaning, " Repent, 
 the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So Peter at Pentecost, 
 standing in the shadow of the cross, and beside the open 
 
96 
 
 grave of Christ, could say to men with such result as fol- 
 lowed, "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the 
 remission of sins." And so Paul at Athens, proclaiming a 
 risen Christ could declare that the times of ignorance God 
 had overlooked, but now he commandeth all men every- 
 where to repent. We are so familiar with the call to repent- 
 ance that we forget that it assumes the gospel. Herein lay 
 the irrelevancy of all the passages quoted by Dr. Dexter from 
 the sermons of the early New England divines to prove their 
 opinion upon the question of a future probation. They all 
 assumed that their hearers had now the full opportunity of 
 accepting Christ and therefore there would be no other and 
 better one, an inference with which we are in full agree- 
 ment. Herein too lay the significance of the sermon in- 
 troduced by Dr. Wellman into his argument, in which he 
 tried to show how those who believed in the possibilities of 
 men in Christ because of their vital relation to him even in 
 their sin, would preach to sinners. Listening to that sermon, 
 even under its unsympathetic statement of the idea, I forgot 
 for the time the argument, I became indifferent to the irony, 
 I felt the truth. So I try to teach men to preach Christ to 
 their fellow-men so that they can say to them, now, and now 
 only, is the accepted time ; for now, you have your possibili- 
 ties in Christ ; now your decision is full and final. 
 
 Now am I right or am I wrong in this conception of the 
 Creed as related to preaching? I ask your opinion. I want 
 to know in some authoritative way whether or no this is 
 heterodoxy. I ask for no charitable construction of the 
 Creed in any other than the legal sense of the term. I want 
 to know what its working construction is. I want to know 
 how I am to handle the creed in my endeavor to train men 
 to preach the truth, whether they are dealing with error, or 
 whether they are dealing with the glorious imperatives of the 
 gospel. 
 
 I conclude this personal statement with a brief reference 
 to the changes which have taken place since my official con- 
 nection with the Seminary. I came to Andover in 1880. 
 That was two years before the present disturbance. My 
 
97 
 
 term of service covers the transition from what is called the 
 old to what is called the new. The term new departure is 
 not our term. Two years before the election of Dr. Newman 
 Smyth to the chair of Theology, that is in the year 1880, 
 the class entering the Seminary numbered ten. The year 
 following, 1881, the entering class numbered live. If charges 
 are brought against the present administration of Andover, 
 tending to show its decline, let care be taken in the matter 
 of dates. To-day there are forty-eight undergraduate stu- 
 dents at Andover, — this does not include fourth year men or 
 fellows — giving the Seminary the second place in numbers 
 among the four Congregational Seminaries of New England 
 and if I am not mistaken the second place among the Con- 
 gregational Seminaries in the country in the number of 
 regular students. And during these years of suspicion and 
 opposition the graduates of the Seminary have passed with- 
 out exception into the service of the churches. They all fill 
 honored pastorates in New England and throughout the 
 country. Meanwhile I know of no function of the Seminary 
 which has been reduced. I know of no relation to the 
 churches which has been broken, not even that relation 
 which allows the return to the Seminary of gifts of money. 
 During the past year not less than eighty thousand dollars 
 have been added intelligently to the funds of the Seminary. 
 Andover is furnishing to-day as always men for the estab- 
 lished pastorates, for arduous and difficult service on the 
 frontier ; she has her quota of men knocking and in waiting 
 at the doors of the American Board. So far as I can dis- 
 cover as an alumnus the Andover that is, is in spirit and in 
 method and in result the Andover that was. The true con- 
 tinuity, the real succession is there, and there along the line 
 of present development, I most assuredly believe that the 
 true continuity, the real succession will give, under any and 
 all possible contingencies, the Andover of the future. If I 
 did not believe this in the loyalty of my heart as an alumnus 
 of the Seminary, I should not for a moment remain in its 
 official service. Indeed Mr. President I may say without 
 affectation that as this hearing has proceeded my chief interest 
 
98 
 
 and concern has changed. I came here anxious to vindicate 
 my rights in my present holding of truth under the Creed 
 of the Seminary. It is for you to judge whether the vindi- 
 cation has been made. But my greater anxiety in your 
 decision is for the Seminary itself. A right is a right in 
 respect to any man and his work. But what are the inter- 
 ests of five men as compared with the interests of an institu- 
 tion. I agree with the position of the complainants which 
 subordinates our personal and professorial interests to those 
 which are higher. I have asked for no charitable construc- 
 tion of the Creed in behalf of our teachings. I ask for no 
 kind of charity in dealing with our personal interests. 
 
 But for the Seminary my thought is more urgent. Under- 
 neath any rights which inhere in my professorship, I am 
 conscious of the assertion of the deeper and inalienable rights 
 which belong to me as an alumnus of Andover, and as such 
 I venture to ask in my anxiety — what is to be its future ? 
 I ask it in the name of its past. Who has the right to affirm 
 of the past of any time that it is conservative and not pro- 
 gressive? Who has the right to say this of Andover in the 
 light of its history ? The men who founded Andover builded 
 well, consciously well, but they builded even better than they 
 knew, and I believe that they to-day rejoice that they builded 
 better than they knew — that the principles which they forced 
 into the Creed were wider and more far reaching than they 
 dared to conceive. 
 
 I ask in the name of a great number of living and work- 
 ing alumni, many of whom are in intellectual sympathy 
 with its current theology, and many more in sympathy with 
 its working principles and its general position. 
 
 I ask in the name of the natural constituency of the 
 Seminary, among the young men in our colleges and churches, 
 whose decision touching Andover awaits your decision. 
 
 And yet, even in behalf of these interests, no more than 
 in behalf of my own, do I dare to ask for charity; for I 
 have learned to believe that when great interests are at issue 
 between man and man, and the hearts of men are quick, 
 the fairest thing on the face of the earth in the eyes of 
 all, is justice unadorned. 
 
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR GEORGE HARRIS. 
 
 May it please your Reverend and Honorable Body : 
 
 My object in addressing 3^011 is to explain in part my 
 reasons for assenting to the Seminary Creed when I was 
 inaugurated in 1883, with my reasons for continuing to assent 
 to it, and to add a correction of certain misapprehensions 
 which appear to exist relative to the doctrine of Atonement 
 as it is discussed in Progressive Orthodoxy. As I first took 
 the Creed after the present theological controversy began 
 my relation to it was assumed at the outset in the full light 
 of nearly all the objections which have been urged during 
 this hearing. 
 
 When it was proposed to me to become Abbot Professor 
 of Christian Theology in the Seminary, I was engaged in 
 the active duties of the pastorate in Providence and had no 
 intention of changing either the form or the place of my 
 Christian service. I was acquainted with the issues which 
 had been raised by the election of Rev. Newman Smyth to 
 the same professorship, but had not made a thorough exam- 
 ination of the Andover Creed. Before the Trustees took 
 action I studied the Creed and Statutes with more careful- 
 ness. When I began this study I was by no means confident 
 that I could give a sincere assent to them nor was I certain 
 that I could subscribe to the Westminster Shorter Catechism 
 with the qualifications of the Creed, as the Abbot Professor 
 is required to do. My attention was first given to the doc- 
 trines which are now considered most important and concern- 
 ing which wide differences of opinion prevail, — the doctrines 
 of the Bible, the Person and Work of Christ, and Escha- 
 
100 
 
 tology. I was at once favorably impressed with the breadth 
 of statement on these doctrines. Great facts are given but 
 no specific theories are proposed. For example I found that 
 the Creed goes no farther than to indicate the religious func- 
 tion of the Bible and that it distinguishes the Word of God 
 from the Scriptures or writings which contain it. Although 
 I held that every part of the Scriptures in connection with the 
 whole is vitally related to the Divine Revelation it conveys, 
 yet it was at once evident that no theory of a verbally in- 
 spired or of an infallible Book free from imperfections in every 
 respect could be required. The Word of God is not the very 
 same thing with the words of men into which it has been ex- 
 pressed. I saw that the doctrine of the Creed is identical with 
 the doctrine of Paul as stated to Timothy. " Every Scripture 
 inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for 
 correction, for instruction which is in righteousness ; that 
 the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto 
 every good work." The field of fact is left open to inquiry 
 in order that investigation may discover the relation of divine 
 and human elements in the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 The doctrine of the Person of Christ I found expressed in 
 the well-known and generally accepted statement of the 
 Symbol of Chalcedon than which a better formula has not 
 been framed concerning the fact of the union of two natures 
 in one person. The union of divine and human in Christ is 
 generally admitted to present the most difficult problem of 
 theology, and when I heard one of the complainants argu- 
 ing that problem as against our views in thirteen propositions 
 I entertained for the moment the pious wish of one of the 
 scholars of the Reformation who near the end of his life said 
 that he should welcome a change of worlds for two reasons, 
 one that he might comprehend the union of the two natures, 
 the other that he might be delivered, to use his very lan- 
 guage, from the rabies theologorum. 
 
