\ 
 
 mm 
 

 X 
 
/// the Matter of the Complaint against Egbert C. Smyth and 
 
 others, Professors of the Theological Institution in 
 
 Phillips Academy, Andover. 
 
 The Andover Defence. 
 
 DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR SMYTH; ARGUMENTS OF 
 PROFESSOR THEODORE W. DWIGHT, PROFESSOR 
 SIMEON E. BALDWIN, HON. CHARLES 
 THEODORE RUSSELL, AND EX- 
 GOVERNOR GASTON ; 
 
 EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS; 
 
 Dec. 28, 2g, 30, 1886; 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 THE STATEMENTS OF PROFESSORS TUCKER, HARRIS, 
 HINCKS, AND CHURCHILL; 
 
 Jan. 3, 1887. 
 
 .5 <,>*'-•» 
 
 BOSTON : 
 CUPPLES, UPHAM, AND COMPANY, 
 
 Z\\t ©IB Corner J3oofestarE, 
 
 283 Washington Street. 
 1887. 
 

 
 
 h^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Professor Dwight's Argument 5 
 
 II. Evidence introduced by Professor Baldwin . . 92 
 
 III. Professor Smyth's Defence 97 
 
 IV. Testimony of Newman Smyth, D.D. .... 181 
 V. Testimony of Professor Harris 184 
 
 VI. Testimony of Professor Hincks 187 
 
 VII. Testimony of Professor Tucker 189 
 
 VIII. Professor Baldwin's Argument 191 
 
 IX. Hon. Charles Theodore Russell's Argument . . 209 
 
 X. Ex-Gov. Gaston's Argument 256 
 
 XI, Statement of Professor Tucker 272 
 
 XII. Statement of Professor Harris 284 
 
 XIII. Statement of Professor Hincks 300 
 
 XIV. Statement of Professor Churchill .... 307 
 
 Mil???? 
 
1 > , ' 1) > J 
 
 Before the Board of Visitors. In the Matter of the Charges 
 against Egbert C. Smyth and others^ Professors^ etc. 
 
 PROFESSOR DWIGHT'S ARGUMENT. 
 
 To the Reverend and Honorable Board of Visitors of Andover 
 Theological Seminary : 
 
 This is an extraordinary case in many of its aspects. I 
 call your attention in the first place to the mode in which it 
 has been presented to your Board by the self-constituted 
 accusers of the Professors. 
 
 In doing this I refer to nothing outside of the papers be- 
 fore your Honorable Board. 
 
 Mode of Presenting the Case. 
 
 In a paper dated July 23, 1886, four gentlemen, viz., J. W. 
 Wellman, H. M. Dexter, O. T. Lanphear, and J. J. Blaisdell, 
 presented a paper to your Board making so-called " charges " 
 against five Professors in the Andover Theological Seminary, 
 whom they named. They stated in this paper that they 
 were constrained "from a sense of duty" to bring complaints 
 against Professors Smyth, Tucker, Churchill, Harris, and 
 Hincks. After setting tliese complaints out at some length, 
 one of them, J. W. Wellman, signed his name as trustee of 
 the seminary, and the others, viz., Messrs. Dexter, Lanphear, 
 and Blaisdell, signed their names as a " committee of certain 
 of the Alumni." 
 
 I do not propose now to speak of the intrinsic nature of 
 the charges themselves, on which comment and criticism 
 
6 
 
 were made before your Honorable Board at a recent meeting 
 on October 25th. These gentlemen, however, under an order 
 or intimation made on November 8th by you, amended or 
 attempted to amend their complaint in a way hitherto unex- 
 ampled in legal practice, apparently dividing a joint com- 
 plaint into separate proceedings against each Professor. 
 What was, however, worse than all, they ceased to describe 
 themselves as a committee, and henceforward appear in their 
 own individual names by an attorney. 
 
 To this course of proceeding the Professors by their coun- 
 sel make and have constantly made strenuous objection. I 
 call particular attention now to the evidence of duplicity and 
 underhanded methods on the part of these complainants in 
 having with apparent untruth described themselves as a 
 *' Committee of the Alumni." The object of this description 
 apparentl}' was to gain a credit for their charges by appear- 
 ing to act in a representative character. There was in the 
 statement an implied suggestion of a meeting of certain 
 Alumni, by whom they were appointed a committee. This 
 number was shadowy and uncertain, it is true, but the state- 
 ment that there were Alumni behind them was calculated 
 and, it is believed, designed to make an impression upon the 
 community. As it now appears, these four men comprise all 
 the Trustees and all the Alumni who engineer this move- 
 ment. If three of these men are a committee at all, they 
 are self-appointed — "a committee of the whole." The men 
 asserted by implication to be behind them are " men in buck- 
 ram " — like the eleven of the immortal Falstaff, at one time 
 formidable in their indefiniteness, but now subsiding into 
 three. I say that for such conduct these signers have for- 
 feited the confidence of all candid, truth-speaking men, and 
 I add, with Prince Hal, " What slaves are ye to hack your 
 swords as ye have done and then say it was in fight ? What 
 trick, what device, what starting-hole can you now find out 
 to hide yourselves from this open and apparent shame?" 
 Conduct like this at the Bar would gain the scorn of the 
 legal profession. We believe that before your Board it will 
 receive the treatment it richly deserves. 
 
It is unfortunate for the interests of the respondents that 
 in a tribunal like this there are no settled rules of practice. 
 We are driven to supposed analogies with other branches of 
 law more or less similar. The closest analogy seems to be 
 that of the practice in the English Ecclesiastical Courts, or 
 in Admiralty. In fact, Chief Justice Shaw, in Murdock v. 
 Phillips Academy^ 12 Pickering, 262, 263, refers to the rules 
 to be found in Burns' Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 According to that case, these things must concur before 
 your Board ; " 1. A monition or citation of the party to ap- 
 pear. 2. A charge given to him which he is to answer, called 
 a libel or complaint. 3. A competent time assigned for the 
 proofs and answer. 4. A liberty for counsel to defend his 
 cause, and to except against the proofs and witnesses. 5. A 
 solemn sentence, after hearing all the proofs and answers." 
 
 There is absolutely wanting in the present instance the first 
 two of these. There has been no citation, and there is in the 
 •proper sense no libel. What we have to do with at the pres- 
 ent moment is the libel, or, in more ordinary language, the 
 complaint. This is vital, for in the same connection the court 
 in the case cited from Pickering's Reports says, on p. 263 : 
 " These rules indicate the course which must in substance be 
 pursued by everi/ tribunal acting judicially upon the rights of 
 others." And this remark, by the precise terms of the de- 
 cision, includes proceedings by the Boards of Andover Theo- 
 logical Seminary. 
 
 A " libel " implies three things : A plaintiff, or " promo- 
 ter ; " a statement of a cause of action, or ground of proceed- 
 ing ; and a defendant, or respondent. One of the fatal defects 
 in this proceeding is that there is no legal representative of 
 the interests adverse to the respondents. 
 
 To define a " libel " we turn to the source of information 
 indicated in the case in 12 Pickering, viz., Burns' Ecclesias- 
 tical Law : " A libel is a declaration or charge drawn up in 
 writing on the part of the plaintiff, unto which the defend- 
 ant is OBLIGED to answer." This statement of course im- 
 plies that there must be both plaintiff and defendant, and 
 that the latter is required by some rule of law to answer. 
 
8 
 
 This is not a case in which your Board can proceed of its 
 own motion to a trial of the respondent. 
 
 There may be cases in which an ecclesiastical judge may 
 proceed ex officio. Burns, however, says that proceedings 
 which touch freehold, debt, trespass, and the like, concern 
 matters between party and party (Lond., 1797, 6th ed.). 
 
 There is substantially a freehold in the present case, as the 
 Professors hold office during life, and accordingly have a free- 
 hold or life interest in their office. This interest is pro- 
 nounced by the court in 7 Pickering, 330, 1st paragraph, to 
 be a " valuable property." Even if an ex-officio proceeding 
 were proper, it has not been resorted to in the present case. 
 The ordinar}' method of proceeding by parties has been se- 
 lected. But this theory is impossible, for these signers have 
 no interest in the matter and cannot possibly be parties 
 " aggrieved." If the case be wrongly conceived, the names 
 of the signers cannot be ignored. 
 
 But what is still more decisive is that an ex-officio proceed- 
 ing is solely applicable to a criminal case. The ecclesiastical 
 law follows the canon law in this respect ; and the bishop or 
 his official proceeds " from the mere office," induced by pub- 
 lic fame or the relation of credible persons to inquire into the 
 innocence or criminality of persons within his jurisdiction 
 (Browne on the Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, bound 
 up with Browne on the Civil and Admiralty Law, 1st Am. 
 ed., vol. i., pp. 502, 503). 
 
 The present case, however, is not to be* regarded as a 
 charge of crime. It has no resemblance to the ecclesiastical 
 case of deprivation. The object of " deprivation " was not 
 to unseat a person from a particular benefice, but to deprive 
 a clerical person of his office as minister. Loss of a particu- 
 lar benefice would follow, as well as incapacity to be admit- 
 ted to any other like position. When Chief Justice Shaw, 
 in 12 Pickering, 262, refers to "deprivation" in ecclesiastical 
 cases, it is only to show the necessary elements of any prose- 
 cution in a special tribunal like this, whether the proceeding 
 be criminal or civil. Moreover, "deprivation" before an 
 ecclesiastical tribunal is a breach of the law of England on 
 
account of the relation of Church and State. It is termed 
 the "king's ecclesiastical law." There is no ecclesiastical 
 law in this sense in the United States. 
 
 The subject of " deprivation " in English ecclesiastical law 
 is treated with fulness in Godolphin's Abridgment of the Ec- . 
 clesiastical Laws, London, 1680, title Deprivation (p. 306). 
 He reduces all causes of deprivation to three : (1) want of 
 capacity; (2) contempt; (3) crime. The crimes are true 
 crimes in the ordinary sense of the criminal law, such as mur- 
 der, forgery, and the like, or the violation of some statute 
 prohibiting criminal acts. The proceeding in the present in- 
 stance is not for a crime in the domain of criminal law. It 
 is impossible for this Board to try a criminal case. At most, 
 this proceeding is for the violation of a trust, which by the 
 common law is not criminal, but only the subject of a civil 
 action. It has been declared by one of the signers to be a 
 scandalous violation of a public trust. It will be shown here- 
 after, if it be a valid trust, to be a charitable use or trust. 
 These trusts have for centuries been supervised, controlled, 
 and superintended in England by the High Court of Chan- 
 cery, as well as other courts having equitable powers. No 
 other court has assumed jurisdiction to superintend them or 
 to correct abuses in their management. All trust law origi- 
 nated with the Court of Chancery, and trusts still remain the 
 principal objects of chancery or equitable jurisdiction. 
 
 It is a mistake to suppose that your Honorable Board, if it 
 has original jurisdiction, represents simply the visitatorial 
 power of the common law. This is a statutory tribunal hav- 
 ing powers beyond those conceded to visitors at common 
 law. One very marked distinction between it and the com- 
 mon-law visitor is this : your decisions are reviewable on 
 appeal, while no appeal lies in the case of a visitor. His is 
 a domestic forum. He acts summarily. This is not the 
 case with you. You must follow rules ; you must conduct 
 yourselves as a court, for so the law of Massachusetts, as 
 expressed in the statute-book, as construed by the Supreme 
 Court in 12 Pickering, 262, has provided. Considered as a 
 court or legal tribunal, so far as you review the management 
 
10 
 
 of trusts, your jurisdiction is in the nature of equitable 
 authority. 
 
 Now, it is perfectly well settled that the jurisdiction of 
 equity over trusts is in no respect criminal, but purely civil. 
 -A court of equity is not a criminal court. Its jurisdiction as 
 a whole is purely civil. It is a property court. Your power 
 to inquire into " heterodoxy " is not a general power extend- 
 ing to all trusts of a charitable nature. It is for the purpose 
 of determining whether the rules of a particular foundation 
 in Andover Seminary have been violated, and nothing more. 
 The creed which you examine need not be in itself a truly 
 Christian creed. It is not because it is Christian that you 
 are reviewing the conduct of the respondent. You are sit- 
 ting here because certain men having money at their com- 
 mand long ago concluded to make use of it in a special way, 
 and you are inquiring whether the trust that these men 
 now dead imposed upon the property, so far as it is lawful, 
 is being carried out faithfully by the beneficiaries. That is 
 a pure civil inquiry, in the same way as if the trust had been 
 for instruction in medicine or law. That would be so if a 
 court of equity in Massachusetts were to-day engaged in 
 doing the same thing that you are. Why should you be 
 regarded as holding a criminal court, when the Supreme 
 Court holding precisely the same inquiry for the same pur- 
 pose would be deemed to be holding a civil court? 
 
 I cite the following authorities to show that a court of 
 equity has no criminal jurisdiction: * 
 
 Attorney- General v. Utica Insurance Co., 2 Johns. Ch., 379. 
 
 Phillips v- Stone Mountain Railroad, 61 Ga., 386. 
 
 Life Association v. Beogher, 3 Mo. App., 173. 
 
 Davis V. American Society, 75 N. Y., 362. 
 
 Cohen v. Commissioners of Goldshoro, 77 N. C, 2. 
 
 Cope V. District Fair, 99 111., 489. 
 
 Moses V. Mobile, 52 Ala., 198. 
 
 Attorney- General v. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass., 239, 240. 
 
11 
 
 Special reference is made to the case in 2 Johnson's Chan- 
 cery, and that of the Attorney- General v. Tudor Ice Co.y, 
 supra. 
 
 The first of these cases was decided at an early day by 
 Chancellor Kent while presiding in the New York Court of 
 Chancery. He says, on p. 378 of the report, "-if a charge be 
 of a criminal nature or an offence against the public, and 
 does not touch the enjoyment of property, it ought not to be 
 brought within the direct jurisdiction of this court, which 
 was intended to deal only with matters of civil right resting 
 in equity or where the remedy at law was not sufficiently 
 adequate." The Massachusetts case is still more emphatic. 
 The court said : 
 
 " This court, sitting in equity, does not administer punish- 
 ment or enforce forfeitures for transgression of law ; but its 
 jurisdiction is limited to the protection of civil rights, and to 
 cases in which adequate relief cannot be had on the common- 
 law side of the court or of the other courts of the common- 
 wealth " (p. 240). 
 
 The administration of trusts in equity is not, accordingly, 
 a criminal proceeding, though it may perhaps be held to 
 assume, as a matter of form, a criminal aspect in certain cases 
 prosecuted in the name of the Attorney-General. These 
 cases are very rare in Massachusetts, and do not include such 
 cases as the present (104 Mass., 239, 240, 244). The last 
 page cited is particularly in point. 
 
 No support can be derived for a criminal theory based on 
 the doctrines of an information in the nature of a quo war- 
 ranto. That is a proceeding in a court of common law (not 
 equity) to inquire by what warrant a person occupying an 
 office retains possession of it, and may in case of misconduct 
 result in forfeiture. It was originally inform a criminal pro- 
 ceeding, because if the office was forfeited a fine might be 
 inflicted. It is now unanimously recognized b}^ jurists as in 
 substance a civil proceeding, and has by statute been stripped 
 of all criminal aspect in a large number of the American 
 States as well as in England. (See, in England, 47 and 48 
 Vict., c. 61, § 15, where it is declared that proceedings in quo 
 
12 
 
 warranto shall be deemed to be civil proceedings for all pur- 
 poses ; N. Y. Code of Oivil Procedure, § 1983, § 1990; fol- 
 lowed in many other States.) Moreover, there is nothing to 
 show in the amended complaint that the present proceeding 
 is to obtain the forfeiture of an office. The quo warranto^ 
 too, is in the name of the commonwealth before a court of 
 criminal jurisdiction. 
 
 The result is that the present is a civil case, and that there 
 should be, as in all other civil cases, a true party to the 
 record, prosecuting it because he has some interest in the 
 subject-matter. 
 
 The course of proceeding, adopted in a New York case, has 
 been approved in an emphatic manner by the Supreme Judi- 
 cial Court of Massachusetts, in Murdoch v. Phillips Academy^ 
 12 Pickering, 265. Reference is there made, with marked 
 approval, to the case of the Dutch Reformed Church in Alba- 
 ny V. Bradford^ 8 Cowen (N.Y.), 457. There the consistory^ 
 consisting of the deacons and elders of a church, made a speci- 
 fic charge against their minister to the classis, the court hav- 
 ing original jurisdiction in such matters. The consistory, as 
 representing the church where the minister was serving, had 
 an interest in the question. It was in substance the same as 
 if the church itself had appeared as complainants, or much 
 the same as if in the present case the Trustees of Andover 
 Theological Seminary had in their official capacity presented 
 the case before your Honorable Board. 
 
 It ought never to be overlooked that the relation between 
 the Professors and Trustees of Andover Theological Semi- 
 nary originated in contract. It is not like the origin of title 
 to a public office, in which there is simply an appointment, 
 and in general no contract. How can a dissolution of a con- 
 tract justify a criminal proceeding? Suppose that a similar 
 contract had been made by a college where there was no 
 Board of Visitors, and dissolution of the contract was claimed 
 in the ordinary courts, would there be any criminal element 
 in the proceeding ? Even if the dissolution were for some 
 crime, the proceeding for dissolution would not be criminal, 
 but only for breach of contract. 
 
13 
 
 There is nothing in the remarks of the Supreme Court in 
 the case of Murdoch, Appellant, etc., 7 Pickering, 330, opposed 
 to these views. The court at this point was discussing the 
 necessity of making the articles of charge definite and partic- 
 ular, and in enforcing tliat requirement remarked that, by 
 analogy to trials on criminal accusations in the courts of 
 justice and the principles of the constitution, no man can be 
 deprived of his office, which is a valuable property, without 
 having the offence with which he is charged "fully and 
 plainly, substantially and formally, described to him." This 
 remark is by no means equivalent to the assertion that a 
 proceeding before the Board of Visitors is a criminal pro- 
 ceeding. Criminal proceedings are referred to simplj'- as 
 sources of our ideas of justice, precisely as the reference in 
 the same breath is made to the principles of the State con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Moreover, the constitution of the State prevents you from 
 holding a criminal court. (See Art. 12.) This provides 
 that no person shall be deprived of his property or estate 
 except by the "judgment of his peers or the law of land." 
 This phrase is uniformly held to guarantee trial by jury in 
 criminal cases. 
 
 There should also be mentioned in this connection a most 
 serious practical objection to this proceeding, if it be right, 
 as we insist, to regard it as of a civil nature. Suppose that 
 this proceeding should not be successful, what is there to 
 prevent four other Alumni from instituting a similar proceed- 
 ing and treading the whole ground over again ? In regularly 
 instituted suits between proper parties a former judgment is a 
 bar to another original proceeding. This is one of the strong- 
 est reasons for having formal parties upon the records of the 
 court. But it is an inflexible condition of the application of 
 this rule that the parties should be the same. If four new 
 Alumni should proceed, the parties will not be the same, and 
 the respondent may thus be subjected to repeated litigations. 
 This tribunal should pause befoi-e it faces such consequences. 
 
14 
 
 The Chaeges Considered. 
 
 I next proceed to consider the charges themselves. 
 
 As the matter now stands in the so-called amended com- 
 plaint, there is great uncertainty prejudicial to the defence of 
 the respondent. Does the old " complaint " remain? It is 
 not expressly disposed of. Is the new one valid? If sOjtwo 
 cases are pending before the same tribunal for the same 
 cause. This we have objected to, and the two cannot be 
 properly carried on together. Perhaps the amended com- 
 plaint is a substitute for the old one, and that the validity of 
 further proceedings must now be tested by that. We have a 
 right to demand that the court shall require an election by 
 the signers on which they will stand ; and we now demand it. 
 