 The doctrine of Atonement I could not fail to see is stated 
 in a general form and with complete reserve as to what is 
 called the philosophy of Atonement. It emphasizes the fact, 
 the object, and the extent of Atonement made by the suffer- 
 
101 
 
 ings and death of Christ, but the only approach to a theory is 
 the declaration that Christ exercised the priestly office. 
 
 The doctrine of Eschatology, as stated in the Creed 
 presented no difficulty except that the language in which 
 the fate of the wicked is described I found to be somewhat 
 more expressive of physical suffering than other Scriptural 
 language which I myself should have selected to express the 
 same belief; namely, the final and irreversible doom of those 
 who are incorrigibly wicked. .1 assumed that the framers of 
 the Creed held opinions on that subject somewhat more ma- 
 terialistic than the opinions which are held at present. At 
 that time, as I have already stated in my testimony, I had 
 reached no settled conclusion concerning God's dealing with 
 those to whom the gospel is not presented. It then seemed 
 to me that the Scriptures touch that question only inciden- 
 tally, and that they give no unmistakable utterance. I had, as 
 Bushnell used to put it, hung the question up in my mind. I 
 did not, however, discover that the Creed required one to 
 hold the distinct opinion that no person who is deprived in 
 this life of the ordinary means of grace can have any other 
 opportunity of salvation. The Creed seemed to me to be 
 treating Eschatology and all other doctrines on the basis of a 
 received gospel and of man's duty and destiny in view of the 
 fact that he has the gospel. Although 1 had not then ac- 
 cepted the opinion for which I am now blamed I did not un- 
 derstand that I must definitely reject it. One, that is, could 
 at least be Agnostic concerning the intermediate state of those 
 who do not have the gospel, since the Creed says nothing 
 about it. If I had then known what I now understand to be 
 the opinion of my colleague in the Stone professorship, which 
 amounts to a confession of ignorance on the subject, I should 
 not have supposed that the Creed requires him to go farther 
 than that. If the Creed obliges one to hold an absolute 
 and exhaustive negative concerning God's dealing with 
 heathen nations I could not have assented to it, nor could I 
 now. I understand my accusers to maintain that the Creed 
 imposes the opinion that for all human beings without any 
 exception whatever there is no opportunity of salvation but 
 
102 
 
 that which is given in the earthly life. I should not have 
 dreamed of ascertaining the relation of the Creed to the 
 possibility of Christian probation for the heathen by surmising 
 what the Founders ivould have thought if the question had 
 been presented to them. I think there would have been a 
 variety of answers, and that some of them would have said 
 they did not know. I supposed that the only proper course 
 is to bring given opinions concerning which the Creed is 
 silent into the light of the principles or essential doctrines of 
 the Creed, and in such a relation to reach, if it were possible, 
 a conclusion. I turned to the Catechism, which as some have 
 held, dominates the Creed, and discovered that it is entirely 
 silent concerning the fate of the wicked, even of those who do 
 have the gospel. I also believed, as I subsequently declared to 
 the Visitors, that under the Creed there is libert}' to hold the 
 opinion that those who do not have the gospel in this life may 
 have it in the life to come. I was also aware that their decis- 
 ion in the case of Rev. Newman Smyth covered this opinion- 
 I had never believed that any man has a second probation 
 under the gospel, and in this respect agreed heartily with the 
 opinions of the Founders — as I do now. 
 
 I then turned to other portions of the Creed concerning 
 original sin, election, natural ability, the covenants, etc. It 
 was not till then that difficulties arose. As a theory of moral 
 heredity the doctrine of Federal Headship was repugnant to 
 me. The distinctions of natural and moral ability seemed to 
 me metaphysical refinements, to which I did not care to com- 
 mit myself, although my judgment of them is now more favor- 
 able. These and kindred clauses pertaining to man, and not 
 the clauses which embody revealed truth concerning God, 
 were to me the defective portions of the Creed. It was not 
 the theology, but the psychology and anthropology of the 
 Creed before which I hesitated. I remembered indeed that the 
 only instructor in theology I ever had, my distinguished pred- 
 ecessor in the Abbot professorship, who, as I knew, had had 
 long practice in taking this very Creed, I remembered that he 
 poured derision and ridicule on the doctrine of Federal Head- 
 ship, and that he declared the covenants of grace and redemp- 
 
103 
 
 tion to be figurative and poetical expressions, in order to 
 reach the conclusion that no objection could be made against 
 a figure of speech. Still, I must decide for myself, and at 
 length I reached the conclusion of common sense, that these 
 statements stand for essential facts and doctrines ; that Fed- 
 eral Headship signifies the doctrine of depravity and moral 
 heredity as including the entire race, that theories of ability 
 and inability signify man's responsibility and opportunity 
 under the gospel, that the doctrine of election signifies that 
 the individual's confidence of salvation does not rest merely 
 on his own purpose of yesterday, and that it is certain God 
 will redeem to himself a holy people ; and all of these opin- 
 ions were real to me. That is to say, I accepted the sub- 
 stance of doctrine represented by these statements, a 
 substance which in several cases was to me so vital and solid, 
 that in comparison the statements of the Creed seemed to be 
 but the shadow. I felt, sir, as it is said some of the Puritans 
 who lived before the Westminster Confession was framed felt 
 with regard to the phrases of the thirty-nine articles which 
 they considered too lax, that I could take these inadequate 
 statements of the Creed with " a godly interpretation." How- 
 ever, I could not be entirely satisfied without submitting my 
 difficulties to the Board of Visitors, and having the benefit 
 of their advice and judgment. The result was an agreement 
 that the Cree'd should be taken as expressing substantially 
 the system of truth taught in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 It is noticeable, gentlemen, that the charges most urgently 
 pressed by the complainants do not touch opinions which are 
 covered by specific and clear statements of the Creed, but only 
 opinions concerning doctrines which the Creed introduces in 
 the most general terms. The weight of this accusation bears 
 on our views of the Bible, Atonement, and Eschatology 
 concerning which the Creed is indefinite and reserved. At 
 other points it would have been much easier to argue dis- 
 agreement. That is to say, the doctrines selected are those 
 which happen just at present to be most in dispute, and it is 
 evident we are opposed not so much because on these doc- 
 trines we are antagonistic to the Creed, but rather because 
 
104 
 
 our opinions differ from the opinions of our accusers. Such 
 difference we do not for a moment deny. 
 
 After my confirmation by your Board, the Creed passed 
 almost entirely out of my thoughts. I remained through 
 the winter with my parish, and at the end of four months 
 was dismissed b} r Council. Then followed the preparation 
 of an Inaugural address, the fitting up of a house at Andover, 
 and also a growing and appalling sense of what I had under- 
 taken as a teacher of Christian theology. I confess to you, 
 sir, that at times I was profoundly thankful that the Seminary 
 was reduced in numbers and that my first year's course 
 would be heard by only a handful of students. 
 
 In addition to the heavy burdens which, as I often felt, I 
 had unwisely assumed, I was made aware at the time of my 
 inauguration of conditions which would make my work still 
 more arduous. It then appeared, in the discussions of the 
 only public and regularly called meeting of the Alumni 
 which within the last four years has considered the theologi- 
 cal status of the Seminary, that a determined opposition was 
 to be expected. It was not known that any of the new 
 professors, or indeed that any member of the entire faculty, 
 save one, entertained hope for the unevangelized heathen. 
 But we were not even to have a fair opportunity to prove 
 ourselves. The impressions I then received from intimations 
 and public threats have been abundantly verified. There 
 have been petty insinuations, and constructions offered which 
 if they were not misrepresentations were astonishing mis- 
 understandings. The Seminary was few in numbers as we 
 took it from a former administration, and we had no expecta- 
 tion, with so many untried teachers, of large additions at the 
 outset, yet a journal edited by one of the complainants con- 
 descended to make a calculation which by reckoning in 
 lecturers, retired professors, and even the librarian, showed 
 that to each instructor in Andover Seminary there was 
 in attendance one student and five-sevenths of a student. 
 Although our growth has not been rapid, for no efforts have 
 been spared publicly or privately to turn students away from 
 us, similar calculations were not made last year, nor has there 
 
105 
 
 been any intimation from that quarter of the considerable 
 growth which the Seminary has had. I have been tempted, 
 and have sometimes yielded to the temptation, to review 
 every sentence of mine which would be printed to ascertain 
 if by any possibility the opponents of the Seminary could 
 construe it to our disadvantage. I have not dared at times 
 (I may have been too timid) to trust an article as a whole, 
 and have modified or omitted sentences which had, as I 
 thought, some point, lest advantage should be taken of a turn 
 of expression. Possibly some of the vagueness of which my 
 accusers complain may be due to such revisions. 
 
 I mention all this as part of my experience in the Seminary, 
 and to remind you that opposition did not begin with the 
 appearance of Progressive Orthodoxy in 1885, nor with 
 articles in the " Andover Review" for April and May 1886. 
 
 During the last five months I have become better in- 
 formed in respect to the circumstances under which the 
 Seminary Creed was formulated, and as must be true of all 
 in attendance, I also have learned during the progress of 
 this hearing not a little that was not known before. I have 
 learned from the paper read Friday by Dr. Dexter, or rather 
 have had new illustrations of the fact, that the founders had 
 in view the condition and destiny of men in Christendom, 
 under the gospel. I also judge from that paper that the motive 
 of fear was then worked in too large as it now is worked, ac- 
 cording to my judgment, in too small proportion. It has 
 also been made clear to me that the original union included 
 parties which differed asi widely as our accusers differ from 
 ourselves. The difference was perhaps even wider, for univer- 
 sality of Atonement as against limitation, and free agency as 
 against inability meant at the time and still mean contrasts as 
 great as any which exist in this present controversy. I have 
 learned that the founders and their friends drove in chaises, 
 wrote precisely worded letters, were not above some log- 
 rolling, tried to influence one man through another man, to 
 get at merchants of Newburyport through their minister, 
 that they suspected the motives of opponents and used rather 
 harsh language towards them, that they were men of like pas- 
 
10G 
 
 sions with ourselves, that there was more of what we call 
 human nature in them than in their Creed, but also that 
 they were eager for union and were willing to make proper 
 concessions, that they had for their time remarkable breadth 
 of view, above all that they had the courage to put vital 
 principles, of the consequences of which they were not afraid, 
 into their union creed. They did not, I believe, understand 
 how much is involved in the universality of the person and 
 atonement of Christ, nor in the freedom and rationality of 
 man in accordance with which he is saved or lost. But they 
 ventured out. Those principles and doctrines of revelation 
 gained a place in the Creed. They did not know, we do not 
 know, how large results are involved in those truths of 
 Divine revelation. And the fact has been that while some of 
 their statements about man have lost in importance, till they 
 seem to us an almost outgrown metaphysic and ethic, the re- 
 vealed truths concerning God and his ways with man, which 
 are higher than our thoughts, have enlarged in the appre- 
 hension of their descendants and are to enlarge more and 
 more by reverent study of God's works in creation, providence 
 and redemption, by clearer knowledge of the Bible, and by 
 the deepening spiritual experience which believers gain in 
 their " minds and hearts." 
 
 I have also examined the relation of Creed and Catechism, 
 a relation in which I am the only living person who has a 
 directly responsible interest, and have come to a conclusion 
 which I believe to have been expressed by my predecessor, 
 that in the case of the Abbot Professor a legal reference to 
 the Catechism is appropriate, but that the Creed determines 
 the sense in which those portions of the Catechism shall be 
 taken which are found in both instruments. I am not able 
 to understand the satisfaction my colleagues on the Associate 
 foundation take in their freedom from the Catechism, even as 
 interpreted by the Creed, for with the exception of the doc- 
 trine of limited atonement, which the Creed corrects, I con- 
 sider the Westminster Catechism, as a doctrinal formulary, 
 superior to the Andover Creed. 
 
 One point has perhaps been overlooked by the complainants. 
 
107 
 
 The Catechism teaches that the world was made in the space 
 of six days. There is no doubt in my mind that the West- 
 minster Divines meant by that 144 hours. The statement is 
 not modified by the Creed. But I do not believe that the 
 world was created in six solar days. I believe that the uni- 
 verse was created in no time. As Augustine said, the world 
 was not created in tempore, but cum tempore. Or, if by 
 creation is meant the time from the appearance of matter to 
 the appearance of man, I should prefer to assume millions 
 rather than even thousands of years. Nor have we yet done 
 with the consequences which come in with a recognition of the 
 time required for the evolution of the existing order, since 
 this change of opinion may prove to involve essential doc- 
 trines. 
 
 We may expect our accusers next to turn their atten- 
 tion to the Presbyterian body, for the clergymen and theo- 
 logical professors of that denomination take the Catechism 
 without the modifications of a later Creed, yet many of them 
 hold to the universality of atonement. 
 
 On the whole, more careful study of the origin of the 
 Creed, to which this trial has invited me has not substantially 
 changed my understanding of it. Neither have my opinions 
 substantially changed. I have not, let me hope, stopped 
 thinking, even if premiums have been offered to encourage 
 cessation of thought. Neither, let me also hope, have I 
 ceased to receive the light which God gives to those who 
 honestly seek the truth. My changes of doctrinal view have 
 been in respect to proportion, emphasis and clearness. I do 
 find it easier to reconcile the significance and scope of atone- 
 ment with the opinion that the knowledge of it will be given 
 to all men before the final judgment than with the opinion 
 that the light of nature is essentially the knowledge of Christ, 
 or with the opinion that all knowledge of God in Christ, ex- 
 cept that which is given in this life, is withheld from the 
 perishing heathen. My difficulty, sir, is with the alterna- 
 tives. I only say that upon the hypothesis which I enter- 
 tain some serious objections disappear, and that it harmonizes 
 certain essential doctrines of the gospel with the Providence 
 
108 
 
 of God, but that it is of secondary rather than primary value, 
 in the sense that it is an inference from essential doctrines 
 rather than itself an essential doctrine. I would also say that 
 if the Creed requires me to hold definitely that no member of 
 the unevangelized nations has other knowledge of God for his 
 salvation than that which he gains in this life, I desire to be 
 emancipated from such a creed at the earliest possible mo- 
 ment. But I do not interpret your former decision as shut- 
 ting one up to such a conclusion. I understand that the 
 Creed requires no more than the essentials of faith as given 
 in other evangelical symbols. In our own denomination, 
 council after council has decided that the opinion I hold on 
 the probation of the heathen does not override any essential 
 article of faith. 
 
 The most serious charge which has been brought against 
 me is in my judgment to my opinions on the Atonement. 
 The gospel in its very essence is the redemption of sinful 
 man through Jesus Christ, and to be in error concerning it is 
 more reprehensible than to believe that the Bible contains some 
 blemishes incidental to the human media through which 
 its truth was given, or to hold a certain opinion concerning 
 God's grace to the heathen. I do not propose to discuss the 
 doctrine but to correct some misapprehensions. As I listened 
 to the paper which was devoted chiefly to that topic, I per- 
 ceived that while it condemned my view it indicated the 
 view, and apparently the only view which the writer consid- 
 ers correct, or tenable under the Creed. I observed that he 
 understands the Creed to be committed to the so-called gov 
 ernmental theory of Atonement. As the reading proceeded, 
 the ideas presented, the expressions used, the turns given to 
 phrases, the repetition of favorite words were such that if the 
 voice had not been different and I had closed my eyes I should 
 have believed myself to be back again where I was nearly 
 a score of years ago in the middle class lecture-room at An- 
 dover listening to the Abbot Professor of Theology as he 
 gave his interesting expositions of the Grotian theory of 
 Atonement. Now I believe that theory to be permissible 
 under the Creed, although to my thinking, since it finds the 
 
109 
 
 principal effect of Atonement in the exhibition it makes to 
 sinners and to the universe of God's regard for his law, it is 
 in the last analysis, a moral influence theory. 
 