 If the amended complaint be a substitute, we insist that it 
 was not competent for the signers to proceed as they have 
 done. They have apparently assumed to divide the former 
 joint proceeding into five separate proceedings. This cannot 
 be lawfully done. This rule has been applied in equity in a 
 case like the present, except that the names of the plaintiffs 
 were divided instead of the respondents. The court would 
 not hear the subdivided cases without the general consent of 
 all parties interested. Appleton v. Chapeltown Paper Co., 45 
 Law Journal, Ch., 276, decided by a great judge. Sir George 
 Jessel, Master of the Rolls. Instead of assenting to the 
 division in this case, the respondent has constantly objected. 
 
 But assuming for the moment that the original case can be 
 split into five separate proceedings against the will of the 
 respondents, and that it has been successfully divided, I now 
 reach the amended complaint considered as to its subject- 
 matter, and insist that several cardinal rules of pleading are 
 violated. 
 
 Violation of Rules of Pleading as to Subject- 
 matter. 
 
 I. The first three charges are without specifications. They 
 are mere conclusions of law instead of statements of fact ; or 
 it may be said that they are mere inferences of the signers, 
 
15 
 
 witlioiit giving any facts from which the inferences are de- 
 rived. It is true that the expression " hereinafter enume- 
 rated " is used in each case, but that is not enough. Accord- 
 ingly, the words " hereinafter enumerated " in each of the 
 first three charges must be confined to what is set forth in 
 each charge by itself. The result as to these is that there are 
 no specifications as to those charges. There is no enumera- 
 tion in connection with the charge. It is required by the sim- 
 plest rules of pleading that each charge should be complete 
 in itself (Gould on Pleading, c. iv., sec. 3). The rule is 
 there stated in this form : " In all cases in which there are 
 two or more counts, whether there is actually but one cause 
 of action or several, each count purports itpow the face of it to 
 disclose a distinct right of action, unconnected with that 
 
 STATED IN ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTS ; SO that upon the 
 
 face of the declaration there appear to be as many different 
 causes of action as there are counts inserted " (4th ed., by 
 George Gould, 1861). 
 
 Moreover, if each of the charges is distinct, it is impossi- 
 ble and absurd to assume that the same specifications and 
 quotations from the writings of the Professors will prove 
 each. If the charges are not distinct, but are mere idle rep- 
 etitions, then the first three ought to be stricken out, and 
 we ought to be relieved from the trouble and expense of 
 contesting them. 
 
 II. If, however, the fourth charge, with its specifications, 
 be not obnoxious to any criticism of indefiniteness of a vital 
 nature (as we contend that it is), still it is clear that no offence 
 is charged of which this Board has original jurisdiction, even 
 though it be assumed that in certain cases the Board pos- 
 sesses such jurisdiction. It is not one of the cases specified 
 in the article from which original jurisdiction is assumed to 
 be derived. 
 
 The distinction between the plain original jurisdiction of 
 the Trustees and the assumed jurisdiction of this Board I 
 now place in view by extracts from the statutes. Article 14 
 of the Constitution of the Theological Seminary provides 
 that a professor may be removed by the Trustees " for gross 
 
IG 
 
 neglect of duty, scandalous immorality, mental incapacity, or 
 any other just and sufficient cause." Article 20 of the stat- 
 utes concerning the Associate Foundation confers whatever 
 power of removal is vested in the Board of Visitors, in the 
 following words, "to remove him (a professor), either for 
 misbehavior, heterodoxy, incapacity, or neglect of the duties 
 of his office." A glance will show that the power of the 
 Trustees is broad and wide, while that of the Visitors is spe- 
 cific and restricted. Of the four instances named, only one 
 can possibly be aimed at in these proceedings. This is 
 " heterodoxy." 
 
 The powers of the Board of Visitors cannot be extended 
 beyond those named, as they form part of the original con- 
 tract between the Trustees and each Professor. The Visitors 
 have no connection with that contract. They are only to see 
 to its observance. As we have stated, none of these specified 
 grounds of removal can exist in the present case but " het- 
 erodoxy." "Heterodoxy," however, is not charged. It is 
 only alluded to in the fourth " charge " (marked IV.), in the 
 following indirect manner : " We charge that the several par- 
 ticulars of the 'heterodoxy' of the said Egbert C. Smyth, 
 and of his opposition to the creed of the Seminary, and to 
 the true intention of the Founders, as expressed in their 
 statutes, are as follows, to wit." This is not a charge of 
 "heterodoxy." It plainly assumes that " heterodoxy " has 
 been charged in some prior paragraph. On examining the 
 prior paragraphs no charge whatever of "heterodoxy" ap- 
 pears. 
 
 III. But assuming that there is a charge of "heterodoxy" 
 sufficient in form, there is a preliminary inquiry. What is 
 " heterodoxy " within the meaning of the Founders ? Does 
 it mean a denial of the principles of the Christian religion, 
 or simply a denial of the doctrines contained in the particu- 
 lar Andover creed which the Professors are required to 
 sign? Reference is now made to the Associate statutes, and 
 to a Professor on the " Associate Foundation." This is a 
 highly penal charge. A Professor's contract, made for life, 
 is to be dissolved by a quasi-ind\c\?i[ proceeding. These 
 
17 
 
 " Founrlers " drew their statutes themselves. The Profess- 
 ors had nothinoc to do with them. The benefactors, of 
 course, selected their own words. 
 
 In such a case as that, the settled rule of law is that the 
 instrument and its interpretation is to be taken most 
 strongly against the party who selected the words in ques- 
 tion (Broom's Legal Maxims, 529, and cases cited). The 
 rule finds strong illustration in such cases as policies of 
 insurance, where one party to the contract, viz., the insurers, 
 almost invariably selects the general words used in the 
 instrument. (See Harmon v. Mut. Ins. Co.^ 81 N.Y., 184, 
 where this rule is rigidly adhered to.) 
 
 It is also a rule that an obscure contract is to be inter- 
 preted most strongly against the party to whom the obscur- 
 ity is attributable ( Wetjuore v. Pattkon, 45 Mich., 439-441). 
 
 In the present case the rule of the so-called Founders has 
 remained for about eighty years unaltered. The word " heter- 
 odoxy " has during all this period remained undefined and 
 unexplained. Several generations of professors have passed 
 away without their beliefs being judicially called in ques- 
 tion. The word "heterodoxy" seems to he too vague to 
 heeome the subject of judicial inquijy. Observe that no power 
 of removal is granted to the Visitors because the party 
 believes or teaches in opposition to the creed. The ground 
 for removal before this Board is Heterodoxy, and there is 
 no mode of ascertaining what " heterodoxy " is unless resort 
 be had to the ordinary meaning of the word. 
 
 " Heterodoxy," as commonly understood, is a deviation 
 from the established opinions on the matter of religion. 
 (See Worcester's Dictionary, title Heterodox.) This would 
 not fairly include the present case, for there is at most only 
 a deviation from a special creed, established by three or four 
 persons, having no correspondence with any creed in general 
 use among the members of the particular denomination to 
 which the Founders belonged. It is an eclectic creed, made 
 up, as will be hereafter shown, from divers and even contra- 
 dictory sources. If deviation from the creed had been 
 intended, the Founders should have said so. Power to 
 
18 
 
 remove for that cause may, perhaps, be conferred upon the 
 Trustees under the words "other good and sufficient cause." 
 All that we urge now is, that it is not conferred upon the 
 Board of Visitors. 
 
 Still we cannot refrain from expressing our belief that the 
 " Founders " did not intend to guard assent to their creed 
 by a threat ever suspended over the Professors of removal 
 for "heterodoxy." Their reliance was upon the general 
 character of the Professor and upon his being an "orthodox 
 and consistent Calvinist," and upon his solemn declaration 
 made when he entered upon his duties and repeated every 
 five years. If these could not secure his adhesion to the 
 creed, nothing of a minatory nature could. 
 
 The fair conclusion, then, is that the word "heterodoxy," 
 as used in Article 20, refers to a departure from the estab- 
 lished tenets of the denomination of Christians to which the 
 Professor belongs. In that view, reference to the creed of 
 the " Founders " is immaterial. 
 
 The General Merits of the Case. 
 
 While having perfect confidence in the foregoing views, I 
 proceed to argue this case on the theory that " heterodoxy " 
 includes the case of departure from the special creed of the 
 Founders. In that view I shall maintain that no ground 
 exists for the charges set forth in the fourth (IV.) article of 
 the Amended Complaint. 
 
 Before taking up this article in detail, it will be necessary 
 to show the precise scope and bearing of the matters in con- 
 troversy. 
 
 This case presents purely a legal question. Has there 
 been such a departure by Professor Smyth from the aims 
 and purposes of the foundation on which he is placed as to 
 violate the contract between him and the Trustees of the 
 Seminary, and to prevent him from enjoying the benefits of 
 the foundation upon which he is placed. This question in- 
 volves to some extent the law of charitable trusts, and the 
 power of a Board of Visitors acting partly under the com- 
 
19 
 
 mon law and partl}^ under provisions of a Massachusetts 
 statute. 
 
 The first branch of this subject to be considered is the 
 meaning of the expression " charitable trusts." 
 
 The Law of Charitable Trusts Stated. 
 
 The first branch of this subject to be considered is the 
 meaning and effect of the expression " charitable trusts," 
 under which it will be claimed by the signers that the pres- 
 ent foundation is to be ranked. The word " charitable " is 
 here a purely technical word, and not to be confounded with 
 its popular meaning of bestowal of alms upon the poor. 
 The great element in a " charitable trust " is that it is public 
 in its nature, and in some form beneficial or useful to man- 
 kind. Such trusts existed as far back, in England, as there 
 is clear historical light, being undoubtedly borrowed from a 
 highly developed system on this subject in the later Roman 
 law, attributable to the general spread of the principles of 
 Christianity, and to the necessity of endowments for the sup- 
 port of hospitals, care of the poor, houses of rest for way- 
 farers, support of churches and priests, redemption of 
 Christian captives, etc. 
 
 These trusts, introduced into England no doubt by the 
 clergy, have been mainly for the promotion of practical good 
 deeds among men. But few, comparatively, have existed for 
 the mere spread of opinions. An attempt, rude it must be 
 admitted, to classify them is found, in England, in a statute 
 of the 43d Elizabeth (a.d. 1601), Chapter IV. It is by ref- 
 erence to the classifications of this statute that English 
 courts have been largely guided in determining whether a 
 gift is charitable or not. It is a significant fact that none of 
 the enumerations in that statute has any connection with the 
 spread of religious opinions. The poor are referred to, edu- 
 cation, public works, relief of prisoners, marriage portions 
 of poor maids, support of young tradesmen, and the like. 
 It is only by inference that religious opinions are included. 
 Before the year 1600 such foundations can scarcely have ex- 
 
20 
 
 isted, or tliey would, if common, no doubt have been referred 
 to in the statute of Elizabeth. 
 
 There is a peculiarity about trusts for these purposes, 
 which sets them apart from all of a private nature. They 
 ask the protection of the law for the continuance of the foun- 
 dation forever. The fund is to be forever intact, and only 
 the income, as it accrues from time to time, is to be appropri- 
 ated to the " charitable " use. The long line of beneficiaries 
 beginning to-day, it may be, stretches on to infinity. Noth- 
 ing of this kind is tolerated in the case of private trusts. 
 They must end at the termination of a specified number of 
 lives in being when the trust is created, and a moderate term 
 of years in addition (twenty-one years). Every such trust 
 may thus be challenged as to its validity. What is its object ? 
 Is it to found a family, to promote the ends of private per- 
 sons, even to found a library or a picture-gallery for their ex- 
 clusive use? If so, it cannot be perpetual. On the other 
 hand, is it to found a public library, public schools, give em- 
 ployment to the poor, to establish a public hospital? Then 
 it ma}^ last forever, for public uses and public necessities 
 never end. 
 
 In fact, the distinction between private trusts and chari- 
 table trusts depends on large views of public policy. It is 
 contrary to the best interests of a State to permit an owner 
 of property, by any deed, will, or other instrument whatev^er, 
 to keep the estate forever devoted to private uses. In the 
 nervous language of the old judges, they who attempt to do 
 this "fight against God," who decrees in human affairs muta- 
 tion and instability instead of fixedness and stability. To 
 this general rule of invalidity of permanent trusts, the spe- 
 cial rule as to charitable uses is the only exception. 
 
 Now, what is the underlying thought that lends to these 
 charitable trusts a practical immortality, and to this end sum- 
 mons the law to tlieir protection and support? To this in- 
 quiry there is but one answer. It is the element in them of 
 public utility. Let them be beneficial to the public; they 
 may be allowed to exist. Let them be pernicious to the 
 public ; they should be unsparingly condemned and rooted 
 
21 
 
 out. Public utility is thus the condition and the law of their 
 existence. 
 
 Perhaps no case shows this more cleai'ly than the very 
 peculiar foundation of Thomas Brown, established by the 
 Court of Chancery in Eiigiand, in the case of the University 
 of London v. Yarroiv^ 23 Beavan, 159, and on appeal in 1 
 De Gex & Jones, 73. The testator made a bequest to a cor- 
 poiation for founding, establishing, and upholding an institu- 
 tion for studying and endeavoring to cure maladies of any 
 quadrupeds or birds useful to man. The Lord Chancellor 
 said, in this case : " I cannot entertain for a moment a doubt 
 that the establishment of a hospital in which animals which 
 are useful to mankind should be properly treated and cured, 
 and the nature of their diseases investigated, with a view to 
 public advantage, is a charity " (1 D. G. & J., 80). 
 
 This being the crucial test of a charitable institution, it 
 would follow that no establishment of this kind pernicious 
 to mankind, or even of doubtful utility, could be upheld for 
 a moment by the courts. The institution must be able to 
 vindicate its right to a perpetual existence, by showing that 
 it is presumably for the public advantage. 
 
 Such a principle as this is peculiarly applicable to a per- 
 petual foundation for teaching and inculcating opinions. It 
 surely cannot be for the public advantage to have erroneous 
 opinions propagated among the young. The theory of one 
 of the counsel for the complainants cannot be upheld, to the 
 effect that it is immaterial whether the opinions are plainly 
 erroneous or not. No cliarity could reasonabl}^ be upheld 
 which was established for the perpetual instruction of youth 
 in the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy, or its modern Ethio- 
 pian revival under the proposition "that the sun do move." 
 What has been won from the darkness of igfuorance ought 
 to be retained, not merely as the knowledge of scientists, 
 but as the common property of the people. 
 
 I quote some valuable remarks upon this subject from a 
 work by the present Lord Hobhouse, formerly Sir Arthur 
 Hobhouse, long an active member of the Board of English 
 Commissioners of Charities, and a high judicial officer. No 
 
99 
 
 person in England, where charitable institutions number 
 forty thousand at least has more knowledge or experience 
 of their practical workings than he. I refer now to his 
 work called the Dead Hand (published in London, by 
 Chatto & Wind us, 1880). He says, on p. 123 : " There is a 
 subject on which very few can speak plainly without giving 
 offence. It is asked as though the question were unanswer- 
 able whether a public tribunal shall interfere with founda- 
 tions for the support of opinions? The opinions for which 
 foundations are established are usually of a theological char- 
 acter, and it is thought that foundations for tlijs purpose are 
 more valuable and sacred than others. Now, as to their 
 being more valuable I will not hesitate to say that founda- 
 tions attaching endowments to the holding and teaching of 
 prescribed opinions are., if they are to be unalterable, the 
 very worst kind of foundations that can be conceived; 
 for experience shows that the opinions to which men have 
 attached property change and become extinct (sooner or 
 later, according to their depth and force), and then you have 
 a direct premium on profession without belief. But that 
 which tends to corrupt the noblest part of man, the very eye 
 of the soul, his perception of truth, is as evil a thing as can 
 be imagined. Suppose, for instance, that a large estate had 
 been settled in the sixteenth century for maintaining the 
 geocentric theory of the universe. It was believed impli- 
 citly ; it was supposed to rest on the clearest testimony of 
 revelation ; to doubt it was impious. Suppose, then, that 
 this had been done, and that now, when every child at a 
 national school knows the contrar}^ solemn lectures were 
 delivered to show that in some sense or other — astronomical, 
 metaphorical, or mystical — the sun travelled around the 
 earth. Is any public authority to interfere with so degrad- 
 ing a mockery? It is said 'You cannot interfere with the 
 authority of the founder.' I venture to say, you can and 
 ought. As long as any man believes any opinion whatever, 
 let him proclaim it, without molestation, from the house-tops. 
 But to allow that property shall be devoted forever to 
 bribing people into teaching what they do not believe is 
 monstrous." 
 
23 
 
 These are wise words, searching the matter to the core. 
 
 No doubt the English Court of Chancery has frequently 
 followed the intentions of the founders of a charity with great 
 closeness, even when lamenting their unwisdom. There are 
 thus all over Encrland charitable institutions founded in form 
 on the theory of public utility, which are now on long ex- 
 perience producing most pernicious results — encouraging 
 pauperism, opposed to sound theories of political economy, 
 promoting ignorance, or fomenting domestic discord, or 
 gratifying personal rancor and bitterness. An instance of 
 the last is that of Thomas Nash, of Bath, who gave a pet- 
 petual annuity to the ringers of bells at the Abbey Church, 
 Bath, " who were to ring from time to time forever a whole 
 peal of bells, with muffled clappers and various solemn and 
 doleful changes, on the anniversary of his wedding-day for 
 twelve hours ; and on the anniversary of the day of his 
 death to ring a grand bob major, with merry, mirthful peals, 
 for the same space of time, in joyful commemoration of his 
 happy release from domestic tyranny and wretchedness." 
 These are his own words (Lord Hobhouse's Dead Hand, 102, 
 103). This bitter-minded testator was thus allowed to in- 
 scribe on the records of the court a perpetual and appar- 
 ently malicious libel on the character of his wife, in the 
 technical form of a charity, because the gift was to sustain 
 in perpetuity the bell-ringers of a church. 
 
 The Parliament has been compelled to interfere with the 
 galling chains of this severe construction as far as opinions 
 are concerned, and in the Dissenters' Chapels Act, 7 and 8 
 Vict., c. 45, to provide, by way of partial relief, that unless 
 there is in the deed of trust an express requirement that 
 particular religious doctrines be taught or observed, or be 
 forbidden to be taught, the usage for twenty-five years im- 
 mediately preceding any suit shall be taken as conclusive 
 evidence that doctrines in accordance with the usage may 
 henceforward be taught and observed. 
 
 It is certainly well worth while considering by the courts 
 of this country, so far as the question is still open for con- 
 sideration, whether it is judicious to adopt a literal lud iron- 
 
24 
 
 clad construction of these creeds, which may foster litigation, 
 and even in the absence of litigation check the educational 
 movement of the time and prevent thorough educational 
 training. 
 
 It is to be carefully observed that the present case is not 
 distinctively that of a religious creed. It is not imposed, as 
 is usual in such cases, upon a congregation of believers. It 
 is meant as a clog upon instruction., and may turn out to be 
 a prohibition against instruction in the truth. It says to a 
 body of teachers " You must not teach doctrines because 
 they are true, but because we, the ' founders,' impose them 
 upon you." It says to pupils, "• You must not hear from 
 your instructors the truth simply and solely because it is the 
 truth, but only so far as we, the 'founders,' allow your in- 
 structors to impart it." The teacher is thus emasculated, 
 and the growth of the scholar is one-sided and dwarfed. In 
 the name, not only of the professors under trial, but of all 
 the teachers of the land, including, I hope, the chairman 
 of this Board, I respectfully protest against such shackles of 
 iron upon education. 
 