 But I call attention to the fact that whatever is true in 
 the Grotian or governmental theory of Atonement is included 
 in the presentation of the subject in Progressive Orthodox}'. 
 It is stated on page 57 that the sufferings and death of 
 Christ realize God's hatred of sin and the righteous authority 
 of law, and that therefore punishment need not be exacted. 
 This line of reflection was not followed out because, as stated 
 in the article, it is so familiar. " Its meaning is " says the 
 book "that God cannot be regardless of law nor indifferent 
 to sin in saving man from punishment." That is the pith 
 of the governmental theory. Then comes the passage urged 
 so emphatically in the complaint. " It must be confessed that 
 it is not clear how the sufferings and death of Christ can be 
 substituted for the punishment of sin " (but we have not 
 reached the end of the sentence) " how because Christ made 
 vivid the wickedness of sin and the righteousness of God, 
 man is therefore any the less exposed to the consequences of 
 sin. We must go on to the fact that Christ makes real very 
 much more than God's righteous indignation against sin. The 
 punishment of sin does not save men. It only vindicates 
 God and his law. Christ while declaring God's righteousness 
 reveals God seeking men at the cost of sacrifice." It is not 
 the error but the inadequacy of the governmental 'theory 
 which is criticised. 
 
 The entire discussion is on the basis of propitiation. The 
 fundamental position is that because God is reconciled to 
 man therefore man is forgiven, rather than that God for- 
 gives by reason of any thing that man does. First God is 
 reconciled, then man repents. Not first man repents and 
 then God is reconciled. Much space is given to an inquiry 
 concerning the offering which humanity makes to God in 
 the sacrifice of Christ. I quote — " Humanity may thus be 
 thought of as offering something to God of eminent value. 
 When Christ suffers the race suffers. When Christ is sor- 
 rowful the race is sorrowful." Why did Dr. Wellman's quo- 
 
110 
 
 tation stop here? Let us go on. "Christ realizes what hu- 
 manity could not realize for itself. The race may be con- 
 ceived as approaching God, and signifying its penitence by 
 pointing to Christ, and by giving expression in him to 
 repentance which no words could utter." And then with 
 but a sentence between comes this statement. " The rep- 
 resentative power which belongs to man in his various rela- 
 tions comes to its perfect realization in Christ. In the fam- 
 ily, in government, in business, in society, representative or 
 substitutionary relations are the rule not the exception. 
 Much more has Christ the power perfectly to represent us or 
 to be substituted for us, because there is no point of our real 
 life where he is not in contact with us." 
 
 But the most singular part of the objection is the criticism 
 made on my belief in the union of Christ with the race. 
 Because the Incarnation, which is the true humanity of 
 Christ, helps us to understand the Atonement, it is concluded 
 that Incarnation has been put in the place of Atonement. 
 The article was endeavoring to express the opinion that 
 Christ's union with the race gives large part of its signifi- 
 cance to his sufferings and death. " For verily not of angels 
 doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abra- 
 ham. Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made 
 like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faith- 
 ful high priest in things pertaining to God to make propitia- 
 tion for the sins of the people." The fact that Christ in his 
 incarnation became a real man in organic relation with the 
 human race gives the most profound conception of his Atone- 
 ment. It should also be observed that in the statement con- 
 cerning incarnation it is perfectly clear that something other 
 is meant than the completed union of Christ with the believ- 
 er. And this view of Christ's proper humanity is argued to 
 be in opposition to the statement of the Creed that Jesus 
 Christ and he alone made atonement for the sins of all men ; 
 as if " alone " means that he has no organic union with the 
 men for whom he laid down his life. This is as complete a 
 reversal of an author's meaning as it was ever my misfortune 
 to hear. I believe the framers of the Creed were not desir- 
 
Ill 
 
 ous of propounding any theory of Atonement but of emphasiz- 
 ing its extent. 
 
 In a similar vein the opinions presented on man's power 
 to repent were discussed. There is, in the article cited, 
 an inquiry concerning fact, concerning man's real rather 
 than his formal freedom. The word " cannot " is Paul's 
 "cannot" when he said, "I cannot do the things which 
 I would." I understood that the view we are required to 
 hold under the creed, in the opinion of our accusers, is that 
 man does all of his repenting by his own unaided power 
 and that after he has achieved a complete repentance, God 
 forgives him on account of the sacrifice of Christ. I had 
 supposed that man does his sinning by his own unaided 
 power, but that when it comes to holiness, especially that 
 radical choice in which real repentance largely consists and 
 which is a true turning to God, he is to no small degree 
 dependent on the Holy Spirit of God taking the things of 
 Christ and showing them unto him. In that opinion I be- 
 lieve I am in most substantial accord with the Seminary 
 Creed. 
 
 Some of these speculations to which we have listened made 
 the impression on me that it is extremely difficult for what 
 may be called the logical school of evangelical belief to enter 
 into a sympathetic appreciation of the beliefs of the spiritual 
 school. I am prepared to abate somewhat the feeling that 
 our accusers and their associates refuse to understand us as 
 we mean, for it has been borne in on me during this hearing 
 that they probably are unable so to understand us — I do not 
 intend this observation as a slur, but as the statement of a 
 fact. I do not deny that our writings may sometimes have 
 been vague. But I am satisfied that the real difficulty lies 
 deeper, and that the two parties or wings are separated some- 
 what as parties in the church have been separated in almost 
 every period of its history — because they approach truth from 
 opposite sides, or rather because the one party approaches 
 from without on the circumference, the other party from 
 within at or near the centre. This difference is partly con- 
 stitutional and so cannot be avoided. It is a remark made first 
 
112 
 
 I think hy Schclling, although attributed to Coleridge, that 
 every man as to philosophy is born either a Platonist or Aris- 
 totelian. It is equalljr true that as to theology some men 
 are endowed with spiritual, others more largely with logical 
 apprehension. It seems to me that our opponents almost 
 completely fail to apprehend that movement of religious 
 thought of the last thirty years in this and other countries 
 which has been the advancing supremacy of the rational, 
 ethical and spiritual habit of thought in place of a syllogistic, 
 logical and therefore rationalizing habit. If I had time, sir, 
 I should like to maintain that the later developments of New 
 England theology have been more rationalistic than any 
 theological movement since the Scholastic period. 
 
 If I may be pardoned a generalization without prefatory 
 discussion I should say that one school of thought looks at 
 truth in its objective forms as an external thing, that the 
 re-action is mysticism which evolves beliefs out of subjective 
 feeling, and that the newer school of thought in our own time 
 appropriates external truth by reason and spirit into living 
 faiths, uniting the objective and subjective. Whenever these 
 contrasted parties have been contemporaneous it has been 
 easier for the spiritual or intuitional school to comprehend 
 the merely logical than for the logical to comprehend the 
 spiritual. Paul understands James better than James under- 
 stands Paul. John understands Peter better than Peter un- 
 derstands John. But it is easier for the logical than for the 
 other school to state its opinions clearly and to defend them 
 adroitly. The Anselmic (at least as it is frequently stated) 
 and the Grotian theories of Atonement, for example, can 
 be put in a nutshell and made intelligible to any one, 
 and that is the trouble with them. They make Atone- 
 ment a device and do not see that it is God seeking 
 men. Now, not to dwell on this distinction, what is true 
 in other denominations is true in ours that one party is 
 moved on by the deeper currents of rational and spiritual 
 impulse while the other does not escape the syllogistic and 
 formal methods to which it has become accustomed. 
 These are the differences which confront us at this trial. 
 
113 
 
 That which to the one school is the vital, organic, real rela- 
 tion of Christ to men is to the other school mysticism and 
 vagueness. 
 