 Let us consider precisely what this creed means to teachers. 
 Here is a class of blameless and highly intelligent men, who 
 think that their true vocation is education of the young, 
 and that in some of the noblest branches of knowledge — 
 theology, ecclesiastical history, homiletics, and in the art of 
 skilful and persuasive public speech. They are invited to 
 pursue their calling at Andover Theological Seminary. They 
 are met at the entrance with a ponderous creed, smelling of 
 antiquity and the outcome of the fiery struggles of ancient 
 days — contests of which we have little or no knowledge, 
 and with which we have as little sympathy. Its words are 
 technical and uncouth. Its clauses are confused and con- 
 tradictory. Yet all must alike adopt this creed, the real 
 meaning of which has never been interpreted. If such a creed 
 is good for instructors in theology, why will it not answer in 
 medicine or law ? Why will it not be useful to instructors 
 in art? One of these Professors really teaches a fine art — 
 rhetoric and elocution. Now, it is said to him in substance : 
 
25 
 
 " You must not comment upon the graceful style of Addison, 
 nor the gorgeous diction of Jeremy Taylor, unless you com- 
 bine in your mind the utterances of Augustine, Athanasius, 
 and Calvin, with the metaphysical observations of the elder 
 Jonathan Edwards, and the correct exposition of the phrase 
 'corporeal strength' as coined by Dr. Samuel Spring. You 
 must not refer to the eloquent speech of Chatham or Erskine, 
 of Webster or Choate, until you renounce the heresy of the 
 Sabellians and all the wicked works of the Arminians and 
 Pelagians. This you and your successors must do from time 
 to time forever." Jf such a check on instruction is good at 
 Andover, why wouldn't it be useful at Harvard, Amherst, 
 or Williams? To tie an institution to such a creed seems 
 like anchoring a vessel in the swift current of a flowing 
 stream amid the mud and rubbish of bygone ages. So the 
 Phillipses, Browns, and Abbots, noble in their intentions and 
 sincere Christians, but erring in sound judgment, bedded 
 their little institution on the hills of Andover, among the 
 mud and rubbish of extinct controversies. There is no com- 
 parison between the effects of a stationary creed upon educa- 
 tion and upon a church. The former is open to the charge 
 of misleading youth — one of the gravest offences known to 
 the commonwealth of ancient Athens. Should the present 
 or a similar case reach the Supreme Judicial Court, it may 
 be worth while for the judges to consider the legal effect of 
 imposing a non-elastic creed, religious or otherwise, upon 
 teachers in our great theological or other professional or 
 literary institutions. 
 
 It serves my present purpose to point out some of the far- 
 reaching questions of this painful case, and to suggest that 
 if this creed is to prevail it should have a liberal interpreta- 
 tion, that technicalities should not bear sway, that contradic- 
 tions or modifications should be reconciled and adjusted, that 
 the substance of the creed should be only regarded, and above 
 all, where the creed is silent, that the principles of justice 
 and the general spirit of Christianity be followed. 
 
 Let your Honorable Board remember that tliis creed hav- 
 ing never been judicially interpreted as to the specific meaning 
 
26 
 
 of phrases used, the professors in considering its meaning had 
 the riofht to sfive it all the breadth allowed by rules of liberal 
 interpretation as applied by good-sense, honesty of purpose, 
 and the rules of courts having jurisdiction over such subjects. 
 
 The general correctness of this line of argument is affirmed 
 by an important decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in a 
 case concerning this very creed. I refer to the case of The 
 Trustees of Phillips Academy v. James King^ Executor, 12 
 Mass., 546 (a.d. 1815). 
 
 This case is of so much consequence, from the point of 
 view now before your Board, that I ask your indulgence if I 
 state it at some length. 
 
 The controversy arose out of the will of JNIar}^ Norris, 
 dated March 21, 1811, who bequeathed to the Trustees of 
 Phillips Academy, in Andover, thirty thousand dollars, for 
 the benefit of the Theological Institution, so that the income 
 might be received from time to time and the principal kept 
 invested. She expressly directed that her bequest should 
 " enure particularly and exclusively (so far as may be con- 
 sistent with the constitution of the said associates) to that 
 part of said institution commonly called the Associate Foun- 
 dationr 
 
 The facts were submitted to the court upon an agreed case. 
 It is referred to at this point in the argument to show the 
 rule of construction adopted in determining the validity of 
 the bequest. It was claimed on behalf of the executors that 
 the will of Mrs. Norris was void, on the ground that the 
 Trustees of Phillips Academy, by the Act of the Legislature 
 of June 19, 1807, were made capable only to hold property 
 for the support of a theological institution agreeably to the 
 will of the donors if consistent with the original design 
 of the founders of the Academy (see Deeds and Donations, 
 68, 69; Act of 1814, p. 132; Act of 1824, p. 164), that this 
 design was to propagate Calvinism as containing the impor- 
 tant principles and distinguishing tenets of the Christian reli- 
 gion as summarily expressed in the Westminster Assembly's 
 Shorter Catechism, and that the design of the donors of the 
 associate foundation was to add to Calvinism the leading 
 
27 
 
 principles of Hopkinsiunism — a mixture inconsistent with 
 the original design of the founders of the Academy. 
 
 It is to be observed that Mrs. Norris made her will with all 
 the associate statutes before her. These were adopted March 
 21, 1808. Her will was dated March 21, 1811, precisely 
 three years later. 
 
 Now mark what the court, speaking through Judge 
 Thatcher, says as to the objection of the executor's counsel 
 (p. 562 of the report). 
 
 " The counsel for the defendant brought forward in the 
 argument, and urged upon the consideration of the court with 
 great force, several specific propositions or articles of two 
 opposing creeds, or which the counsel contended were directly 
 contrary to each other, insisting that the intent of the found- 
 ers (Mrs. Phillips, John Phillips, Jr., and Samuel Abbot) 
 was to maintain Calvinism, or the theology of Calvin; and if 
 there were but one single article or proposition in tlie creed 
 of the associate founders contrary to Calvinism, the Trustees 
 of the Academy would have no right to take and appropriate 
 the legacy in question ; and should the creed imposed by the 
 associate founders omit a single article contained in the creed 
 of Calvin, or as Calvinism was understood at the time of the 
 foundation of the Academy, it would be such a departure 
 from the intent, design, and plan of the original founders that 
 it must intercept the extended legacy and prevent any right 
 from vesting in the plaintiffs. It was then stated to be an 
 essential article in the creed of Calvin, and what all Calvin- 
 ists must necessarily believe to make them Christians accord- 
 ing to the Calvinistic theology, that 'the original sin of 
 Adam is imputed to all posterity in some way or manner ; 
 that they are all and every one actual sinners — whereas the 
 associate foundation did not admit this article in the creed 
 taught in their branch of the theological school, but substi- 
 tuted the following article in lieu thereof, and made it a ne- 
 cessary part of the religious creed to the professors, and to be 
 by them taught to the students in the institutions, viz., Adam, 
 the federal head and representative of the human race, was 
 placed in a state of probation, and in consequence of his dis- 
 
28 
 
 obedience all of his descendants were constituted sinners' — 
 which latter article, it was ursred, is not only an article of a 
 system of religion called Hopkinsianism, but is inconsistent 
 with and contrary to the system of Calvinism in general, and 
 particularly to the foregoing article of the creed of Calvin, 
 or of a Calvinistic Christian, as taught in the Assembly's 
 Shorter Catechism, as could not be taught in consistency and 
 harmony with the design, views, and intentions of the ori- 
 ginal founders of the Academy, and thus the legacy being 
 given to promote Hopkinsianism, in opposition to Calvinism, 
 as explained in the said catechism, is void." 
 
 Before going further in this case, it must be stated, by way 
 of explanation, that three distinct classes of donors have been 
 referred to by the court in this decision : (a) the early or 
 true founders, of April 21, 1778; (b) the donors of August 
 31, 1807, Madame Phoebe Phillips, John Phillips, and Samuel 
 Abbot, who may be called the Calvinistic donors ; (<?) the 
 donors of March 21, 1808, called the Hopkinsian or associate 
 donors. 
 
 Now, the objection that was urged upon the court was, that 
 there was an inconsistency between the requirements of the 
 Calvinistic founders marked above (6) and that of the asso- 
 ciates marked (c), and that as the legislative act of June 19, 
 1807, required consistency^ there was no " consistency," and 
 the plan of the associates could not be carried out. If the 
 legacy of Mrs. Norris necessitated Hopkinsianism, so much 
 the worse for it. It was void. 
 
 Now, observe the way in which the court answers this ap- 
 parently formidable objection. It holds that the counsel 
 missed the true point of the case, for the act of the Legislature 
 (June 19, 1807), in referring to the original design of the 
 founders, means the founders above marked (a) — the found- 
 ers of 1778 — and each of the creeds (of 1807 and 1808) now 
 before your Board must be consistent with that design. 
 This was beyond doubt the meaning, for the creed of 1807 
 was not adopted until August 31st, while the act of the 
 Legislature was enacted June 19th, forty days befoi'e. 
 
 The Constitution of 1778 prescribed no creed. It declared 
 
29 
 
 in two places, and with much emphasis, that " the first and 
 principal object of the institution (italics by the founders) is 
 the promotion of true piety and virtue." 
 
 Now, the question is. Does the associate creed of March, 
 1808, square with that " original design " ? In deciding that 
 point the court applies a rule of construction which we in- 
 voke in our behalf, using the following language : 
 
 " There is a clear and intelligible meaning consistent with 
 the whole course of the providential government of God over 
 the natural and moral world by general laws, so far as the 
 subject has been investigated, which may he applied to the 
 two articles attempted to be contrasted with no greater latitude 
 in the use of language than is frequently applied by orthodox 
 divines to words and phrases in the Bible not always to be 
 taken literally, in which sense these propositions or articles 
 will mean the same thing. And in such sense they are con- 
 sistent with the revelations contained in the Bible, which rev- 
 elations make up the fundamental principles of the religion 
 of Jesus. Hence there is no necessity of conjecturing a 
 variety of meanings which the words may possibly be suscep- 
 tible of in minds more habituated to dwell on the theories of 
 certain divines than on the religion of Jesus as delivered by 
 himself and those who were authorized by God the Father to 
 preach it. And I hesitate not to say that in all cases 
 LIKE this we ought to be satisfied whenever we can reconcile 
 the language of honest Christians by that charity of con- 
 struction which it is allowed by all that we should apply to 
 the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 "For myself," Judge Thatcher continues, "I confess that 
 I do not clearly perceive any other sense than that in which 
 the two articles mean substantially the same thing, notwith- 
 standing some diversity of expression in which they can be 
 said to be true and consistent with the Christian religion ; 
 and knowing as we do the founders, as well as the after bene- 
 factors who have set up the associate foundation, to be per- 
 sons of great piety and most sincere believers in the religion 
 of Jesus, and that the first and principal object ivith all of them 
 has been to establish, teach, and enforce the belief and prac- 
 
30 
 
 tice of that religion on the students of the institution, and 
 through them on the whole world of mankind — why should 
 we now be called upon to apply an astute^ narroiv, and un- 
 charitable construction upon a few technical propositions, 
 merely to divert the legacy of a pious woman from an object 
 nearer to her than life itself? And let me add, in this case 
 the object is great and noble beyond almost anything in our 
 country." 
 
 These are, indeed, noble and statesmanlike words. They 
 establish several propositions closely related to this case. 
 They allow a latitude in the interpretation of this very creed, 
 looking more to the fundamental principles of the Christian 
 religion than to the mere words of the creed itself. Christ 
 is greater than the divines who resort to certain theories in 
 the interpretation of his words. There must be charity of 
 construction, and substantial agreement with the creed is 
 sufficient. We must reflect that the men who framed the 
 creed were men of great piety and sincere believers, and 
 their leading end and aim was not to exalt their creed, but 
 to promote the religion of their Master. Why, then, is this 
 court called upon to adopt an " astute, narrow, and unchari- 
 table construction," to subvert a legacy? It is on this reason- 
 ing that the legacy is valid, for there must be a substantial 
 agreement with the original design. Without this mode of 
 construction there would be at this moment no associate 
 foundation in existence. We ask in a like spirit, why should 
 an "astute, narrow, and uncharitable construction" be now 
 adopted to impair the reputation and to take away the prop- 
 erty of men who are equally pious and sincere believers, and 
 who have a similar intent to promote the religion of their 
 Master? 
 
 We have only to add tliat this opinion of Judge Thatcher 
 is the law of Massachusetts as applied by him to this particular 
 creed. As law, and as announced by the highest appellate 
 court, the views there set forth are binding on this Board. It 
 would be a breach of judicial subordination not to follow them. 
 You are required by this decision to adopt a liberal and chari- 
 table construction as opposed to one astute and narrow ; you 
 
31 
 
 are to reGfarcl substance rather than the mere technical mean- 
 ing of words ; and you are to do this because the principal 
 object of the founders was to teach the students the belief 
 and practice of religion rather than to teach a creed, and 
 because without this liberal construction there would to-day- 
 be no associate foundation in Andover Theological Seminary. 
 We accordingly stand upon this rule of construction, in- 
 sisting that we have a right to its benefits throughout this 
 present controversy. 
 
 The Creed Considered as a Legal Document. 
 
 Taking up now for discussion the specific points involved 
 in this case, we can but be struck with the strictly legal as- 
 pect of this creed. It abounds, yea, superabounds, with legal 
 terms and conceptions. Adam is declared to be the federal 
 head and representative of the human race. God, it asserts, 
 entered into a covenant of grace with those whom of his own 
 good pleasure he elected to everlasting life. His covenant 
 with them was to deliver them of this state of misery by a 
 Redeemer. This Redeemer made an atonement for the sins of 
 all men, etc. 
 
 Mr. Maine, in his masterly work on Ancient Law, was the 
 fii-st to point out how all such creeds as these are saturated 
 with the rules and principles of Roman law. None of these 
 questions were discussed or even broached in the Eastern 
 Church. Tliat was governed by the Greek spirit, delighting 
 in pure metaphysical speculations and in theology, engaging 
 in profound controversies as to the divine persons, the divine 
 substance, and the divine natures. The men of the Western 
 Empire were of a more practical nature, looking at the prob- 
 lems which beset man in his daily life and the rules which 
 are to be applied to govern them. Their vocation was juris- 
 prudence. During the middle ages, while nearly every other 
 source of knowledge was eclipsed, they had at hand a vast 
 store-house of refined and masterly legal speculations in the 
 books of Justinian and the commentaries upon them. It is 
 a mistake to suppose that the Pandects were lost during this 
 dark period and then found, as some writers maintain. They 
 
32 
 
 were always at hand to guide opinion, and moulded the ideas 
 of theologians. 
 
 The Latin language furnished a copious and accurate vo- 
 cabulary to express theological ideas. To quote a passage 
 from Maine: "The nature of sin and its transmission by 
 inheritance ; the debt owed by man and its vicarious satisfac- 
 tion ; the necessity and sufficiency of the atonement ; above 
 all, the apparent antagonism between free-will and the Divine 
 Providence — these were points which the West began to 
 debate as ardently as ever the Kast had discussed the articles 
 of its more special creed. Why is it, then, that on the two 
 sides of the line which divides the Greek-speaking from the 
 Latin-speaking provinces tliere lie two classes of theological 
 problems so strikingly diiferent from one another? ... I 
 affirm without hesitation that the difference between the 
 two theological systems is accounted for by the fact that in 
 passing from the East to the West theological speculation 
 had passed from a climate of Greek metaphysics to a climate 
 of Roman law. . . . Almost everybody who has knowledge 
 enough of Roman law to appreciate the Roman penal sys- 
 tem, the Roman theory of the obligations established by 
 contract or delict, the Roman view of debts, and of the modes 
 of incurring, extinguishing, and transmitting them, the Roman 
 notion of the continuance of individual existence by universal 
 succession, may be trusted to say whence arose the frame of 
 mind to which the problems of Western theology proved so 
 congenial ; whence came the phraseology in which these prob- 
 lems were stated, and whence the description of reasoning 
 employed in their solution ? " (Maine's Ancient Law, Scrib- 
 ner's ed., ch. 9, pp. 329-347). It is in singular conformity 
 with these views that we find that John Calvin was a great 
 jurist and thoroughly versed in the subtleties and refinements 
 of the Roman law, which are plentifully exhibited through- 
 out his writings (4 Ency. Britannica, 9th ed., 714, title John 
 Calvin). It may be added that the conception of Adam as 
 the "federal head" of his race is a plain Roman-law notion ; 
 for that system assumes that a family is a corporation repre- 
 sented by its head, and that this corporation is immortal, and 
 
33 
 
 that rights and liabilities are transmitted by succession to 
 the ever-changing members of the family. It grows more 
 and more clear on careful study that the principles of the 
 Roman law colored theology after the Reformation as well 
 as before. An important inference from these views is, that 
 these Roman-law conceptions may be true for us, but may 
 not be suited to all men ; that they may, and probably will 
 be, to a certain extent, shifting and transitory. Some wisdom 
 in the framers of this creed is, as we think, accordingly shown 
 in requiring the Professors to maintain and inculcate, not 
 only the Christian faith as expressed in the creed, but also 
 all the other doctrines and duties of our holy religion so far 
 as may appertain to their office, according to the best 
 LIGHT God shall give them. Here is a sufficiently wide 
 door opened for a professor to compare the creed with the 
 Scriptures, and to determine whether its formal and legal 
 words are the final and the absolutely authoritative expres- 
 sion of Christian thought. In adding this last-named clause, 
 the founders would seem to have " builded better than they 
 knew," awarding to honest-minded and candid teachers the 
 range of study and expression which their vocation necessa- 
 rily requires. 
 
 Relation of the Creed of the Associate Founders 
 TO the Westminster Shorter Catechism. 
 
 I now approach the topic of the relation of the Associate 
 Creed to the formulas of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. 
 It is highly noticeable that there is not one word concerning 
 the Westminster Catechism in the constitution of the original 
 founders. That all came in with the donations of the later 
 donors, and especially with those of August 31, 1807. It 
 will be found that in some respects not touched upon by 
 Judge Thatcher in the case in 12 Mass., 546, there is a serious 
 modification of one by the other, and this modification, it is 
 believed, lies at the very root of some of the matters now 
 in controversy. 
 
 I shall contend, among other things, that no professor on 
 the Associate Foundation is required to subscribe to the 
 
34 
 
 Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and this largely 
 on the ground that the Associate Founders in making up 
 their creed selected from the Shorter Catechism certain pas- 
 sages verbatim, omitting others, and that it is impossible to 
 reconcile the creed with the catechism. What they expressly 
 used, they of course adopted; what they omitted, they re- 
 jected. 
 
 It will be incumbent upon me to give some account of the 
 history of the production of the Westminster Catechism and 
 its associated document, viz., the Westminster confession of 
 faith. This account will shed light on the reasons why it 
 was so mangled by the Associate Founders. 
 
 The Westminster Assembly, a grave and dignified body of 
 men, was by no means simply an assembly of divines or a 
 church convocation. So far was it from anything of that 
 kind, that it was a political body, much resembling a consti- 
 tutional commission in one of the American States to form 
 or to revise a State Constitution. It was called in a dark 
 and lowering time in English history, when the bands of the 
 old royal government were being shaken, and the pressing 
 question in men's minds was as to what would succeed it. 
 The established religion had been abolished ; and the inquiry 
 was as to its successor, also to be established by Act of Par- 
 liament. The Ordinance for calling the Assembly was passed 
 June 12, 1643, by both Houses of Parliament. It was an 
 Ordinance and not a law, for the king would not assent to it. 
 It is entitled, " An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in 
 Parliament for the calling of an assembly of learned and 
 Godly divines, and others to be consulted with by the Parlia- 
 ment, for the settling of the government and liturgy of the 
 Church of England, and for vindicating and clearing of the 
 doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and inter- 
 pretations " (see Rush worth's Historical Collections, where 
 the Ordinance is published at length). Among the delegates 
 are noblemen, noted lawyers, heads of colleges, statesmen as 
 well as divines. 
 
 Their function was to discuss and advise as to such matters 
 as were proposed to them by both Houses of Parliament, and 
 
35 
 
 no other, and in particular to come to a nearer agreement with 
 the Church of Scotland. The persons named in the Ordi- 
 nance were required to attend. They were also required to 
 divulge none of their doings without the consent of the Par- 
 liament. Their presiding officer was named in the Ordinance. 
 The expenses of the divines were borne by " the common- 
 wealth " at the rate of four shilling's per day, and they were 
 relieved from all loss and forfeiture by reason of non-residence 
 and absence from their churches or cures. What was this 
 but to create a great governmental machine with the view of 
 establishing a National Church ? It was that and nothing 
 else. 
 
 Every one versed in the history of the time knows that 
 this was a sagacious scheme to establish a Parliamentary 
 Church of the Presbyterian type. This was the reason of 
 the existence of the Assembly and the law of its being. The 
 first attempt was to revise the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
 Church of England. After proceeding some waj'' with these, 
 this plan was abandoned. 
 
 There were two parties in the Assembly — the Presby- 
 terians and the Independents, or " Congregationalists," the 
 former far outnumbering the latter. There were in all one 
 hundred and forty-nine persons named in the Parliamentary 
 Ordinance. All decisions agreed to by the majority were to 
 be reported to Parliament as being agreed to by the Assembly. 
 The Parliament had determined, as far back as 1641 (De- 
 cember 2d), that there should be throughout the whole realm 
 religious conformity, stating that they would not let loose 
 the golden reins of discipline and government to leave private 
 persons to take up what form of divine service they please 
 (Petition and Remonstrance, 4 Rushworth, 438-451 ; Propo- 
 sition 185, on p. 450). 
 
 Professor Masson (Life of Milton, vol. ii., p. 514) rightly 
 says that "this Assembly, sitting for more than five years and 
 a half, holding one thousand one hundred and sixty-three 
 sessions, side by side with the Long Parliament, and in con- 
 stant conference and co-operation with it, has left remarkable 
 and permanent effects in the British Islands. Its history 
 
36 
 
 ought to be more interesting in some respects to Britons now 
 than the history of the Council of Basel, the Council of 
 Trent, or any other of the great ecclesiastical councils, more 
 ancient and ecumenical, about which we hear so much." It 
 may properly be added, more interesting to ourselves; for we 
 are to-day feeling its influence in the charge against five Pro- 
 fessors in Andover Theological Seminary for "• heterodoxy " in 
 not adopting its shibboleth and swearing by its precise forms. 
 The enormous preponderance of the Presbyterian element 
 in the Assembly is shown by the fact that of the one hundred 
 and five divines who were members, one hundred were of 
 that sect and only five were Independents. They were col- 
 lected to revise the national creed, and to establish new forms 
 of worship in place of the disowned liturgy. English poli- 
 ticians still thought that there must be a national church, and 
 that no person in the country should be permitted to be out 
 of it. It was the prevailing notion that it was possible to 
 frame propositions respecting all great religious problems — 
 concerning God, the creation of man, free-will, sin, and man's 
 destiny — that should be so true and fixed that the nation 
 should be bound to them, and that no person subject to 
 English law should be permitted to swerve from them (2 
 Masson, Life, etc., 625). This was certainly the view of the 
 Presbyterian party in the Assembly. Now mark the precise 
 difference between this idea and the contemporary notion of 
 the New England Independent divines as represented by 
 their leader, John Robinson. When, in 1620, he prayed 
 with the emigrants departing from Delfthaven in Holland, 
 and gave them his parting blessing, he exhorted them to 
 openness of mind and candor of thought. His memorable 
 words were : " I cannot sufSciently bewail the condition of 
 the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion, 
 and will go at present no further than the instruments of 
 their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go 
 beyond what Luther saw ; and the Calvinists, you see, stick 
 fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet 
 saw not all things. This is a misery much to be lamented ; 
 for though they were burning and shining lights in their 
 
37 
 
 times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God ; 
 but were they now living, would be as willing to embrace 
 further lights as that which they first received. I beseech 
 you, remember it as an article of your church covenant that 
 you be ready to receive whatever truth shall he made known to 
 you from the written word of Crod.^' He adds, by way of 
 caution, that they should take heed as to what they receive 
 as truth, examining it, considering it, and comparing it with 
 other Scriptures of truth before they receive it (Neal, Hist. 
 Puritans, vol. ii., pp. 120, 121).i 
 
 1 Since the preparation of this argument, I have met with additional evidence 
 that there was a strong party of the ablest religious Protestant and orthodox 
 thinkers opposed to non-elastic religious creeds, about the time of the formation 
 of the Westminster Catechism. I refer for a single instance to a passage in 
 the famous work of Mr. William Chillingworth entitled " The Religion of Prot- 
 estants a Safe Way to Salvation." Speaking of creeds he says, "This pre- 
 sumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God, the special 
 senses of men upon the general words of God, and laying them upon men's 
 consciences together under the equal penalty of death and damnation ; this 
 vain conceit that we can speak of the things of God better than in the words 
 of God ; thus deifying our own interpretations and tyrannous enforcing them 
 upon others ; this restraining of the Word of God from that latitude and gen- 
 erality and the understanding of men from that liberty wherein Clirist and 
 the apostles left them, is and hath been the only fountain of all the schisms of 
 the Church, and that which makes them immortal; the common incendiary 
 of Christendom, and that which tears into pieces not the coat, but the bowels 
 and members of Christ, vidente Turco nee dolente JudcBO. Take away these 
 walls of separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this persecuting, 
 burning, cursing, damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as 
 the words of God; require of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no 
 man master but him only; let those leave claiming infallibility that have no 
 title to it, and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in 
 their actions. In a word take away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument 
 to support errors and superstitions and impieties, in the several parts of the 
 world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of truth : I say 
 take away tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of cap- 
 tivating their understandings to Scripture only, and as rivers when they have 
 a free passage run all to the ocean, so it may well be hoped by God's blessing, 
 that universal liberty, thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to 
 truth and unity. These thoughts of peace (I am persuaded) may come from 
 the God of peace and to his blessing I commend them." Answer to Fourth 
 ChaiJter of " Charity Maintained by Catholics," Section 16. These are noble 
 words for the year 1637, and one can well understand from them why John 
 Locke treated Chillingworth as his master. Chillingworth as he states in this 
 connection was referring to some existing Protestant creeds. It is interesting 
 to trace the close resemblance between these thoughts and the views of Judge 
 Thatcher in the case of Trustees of Phillips Academy against King, 12 Massar- 
 chusetts Reports, 559, 563. 
 
38 
 
 Here we have two opposing and warring elements in the 
 Westminster Assembly — the one jjarty insisting that truth 
 could be positively stated in a fixed form of words, to be 
 binding on every person, and that they could and would fix 
 the form ; the other party urged that no man or set of men 
 could see all things, and that no fixed and immutable creed 
 could properly be made. What was the claim of the Calvin- 
 ists but a claim to infallibility ? Well savs the historian Gar- 
 diner of that period, " the men of culture and education in 
 England stood between two infallibilities — the infallibility of 
 Calvinism and the infallibility of Rome " (Gardiner's Eng- 
 land under the Duke of Buckingham, etc., vol. i., p. 213, 
 Longmans, London, 1875). We must now count it as a mis- 
 fortune, I think, that the great and growing element of New 
 England Independency was not represented in this Assembly. 
 It would have been perfectly proper for the colonies to have 
 been represented there, for they were still in law and fact a 
 part of England, and liable at any time to be governed by im- 
 perial authority. 
 
 A pressing invitation was sent from England by noblemen 
 and other leading men to Mr. Cotton, of Boston, Hooker, of 
 Hartford, and Mr. Davenport, of New Haven, to come over 
 to England to assist " in settling and composing the affairs of 
 the Church." They probably regarded the Assembly as a 
 political expedient. Hooker said that he " liked not the busi- 
 ness, and did not think it any sufficient call for them to go 
 three thousand miles." At all events they did not go. One 
 must now think that if these able men had attended, and 
 pressed the views of Robinson, there would have been a true 
 religious progress. But it was not so to be. 
 
 Five men of tolerant opinions must bear the brunt of the 
 struggle alone. They were Congregational ministers recently 
 returned from Holland. Their names should be mentioned : 
 Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, Jeremiah Bur- 
 roughs, and Sidrach Simpson — men able, learned, and dis- 
 tinguished. But what were they among so many ? 
 
 I would not be understood as stating that the five repre- 
 sentatives of Independency above named stood for absolute 
 
39 
 
 liberty of religious opinion. The divines of that time were 
 not so far advanced. 
 
 They, however, had some latitude of view as to require- 
 ments of uniformity. They had avowed it as one of their 
 principles, that they would not commit themselves that the 
 views they then held would remain always unchanged (3 
 Masson, Life, 89). They allowed liberty of religious difference 
 to a certain extent, while the leading spirits of the army, 
 going further, supported that liberty without qualification. 
 
 The great majority of the Assembly favored an absolute 
 and complete conformit}'" of the English people to the church 
 about to be establishefl by them. The Shorter Catechism 
 was but a minor branch of a great and comprehensive scheme, 
 including doctrine, discipline, and worship. They reckoned, 
 however, without Oliver Cromwell, and in the end had to 
 take his views into account. The House of Commons, at his 
 instigation, on September 13, 1644, passed an order to the 
 effect that the Assembly should endeavor to reconcile their 
 differences of opinion ; and if that cannot be done, should 
 endeavor to find out some way how far tender consciences, 
 who cannot in all things submit to the common rule which 
 shall be established, may be borne with according to the 
 Word. 
 
 The Assembly reported progress from time to time to the 
 Parliament. Their scheme was taken up and discussed prop- 
 osition by proposition. On the 28th of January, 1644-45, 
 the Scotch system of Presbyterianism was established by 
 law, with Presbyteries (or classes), Synods, and a National 
 Assembly. 
 
 John Milton could not endure the political windings and 
 turnings of the Westminster Assembly. In a famous sonnet 
 he describes their plots and packings as worse than those of 
 the Council of Trent. 
 
 From time to time the Assembly continued to report, and 
 the Parliament continued, even during all the excitement 
 and confusion of the civil war, to discuss and adopt. On the 
 1st day of May, 1648, they passed the terrible Ordinance for 
 the Suppression of Blasphemies and Heresies, so that it be- 
 
40 
 
 came the law of England. It provided " that whoever should 
 teach, print or write, maintain, and publish that there is no 
 God, or that God is not present in all places, doth not know 
 and foreknow all things, or that he is not Almighty, that he 
 is not perfectly holy, or that he is not eternal ; or that the 
 Father is not God, the Son is not God, or that the Holy 
 Ghost is not God, or that the three are not one Eternal God ; 
 or shall in like manner maintain that Christ is not God equal 
 with the Father, or shall deny the manhood of Christ, or that 
 the Godhead and manhood of Christ are several natures, or 
 that the humanity of Christ is pure and unspotted of all sin ; 
 or that shall maintain and publish, as aforesaid, that Christ 
 did not die, nor rise from the dead, nor is ascended into 
 Heaven bodily; or shall deny that his death is meritorious in 
 behalf of believers ; or shall maintain and publish, as afore- 
 said, that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, or that the 
 Holy Scripture, videlicet (here follows the list of the canoni- 
 cal books), is not the Word of God, or that the bodies of 
 men shall not rise again after they are dead, or that there is 
 no day of judgment after death : all such maintaining and 
 publishing of such error or errors, with obstinacy therein, 
 shall by virtue hereof be adjudged felony. It is further pro- 
 vided that if such person be convicted and does not abjure 
 his errors, he shall suffer the pains of deaths as in case of 
 felony, without beneht of clergy." 
 
 For certain minor errors, one of which is that a church 
 government by Presbytery is unchristian or unlawful, the 
 offender is to be committed to prison. 
 
 I do not overlook the fact that there is in the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith (chap. 20, paragraph 2) a noble state- 
 ment that " God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left 
 it free from the doctrine and commandments of men which 
 are in anything contrary to his word or beside it in matters 
 of faith and worship." Placed where it is, it is an abstract 
 proposition ; and if it means the liberty of the individual 
 conscience, it is not consistent with the Acts of Parliament 
 adopting this creed, nor with the general purpose of the 
 Assembly. 
 
41 
 
 Such was the final outcome of the attempt by Parliament 
 to prescribe a fixed formula for Christian faith. It was 
 scarcely ten years later when all its works and doings passed 
 out of legal existence. Its bloody statute of Conformity is 
 absolutely blotted out from the statute-book with its other 
 laws. It fondly supposed that it had settled religious belief 
 forever. Its bigotry and intolerance produced no effect ex- 
 cept to hasten its own destruction. The work of its commis- 
 sioners, called the Shorter Catechism, remains, having no 
 more value with modern men than its merits justly win for it. 
 
 It would thus seem that the words in which the Westmin- 
 ster Assembly framed its creed were not so framed as the 
 weapons of Christ. They were forged as thunderbolts of 
 war. They stood for a new State Church in opposition to 
 the old, and the question really was, to which would the war 
 incline. When King Charles II. was restored, the Thirty- 
 nine Articles again prevailed. Had the Parliamentary party 
 finally succeeded, the Shorter Catechism might today have 
 been the creed of the National Church of England. 
 
 Personally, I have no controversy, at this time, with the 
 Shorter Catechism. What I now say is, that it did not ac- 
 cord in its spirit with the Congregationalism of John Robin- 
 son and others whom he represented. Congregationalists had 
 no hand in framing it. It does not agree with the Congrega- 
 tionalism of to-day. Witness the creed of the American Con- 
 gregationalists of 1883 — broad and comprehensive, sliding 
 smoothly and skilfully over controverted points, omitting the 
 hard phrases written into the Andover Creeds, and commend- 
 ing itself to the consciences and judgment of reasonable men. 
 I was glad to see the name of one of this prosecuting com- 
 mittee signed to this creed, and will still hope that he will 
 yet mete out to these accused Professors the same latitude 
 and tolerance of opinion which he has liberally accorded to 
 himself (3 Schaffs Creeds of Christendom, p. 913). 
 
 Still, I do not mean to deny that the people of New Eng- 
 land did for a time, at least to a considerable extent, commit 
 themselves to the Shorter Catechism. This seems to have 
 been due to the sagacity of the Assembly in preparing a 
 
42 
 
 catechism as well as a creed. This catechism was almost 
 necessary to their design in forming a National Church em- 
 bracing all the people. The children could thus more easily 
 be kept within the pale of the church ; so could their elders, 
 not versed in theological opinions, have at hand the simpler 
 forms of religious expression. The Shorter Catechism, for 
 this and perhaps other reasons, became, at least for a time, 
 acceptable here. Perhaps, one of these reasons was that the 
 Independent party occupied to some extent a negative posi- 
 tion, and put forth no catechism. 
 
 Still, there was in the Congregational body a far more tol- 
 erant opinion than that which governed the authors of the 
 catechism. One has but to read the preface to the "Savoy " 
 declaration of the Congregationalists of 1658 to be convinced 
 of this. This paper insists that there shall be no force or 
 constraint in confessions. With such constraint, they degen- 
 erate from the name and nature of confessions, and are turned 
 into exactions and impositions of faith. There must be in- 
 ward freeness, willingness, and readiness of the confessors to 
 contribute to the beauty and loveliness of the confession. 
 They herald it as a great principle that among all Christian 
 saints or churches there should be vouchsafed a forbearance 
 and mutual indulgence unto saints of all persuasions, holding 
 fast the necessary foundations of faith and holiness. There 
 is quoted and adopted the famous requirement of Cromwell, 
 already alluded to, that some way is to be found out whereby 
 tender consciences, who cannot in all things submit to the 
 rule which may be established, may be borne with according 
 to the Word. There is a fine spirit of charity and toleration 
 running through this entire document (3 Schaff's Creeds, 
 708-718, A.D. 1658). 
 
 The same view appears to be upheld by the ponderous lec- 
 tures of Rev. Dr. Willard, at one time pastor of the South 
 Church, Boston, and Vice-President of Harvard College. 
 The preface to the lectures, as published by Joseph Sewell 
 and Thomas Prince, refers to Dr. Willard's explanation of 
 the catechism for the use of children, and then to the more 
 elaborate lectures for the use of the people. The first of the 
 
43 
 
 lectures were delivered in 1687, about fort}^ years after the 
 catechism had been adopted by Parliament. 
 
 It would appear that there was never any slavish adherence 
 to the letter of the catechism in Massachusetts. Dr. Willard. 
 delivered a course of two hundred and fifty lectures on the 
 Shorter Catechism. We may shudder to think what a course 
 by him would have been on the whole body of Westminster 
 divinity. Messrs. Sewell and Prince say that it was esteemed 
 in their time (a.d. 1725) one of the noblest and choicest 
 bodies of theoretical and practical divinity anywhere to be 
 met with. It seems, however, that a question had been 
 raised, even in their day, of the value of works on system- 
 atical divinity, to which the}' repl}^ " if by systematical 
 divinity be meant a mere slavish confinement to any 
 schemes thereof whatever, conceived or published by the 
 mere wit of man, though founded in their own apprehensions 
 on divine revelation, without a liberty reserved of varying 
 from them upon further discoveries^ our author was too gener- 
 ous and great a soul, and had too deep an insight into the 
 present imperfection and fallibility of human nature, than to 
 be capable of such a slavery. He was indeed a recommender 
 of divinity systems, even to all sorts of pcirsons, and espe- 
 cially young students, in order to methodize their inquiries 
 and conceptions, to keep their minds from wandering and in- 
 consistency, etc., but without obliging them to an implicit, 
 servile subjection to an}^ mere human compositions ; and 
 whatever system he fell into, it arose from a careful scrutiny 
 into the genuine meaning of the Holy Scriptures, . . . and 
 not from any mere previous veneration of the systems them- 
 selves, or their renowned compilers or abettors, though worthy 
 of ever so much esteem." . . . 
 
 There speaks forth the spirit of John Robinson of a hun- 
 dred years before. No human composition whatever, call it 
 creed or what you please, is to be considered as conclusive 
 evidence of the doctrines of the Christian religion. Such 
 documents are aids to the correct understanding of Scrip- 
 tures, and nothing more. They never can properly become 
 substitutes for it. In the same spirit it was proclaimed by a 
 
44 
 
 Council of Congregationalists, at Saybrook, Conn., in 1708, 
 that " the Bible is the only sufficient and general rule of 
 religion." 
 
 What, then, did Mrs. Phoebe Phillips, Mr. John Phillips, 
 and Mr. Samuel Abbot mean when, in the instrument of 
 September 2, 1807, they required (Article 12) that every 
 professor in the Seminary on their foundation should make 
 and subscribe a declaration of his faith in divine revelation, 
 and in the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of Christ 
 as summarily expressed in the Westminster Assembly's 
 Shorter Catechism^ while requiring him, in the next breath, 
 to make a solemn promise that he will open and explain the 
 Scriptures to his pupils with integrity and faithfulness, and 
 that he will maintain and inculcate the Christian faith as 
 above expressed, etc., according to the best light God shall 
 give him ? Surely nothing less than John Robinson meant ; 
 nothing less than the framers of the Savoy declaration meant; 
 nothing less than Samuel Willard meant ; nothing less than 
 Joseph Sewell and Thomas Prince meant, when they used 
 the language to which I have already had the privilege to 
 refer. These men and this woman lived but a few years 
 later than Messrs. Prince and Sewell, in the same vicinity, 
 and breathed the same Massachusetts air of Congregational 
 liberty. Finally, I ask what did the Associate Founders 
 mean when they required, at the close of their dreary creed, 
 by like form of words, that the professors should open and 
 explain the Scriptures with integrity and faithfulness, and 
 should maintain and inculcate the Christian faith, according- 
 
 TO THE BEST LIGHT GOD SHOULD GIVE THEM? Surely 
 
 nothing less than Madam Phillips and her associates meant, 
 when they placed themselves on line with those noble men 
 — Robinson, Willard, Sewell, and Prince. That is indeed a 
 far-reaching phrase — " according to the best light God shall 
 give them." These words relax the bonds of tyrannous 
 opinion and set the captives free from the bondage of men, 
 bringing: them into the s^lorious freedom of the sons of God. 
 This phrase is taken verbatim from a fine and glowing para- 
 graph of John Milton. It is worthy of perpetual remem- 
 
45 
 
 brance. " The whole freedom of man consists either in 
 spiritual or civil liberty. As for spiritual, who can be at 
 rest, who can enjoy anything in this world, who hath not 
 liberty to serve God and to save his own soul, according to 
 the best light ivhich God hath planted in him for that purpose, 
 by reading of his revealed will, and the guidance of his Holy 
 Spirit?" 
 