 The complainants will say that this very state of things is 
 fatal to us for the admission is made that we are on another 
 track than that on which all Christians travelled at the be- 
 ginning of this century. But, on the contrary, I contend 
 that the two parties which entered into this union were 
 realty unlike in these very respects. On the one side were 
 mechanical, artificial opinions concerning imputation, repre- 
 sentation, Divine Sovereignty ; on the other side were char- 
 acter in freedom, an organic relation of man to man, and of 
 man to Christ, and a purpose of God running through his- 
 tory and revealing him as the God of reason and love. 
 Then as now, and as always, there were the contrasts of 
 legal and spiritual, external and internal, conservative and 
 progressive, old and new. Since the beginning there have 
 been alternations in the teachings at Andover. Much of the 
 time both schools have been represented. Both schools are 
 represented there to-day. It is doubtless well for the church 
 and the world that both types of thought exist and, to 
 some degree, work harmoniously side by side. The fruitful- 
 ness of the great truths of revelation and of the advancing 
 kingdom of Christ produces various types. The doctrinal 
 Paul, the mystical John, the ecclesiastical James are re- 
 flected and reproduced in all the great bodies of Christen- 
 dom. If the tenure of either party under the Creed is in 
 doubt it is of that party which to-day opposes us, since the 
 Creed crowded hard on formal views of the external rela- 
 tions of men to each other and to Christ. We should claim 
 that we are more nearly in the line of that vigorous move- 
 ment which enlarged the old faith into new meaning and 
 scope. But the Seminary Creed was then and is still a plat- 
 form for the two principal schools of evangelical faith. 
 
 In my judgment the particular opinion which is held of 
 the opportunities of heathen men is of less importance than 
 that there be a firm hold on those great postulates of the 
 gospel's truth from which we think our theory properly pro- 
 
114 
 
 ceeds. I could not as I have said assent to the Creed if it 
 compels me to maintain a negative concerning the unevange- 
 lized nations, much less if it shuts me up to theories of 
 Atonement and of the Bible which have been represented 
 here as alternative to my own. I had supposed that Ando- 
 ver with its origin, history and traditions is a good institu- 
 tion for the advancement of Christian doctrine. But if I 
 must try to squeeze my opinions into any given phraseology 
 and to institute at every point a microscopic comparison with 
 the Creed I should decline thus to sacrifice spontaneity, en- 
 thusiasm and progress. You very well know that none of us 
 care for the salaries we receive since every one of us remains 
 at Andover at a pecuniary sacrifice, but we do care for the 
 advantage of our positions to advance the gospel of Christ, 
 and we do care for saving the institution to its intended uses. 
 It was not established as an asylum for orthodoxy, but as a 
 school for " increasing the number of learned and able De- 
 fenders of the Gospel of Christ, as well as of orthodox, pious, 
 and zealous Ministers of the New Testament" ; for the pro- 
 duction of character and influence devoted to the service of 
 Christ. 
 
 I beg only, in addition, to call your attention to a phrase in 
 the Statutes which has been misapplied. Emphasis has been 
 laid on the direction that the Creed should never be altered 
 in any particular. But it never has been altered. It is iden- 
 tically the same as at the first. The intention was to prevent 
 the Trustees or Visitors from repealing any clauses, or adding 
 new clauses. There was to be no more legislation on that 
 subject. It was rather a safeguard against retrogression than 
 a bar to advance. The true inference from that provision is 
 that there is all the more reason for allowing a liberal and 
 Christian construction of a Creed which is itself forever un- 
 changeable. 
 
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR EDWARD Y. HINCKS. 
 
 The work assigned to me by the Trustees of Anclover Sem- 
 inary with the concurrence of your honorable Body, is that 
 of interpreting the Scriptures. This task of interpretation 
 includes not only the correct rendering of the words of 
 the inspired writers, but the tracing out of their leading 
 thoughts, and their subordinate ideas in their connection with 
 these. It also includes such discussion of the historical ques- 
 tions pertaining to the respective date, authorship, and 
 immediate purpose of the Sacred writings as is essential to a 
 correct understanding of their contents. In doing this work 
 I have tried to be true to the province required of me by the 
 constituted authorities of the Seminary " to open and explain 
 the Scriptures to my pupils with integrity and faithfulness." 
 
 I assume that an honest and faithful expositor will try to 
 ascertain as nearly as possible the meaning of the language 
 used by the inspired writers, by the use of such grammatical, 
 etymological and illustrative helps as are at his command. 
 I also take for granted that he will try to enter into sym- 
 pathy as far as possible with the religious feelings and motives 
 which animated these writers. Having done this he will, 
 I likewise assume, declare their thoughts, according to his 
 best understanding of them ; not allowing his representations 
 to be modified by his own prejudices or those of others. Such 
 unbiassed interpretation I have tried to give to those of the 
 Scriptures which I have had occasion to expound. In deciding 
 upon the questions involving facts relating to these Scriptures, 
 I have acted upon the principle, that the laws which govern 
 historical research in one field must govern it in every field ; 
 
116 
 
 and that problems for which revelation does not furnish means 
 of solution must be solved by strictly historical methods. 
 
 At the same time these principles of interpretation and 
 research have been employed under the avowed conviction 
 that the Scriptures are a supernatural^ given source of spirit- 
 ual enlightenment and carry the absolute authority of the 
 Divine Redeemer. I have endeavored to show that the divine 
 communications made to our Lord and his apostles, and those 
 given to the ancient prophets have passed over into them and 
 make them the prime source of religious knowledge, and 
 the final test of Christian belief. 
 
 If I have not claimed for them perfect accuracy in all 
 statements lying outside of the sphere of religious truth, and 
 if I have assigned to them functions of varying value in reveal- 
 ing God's character and ways, it is because this is necessarily 
 involved in showing the connection with Christ in the light 
 of which alone their authority can be appreciated and their 
 meaning understood. Since God's revelation to man centres 
 in Him, all parts of that revelation must be seen as related to 
 that centre to be understood. This implies the historical 
 study of Scripture, its examination in the light of contem- 
 poraneous facts and events. Such examination implies of 
 course the faithful use of historical methods and the honest 
 recognition of their results. A firm conviction that the 
 Scriptures contain the religious conceptions of Christ and his 
 apostles forbids any shrinking from such candid research. 
 The wish to keep that conviction fresh is an unceasing stim- 
 ulus to pursue it. I may remind yon that to this part of the 
 work of a Biblical teacher in Andover Seminary great impor- 
 tance was attached by its Founders as appears from Article VI. 
 of the original constitution, which I beg permission to read. 
 
 Article VI. Under the head of Sacred Literature shall be 
 included Lectures on the formation, preservation and trans- 
 mission of the Sacred Volume; on the languages in which 
 the Bible was originally written ; on the Septuagint version 
 of the Old Testament and on the peculiarities of the language 
 and style of the New Testament, resulting from this version 
 and other causes; on the history character use and authority 
 
117 
 
 of the ancient version of the Old and New Testaments ; on 
 the canons of Biblical criticism ; on the authenticity of the 
 several books of the sacred Code ; on the apocryphal books of 
 both Testaments ; on modern translations of the Bible, more 
 particularly on the history and character of our English ver- 
 sion ; and also critical Lectures on the various readings and 
 difficult passages in the sacred writings. 
 
 While I have aimed to present the Scriptures in their his- 
 torical and living connection with Christ, and thus to estab- 
 lish for them a higher value than such as comes from a purely 
 formal authority, I have never reached conclusions as re- 
 gards their nature or their teachings at variance with the 
 Creed or any of the Christian doctrines expressed in it. I 
 desire at this point in behalf of my associates and myself to 
 correct representations made by one of the Complainants in 
 his plea, of the meaning of certain cited passages from the 
 articles on the Scriptures submitted as evidence by the 
 prosecution. 
 
 From the editorial entitled " The Bible a Theme for the 
 Pulpit" the following sentence (And. Rev. v. 409) was 
 quoted by him as proof that the article advocates a covert 
 opposition to the orthodox doctrine of inspiration, on the 
 part of ministers. " A minister who should begin to preach 
 a series of sermons about the Bible by saying that he ex- 
 pected to show that the notion of inspiration in which his 
 hearers had been trained was an erroneous one, would prob- 
 ably find a considerable part of his congregation resolutely 
 opposed to his teaching from the outset." To this I would 
 add the sentence which follows — " The misunderstanding 
 as to his conception of the Bible created b}^ his injudicious 
 remark — (injudicious because misrepresenting the real nature 
 of the proposed teaching), could hardly be removed by any 
 subsequent explanations." It is here plainly implied that 
 the teaching suggested is not really at variance with the 
 evangelical view of the Scriptures. 
 