 Is it not strange that this little plank of Milton's religious 
 platform has floated down the stream of time and at last 
 lodged on the hills of Andover, and has been taken up by 
 subtile theolosfians and bedded in their creeds ? It is as near 
 live oak as anything to be found there. 
 
 I must pause here to sketch the Abbot foundation, the 
 Associate foundation, and the creeds which the respective 
 founders require. 
 
 There is some difficulty in making this whole subject clear, 
 owing to the fact that the Andover Seminary has not been 
 developed upon any preconceived and systematic plan. It is 
 rather a growth from the ideas and benefactions of different 
 sets of men, all of whom were believers in Christianity, but 
 among whom prevailed quite diverse theological opinions. 
 Then, again, at its very origin there was an academy — 
 Phillips Academy — since become famous for the accuracy of 
 its classical and other instruction, upon which the Theological 
 Seminary was grafted. One would perhaps think that here 
 is an incongruity. This was not the view of the founders. 
 The Hon. John Phillips, of Exeter, N.H., must be considered 
 as the true Founder of the institution, since on May 29, 1777, 
 he entered into an obligation to pay a sum of money to 
 trustees whom he named. He then went on to declare the 
 trust. This was mainly for the support of the school, in 
 which various subjects enumerated by him were to be taught. 
 Among others, as " many of the students may be devoted to 
 the sacred work of the Gospel Ministry," the master was 
 to instruct them, not only in the truth of Christianity, but 
 in certain great Scripture doctrines which he enumerated, in- 
 cluding that of the Trinity, that of the depravity of human 
 nature, the necessity of an atonement, repentance, and redemp- 
 
46 
 
 tion through Jesus Christ. At the same time he was careful 
 to say emphatically that the first and principal object of the 
 institution was the promotion of true piety and virtue ; the 
 second, instruction in the English, Latin, and the Greek 
 languages, together with writing, arithmetic, music, and the 
 art of speaking; the third, instruction in practical geometry, 
 logic, and geography ; and the fourth, in such other liberal 
 arts, science, etc., as the Trustees shall direct. 
 
 There is no hint here of a Theological Seminary, but sim- 
 ply a plan for promoting a liberal education. It was substan- 
 tially a "Grammar School," with instruction in the leading 
 topics of religion. 
 
 The same inference is to be derived from the donation of 
 the Hon. Samuel Phillips and the same John Phillips, April 
 28, 1778 (Deeds and Donations, pp. 16-28). An instrument 
 (really a declaration of trust in its nature) called a " Con- 
 stitution of Phillips Academy" was at this time executed by 
 these founders, substantially identical with the declaration 
 of trust of May 29, 1777 ; this last-named paper was executed 
 by John Phillips alone, but without signature. 
 
 Matters being in this condition, an act of incorporation 
 was obtained from the State, October 4, 1780. The 
 Preamble to that expressly sets forth that the rents, etc., of 
 the funds are to be forever laid out for the support of a pub- 
 lic Free School or Academy in the town of Andover. The first 
 section declares' that the Academy is established for the pur- 
 pose of promoting true piety and virtue, and for the educa- 
 tion of youths, enumerating the subjects already named as 
 in the Founder's Constitution. In this incorporating act the 
 Trustees are required to conform to the true design and 
 intention of the founders, as expressed in the Constitution 
 (Section 3). The eighth section provides that neither the 
 said Trustees nor their successors shall ever receive any 
 grant or donation the condition whereof shall require them, 
 or any others concerned, to act in any respect counter to the 
 design of the first grantors or of any prior donation. 
 
 After the Act of Incorporation there were other dona- 
 tions, such as a legacy of Hon. John Phillips, April 28, 
 
47 
 
 1795, for the benefit of charity scholars who were hopefully 
 pious and designed for the Gospel ministry, who might be 
 assisted in the study of divinity under the direction of some 
 eminent Calvinistic minister of the Gospel, until such time 
 as an Orthodox instructor shall be supported as a Professor 
 of Divinity, etc. 
 
 The next donation of importance is Lieutenant-Governor 
 Samuel Phillips' first donation, December 12, 1801. This 
 was a foundation for the supply of certain religious books 
 (specified) to be delivered from time to time to inhabitants 
 of the town of Andover. His second donation, January 27, 
 1802, was for the same general purpose, with a wider list of 
 books, his object being to counteract the dispersion of such 
 theological treatises or speculations as tend to undermine the 
 fundamental principles of the Gospel plan of salvation, or to 
 reduce the Christian religion to a system of mere morality. 
 The Westminster Shorter Catechism is named as one of 
 nearly a score of books. There are other donations made 
 from time to time to the Academy, which need not be speci- 
 fied. 
 
 There is no official recognition of a " Theological Institu- 
 tion " until June 19, 1807, when an application was made by 
 the Trustees of Phillips' Academy for an act additional to 
 the original Act of Incorporation, to enable them to receive 
 further donations of charitably disposed persons for the sup- 
 port of a theological institution, and thus to complete the 
 design of the pious founders and benefactors. 
 
 The Legislature passed an act the same day reciting the 
 substance of the petition, and allowing the Trustees to hold 
 real and personal estate of a prescribed amount of income, 
 provided the income of the said real and personal estate be 
 alway applied to the objects named, agreeably to the will of 
 the donors, if consistent with the original design of the found- 
 ers of the said Academy. 
 
 Down to this point, it is manifest that no foundation is 
 authorized by law, to be thereafter made, unless it is consist- 
 ent with the ORIGINAL design of the founders, as expressed 
 in their deeds of trust. The word "original" must be held 
 
48 
 
 to refer to the first documents executed by them, or one of 
 them, in 1777 and 1778. 
 
 There is no later statute of Massachusetts changing the 
 rule of the act of June 19, 1807. 
 
 The theory of the Supreme Judicial Court, hereafter re- 
 ferred to, based on the statute of 1807, is in perfect accord- 
 ance with the law of the English Court of Chancery in 
 administering charitable trusts. Thus the Master of the 
 Rolls (Romilly) says, in a comparatively recent case : " What 
 this court looks at in all charities is the original intention of 
 the founder, and, apart from any question of illegality and 
 various other questions, this court carries into effect the 
 wishes and intentions of the founder of the charity; and 
 where it sees that those intentions have not been carried into 
 effect, it rectifies the existing administration of the charity 
 for that purpose. If it cannot carry them into effect specifi- 
 cally, it carries them into effect as nearly as may be, and with 
 as close a resemblance as it can." This statement is from a 
 great master of this branch of law (^Attorney- Cieneral v. Ded- 
 ham School, 23 Beavan, 354). 
 
 All the later foundations, viz., among others, that of 
 Madam Phoebe Phillips, John Phillips, Esq., and Samuel 
 Abbot, of Aug. 31, 1807, as well as that of the regulations 
 of March 21, 1808, called the statutes of the Associate Foun- 
 dation of that date, must be submitted to this test — are 
 they consistent with the original design of the founders, viz., 
 John Phillips and Samuel Phillips, founders of the Phillips 
 Academy, of May 29, 1777, and April 21, 1778? This was 
 the real point of the important case of Trustees of Phillips 
 Academy v. King, 12 Mass., 546, already cited for another 
 purpose. This point is fully developed in the case on pp. 
 559, 560. The court draws a sharp and well-defined dis- 
 tinction between these original founders and all the later 
 contributors to the institution, calling the latter "after bene- 
 factors," making even John Phillips in his legacy of 1795 an 
 "after benefactor," as distinguished from the same John 
 Phillips in April 21, 1778, who in his donation of that date 
 was an " original founder " (p. 560, 2d paragraph, middle of 
 
49 
 
 page). It is declared that the words " Calvinistic Minister," 
 used by him in 1795, are no part of the original foundation 
 in 1778. 
 
 We thus come down to the bare question. Are all the 
 specific creeds of the later daj's consistent with the original 
 foundation ? They are only so, considered as modes of " carr}''- 
 ing out the first and principal object of the institution, viz., 
 the promotion of true piety and virtue." They are but in- 
 strumental and accessories to that principal design. 
 
 The "principal design" of the Founders will now be 
 stated in some detail, with the view of showing that it is 
 derived from the writings of John Locke. 
 
 Resemblance between the Theory/ of Education sketched by 
 John Locke and that of the Original Founders. 
 
 As has been stated, the "original Founders" were the 
 Hon. John Phillips and the Hon. Samuel Phillips. Though 
 thoroughly Christian men, they were also men of affairs, and 
 attained political distinction. They not only founded an 
 academy at Andover, but the3^ or one of them, also estab- 
 lished one at Exeter, New Hampshire. 
 
 Their great desire was to promote a sound education, and 
 to teach students '•''the great end and real business of living.''^ 
 The italics are their own. 
 
 Their view was that the success of their institution de- 
 pended, under Providence, much upon a discreet selection of 
 the principal instructor. He was to be a professor of the 
 Christian religion ; of exemplary manners ; good natural 
 abilities and literary acquirements ; of a good acquaintance 
 with human nature, and of a natural aptitude for instruction 
 and government. — i 
 
 It was ever to be considered as the first and principal duty 
 of the Master to regulate the tempers, to enlarge the minds, 
 and form the morals of the students. He was to give espe- 
 cial attention to their health, to encourage a habit of industry, 
 and to that end to encourage them to perform some manual 
 labor, such as gardening. Above all, he was to pay attention 
 to their minds and morals, considering that goodness without 
 
50 
 
 knowledge is weak and feeble, and knowledge without good- 
 ness is dangerous ; and that the two would, lay the surest 
 foundation of usefulness to mankind. 
 
 Accordingly, he must frequently delineate the deformity 
 and odionsness of vice, and the beauty and amiablenesa of 
 virtue; the indispensable obligation to avoid the one, and to 
 love and practise the other — including the great duties they 
 owe to God, their country, their parents, their neighbors, and 
 themselves. He should observe the varieties of their tem- 
 pers and bring each of them under such discipline as tends 
 to develop them most fully ; early enure them to contemplate 
 the various scenes incident to human life, and furnish them 
 useful general maxims of conduct. 
 
 It is further required, in order that the true -and funda- 
 mental principles of Christianity may be cultivated and per- 
 petuated in the Christian Church, as far as the Seminary has 
 influence, that not only instruction be given in the truth of 
 Christianity, but certain special doctrines (enumerated) be 
 inculcated, including the doctrines of the Trinity, the Fall 
 of Man, the necessity of an Atonement, etc., etc. The reason 
 given for this branch of instruction is that man}^ students 
 may be devoted to the sacred work of the Gospel Ministry. 
 
 It is at the end stated that "in order to prevent the smallest 
 perversion of the true intent of this foundation, t\\Q first and 
 principal object of the institution is the piomotion of true 
 piety and virtue — the secondary object is declared to be in- 
 struction in tiie English, Latin, and Greek languages, and 
 other.branches of knowledge specified. 
 
 The Founders reserved to themselves the power during 
 their lives to make rules for the perpetual government of the 
 institution, but no rule subversive of the true design should 
 be made. 
 
 Thus, with the most pains-taking carefulness and frequent 
 iteration, they announced that their great aim was the "pro- 
 motion of piety and virtue," and the expected result was to 
 teach the students " the great end and real business of 
 living." 
 
 Let us now compare with this the "Thoughts on Educa- 
 
51 
 
 tion " of John Locke, of some sixty or more years before. 
 Treatises on education were not as common then as now. 
 Locke treats of these very topics as no other writer of his 
 day had done. Of course, he enters far more into detail than 
 the Founders would be likely to do, but there is a striking 
 resemblance between the general drift of each, too close to 
 be attributed to accident. 
 
 He, too, lays great stress upon physical education, habits 
 of industry, manual labor, and practice in the art of garden- 
 ing, mental and moral culture, repetition of lessons under the 
 eye of the instructor (strongly insisted upon by the Found- 
 ers). He recommends that the instructor should study the 
 nature and temper of each child, with a view to giving him 
 individuality of training. Good manners should be culti- 
 vated by reiterated actions in their presence. Above all, his 
 advice, repeated in various forms, is that the pupils should be 
 instructed in "piety and virtue." "Virtue," he says, "is 
 harder to be got than a knowledge of the world, and if lost 
 in a young man is seldom recovered. Everything should be 
 beat to the acquisition of virtue." " That which requires 
 most time and pains and assiduity is to work into them" 
 (the young) " the principles and practice of virtue and good 
 breeding. Tliis is the season that they should be prepared 
 with ; this they had need to be well provided with." In 
 another place he says, " I wish that those who compl'ain of 
 the great decay of Christian piety and virtue everywhere 
 . . . would consider how to retrieve them in the next gene- 
 ration. This, I am sure, that if the foundation be not laid 
 in the foundation and principling of the youth, all other 
 endeavors will be in vain." 
 
 Then, in § 64, comes this fine utterance: "It is virtue, 
 then, direct virtue, which is the hard and valuable part to 
 be aimed at in education. . . . All other considerations and 
 accomplishments should give way^ and be postponed, to this. 
 This is the solid and substantial good, which tutors should 
 not only read lectures and talk of, but the labor and art of 
 education should furnish the mind with ?in(\ fasten there, and 
 never cease till the young man had a true relish of it and 
 
52 
 
 placed his strength, his glory, and his pleasure in it." This 
 is the precise idea of the Founders in their requirements of 
 inculcation and repetition, while the diction of Locke is 
 superior. 
 
 Locke's notion of a good master for the scholars is the same 
 as that of the Founders, though worked out with more detail. 
 He must be a man of good manners, knowledge of human 
 nature, well versed in the subjects to be taught, apt to teach, 
 etc. (§ 86, § 87, § 88). 
 
 The final point to which I refer in Locke's view is the 
 relation which virtue holds to all other matters of instruction, 
 and that on which it rests. He arranges all subjects of in- 
 struction in four classes as to their relative importance: 
 virtue, wisdom, breeding, and learning. Virtue is in the 
 first rank. He says: '^ I place virtne as the first and most 
 necessary of those endowments that belong to a man or a 
 gentleman, as absolutely requisite to make him valued and 
 beloved by others, acceptable or tolerable to himself. With- 
 out that, I think, he will be happy neither in this nor the 
 other world." § 129. 
 
 Upon what does he rest virtue ? The answer is a true 
 notion of God, as of the independent Supreme Being, author 
 and maker of all things, from whom we receive all our good, 
 who loves us and gives us all things ; and consequent to this, 
 there should be instilled into the pupils' mind a love and 
 teverence for the Supreme Being. 
 
 At the same time, he does not think tliat youth should be 
 too curious in their notions about a Being which all must 
 acknowledge to be incomprehensible. § 130. Locke seems to 
 say that, as between theological metaphysics and practical 
 piety and virtue, preference is to be given to the latter. So 
 the Founders, after referring to great theological subjects as 
 to be taught, lay the principal stress upon piety and virtue, 
 and the acquirement of such manliness, sobriet}', and good 
 sense as would tend to form a class of honorable and Chris- 
 tian gentlemen, who had "learned the great end and real 
 business of living." 
 
 These Founders also followed Locke in the tolerance of 
 
53 
 
 religious opinion, and in making " piety and virtue " superior 
 to doctrines. * 
 
 There is thus a marked distinction between the theory of 
 the Founders of 1778 as to education, and that of the creed 
 buiklers of 1807 and 1808 ; the first were men of breadth of 
 view, conversant with the v/ritings of philosophers, and par- 
 ticularly with those of John Locke ; the others were adepts 
 in theoloQ-ical controversy, and determined to conserve the 
 precise technical forms of statement of their day in the in- 
 struction of youth for all time. Fortunate it is, that the law 
 of Massachusetts holds that the will of the Founders is su- 
 preme, and that the great end, even of instruction in the 
 Theological Seminary, grafted upon the original foundation, 
 still is, and must continue to be, the promotion of ''piety and 
 virtue." 
 
 The result is that there is and can be no "misbehavior, or 
 heterodoxy," under the Twentieth Article of the Associates' 
 Creed, on the part of a Professor, unless he wanders from the 
 principal design of the institution, which is true piety and 
 virtue. This liberal plan of the " original founders " is 
 wholly in line with the words of John Robinson and Messrs. 
 Sewell and Prince, already quoted, and with the generally 
 progressive spirit of New England Theology. I admit that 
 there is color for the view that some portions of the creeds 
 of August 31, 1807, and March 21, 1808, are born of a dif- 
 ferent spirit, and represent to an extent what may fairly be 
 called the intolerance of Orthodoxy, but the general outcome 
 of them can be reconciled with a progressive view. 
 
 In a portion of this argument I have proceeded upon the 
 view that the Westminster Catechism was imposed upon the 
 Professors on the Associate Foundation, and have argued 
 that even then the current of religious thought and certain 
 qualifying words in the creeds do not bind them to a verbal 
 acceptance of all its propositions. I have now arrived at a 
 stage where I absolutely combat that proposition, and deny 
 that any Professor, except he be upon the Abbot Foundation 
 (and he onl}^ in a qualified manner), has any thing to do with 
 the Shorter Catechism. 
 
64 
 
 This branch of the discussion naturally leads to a state- 
 ment of the origin and distinctive character of these founda- 
 tions and creeds. 
 
 After the Legislature of Massachusetts had, on June 19, 
 
 1807, enlarged the ■ capacity' of Phillips Academy to hold 
 property, and to use it " consistently with the original design 
 of the founders of the Academy," the donation of Madam 
 Phoebe Phillips, John Phillips, and Samuel Abbot were made 
 — August 31, 180X ; and a separate donation, on March 21, 
 
 1808, by Moses Brown, William Bartlett, and John Norris. 
 The first is commonly called the Abbot Foundation ; the 
 second, the Associate Foundation. 
 
 The Abbot Foundation. 
 
 The donors in this matter gave twenty thousand dollars to 
 the Trustees, in trusty for the establishment of a Theological 
 Institution in Phillips Academy. This gift was accompanied 
 with a so-called " constitution " for the Seminary, which, 
 however, from a legal point of view, is a "declaration of 
 trust," consisting of Thirty-four Articles. So far as these 
 articles concern the management of the institution, they may 
 be termed " statutes " (Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I., 
 483, 484), the word " statutes " here being used simply in 
 the sense of rules or ordinances. This " constitution " re- 
 cites, in its preamble, the leading purpose of the foundation 
 of 1778 as being the "promotion of true piety and virtue," 
 and also refers to the later bequest of John Phillips of 1795; 
 and then, in the Eleventh and Twelfth and Thirteenth 
 Articles proceeds to set forth the duties and obligations of 
 Professors in the '■'• Seminary,'''' not including (as is supposed) 
 the teachers in the Academy as it had previously existed and 
 still continued to exist. The substance of their requirement 
 was that the Professor should be in communion with either 
 the Presbyterian or Congregational Church, an honest, learned, 
 and pious man, and of sound and orthodox principles in 
 divinity, according to the system of evangelical doctrines 
 stated in the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism 
 
65 
 
 and more concisely delineated in the Constitution of Phillips' 
 Academy. 
 
 It is due to truth to say that there is not in the Constitution 
 of Phillips Academy ^one word concerning the Westminster 
 Shorter Catechism. Certain doctrines are simpl}^ mentioned 
 by way of enumeration, but none of them are set forth with 
 the definitions of the catechism. With due respect to the 
 memory of these worthy donors, long since passed away, we 
 affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, that this 
 reference is unwarranted by the facts, and to uphold it in 
 this discussion is a pure case of " begging the question." 
 
 To resume the rules of the "Abbot Foundation." The. 
 Tw-elfth Article provides that the Professor shall make and 
 subscril)e a solemn declaration of faith in divine revelation, 
 and in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel as summa- 
 rily expressed in the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Cate- 
 chism, at the same time requiring him to maintain the 
 Christian faith in the discharge of the duties appertaining to 
 his office, according to the best light God shall give him. He 
 is required to oppose certain specified heresies and errors. 
 He must repeat, in the presence of the Trustees, the declara- 
 tion prescribed in Article Twelfth every five years. 
 
 So much for the Abbot Foundation. Next in order is. 
 
 The Associate Foundation. 
 
 The Associate Foundation and its Statutes (March 21, 1808). 
 
 The origin of this foundation is a matter of history. It 
 involves an account of a long and complicated negotiation 
 between theologians of great ability and astuteness in draw- 
 ing fine-s})un distinctions. The two parties, so far as they 
 had opposing views, were respectively called Calvinists and. 
 Hopkinsians. The former had followed the doctrines pf 
 John Calvin ; the latter modified the Calvinistic view owing 
 to the speculations of tlie elder Jonathan Edwards and other 
 acute metaphysicians. On the points upon which they dif- 
 fered they could no more coalesce than oil and water. The 
 Calvinists, however, were in possession of the Phillips 
 
56 
 
 Academy and of the embryo Theological Institution. The 
 Hopkinsians had no Theological Seminary, though as a party 
 they were extremely desirous to have one ; still two semina- 
 ries were not needed at that time in that vicinity, and would 
 be likely to languish or to die out for want of adequate sup- - 
 port. One might be made strong and efficient. The inter- 
 ests of the two parties drove them together. Neither would 
 consent, specifically, to abandon its views. The great prob- 
 lem was to find some form of words under which each party 
 could claim that its own views were tenable. Comprehensive, 
 or, one might perhaps be pardoned for saying, elusive phrases 
 were sought for. Words were inserted which would satisfy 
 the Hopkinsians ; old phrases satisfactory to the Calvinists 
 were not stricken out. The contradictory element in them 
 was, perhaps, not perceived. If observed, it was overlooked. 
 There then emerged from the struggle the Associate Creed — 
 something new and unexampled in religious creeds of modern 
 days. When we look at the Hopkinsian statements crowded 
 in among the Calvinistic propositions, one is reminded of a 
 phrase used by Edmund Burke: The clauses are "crossly 
 indented and whimsically dovetailed." 
 
 I shall soon proceed to compare this creed, step by step, 
 with the Shorter Catechism. But I have now reached the 
 point where it can be affirmed that no statement in either of 
 these creeds can change the bearing of the original founda- 
 tion of 1778, not even though the heirs of all the founders 
 consent; for the law of Massachusetts still declares, by the 
 statute of July 19, 1807, that every thing shall be done con- 
 sistent with the original design of the founders. 
 
 That statute is the sheet-anchor of Andover Theological 
 Seminary. Nothing done by the trustees, founders, or others 
 can make the smallest alteration in the principal design, viz., 
 the promotion of piety and virtue. Before that can be done 
 the people of Massachusetts must signify in a legal and 
 official way what their v/ishes are, and repeal that beneficent 
 
 statute. 
 
 The history of the negotiations are stated at length in the 
 work of Dr. Leonard Woods upon the history of Andover 
 
57 
 
 Seminary. It does not fall within my purpose to refer further 
 to this work, leaving its consideration to others. 
 
 Tlie Associate framers of the statutes incorporated iyito their 
 creed such parts of the Westmmster Shorter Catechism as they 
 approved^ rejecting others, and made their creed a substitute 
 for the catechism. 
 
 In order to show the truth of the above proposition, I place 
 the material part of the catechism and this creed in parallel 
 columns, italicizing some of the leading passages incorporated. 
 It should be observed that while the catechism is expos^itory, 
 and contains many definitions, the creed proceeds mostly by 
 way of enumeration, as the definitions are no doubt assumed 
 to be known by the Professors, who are to be reoarded as 
 experts. 
 
 In the column giving the catechism the questions are omit- 
 ted, as the answers are intelligible without them. The 
 Roman numbers correspond with the numbering of the 
 questions. 
 
 Westminster Shorter Catechism. 
 
 ft 
 
 I. Man's chief end is to glorify 
 God and enjoy him forever. 
 
 II. The Word of God which is 
 contained in the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament is the only 
 rule to direct us how we may glorify 
 and enjoy him. 
 
 III. The Scriptures principally 
 teach what man is to believe concern- 
 ing God, and what duty God requires 
 of man. 
 
 IV. God is a spirit, infinite, eter- 
 nal, and unchangeable in his being, 
 wisdom, power, holiness, justice, good- 
 ness, and truth. 
 
 Creed of Associate 
 Founders. 
 
 I believe that there 
 is one and but one liv- 
 ing and true God ; 
 that the Word of Cod 
 contained in the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and 
 New Testament is the 
 only perfect rule of 
 faith and practice ; 
 that agreeably to 
 those Scriptures God 
 is a spirit, infinite, 
 eternal, and unchange- 
 able in his being, wis- 
 
68 
 
 V. There is hut one only, the living 
 and true God. 
 
 VI. There are three persons in the 
 Godhead, the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost, and these three are 
 one God, the same in substance, equal 
 in power and glory. 
 
 VII. The decrees of God are his 
 eternal purpose according to the 
 counsel of his will, whereby for his 
 own glor}' he hath foreordained what- 
 soever cometh to pass. 
 
 VIII. God executeth his decrees 
 in the works of his creation and Prov- 
 idence. 
 
 IX. The work of his creation is 
 God's making all thino^s out of noth- 
 ing by the word of his power in the 
 space of six days, and all very 
 good. 
 
 X. God created man, male and fe- 
 male, after his own image, in knowl- 
 edge, righteousness, and holiness, with 
 dominion over the creatures. 
 
 XI. God's works of Providence are 
 his most holy, wise, and powerful 
 preserving and governing all his crea- 
 tures and all their actions. 
 
 XII. When God had created man, 
 he entered into a covenant of life with 
 him, upon condition of perfect obedi- 
 ence, forbidding him to eat of the tree 
 of knowledge of good or evil upon 
 pain of death. 
 
 XIII. Our first parents, left to the 
 freedom of their own Avill, fell from 
 the estate wherein they were created 
 by sinning against God. 
 
 (io?w, poiver, holiness, 
 justice, goodness, and 
 truth; that in the God- 
 head there are three 
 persons, the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost, and that these 
 three are one God, the 
 same in substance, 
 equal in power and 
 glory; 
 
 That God created man 
 after his own image, 
 in hnoivledge, right- 
 eousness, and holiness; 
 that the glory of God 
 is man's chief end, and 
 the enjoyment of God 
 his supreme happi- 
 ness ; that this enjoy- 
 ment is derived solely 
 from conformity of 
 heart and cliaracter 
 to the will of God ; 
 
69 
 
 XIV. Sin is any want of conformit}^ 
 to or transgression of the laws of 
 God. 
 
 XV. The sin whereby our first 
 parents fell from the estate wherein 
 they were created was their eating 
 the forbidden fruit. 
 
 XVI. The covenant being raade 
 with Adam, not only for himself, but 
 for his posterity, all mankind descend- 
 ing from him by ordinary generation 
 sinned in him, and fell with him in 
 his first transgression. 
 
 XVII. The fall brought mankind 
 into a state of sin and misery. 
 
 XVIII. The sinfulness of that es- 
 tate whereinto man fell consists in the 
 guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of 
 original righteousness, and the cor- 
 ruption of his whole nature, which is 
 commonly called original sin, together 
 with all actual transgressions which 
 proceed from it. 
 
 XIX. All mankind by their fall 
 lost communion with God, are under 
 the wrath and curse, and so made 
 liable to all the miseries of this life 
 and the pains of hell forever. 
 
 that Adam, the feder- 
 al head and represen- 
 tative 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 de- 
 praved, destitute of 
 holiness, and opposed 
 to God, and that pre- 
 viously to the renew- 
 ing agency of the 
 divine spirit all his 
 moral actions are ad- 
 verse to the character 
 and glory of God ; 
 that, being morally 
 incapable of 'recover- 
 ing 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 can- 
 not see the kingdom 
 of God : 
 
60 
 
 XX. God having, out of his mere That Grod, of his 
 good pleasure, from all eternity elected 7nere good pleasure, 
 some to everlasting life, did enter into from all eternity elect- 
 a covenant of grace to deliver them ed some to everlasting 
 out of the state of sin and misery, and life ; and that he en- 
 to bring them into a state of salvation tered into a covenant 
 by a redeemer. of grace to deliver 
 
 XXI. The only redeemer of God's them out of this state 
 elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who of siyi and misery by 
 being the eternal son of God, became a redeemer. That the 
 man, and so was and continues to be only redeemer of the 
 God and Man, in two distinct natures elect is the eternal son 
 and one person forever. of God, who for this 
 
 XXII. Christ, the son of God, be- purpose became man, 
 came man by taking to himself a true and continues to be 
 body and a reasonable soul, being con- God and 7nan in two 
 ceived by the power of the Holy distinct natures and 
 Ghost in the womb of tlie Virgin oyie jjerson forever; 
 Mar}', and born of her, yet without that Christ as our re- 
 sin, deemer executeth the 
 
 XXIII. Christ, as our redeemer, office of a prophet, 
 executes the offices of a prophet, of a p)riest, and king ; that 
 priest, and of a king, both in his es- agreeably to the cov- 
 tate of humiliation and exaltation. enant of redemption, 
 
 XXIV. Christ executes the office the Son of God, and 
 of a prophet by revealing to us, by his he alone, by his suf- 
 word and spirit, the will of God for fering and death, has 
 our salvation. made* atonement for 
 
 XXV. Christ executeth the office the sins of all men ; 
 of a priest in his once offering up of that repentance, faith, 
 himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine and holiness are the 
 justice and reconcile us to God, and in personal requisites in 
 making continual intercession for us. the Gospel scheme of 
 
 XXVI. Christ executeth the office salvation ; that the 
 of a king in subduing us to himself, righteousness of 
 in rulincr and defendiuGj us, and in re- Christ is the onlv 
 straining and conquering all his and ground of a sinner's 
 our enemies. justification; thatthis 
 
61 
 
 XXVIT. Christ's humiliation con- 
 sisted in liis being born, and that in a 
 low condition made under the law, 
 underQ-oing the miseries of this life, 
 the wrath of God, and the cursed 
 death of the cross, in being buried and 
 in continuing under the power of 
 death for a time. 
 
 XXVJII. Christ's exaltation con- 
 sists in his rising again from the dead 
 on the third day, in ascending up to 
 Heaven, and in sitting at the right 
 hand of God the Father, and in com- 
 ing to judge the world at the last 
 day. 
 
 XXIX. We are made partakers of 
 the redemption purchased by Christ, 
 by the effectual application of it to 
 us by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 XXX. The Spirit appHeth to us 
 the redemption purchased by Christ 
 by working faith in us, and thereby 
 uniting us to Christ in our effectual 
 calling. 
 
 XXXI. Effectual calling is the 
 work of God's spirit, whereby con- 
 vincing us of our sin and misery, en- 
 lightening our minds in the knowledge 
 of Christ, and renewing our wills, he 
 doth persuade and enable us to em- 
 brace Jesus Christ, freely offered to 
 us in the Gospel. 
 
 XXXII. They that are effectually 
 called do in this life partake of justi- 
 fication, adoption, and sanctification, 
 and the several benefits which do in 
 this life either accompany or flow 
 from them. 
 
 righteousness is re- 
 ceived through faith, 
 and that this faith is 
 the gift of God, so 
 tliat our salvation is 
 wholly of grace; that 
 no means whatever 
 can change the heart 
 of a sinner and make 
 it holy ; that regener- 
 ation and sanctifica- 
 tion are effects of the 
 creating and renewing 
 agency of the Holy 
 Spirit ; and that su- 
 preme love to God 
 constitutes the essen- 
 tial difference be- 
 tween saints and sin- 
 ners ; that by convin- 
 cing us of our sin 
 and misery, enlight- 
 ening our minds, 
 iVQrlcing faith in us^ 
 and renewing: our 
 wills, the Holy Spirit 
 makes us partakers of 
 the benefit of redemp- 
 tion ; and that the 
 ordinary means by 
 which these benefits 
 are communicated to 
 us are the word, sac- 
 raments and prayer ; 
 that repentance unto 
 life, faith to feed upon 
 Christ, love to God, 
 and new obedience 
 
62 
 
 XXXIII. Justification is an act of 
 God's free grace, wherein he pardon- 
 eth all our sins and accepteth us as 
 rigliteous in his sight, only for the 
 righteousness of Christ, imputed to 
 us and leceived by faith alone. 
 
 XXXIV. Adoption is an act of 
 God's free grace whereby we are re- 
 ceived into the number and have a 
 right to all the piivileges of the Sons 
 of God. 
 
 XXXV. Sanctification is the work 
 of God's free grace, whereby we are 
 renewed in the whole man after the 
 lAiage of God, and are enabled more 
 and more to die unto sin and live unto 
 righteousness. 
 
 XXXVI. The benefits which in 
 this life do either accompany or flow 
 from justification, adoption and sanc- 
 tification are assurance of God's love, 
 peace of conscience, joy in the Holy 
 Ghost, increase of grace, and perse- 
 verance therein to the end. 
 
 XXXVII. The souls of believers 
 are at their death made perfect in 
 holiness, and do immediately pass into 
 glory, and their bodies being still 
 united to Christ, do rest in their 
 graves till the resurrection. 
 
 XXXVIII. At the resurrection, 
 believers b^ing called up to glory shall 
 be openly acknowledged and ac- 
 quitted at the day of judgment, and 
 made perfectly blessed in the full en- 
 joyment of God to all eternity. 
 
 XXXIX. The duty that God re- 
 quire th of man is obedience to His 
 revealed will. 
 
 are the appropriate 
 qualifications for the 
 Lord's Supper ; and 
 that a Christian 
 Church ouGfht to ad- 
 
 c> 
 
 mit no person to its 
 holy communion be- 
 fore he exhibits credi- 
 ble evidence of his 
 godly sincerity ; that 
 perseverance in ho- 
 liness 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 neces- 
 sarily implies their 
 own watchful dili- 
 gence; that the^ who 
 are effectually called 
 do in this life partake 
 of justification, adop- 
 tion, and sanctification, 
 and the several benefits 
 which do either ac- 
 company 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 unit- 
 ed to Christ, will at 
 the resurrection be 
 
63 
 
 XL. The rule wliich God at first 
 revealed to man for his obedience was 
 the moral law. 
 
 XLI. The moral law is summarily 
 comprehended in the ten command- 
 ments. 
 
 XLir. to LXXXL, both inclusive, 
 concern the ten commandments. 
 
 LXXXII. No mere man since the 
 fall is able in this life perfectly to 
 keep the commandments of God, but 
 dail}'- doth break them in thought, 
 word, and deed. 
 
 LXXXIII. Some sins in them- 
 selves, and by reason of several aggra- 
 vations, are more heinous in the sight 
 of God than others. 
 
 LXXXIV. Every sin deserveth 
 God's wrath and curse, both in this 
 life and that which is to come. 
 
 LXXXV. To escape the wrath and 
 curse of God due to us for sin, God 
 requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, 
 repentance unto life, with the diligent 
 use of all outward means whereby 
 Christ communicateth to us the bene- 
 fits of redemption. 
 
 LXXXVI. Faith in Jesus Christ 
 is a saving grace whereby we receive 
 and rest upon Him alone for salva- 
 tion as He is offered to us in the 
 Gospel. 
 
 LXXXVH. Repentance unto life 
 is a saving grace whereby a sinner, out 
 of the true sense of his sin and appre- 
 hension of the mercy of God in Christ, 
 doth with grief and hatred of his 
 bin turn from it unto God with full 
 
 raised up to glory, and 
 that the saints will be 
 made perfectly blessed 
 in the fidl enjoyment 
 of God to all eternity^ 
 but that the wicked 
 will awake to shame 
 and everlastiiiix con- 
 tempt, and with devils 
 be plunged into the 
 lake that burnetii with 
 fi r e a n d brimstone 
 for ever and ever. I, 
 moreover, believe 
 that God, according 
 to the counsel of His 
 oivn will and for His 
 oivn glory, hath fore- 
 ordained ivhatsoever 
 cometli to pass, and 
 that all beings, ac- 
 tions, and events, both 
 in the natural and 
 moral world, are un- 
 der His providential 
 and moral direction ; 
 that God's decrees 
 perfectly consist with 
 human liberty ; God's 
 universal agency with 
 the agency of man, 
 and man's depend- 
 ence with his account- 
 ability ; that man has 
 understanding and 
 corporeal strength to 
 do all that God re- 
 quires of liim ; so that 
 nothin<x but the sin- 
 
64 
 
 purpose of and endeavor after new ner's aversion to ho- 
 obedience. liness prevents his 
 
 LXXXVIII. The outward and or- salvation ; that it is 
 dinary means whereby Christ com- the prerogative of 
 municateth to us the benefits of re- God to bring good 
 demption, are his ordhiances, especial- out of evil, and that 
 ly the word, sacraments, and prayer, He will cause the 
 all of which are made effectual to the wrath and rage of 
 elect for salvation. wicked men and 
 
 LXXXIX. The Spirit of God mak- devils to praise Him, 
 eth the reading, but especially the and that all the evil 
 preaching of the word, an effectual which has existed, and 
 means of convincing and converting which will forever ex- 
 sinners, and of building them up in ist in the moral sys- 
 holiness and comfort, through faith tem, will eventually 
 unto salvation. be made to promote 
 
 XC. That the word may become a most important pur- 
 effectual to salvation, we must attend pose under the wise 
 thereunto with diligence, preparation, and perfect" adminis- 
 and prayer, receive it with faith and tration of that Al- 
 love, lay it up in our hearts, and mighty Being who 
 practise it in our lives. will cause all things 
 
 XCI. The sacraments become ef- to work for His own 
 fectual means of salvation, not from glory, and thus fulfil 
 any virtue in them, or in him that all His pleasure, 
 doth administer them, but only by the 
 blessino- of Christ and the working 
 of His Spirit in them that by faith 
 receive them. 
 
 XCH. A sacrament is a holy ordi- 
 nance instituted b}^ Christ, wherein 
 by sensible signs Christ and the ben- 
 efits of the New Covenant are repre- 
 sented sealed and applied to believ- 
 ers. 
 
 XCni. The Sacraments of the New 
 Testament are Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
65 
 
 XCIV. Baptism is a Sacrament 
 wherein the washing with water, in 
 the name of the Father, and of tlie 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth 
 signify and seal our ingrafting into 
 Christ, and partaking of the benefits 
 of the Covenant of grace, and our 
 enofao'ement to be the Lord's. 
 
 XCV. Baptism is not to be admin- 
 istered to any that are out of the visible 
 Church till they profess their faith in 
 Christ and obedience to Him ; but the 
 infants of such as are members of 
 the visible Church are to be baptized. 
 
 XCVI. The Lord's Supper is a Sac- 
 rament, wherein by the giving and 
 receiving bread and wine according 
 to Christ's appointment His death is 
 shewed forth ; and the worthy receiv- 
 ers are, not after a corporal and car- 
 nal manner, but by faith, made par- 
 takers of His body and blood with all 
 His benefits to their spiritual nourish- 
 ment and growtli in grace. 
 