 The following sentences which I will not stay to cite make 
 the implication yet more evident. I will add a word, 
 explaining another sentence from this editorial discussed by 
 
118 
 
 the same gentleman, " Then, as inspired life is shown ex- 
 pressing itself in inspired teaching, — as for example the 
 connection between Paul's written teaching and his own 
 inner life and his apostolic work is traced, or the apostolic 
 tradition is shown embodying itself in the Synoptic Gospels 
 — the conviction will gradually be created that the Scripture 
 is the vehicle by which the divine revelation is conveyed to 
 men, and in no true sense the revelation itself." The word 
 " revelation " is used here in its Scriptural sense, of a super- 
 natural disclosure of truth to inspired teachers. Paul e.g. 
 says in the Epistle to the Galatians that God revealed his 
 Son in him that he might preach Him. Paul's epistles bring 
 the revelation which he received to us. They are not the 
 revelation itself, for it expressed itself in them. There are 
 important ends, it is thought, in pointing out the distinction. 
 The charge that it is derogatory to the Scriptures is as absurd 
 as would be the claim that one depreciated Christ's parables 
 in sajing that they were the vehicle by which his ideas were 
 conveyed to the mind of the people. I must also correct the 
 same gentleman's interpretation of a sentence belonging to the 
 article on the Scriptures in " Progressive Orthodoxy " (p. 
 221). " We are finding out that the seat of the prophetic 
 teaching was the moral and religious nature of the inspired 
 seer alone." It was elaborately urged that this refers the 
 teaching of the prophets to a purely human source. Indeed 
 the word source was used as a synonym for "seat" in inter- 
 preting the sentence. But the claim could hardly have been 
 made if the sentence had been read in its context. For it 
 is preceded by these words. 
 
 " That conception of the prophet which regarded him as 
 merely a voice, uttering words which his own inner life had 
 no share in producing is rapidly disappearing before the 
 intelligent study of the Old Testament." And we pass over 
 but one sentence to come to these words ..." It is not de- 
 nied that they were sometimes evidently conscious of receiv- 
 ing special messages from God. Nor would we claim that the 
 conceptions of God's kingdom in its present state and com- 
 ing development, given them by the Spirit, were so thor- 
 
119 
 
 oughly wrought into their own thinking as the apostles' 
 conceptions of Christ and his Kingdom were united with 
 their own thought." 
 
 One more instance of misrepresentation in the use of the 
 same article must be pointed out. The following words are 
 found on page 231. 
 
 "Whatever else comes to us as from God must present its 
 credentials to Christ's truth in our minds and hearts." 
 
 These last words, it is said, show that the writer recog- 
 nized no objective divine revelation. But let me read the 
 context. 
 
 "If Christ is the supreme and final Revelation, He is the 
 test of all preceding revelation. If we accept Him as God's 
 supreme and final revelation, we must bring preceding reve- 
 lation to this test. We cannot escape the process of compari- 
 son if we would. He brings us his own conception of God, of 
 life, of duty. It claims to cover the whole horizon of truth, 
 and demands possession of every spiritual and rational faculty. 
 If we will have it as ours we must hold it separate from and 
 above every other. Whatever else comes to us as from God 
 must present its credentials to Christ's truth in our minds 
 and hearts." 
 
 The two last sentences are evidently to be read in close 
 connection. Their obvious meaning is that if we will take 
 Christ's truth into our hearts we must give it royal authority 
 over them, and make it judge of every thing that claims to 
 come empowered by God to enter them. Not our notions, 
 but Christ's truth within us is to rule our inner being:. 
 
 The earlier sentences expressly emphasize the supremacy of 
 the objective Christian revelation. 
 
 I repeat that I have been both in belief and teaching true 
 to " the principles of the Creed ; " to quote words of Pro- 
 fessor Stuart cited by the prosecution. 
 
 I will frankly admit however my belief that the Creed it- 
 self gives me a degree of liberty in interpreting its tenets. 
 In the pledge which it exacts the promise " to open and ex- 
 plain the Scriptures to my pupils with integrity and faithful- 
 ness " precedes that " to maintain and inculcate the Christian 
 
120 
 
 faith, as expressed in the Creed by me now repeated." That 
 promise has, I conceive, especial force for those who are 
 called to teach the Bible in the Seminary. They at any rate 
 are required by it to make the exposition of the Scriptures 
 "according to the best light God shall give" them, the 
 shaping and paramount principle of their teaching. They 
 are to explain the Bible with integrity ; giving no interpre- 
 tations but such as are the fruit of their own study and re- 
 search, and carry their own conviction ; they are to explain 
 it with faithfulness, counting subservience to human opinion 
 unfaithfulness not only to the Scripture, but to the Seminary 
 which requires a fair exposition of the word of God. This 
 to men who like the Founders, regarded the Bible as the 
 depository of divine truth must have implied the expecta- 
 tion of a progressive unfolding of that truth on the part of 
 the teachers of sacred literature. It would have been absurd 
 to require a promise to " open and expound the Scriptures 
 with integrity and faithfulness," if the conclusions reached 
 were expected to be absolutely identical with those already 
 arrived at and set forth. Indeed, the word " open " seems to 
 imply an advance into undeveloped riches of divine truth. 
 
 If I am correct in believing that the Founders laid this 
 promise of a progressive teaching of Scripture upon the 
 Biblical teachers in the Seminary, I may assume that they 
 expected those teachers to interpret the creed in the light 
 of that promise. To claim that they regarded their state- 
 ment of belief as an absolutely perfect representation of the 
 doctrinal contents of the Bible is to impugn not only their 
 good judgment but their sincerity, since they have put the 
 Scriptures above the creed as " the only perfect rule of 
 faith and practice." To put such an interpretation upon 
 the creed therefore as would prevent the teachers in the 
 Seminary from keeping abreast of contemporaneous Biblical 
 Scholarship by the use of legitimate methods (if such an 
 interpretation were possible) would thwart their wishes both 
 h}' making the Creed, not the Bible the ultimate test of the 
 teaching of the institution as well as the "only perfect rule " 
 of its professors' belief, and by robbing its Biblical instruc- 
 
121 
 
 tion of that manifest and avowed loyalty to the Scriptures 
 as the one unquestionable and paramount authority which 
 the Founders intended it should have. 
 
 It is not meant of course, that the several articles of the 
 creed have not a meaning for every one who teaches under 
 it. No one could claim e.g. that one could go on teaching in 
 the Seminary who had become satisfied that the Scriptures 
 furnished no reason for believing in the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. The enactment requiring a renewed subscription 
 at the expiration of each five years; — which recognizes a 
 necessary movement of mind engaged in the study of divine 
 truth, provides that such movement shall be bounded by the 
 great doctrinal lines plainly indicated by the Creed. I for 
 one would not retain my position five years nor one year, 
 had I abandoned any of the doctrines enunciated there. 
 But I do not think retaining it inconsistent with the belief 
 that the Scriptures may yet afford the means of giving one 
 or more of those doctrines a better expression. For I am 
 sure that such Biblical teaching as they exact by solemn 
 pledge implies this belief. 
 
 I close by declaring my full and hearty belief " that the 
 word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament is the only perfect rule of faith and prac- 
 tice," and by denying that I have in the lecture-room or out 
 of it made statements inconsistent with this belief, or incon- 
 sistent with my promise to "open and explain the Scriptures 
 to my pupils with integrity and faithfulness," to "maintain 
 and inculcate the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed 
 of the Seminary," together with all the other doctrines and 
 duties of our Holy Religion, so far as may appertain to my 
 office, according to the best light God shall give me." 
 
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR J. W. CHURCHILL. 
 
 May it please your Reverend and Honorable Board: — 
 
 In filing my exception to the charges against me for hold- 
 ing, maintaining, and inculcating opinions that are contrary 
 to the Associate Creed of Andover Theological Seminary, 
 I desire that it be understood as explicitly as language 
 can express my position that I am not seeking to evade 
 in the slightest degree my share of the editorial responsibility 
 in the purpose and conduct of " The Andover Review ; " or to 
 avoid whatsoever consequences may follow from an adverse 
 decision against my co-editors upon the citations from the 
 Review as evidence of teaching and maintaining opinions in 
 nonconformity to the Seminary Creed. The fate of one 
 editor is the fate of all the editors. Nor do I wish to suggest 
 the inference that I am not in perfect sympathy with the 
 spirit and aim that animate and control the movement and 
 tendency in contemporary religious thought known as Pro- 
 gressive Orthodoxy. I adhere to the principles of the move- 
 ment, although I do not accept every inference from some 
 of its positions. Neither let it be inferred that I consider my 
 adherence to Progressive Orthodoxy as inimical to the Asso- 
 ciate Creed, which I conscientiously subscribed to on my in- 
 auguration into the Jones Professorship of Elocution, which 
 I have since twice repeated as an act of solemn obligation in 
 the presence of the Trustees of the Seminary, and to which 
 I am still loyal as it has been interpreted and administered 
 for more than half a century. Nor do I desire, in filing this 
 exception, to add to the already numerous complications of 
 this perplexing public Inquiry into the Orthodoxy of the ed- 
 
123 
 
 itors of " The Andover Review." Much less do I wish to em- 
 barrass your reverend and honorable Board with untimely or 
 irrelevant demands upon your attention. Still less would I 
 convey the impression that I do not wish, or that I ought not, 
 to be placed under your supervision, or that I resist any claim 
 that your reverend and honorable Body may lawfully make 
 for its Visitorial jurisdiction over the Jones Professorship. 
 