 XCVIL It is required of them that 
 would worthily partake of the Lord's 
 Supper that they examine themselves 
 of their knowledge to discern the 
 Lord's body, of their faith to feed 
 upon him, of their repentance, love, 
 and new obedience, lest coming un- 
 worthil}^ they eat and drink judgment 
 to themselves. 
 
 XCVIIL Prayer is an offering up 
 of our desires to God, for things agree- 
 able to his will, in the name of Christ, 
 with confession of our sins and thank- 
 ful acknowledgment of his mercies. 
 
 And furthermore, I 
 do solemnly promise 
 that I will open and 
 explain the Scriptures 
 to my pupils with in- 
 tegrity and faithful- 
 ness ; that I will main- 
 tain and inculcate the 
 Christian faith as ex- 
 pressed by me in the 
 creed now repeated, 
 together with all the 
 other doctrines and 
 duties of our holy re- 
 
66 
 
 XCIX. The whole Word of God is 
 of use to direct us in prayer ; but the 
 special rule of direction is that form 
 of prayer which Christ taught his dis- 
 ciples, commonly called the Lord's 
 Prayer. (C. to CVI., both inclusive, 
 devoted to analysis of Lord's Prayer.) 
 
 ligion so far as may 
 appertain to my office, 
 according to the best 
 light God shall give 
 me, and in opposition, 
 not only to atheists 
 and infidels, but to 
 Jews, Papists, Ma- 
 hometans, Arians, Pe- 
 lagians, Antinomians, 
 Arminians, Socinians, 
 Sabellians, Unitari- 
 ans, and Universal- 
 ists, and to all other 
 heresies and errors, 
 ancient or modern, 
 which may be op- 
 posed to the Gospel 
 of Christ or hazardous 
 to the souls of men ; 
 that by my instruc- 
 tion, counsel, and ex- 
 ample I will endeav- 
 or to promote true 
 piety and godliness; 
 that I will consult the 
 good of this institu- 
 tion and the peace of 
 the churches of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ on 
 all occasions ; and that 
 I will religiously con- 
 form to the constitu- 
 tion and laws of this 
 Seminary, and to the 
 Statutes of this foun- 
 dation. 
 
67 
 
 No candid person can fail to acknowledge, on contrasting 
 these two instruments, that the latter is intended as a substi- 
 tute for the former. The Westminster Shorter Catechism 
 and the Associate Creed at Andover cannot possibly be recon- 
 ciled. To assert that they can be, after due examination, is 
 to act in bad faith. 
 
 Nothing is so notable as the statement in the Associate 
 Creed 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.'''' This is in abso- 
 lute contrast with the doctrine of limited atonement for a 
 few of the elect. There is no trace of this doctrine of uni- 
 versal atonement in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, nor 
 in other creeds adopted in England at that time. Found 
 where it is, it is a breath of the sweet air of heaven over 
 a barren waste where even the Rock of Israel scarcely casts a 
 shadow to allay the fierce and constant heats that beat upon 
 the unconverted. True, John Milton, with poetic insight, 
 perceived it when in his early youth he sang his glorious 
 hymn upon the Nativity, coupling his rejoicings with a far- 
 seeing prophecy : 
 
 " Yea, truth and justice then 
 Will down return to men, 
 Orbed in a rainbow, and like glories wearing; 
 Mercy will sit between, 
 Throned in celestial sheen. 
 
 With radiant feet the tissued clouds down-steering; 
 And heav'n, as at some festival, 
 Will open wide the gates of her high palace-hall." 
 
 Yes, open wide and forever, as the festival will be everlast- 
 ing. No doubt this was regarded in his time as the glowing 
 rhapsody of fervid youth. Only a few men saw this for a 
 lonor time in New England, but these Associates saw it, re- 
 joiced at it, hung it up as their banner, and inserted it in this 
 creed. For many years these five Professors have been work- 
 ing out deductions from this immortal principle. Then there 
 are three leading postulates which they well might pin up on 
 the walls of Andover, as the great Luther raised his theses 
 
68 
 
 aloft ; three great and central docti'ines, everywhere pre- 
 sented by them — the universality of sin, an universal atone- 
 ment, and the indispensableness of faith. Not one of these 
 can be spared. They are to be inscribed on the banners of 
 the great Christian army. What minor points they believe 
 or hope for, such as proba,tion after death, are inferences or 
 deductions from these great central truths. Such inferences 
 are not central, but inferior and subordinate. 
 
 And yet here are these prosecutors demanding that the 
 respondent shall be an " Orthodox and consistent Calvin- 
 ist." Orthodox and consistent Calvinist, indeed ! Why, in 
 this Andover Associate Creed is the very principal proposi- 
 tion against which John Calvin struggled with all his might. 
 If permitted, he would lift himself from his grave to rebuke 
 the utterance that Christ died for the sins of all men. He 
 fell back on God's eternal, sovereign purpose whereby he has 
 predestinated some to eternal life, while the rest of mankind 
 are predestinated to condemnation and eternal death. Those 
 only, he argues, whom God has chosen to life he effectually 
 calls to salvation, and are kept by him in effectual grace and 
 holiness to the end (Institutes, Book III.). And yet in this 
 Andover Creed is imbedded the proposition that Christ made 
 atonement for the sins of all men. It was on this very point 
 that the Saxon Visitation Articles of the year 1592 contested 
 Calvinism, affirming that Christ died for all men, and as the 
 Lamb of God took away the sins of the whole world ; con- 
 demning, in terms, it must be admitted, with some bitterness 
 of expression, the Calvinistic doctrine as heretical that Christ 
 did not die for all men, but only for the elect. The expres- 
 sion in the Andover Creed that in consequence of Adam's 
 disobedience all his descendants were " constituted sinners " 
 would have been abhorrent to the nature of Calvin. His 
 was a frank and outspoken nature — despotic and intolerant, 
 it is true, but never using words to conceal his thoughts, nor 
 did he ever take an unfair advantage of an antagonist. The 
 Andover Creed does not represent the original seamless robe 
 of Calvinism, but rather Joseph's coat of varied colors ; one 
 patch of royal purple in its very centre, one wholly colorless, 
 
69 
 
 viz., the " corporeal strength " to repent, surrounded, it may 
 be, by a dark, cold border of unmitigated Calvinism. 
 
 Some one may ask. Why, then, did the creed-builders 
 require a professor to be an "orthodox and consistent Cal- 
 vinist " ? That is one of the mysteries of the case. Many 
 men complain of tlie mysteries of theology ; they, however, 
 are trifling when compared with the mj^steries of theological 
 creeds ; and the Andover creed is the most m3'sterious of 
 all. 
 
 In whatever sense the phrase " Orthodox and Consistent 
 Calvinism " is used by the associates, it is certainly no part 
 of the creed to be taken by the respondent. It is simply 
 descriptive of a professor's qualities, and to be considered by 
 the trustees at the time of his election, in the same way as 
 another requirement in the same sentence, that he should be 
 a " Master of Arts." I can see no other meaning to the phrase 
 " Orthodox and Consistent Calvinism," as here used, except 
 compliance with the creed. 
 
 I also insist upon the validity of the defence made by Pro- 
 fessor Smyth (filed November 30, 1886), to the effect that 
 the words of the associate founders expressly place him upon 
 their creed, and their creed alone, and that by a fair con- 
 struction of their words the intention was to exclude the 
 Westminster Shorter Catechism. This remark applies to all 
 the professors except Dr. Harris. The fact that Professor 
 Smyth and other professors on the associate foundation have 
 taken that declaration alone before the Board of Trustees 
 and the Board of Visitors, is very cogent and decisive. It is 
 a settled rule of construction that contemporaneous practice 
 is "very strong in law" (Broom's Legal Maxims, 608; 1 
 Kent's Comm., 465). Moreover, as former Boards of Visitors 
 have given a construction of this kind to the words of the 
 associate foundation, it would be unjust to the respondent 
 to adopt a different view, as he has made his declaration 
 according to the construction accepted by all as proper at the 
 time it was made. 
 
70 
 
 Charges Reviewed. 
 
 I only propose in a brief way to go over the charges under 
 Number IV. (Amended Complaint), as they will receive 
 ample and full refutation at the hands of Professor Smyth. 
 
 It is proper to make a preliminary remark applicable to all 
 the charges. The creed of the associate founders is, as has 
 been already shown, purely an educational creed. It has no 
 support or analogy in any religious historic creed. It is not 
 imposed upon the professors as religious men or members of 
 churches, but as teachers. This is shown in the promise as 
 follows : " I will open and maintain and explain the Scrip- 
 tures to my pupils with integrity and faithfulness ; I will 
 maintain and inculcate the Christian faith as expressed in the 
 creed by me now repeated, together with all the other doc- 
 trines and duties of our holy religion so far as may appertain 
 to my office according to the best light God shall give me," 
 etc. The words "maintain" and "inculcate," as here em- 
 ployed, refer solely to acts done in the course of instruction. 
 The word "maintain," as here used, means to "assert as a 
 tenet " (Worcester's Dictionary). The word " inculcate," 
 equivalent "to enforce on the mind by frequent repetition " 
 (same dictionary) is peculiarly applicable to instruction in 
 the class-room. From this point of view, I claim that cita- 
 tions from the work called " Progressive Orthodoxy," or from 
 editorial articles in the Andover Revieiv^ are without perti- 
 nence in establishing the charges. 
 
 But if I am wrong in this resjject, I still claim that the 
 extracts from the book and Review articles do not establish 
 the propositions for which they are cited. They are wrenched 
 from their connections. The context is not taken into account. 
 There is no rule better settled in all interpretation than that 
 the context is to be regarded. It. is not a rule of law merely, 
 but of logic, fair dealing, and common honesty (Lieber on 
 Hermeneutics (Third or Hammond's Edition, 1880), pp. 114, 
 115 ; 1 Kent's Comm., 461, 462). 
 
 I now proceed with the specifications. 
 
 First Specification. — In the article itself cited to sustain 
 
71 
 
 this specification, or in the extracts, it is submitted that there 
 is not the smallest ground for the assertion that the respond- 
 ent holds that there is any other perfect rule of faith and 
 practice than the Bible, or that the Bible is not such' a rule. 
 It is absolutely without foundation to state, as the signers of 
 the charges do, that the extracts cited show that the respond- 
 ent holds that the Bible " is fallible and untrustworthy, 
 even in some of its religious teachings." The words " fallible 
 and untrustworthy " certainly are not used by the respondent. 
 Where are their equivalents ? The only imperfection in the 
 Sacred Writings stated by the respondent, is "lack of ideal 
 symmetry." Whatever imperfection there may be short of 
 absolute perfection is stated to have no "living interest." 
 The writers of the Books of the New Testament are stated 
 to have been chosen by Christ Himself to reveal Him. It is 
 also stated that their spiritual sympathy would prevent them 
 from attributing to Him any teaching or deed not worthy of 
 His character. All of this and more is utterly inconsistent 
 with the charges and cannot, by any proper reasoning, be 
 made to support them. 
 
 Second Specification. — The second specification is that the 
 respondent holds that Christ was not, during his earthly life, 
 " G-od and man.'''' 
 
 It is absolutely certain that nowhere in " Progressive Or- 
 thodoxy " does he say so. In many places he says directly 
 the opposite. Thus on page 22, " Progressive Orthodoxy," 
 he says : " The uniqueness of Christ's humanity appears in 
 this, that its eiitire existence is in personal union with the 
 divine nature.^^ " The divine and human relations in Christ 
 are essentially (i.e.., in their essence) related to each other." 
 P. 28. The signers seek to infer his heresy, in this direction, 
 from some two or three passages cited^ none of which sus- 
 tain their allegations. The most that can be made of these 
 is, not that they do not assert both the divinity and 
 humanity of Jesus, but that they uphold a groivth in his 
 humanity, and its progressive union with the divine. That is 
 a totally different thing from asserting that there was no 
 union at all. This last is what the signers claim. Precisely 
 
72 
 
 what the respondent affirms is, that "tlie facts show the lim- 
 itations of Jesus' knowledge, the perfect human reality of 
 his earthly life, the veritable growth of his consciousness 
 and personality from the moment of the incarnation."' Do 
 the signers deny this as to his human nature ? " What, 
 then, becomes of the statement of the Evangelist, that Jesus 
 increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God 
 and man ? The signers, in asserting " heterodoxy " in this 
 respect, fly in the face of the Bible, and by their disbelief 
 and disregard of it, themselves affirm that it is not a "per- 
 fect rule of faith and practice." 
 
 Third Specification. — This is that the respondent holds 
 that no man has power or capacity to repent without knoivl- 
 edge of God in Christ. 
 
 The passages cited under this head do not sustain it. 
 There is not one word in any of them concerning the 
 "knowledge" of God. This is an instance of what fre- 
 quently occurs in the " charges," viz., extreme carelessness 
 or, rather, recklessness in making citations. What appears 
 to be affirmed is, that "man of himself cannot repent." 
 Taking this brief assertion and without the context, it is not 
 " heterodox3\" Witness chap. 9th, Paragraph III. of the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. " Man by his fall into a 
 state of sin hath wholl}^ lost all ability Qpotentiani) of will 
 to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so, as a nat- 
 ural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead 
 in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to 
 prepare himself thereunto" (3 Schaff, Creeds, etc., 62-3). It 
 does not lie in the mouth of the prosecutors to deny the 
 Westminster creed, as they insist that the respondent is 
 bound by the " Shorter Catechism," made by the same men. 
 The creed of the Associate Founders itself alleges that man 
 is morally incapable of recovering the image of his creator, 
 though he may have the "corporeal strength" (whatever 
 that may be) to do all that God requires of him. The creed 
 further says, " that previously to the renewing agency of 
 the Divine Spirit, all his moral actions are adverse to the 
 character and glory of God." The most that can be said of 
 
73 
 
 the creed is, that it affirms, in an obscure way, the natural 
 ability of man to repent, while it asserts his moral inability. 
 This view is held by the respondent as he himself affirms, 
 and by all rules of law he is entitled to show his intent in 
 such a case as the present, where the sole inquiry is, What 
 did the respondent mean by certain passages of his writings? 
 He positively says that he recognizes and affirms the theo- 
 logical distinction between natural and moral ability to 
 repent. Accordingly, from every point of view, this charge 
 is without significance. 
 
 Fourth Specification. — This is that mankind, save as they 
 have received a knowledge of the '' liistoric Christ," are not 
 sinners, or if they are, not of such sinfulness as to be in 
 danger of being lost. 
 
 The citations under this specification lend no support to it. 
 The very first sentence quoted alleges "that man left to him- 
 self cannot have a repentance which sets him free from sin 
 and death." The word " death," as here used by the 
 respondent, cannot mean death in a physical sense, but must 
 necessarily refer to death in the sense of being lost. The 
 extract is to the effect that repentance without Christ is 
 unavailing for the redemption of man. This passage, 
 instead of showing that men without a knoivledge of Christ 
 are not " sinners," shows the despairing condition that they 
 are in through sin without Christ. 
 
 Fifth Specification. — This is, that no man can be lost with- 
 out having had knowledge of Christ. 
 
 To establish this specification, a single sentence is taken 
 from " Progressive Orthodoxy," p. 250 : " We have been 
 endeavoring to show that no one can be lost without having 
 had knowledge of Christ." The meaning here is finally lost 
 at the last judgment. This remark is merely an inference 
 from a course of reasoning based on the revelation in the 
 scriptures of Christ to mankind. It is not an assertion of a 
 fact, as the specification would lead one to believe. It is 
 really an inference from the universality of the atonement as 
 set forth in the creed itself. If incorrect, it is but a failure 
 in a process of reasoning. I shall, however, insist that it is 
 correct more at large hereafter. 
 
74 
 
 Sjjecifications from Sixth to Tenth. — I have carefully con- 
 sidered the charges from the sixth to the tenth, both inclu- 
 sive. The}^ appear to me to be either unsustained by the 
 citations given or to be frivolous. The eighth and tenth par- 
 ticularly seem to be frivolous. The tenth is not supported 
 by any citation. I leave them for the consideration of the 
 respondent and others, if they are deemed to be worthy of 
 attention. 
 
 Specification Eleventh. — The eleventh specification de- 
 mands more consideration. 
 
 This is, that the respondent holds, maintains, and incul- 
 cates 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. 
 
 This is a charge which, in some form or other, has not only 
 been brought before your honorable Board, but also before 
 the community, at various times and places, within the last 
 few months, and has been hitherto designated as the special 
 heresy of the Andover Professors. The other charges appear 
 to be in the nature of an after-thought. They are rather 
 raised as dust to conceal a retreat upon this eleventh or main 
 specification. 
 
 I shall consider this topic under the following subdivisions : 
 
 First. — The theory of competent theologians believing 
 the doctrine of limited atonement, as to the necessity of 
 knowledge of Christ to a saving faith on tlie part of the 
 elect. 
 
 Second. — The necessary extension of this doctrine to all 
 persons, since the theory of universal atonement has been 
 established. 
 
 Third. — Historical reasons why the fact that probation 
 involved a knowledge of Christ on the part of the heathen 
 was not present to the minds of creed-builders and Chris- 
 tians until recently. 
 
 Fourth. — The reason why it has been an object of atten- 
 tion within these later years. 
 
 First. — While the doctrine of limited atonement prevailed, 
 
75 
 
 Tcnoivledge of Christ was deemed necessary on the part of the 
 elect to a saving faith. * 
 
 The witness that I shall summon upon this point is Dr. 
 Samuel Willard (already referred to), in his ninety-sixth ser- 
 mon on the Westminster Shorter Catechism (p. 437, para- 
 graph 1, subdiv. (2)). There he says: '•'■Faith in Christ 
 must he built upon the knoivledge of him. [The italics are 
 his own.] If ever a sinner be persuaded to venture himself 
 upon Christ for life, it must be upon a discovery that is made 
 to and in him that Christ is such an object as is every way 
 fit for him so to do. The act of the will cannot be called a 
 human act any further than as it follows the dictates and 
 direction of the understanding. Faith, indeed, is a con- 
 fidence, but it is ever built upon knowledge ; so that till 
 there be a discovery made of Christ to the man, by which 
 he apprehends him to be able to save him to the uttermost, 
 he will not cast himself upon him for eternity." He then 
 goes on to state "that this knowledge must be by revelation ; 
 that God hath chosen the Gospel to be the instrument in 
 and by which this revelation was made; and that God sends 
 the Gospel to men by men whom he employ's for that end ; 
 and that their errand is to publish the glad tidings of peace, 
 and invite men to accept it. Their commission is to all that 
 come within their hearing, without restriction ; and they are 
 not to meddle with the secret purposes of God, as to whom 
 he has elected to everlasting life." 
 
 He displays in this connection his belief in a "limited 
 atonement," by stating that God brings not the Gospel ordi- 
 narily to any people but where there are some to be effect- 
 ually called by it. " It cannot be instanced where the Gospel 
 offer ever was made to men merely for condemnation. God 
 knows who are his according to the purpose of his grace 
 before they are so called, where they live, and accordingly 
 orders the Gospel to come to them or tliem to come to it " 
 (p. 437). 
 
 He recurs to the same point on p. 439: "That men may 
 comply with this way as reasonable creatures, the terms of it 
 must be opened to them. An human choice, though it be an 
 
76 
 
 act of the will, yet to render it human it must be guided by 
 the practical understanding ; nor can it otherwise be denom- 
 inated an election. That, therefore, men may be capable of 
 making snch a choice they must be acquainted with it, that 
 so they may have the knowledge of that about which it is to 
 be made (Psalms ix. 10). The man must apprehend the 
 thing to be good, in order to his closing with it ; whereas 
 that which he knows nothing of he can neither determine to 
 be good or evil, and so cannot exert an act of his will 
 about it." 
 