 But the question occasionally has been discussed in high 
 quarters, and especially during the last few months, whether 
 or not the Jones Professorship is strictly under the control of 
 the Visitors of the Associate Foundation. In the Statutes 
 of the various Chairs of Instruction that have been founded 
 since the establishment of the Associate Creed, there seem 
 to be three classes of conditions : one class, represented by 
 the Taylor Professorship of Biblical Theology and History, 
 now held by Professor Taylor, distinctly places the chair 
 under the Visitorial supervision of your reverend and hon- 
 orable Board ; a second class, represented by the Stone 
 Professorship of the Relations of Christianity to the Secular 
 Sciences, now held by Professor Gulliver, distinctly states 
 the exemption of the chair from your Visitorial control ; the 
 third class, represented 'by the Jones Professorship of Elo- 
 cution, makes no reference whatsoever to the relation of the 
 chair to any Visitorial supervision. 
 
 It is for the sole purpose of permanently determining the 
 question of your Visitorial relation to the Jones Professor- 
 ship that I filed my eleventh exception. I have availed my- 
 self of the occasion of this trial to submit the test ; because, 
 if the Jones Professorship is not under your Visitorial juris- 
 diction, then the complainants have no case against me upon 
 which your reverend and honorable Board can adjudicate ; if, 
 on the other hand, it shall be decided that the Jones Profess- 
 orship is under your Visitorial supervision, I shall cheer- 
 fully conform to your requirements in the premises, and shall 
 respond to the charges preferred against me in such a manner 
 as your Board shall direct. 
 
 Since it has been determined that it is advisable for me to 
 make a statement in connection with the statements of my 
 
124 
 
 colleagues, I have thrown together this morning the few- 
 expressions following that partially ma}' answer the present 
 purpose of meeting the charges preferred against me. 
 
 It will be remembered by your reverend and honorable 
 Board that in reply to your requisition of July 27, 1886, to 
 present a written answer to the original charges within fif- 
 teen days that I conformed to your requirements within a 
 very few days after the allotted time. The reply was made 
 before the indicted professors had engaged counsel to defend 
 them ; but this fact was overlooked, inadvertently, I am will- 
 ing to believe, in the counsel's argument for the prosecution 
 in the case of my colleague, Professor Smyth, and through 
 the omission an erroneous and injurious impression must have 
 been conveyed to you and to the public concerning our action 
 in the early history of this case. 
 
 You will also recall the fact that, in answer to the Amended 
 Charges, there was presented to you a written reply from each 
 of my colleagues, and that no reply was sent in by me, but 
 that I added to the general Bill of Exceptions a special ex- 
 ception claiming that my Professorship was not under your 
 jurisdiction. I withheld my answer to the Amended Charges 
 until I should learn your decision on the point in question. 
 Had I received the decision before this Court opened the case 
 of Professor Smyth I should have sent in my written reply 
 couched in the same language that was employed in the 
 replies of my colleagues. I should also have prepared a 
 more complete and careful statement than this, and of a dif- 
 ferent character, to meet the demands of the present time 
 and place. But, inasmuch as no decision has been rendered 
 upon my special exception, and also for the sake of brevity, 
 I ask permission of your reverend and honorable Board to 
 refer to the answer of my colleagues as being identical with 
 my own ; since what was common to those answers is ex- 
 pressed in the same language, and was discussed and drawn 
 up in my presence, and with my voluntary co-operation as 
 being equally indicted with them. 
 
 I would also respectfully ask permission, under the circum- 
 stances, to refer for ampler defence to the exposition of the 
 
125 
 
 Seminary Creed as given by the Rev. D. T. Fiske, D.D., the 
 venerable and honored President of the Board of Trustees of 
 Andover Theological Seminary. I doubt not that I can 
 safely rely upon your familiarity with that document. My 
 intellectual and moral attitude towards the Creed is exactly 
 denned in Dr. Fiske's Exposition. The high character, theo- 
 logical attainments, wisely conservative temper, and candid 
 spirit of Dr. Fiske, are a sufficient guaranty to me of a com- 
 petent and accurate representation of the Creed in his account 
 of its origin, its subsequent history, its character, the signifi- 
 cance of subscription to it, the history of its administration, 
 and the source of responsibility in deciding the orthodoxy of 
 the Professor in relation to the Creed. I refer to Dr. Fiske's 
 Exposition and rely upon it, because its original intention 
 was neither polemical in tone, nor inimical in its spirit 
 towards any individual connected with the Board of Instruc- 
 tion or of Administration. It was not written for any Star- 
 chamber assembly in secret conclave with the purpose of 
 ultimately making it an iron heel to crush the advocate of 
 some obnoxious doctrine : it was written solely for the infor- 
 mation of the North Essex Ministerial Association with which 
 he is connected, and with no intention of subsequent publica- 
 tion. Dr. Fiske's paper was entirely successful in removing 
 previous unfortunate misconceptions, and conveyed much val- 
 uable information to his ministerial associates. That accom- 
 plished theologian, the late Rev. Raymond H. Seeley, D.D., of 
 Haverhill, gave it his cordial endorsement. The Exposition 
 afforded such general satisfaction that it was published at the 
 request of the Association. The Rev. Ray Palmer, D.D., a 
 former Visitor of the Seminary, has declared Dr. Fiske's Essay 
 to be " a fair and honest statement of the essential facts of 
 the case, and well adapted to set the public — those who 
 wish to be set right — in a position to judge of the whole 
 matter." He affirms that the view of the Creed, so clearly 
 and ably presented, and the meaning of subscription to it 
 was that which he himself entertained when he subscribed 
 to it. " It was that," he adds, "of Drs. D wight and Smith 
 when they became Visitors." (See Prefatory Note to Dr. 
 
126 
 
 Fiske's Exposition : Cupples, Upham & Co., Boston, Dec. 17, 
 1886.) 
 
 Upon my election to office in the Seminary I consulted my 
 honored professor of Sacred Rhetoric concerning the manner 
 in which the Creed was to be taken, for I had often heard it 
 spoken of as an iron-clad affair of a past age, which had mostly 
 lost its force and was only loosely binding upon the teachers 
 of the present. Professor Phelps answered : " You must 
 take the Creed as the rest of us have taken it — in its historic 
 sense, and for substance of doctrine." His explanation of 
 those terms (which I do not now recall in his language) sat- 
 isfied me that an honest man could take the Creed honestly ; 
 but it also disclosed to me the fact that the Creed required 
 interpretation. 
 
 Accepting Dr. Fiske's exposition as my vade mecum in the 
 interpretation of the Creed, I affirm my deliberate and con- 
 scientious conviction that if the Creed had the inherent 
 power to effect the union of conflicting schools of religious 
 thought in the days of its origin, it has the very same inher- 
 ent power in the present day to prevent division and separa- 
 tion. 
 
 I cannot suppose that my personal views on the Ethics of 
 Creed-Subscription are of the slightest importance to your 
 reverend and Honorable Board. Nevertheless, they are of 
 vital importance to me ; and I find myself in such hearty accord 
 with the principles of Creed subscription as enunciated by 
 Professor Austin Phelps, that I venture to make reference to 
 the chapter in one of his works, — " My Portfolio," and en- 
 titled the "Rights of Believers in Ancient Creeds." Many 
 of the illustrations in that clear, comprehensive, and conser- 
 vative discussion are drawn from the Seminary Creed and the 
 history of its administration (see p. 41 et seq.). I may safely 
 assume your acquaintance with Professor Phelps's views upon 
 this important topic. I refer to Dr. Fiske and to Professor 
 Phelps as reflecting more perfectly and more vividly my own 
 views, and for the purpose of brevity at this late stage of 
 the proceedings. 
 
 In this manner, also, I express my sincere reverence for the 
 
127 
 
 framers of the Creed in their strenuous efforts to secure a 
 true expression of theological doctrine. As time goes on, 
 my veneration for those wise and able men is deepened, and 
 my confidence in the greatness of their purpose, and my 
 admiration for their achievement, are confirmed. Their elabo- 
 rate formulary is not an antiquated relic, but is an impressive 
 and living memorial of their insight into religious Truth, and 
 of their theological prowess. They were guided by the prom- 
 ised Spirit of Truth, who has never been absent from the 
 church in its work of creed-construction, and who is still 
 in the hearts of men that are called upon to interpret the 
 religious symbols of a former time. 
 
 I am glad to express my sympathy with the doctrinal con- 
 clusions at which they arrived. Every theological and Scrip- 
 tural fact they registered in that Creed is true, and always will 
 be true. Their skill in putting those truths into logical and 
 vital relations is remarkable, and it remains a noble expres- 
 sion of the tenets of consistent Calvinism. But who shall 
 call it a final expression of truth ? It contains truth so far 
 as it goes, but it does not exhaust it. Every Creed is a 
 monument of man's imperfection. I believe this Creed, but 
 I never can relinquish my right to think upon theological 
 topics independently of the Creed, and outside of its terms, 
 provided that, in the use of my conclusions, I am not in- 
 harmonious with a sound interpretation of the Creed or 
 antagonistic to it. The responsibility of subscription ulti- 
 mately rests upon the Professor himself. Any man likely to 
 be elected to any chair in the Seminary is supposed to be 
 intelligent and honest enough to decide for himself whether 
 he can or cannot conscientiously subscribe, or maintain his 
 subscription, to the Creed; and no man has a right to go 
 behind the subscriber's conscience, or try to displace it by 
 substituting some other man's interpretation. 
 
 In saying this, I mean to imply the inadequacy of this, and 
 any existing Creed, to cover all the subjects of theological 
 inquiry and discussion that constantly emerge in the gradual 
 development of the aspects of Truth. Religion is a life, the 
 life of God in the soul of man ; but Theology is the Science 
 
128 
 
 of Religion. Theology, with all the sciences, is bound to 
 regard changing data, and constantly must be passed under 
 review for revision and re-adjustment. There is new light 
 in Philosophy, new light in History, new light in Science, 
 new light in Criticism, that is constantly breaking forth. If 
 fresh light in an} T of these departments of thought and en- 
 deavor that are organically related to the facts and truths of 
 theological science can be allowed to flash out in Yale Semi- 
 nary or in Union, — and it is flashing there — then I want 
 its brightness in Andover, to make the Creed still more an 
 illuminating power ; and through Andover to shine in upon 
 the spiritual darkness of the nations. If a narrow construc- 
 tion of the Creed is to act as an extinguisher, or as a min- 
 imizing agent in denying me the benefits or the use of any 
 new light, I shall see to it that I do not suffer the condemna- 
 tion of those who love darkness rather than light. 
 
 Wonder has often been expressed that a Professor of Elo- 
 cution should be accused of heretical teaching of Theology. 
 My offence arises in the fact that I am a responsible co- 
 editor of the heretical " Andover Review." I have already 
 expressed my willingness to share every thing that editorial 
 responsibility carries with it. As editors we work and ex- 
 press ourselves in the plural and not in the singular. In 
 explanation of my arraignment it has been said in pleasantry 
 that I have been indicted for giving to the enunciation of 
 " Sheol " a circumflex inflection as expressing doubt. Not 
 so ; on the contrary, and all jesting apart at a time of serious- 
 ness, I enunciate " Sheol," and teach my pupils to enunciate 
 it, and every word symbolizing a revealed fact of solemn 
 import, with the firm, downward inflection expressive of the 
 affirmation of the reality of a positive personal conviction. 
 Not one of my colleagues is so poor a theologian or so un- 
 skilful a speaker as to confound a downright inflection with 
 a circumflex. 
 
 I have not yet found the term " Probation " a necessity 
 for my theology or my view of life, here or hereafter. I do 
 not find it in the Creed, excepting as it refers to Adam's pro- 
 bation in his relation as the federal head of the race ; nor 
 
129 
 
 is it a biblical word, although the idea is admitted to be 
 scriptural. I have been accustomed to regard this earthly 
 scene and God's relation to it, not as a court-room, nor even a 
 school-room, but as a scene of moral education in which the 
 Father of Spirits is training the nations and individuals com- 
 posing His great human family for the Eternal Life beyond 
 life. As I think I stated in my former answer to you, I cannot 
 believe that every soul's life in the Fatherhood of God will 
 have its moral discipline ended with its earthly career; but, 
 undoubtedly, there are souls existing both in this world and 
 the next that forever will resist the Divine purpose and 
 means in discipline. But it is not needful that I should 
 enlarge upon this view in order to guard it, or to defend 
 it, or to show its harmony with the Creed. The spiritual 
 results in holy character in the great multitude of the Re- 
 deemed in the Eternal World are the same in my view of 
 the future life that the advocates of a continued probation 
 for the mass of the evangelically Unprivileged hope to see 
 gloriously realized. 
 
 I know the history of the so-called Andover hypothesis 
 of Continued Probation, from the first syllable of its utter- 
 ance to the present hour. I have been in most intimate 
 relations, day in and day out, year in and year out, with its 
 supporters. I know a hundred times better than those who 
 have misunderstood and consequently have misrepresented 
 them, the spirit and manner, the limitations, lights and 
 shades, and the conditions of development in which the 
 hypothesis has been maintained. But little value may be 
 attached to a personal opinion ; nevertheless, the circum- 
 stances of this public statement make it proper for me to say 
 that, inasmuch as I am convinced that this hypothesis does 
 not militate against the doctrines of the Depravity of Man, 
 the Necessity of Regeneration, the Trinity of the Godhead, 
 the Universal Atonement of Christ, or the Eternity of 
 Future Rewards and Punishments, which doctrines are au- 
 thoritatively declared to be the distinguishing, essential, and 
 pivotal doctrines in the system of Truth which the Seminary 
 Creed, and all the great historic confessions affirm, — there- 
 fore, in view of such harmony with these tests of Orthodoxy, 
 
130 
 
 I earnestly claim for my colleagues their liberty of opinion, 
 teaching, and discussion concerning this hypothesis. More 
 than this : I believe that there is Reason and Scripture in it. 
 In making answer in this special form demanded by the 
 present exigency of the case, I trust that I have again 
 affirmed my sincere, reverent, and hearty loyalty to the 
 elaborate symbol that I am called upon to sign as a Pro- 
 fessor in Andover Theological Seminary. Whatsoever minor 
 diversities of formal expression or of individual interpreta- 
 tion my colleagues or myself may demand as our rights as 
 believers in the Creed, I sincerely believe that they are held 
 in accordance with sound and recognized principles of Creed- 
 Subscription. I sincerely believe that such modifications of 
 belief or statement do not impair the integrity of doctrine 
 as expressed in our authoritative standard. They are simply 
 changed aspects of unchangeable truths. I sincerely believe 
 that the intention of the Framers of this Creed was to 
 make forever secure the teaching of a large, an enlarging, 
 and a tolerant Orthodoxy ; that they were intent upon mak- 
 ing the teaching in the Seminary a synonym for a true, con- 
 sistent, and catholic theology. Moreover, I sincerely and 
 intelligently affirm that there exists in the religious com- 
 munity a wide-spread and positive judgment, that organized 
 opposition to competent and conscientious teaching on the 
 doctrinal basis laid by the Founders of the Seminary, is 
 inconsistent with a true liberty of teaching within the limits 
 of the Creed ; and that such organized opposition is sub- 
 versive of the stability of true theology, — a permanence that 
 must ever be conditioned upon freedom of theological teach- 
 ing and discussion as an inalienable right under any creed 
 of the protestant faith. 
 
Date Due 
 
 fAC «t) 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 Mnrrr* 
 
 ***St*K, 
 
 
 I 
 
 vf&e*** 9 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUL ^g 
 
 989 
 
 
 "^ii i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 f> 
 
 1