 Though this good Doctor believed in a limited atonement, it 
 was plainly a great trial to his faith. He argued that there 
 was virtue enough in the atonement to prove a satisfaction 
 for all as well as for a few; that the justice of God would not 
 have suffered any injury by the delivery of all ; and that the 
 mercy of God would have had so many the more everlasting 
 monuments, for all were alike involved in guilt and exposed 
 to his wrath. If any caviller then asked him why so few, his 
 simple and invariable answer was, " it was His good pleasure 
 so to do." 
 
 That is Calvinism in its logical development. Who will 
 say it is not dreary to the last degree ? Limited atonement ; 
 knowledge (for the elect) of Christ ; no knowledge of Christ 
 for the non-elect. " Die, ye accursed, die in your sins ; ye 
 shall not know, for ye cannot believe and knowledge would 
 be useless." Such is the word for the non-elect. 
 
 Here, in December, 1G97, not long after the publication of 
 the Shorter Catechism, we find a distinguished divine lec- 
 turing upon it, and maintaining that there could be no elect 
 except they had knowledge of Christ, and asserting that 
 election implied knowledge of him. His great celebrity and 
 the wide acceptance of his views without objection indicate 
 that he truly represented the contemporary opinion of the 
 New England churches. His view as to the necessity of 
 knowledge of Christ to a saving faith is eminently reasonable, 
 and accords with logic and good-sense. 
 
 There is, in my opinion, nothing more saddening than to 
 consider the condition of these God-fearino^ men of New Ens:- 
 
77 
 
 land when they embraced, with all sincerity of faith, the 
 doctrine of limited atonement. It cut rioht through the 
 heart of society. It laid bare its most sensitive and quivering 
 nerves. It entered into the family and divided brother from 
 brother ; yea, infant from infant. The horrible phrase "elect 
 infants " appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith. 
 The religion of Christ as then understood had in it all the 
 elements of civil war, for it desolated the hearth-stone in 
 nearly every household. It was a brave thing for the men 
 who sustained dreadful mental sufferings from it to say, with 
 cheerfulness, "it is His good pleasure." Still they insisted 
 that there was no true faith, nay, no election, no elect, with- 
 out knowledge. The only difference between the affirmation 
 of these strict Calvinists and the alleged heterodoxy of this 
 respondent is, that while they affirm that there can be no 
 " elect" without knowledge of Christ, he inferentially affirms 
 that no one can be finally lost without having had knowledge 
 of Christ, and this because the atonement is universal. These 
 are but different roads to the same result, viz., the necessity 
 of the knowledge of Christ to a saving faith. The only dif- 
 ference is in the number who will have knowledge of Christ. 
 
 Second. The necessary extension of this doctriyie to all per- 
 sons, since the theory of universal atonement has been estab- 
 lished. 
 
 If, now, we reject the doctrine of limited atonement and 
 substitute for it an universal atonement, as does the creed of 
 the associate founders, the same argument remains and is 
 still irresistible. If Christ died for the few, then faith is 
 brought into being in them only in connection with knowl- 
 edge ; if he died for all, faith is required of all to make it 
 available to the extent that Christ designed. And this, as 
 has been seen, implies knowledge of Christ on the part of all. 
 If any cannot receive the knowledge, the design of Christ is 
 to that extent fruitless. While probation after death to 
 those who have no opportunity here cannot be strictly proved, 
 it is rendered probable from the fact that it cannot be sup- 
 posed that Christ would see His great plan frustrated by lack 
 of suitable opportunity, even on the part of a single soul. 
 
78 
 
 He intrusts it to His believing children to bring the knowl- 
 edge home to every creature. But what if they do not? 
 Because they are remiss, shall Christ's plan be frustrated ? 
 Nay, verily. To borrow the nervous language of the elder 
 Edwards in a somewhat different connection : " This would 
 be to frustrate all those great things which God brought to 
 pass from the fall of man to the incarnation of Christ. It 
 would also frustrate all that Christ did and suffered while on 
 earth ; yea, it would frustrate the incarnation itself." He 
 adds, " All the great things done were for that end that those 
 might be saved who should come to Christ" (History of Re- 
 demption, Period H., Part HI., Sec. II.). But we ask, in all 
 sincerity, how shall they come to Christ unless tliey know? 
 The fact is, that the proposition inserted in this creed that 
 Christ made atonement for the sins of all men, cuts deeper 
 than the founders knew. They, for a special reason, estab- 
 lished a creed mainly remarkable for its glaring inconsist- 
 encies. Into a vessel, part of iron and part of miry clay, they 
 cast a precious seed, perhaps without thinking of its mighty 
 possibilities. Now, it has grown to be a huge and symmet- 
 rical tree, demanding the earth for its roots and heaven for 
 its branches. The great postulates of religion will forever 
 remain : Universal sin, universal atonement, and universal 
 opportunity for rational faith. When " Heaven opened wide 
 the gate of its high palace hall " it also opened wide the gate 
 of knowledge of Him who, standing at the very opening of 
 the gate, announced His universal offer of pardon. As to . 
 suitable opportunity to know Him, the Head of the Church 
 will provide, if not by probation after death, in some appro- 
 priate way. We may be certain, and be joyful in the assur- 
 ance, that He will not allow " the design of His incarnation 
 to be frustrated." 
 
 Third. I now propose to consider the historical reasons why 
 the case of the heathen and their knowledge of Christ was not 
 present to the minds of Christians until a comparatively recent 
 period, a7id hoiv it happened that our creeds are comparatively 
 barren upon this subject. 
 
 In reading the various creeds that have been adopted by 
 
79 
 
 the Christian Church, one is struck with the paucity of ref- 
 erences to the case of the heathen. The great majority of 
 the human race is entirely ignored. This is perhaps partly 
 attributable to a contempt for barbarians derived by succes- 
 sion from the Roman Empire ; in part to the terror and 
 detestation inspired by the life and death struggles, long- 
 continued, and with almost balanced fortune, between Chris- 
 tendom and the Turks ; partly to intestine struggles in each 
 Christian nation of a most threatening and perilous nature. 
 Religious belief could find no place for them in the other 
 world. This is shown in quite a remarkable manner in the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith (not the Shorter Cate- 
 chism). 
 
 In Chapter 32 (Confession) it is laid down that the 
 " Bodies of men, after death return to dust and see corrup- 
 tion, but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an 
 immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave 
 them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect 
 in holiness, are received into the highest heavens where they 
 behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the 
 full redemption of their bodies, and the souls of the wicked 
 are cast into Hell, where they remain in torments and utter 
 darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. 
 Besides these tivo places for souls separated from their bodies^ 
 the Scripture acknowledgeth noney 
 
 So to escape this last named difficulty, the souls of the 
 wicked must be condemned to Hell before the judgment, and 
 those of infants (other than "elect infants," described in 
 Chapter 10) must be sent there also, because the Scripture 
 only acknowledged two places for souls after death. Not a 
 word of this destination as to the souls of the wicked after 
 death is to be found in the Shorter Catechism, while that of 
 the righteous is made substantially equivalent to the state- 
 ment in the Confession of Faith. This is a significant omis- 
 sion, apparently showing that the view taken in the 
 " Confession " was not firmly held, or that it was considered 
 not to be a fit doctrine to be presented in a popular form, 
 and especially among the young. 
 
80 
 
 The general question still remains as to the principal rea- 
 son wh}^ no general interest has been taken in the Church, 
 until the present century, in the fate of the heathen after 
 death, or, stated in a broader form, in the fate of the heathen 
 in any respect. 
 
 One leading ground undoubtedly was that there was 
 assumed to be perpetual enmity between Christians and 
 heathen. I may refer to a great legal decision in the time of 
 King James I., but a few years before the Westminster Cate- 
 chism was composed, viz., Calvin's case, argued before the 
 Lord Chancellor Ellesmere and the twelve judges of 
 England. Lord Coke, the reporter of it, says that it was the 
 weightiest case that ever was argued in any court. It had 
 points in it of the highest general interest, and, among 
 others, the relations according to the law of nature of Eng- 
 lishmen to aliens were discussed. The general sentiment 
 was, according to Coke, that Christian kings and princes 
 were, though aliens, friends of England, unless in time of 
 war, while there was a perpetual, everlasting enmity between 
 Englishmen and infidels, that is, heathen. Let us listen to 
 the words of the report : " All infidels aie in law perpetual 
 enemies (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, 
 that being a remote possibility^, for between them, as with the 
 Devil whose subjects they be, and the Christian there is per- 
 petual hostility, and can be no peace, lor, as the Apostle saith, 
 ' What concord can there be between Christ and Belial ? ' " 
 (7 Coke R. p. 17, b.) Further on, he says, "The laws of 
 the infidel are not only against Christianity, but against the 
 law of God and of nature," contained in the Decalogue. It 
 must be remembered that the men who uttered this, as it 
 now seems to us, atrocious sentiment, this bloody proclama- 
 tion of everlasting war, were professed Christians, and men 
 of the first rank for ability and statesmanship. The West- 
 minster Assembly sat only thirty years later than this utter- 
 ance of the twelve judges in Calvin's case, having among its 
 members noblemen, statesmen, and great lawj^ers, among 
 others John Selden. It is not conceivable that this view 
 was not present to their minds, making the condition of the 
 
81 
 
 heathen, whether before or after death, of no possible conse- 
 quence to Englishmen. Their conversion was too remote a 
 possibility to be entertained. 
 
 Here was a sentiment, if it "did not cut the nerve of mis- 
 sions," prevented any such nerve from developing. Why- 
 was the conversion of the heathen "a remote possibility," in 
 the language of Lord Coke, or a "possibility upon a possi- 
 bility," in other forms of statement ? This was undoubtedly 
 derived from some form of the doctrine of limited atonement. 
 It was scarcely conceivable that Christ would elect such chil- 
 dren of Belial to be his adopted sons, and pass by men in a 
 Christian land who had the means of grace offered them. All 
 the encouragement that could be given to one living in a 
 Christian land, was that he might, if he used such means of 
 grace as were open to him, be elected, or God in his good 
 pleasure might, after all, "pass him by." What, then, were 
 the chances for election of the poor heathen, ranked among 
 the devil's servants ? Was not Lord Coke correct in calling 
 it a remote possibility — not worth taking into account? — 
 was he not right, on that theory, of proclaiming against them, 
 as the mouthpiece of the justice of England, eternal war? 
 
 As late as 1744, the view taken in Lord Coke's time was 
 still under discussion, and the Court of Common Pleas, speak- 
 ing by Lord Chief Justice Welles, took much pains to refute 
 the doctrines advanced in Calvin's case, so far as the right of 
 a Gentoo to be a witness in an English court, was concerned. 
 Omichund v. Barker, Welles E,., 538. Even down to the 
 time of Lord Mansfield, near the close of the last century, 
 African slavery was justified in England by many on the 
 ground that the negroes were not Christians, but infidels, of 
 course, arguing by implication that infidels had no rights as 
 against Christians. It had become a current notion that if 
 a negro became a Christian he was emancipated, though Lord 
 Mansfield himself tells us that there was no ground for this 
 in law, and that it was so resolved " upon a petition in Lin- 
 coln Inns Hall after dinner.'^ Being rendered in that way, 
 little attention was paid to the decision, and the question 
 was not really disposed of until /Somerset's case (cited below). 
 
82 
 
 He adds that it is remarkable that before this decision the 
 English "took infinite pains" to prevent their slaves being 
 made Christians, so that they might not be freed. Somerset 
 V. Stewart, Lofft's Reports (fol. ed.), London, p. 8 (a.d. 
 1763). 
 
 Lord Mansfield had moral courage enough to dispel this 
 delusion, although there were fourteen or fifteen thousand 
 slaves in England, held there on that basis. . He rendered his 
 decision with a fine, tragic air, crying out, " Let justice come, 
 though the heavens fall." It came, and the heavens did not 
 fall. His decision did not merely emancipate the slave It 
 had a far wider sweep. It emancipated the Christian from 
 his bondage to the accursed theory that the heathen had no 
 rights, legal or moral, that could be urged against the brute 
 force of the Christian. Lord Mansfield was in a mild way 
 the precursor of Abraham Lincoln. Each professed to pro- 
 ceed according to law. The one gave the death-blow to the 
 slavery of Afiican heathen in England ; the other destroj-ed 
 the servitude of African Christians in the United States. 
 
 Now, can any one seriously contend that while this state 
 of things continued there could have been any earnest mis- 
 sionary spirit in the way of converting the heathen? Most 
 assuredly not. 
 
 Jonathan Edwards, writing his History of Redemption, not 
 far from this period, earnestly favoring missions, could but 
 give the most meagre accounts of them. There was some 
 interest concerning the Indians in North America ; some- 
 thing doing in far-off Muscovy ; something among the heathen 
 in the East Indies, particularly in Malabar. This was a most 
 meagre exhibit. He was looking forward to the future, to 
 the time when " Antichrist " was overthrown, and the hea- 
 then were emancipated " from the cruel tyranny of the devil, 
 who has all this while blinded and befooled them, domineered 
 over them, and made a prey of them." He burst forth into 
 a rhapsody : " Then shall the many natives of Africa, who 
 now seem to be in a state but a little above the beasts, be 
 visited with glorious light, and delivered from all their dark- 
 ness, and become a civil, Christian, understanding, and holy 
 
83 
 
 people ; then shall the vast continent of America, which now 
 in great part is covered with barbarous ignorance and cruelty, 
 be everywhere covered with glorious Gospel light and Chris- 
 tian love, and instead of worshipping the devil, as they now 
 do, they shall serve God. So we may expect it will be in that 
 great and populous part of the East Indies which are now 
 mostly inhabited by the worshippers of the devil. . . . Thus 
 will be gloriously fulfilled Isaiah xxxv. 1 : ' The wilderness 
 and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert 
 rejoice and blossom as the rose.' " 
 
 But if he had disclosed his whole feelingr he would have 
 said : " This shall be hereafter^ but alas ! not now, not now. 
 Christ is in conflict with Antichrist, and when in that con- 
 flict he is crowned victor all this will come. Till then we 
 must w^ait." It was like two opposing sovereigns disputing 
 every inch of territory, with varying successes, except that 
 prophecy gave the assurance as to which would be ulti- 
 mately successful. It was this feeling and the cognate feel- 
 ing, that the heathen were not likely to be God's elect, that 
 strangled the missionary spirit in its birth. It is easy to 
 understand why at the close of the last century only seven 
 missionary (Protestant) societies were in existence, and four 
 of these in the tenth decade. 
 
 It was precisely as the strict Calvinistic doctrine began to 
 lose its hold upon the consciences of men, and the glorious 
 truth of an universal atonement not merely dawned upon 
 their minds and hearts, but shone upon them and irradiated 
 them with its full effulgence, that this other great truth pos- 
 sessed and animated them, that the heathen were not, in fact, 
 the children of the devil, but rather the children of a com- 
 mon father and their own brethren, for whose destiny they 
 should feel the most tender and affectionate solicitude. 
 
 Fourth. — It is time now to inquire why the missionary 
 spirit has been so ardent and continuous since the beginning 
 of the present century. 
 
 This is no doubt attributable to a variety of causes, includ- 
 ing the extension of commerce, the increase of facilities for 
 travel, increased wealth, and the prevalence among civilized 
 
84 
 
 men of the tenderer and more feminine qualities, such as are 
 evinced in the establishment and large development of socie- 
 ties for the prevention of cruelty to animals or cruelty to 
 children. This tender sentiment has extended to their far- 
 away and dusky brethren, and stimulates them to reach for- 
 ward and lend a helping hand for their civilization, and for 
 the removal of the dreadful evils which blight and consume 
 their lives. More than all is it to be attributed to the new 
 and noble feeling that Christ died for them as well as for 
 civilized men. To the enlightened modern Christian, Satan 
 has no pretence to share the honors of sovereignty with 
 Christ. His reign ended when Christ died. The offer of 
 pardon is unlimited on reasonable terms. There is nothing 
 left but to proclaim it with all zeal and discretion. If there 
 are any sinners that cannot be reached during life, let the 
 believer hope, or feel assured if he can, that the offer will 
 still be held out, and the opportunity to embrace it be 
 afforded, even though it be styled probation after death. 
 This respondent presents this probation simply as a proba- 
 bility, a hope. We insist, therefore, that on general grounds, 
 as well as on this guarded commitment to the doctrine, there 
 is no " heterodoxy " (Progressive Orthodoxy, 248-254, and 
 the article considered as a whole). 
 
 Specification Tivelftli. — The next specification is, that the 
 respondent holds, maintains, and inculcates " that Christian 
 missions are not to be supported and conducted on the ground 
 that men who know not Christ are in danger of perishing 
 forever, and must perish forever, unless saved in this life." 
 
 The respondent claims that this subject is not embraced 
 within this creed, and is not therefore within the scope of 
 the present inquiry ; still, he admits that he does not hold 
 that the ground for supporting and conducting Christian 
 missions is the absolute certainty that all must perit^h forever 
 who are not saved in this life. The discussion of this sub- 
 ject has been partly anticipated, and it is only proposed to 
 offer a few suggestions concerning it. 
 
 Some will say that even this qualified statement "cuts 
 the nerve " of Christian missions. The principal objection 
 
85 
 
 to it, I presume, is that the tendency of the doctrine will be 
 to paralyze Christian effort in sending money to the heathen, 
 or to lessen interest in the cause. Such an objection is, of 
 course, without avail if the doctrine of " probation after 
 death " be proved to be true. But as it cannot positively be 
 proved to be true (though we affirm that there appears to be 
 ground for it in Scripture as well as in reason), such an 
 objection is to be carefully considered in weighing proba- 
 bilities. There must, however, be taken into account, on the 
 other hand, the duty of Christians to obey the divine com- 
 mand to preach the Gospel to all, the influence of Christian 
 love in breeding a desire to extend to others the blessings of 
 Christianity, the impulses of a spirit of humanity in averting 
 cruelty, and the natural and earnest wish of all good and 
 intelligent men to reduce the earth to a well-ordered scheme 
 of civil and religious liberty instead of leaving it in the 
 shadow of ignorance and disorder. 
 
 These influences are potent enough to develop Home Mis- 
 sions. Why not Foreign Missions? 
 
 The real difficulty is that Christians are not yet emanci- 
 pated from the bondage of fear. They have not yet accepted 
 love as the element which should control their lives. And 
 yet, while fear was the sole prevailing impulse there were no 
 missions of consequence. It was only after love for far-away 
 brethren began to be the controlling element in men's lives 
 that missions started forward to their present glorious devel- 
 opment. 
 
 A passage from Dr. Schaff's History of the Creeds of 
 Christendom is singularly apposite. No one will suspect this 
 thorough student in ecclesiastical history of any thing like 
 partiality or bias. He, from the nature of his work, must 
 sum up conclusions as a judge. After surveying the view of 
 the church as to the salvation of the heathen, he says : " Dur- 
 ing the period of vigorous scholastic orthodoxy which fol- 
 lowed the Reformation in the Reformed and Lutheran 
 Churches Zwingli's view " (favorable to the heathen) " could 
 not be appreciated, and appeared as a dangerous heresy. In 
 the seventeenth century the Romanists excluded the Protes- 
 
86 
 
 tants, the Lutlierans the Calvinists, the Calvinists the Ar- 
 minians, from the kingdom of heaven ; how much more all 
 those who never heard of Christ? This wholesale damnation 
 of the vast majority of the human race should have stirred up 
 a burning zeal for their conversion ; and yet during that whole 
 period of intense confessionalisra and exclusive orthodoxism 
 there was not a single Protestant missionary in the field, ex- 
 cept among tlie Indians in the wilderness of North Amer- 
 ica " (Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, vol. i., p. 384, 4th 
 
 ed.). 
 
 Who were the missionaries to the Indians in North Amer- 
 ica referred to by Dr. Schaff ? John Eliot and David Brain- 
 erd, Congregationalist ministers, inspired with the spirit of 
 John Robinson. We know from Mr. Brainerd's own writings 
 what measures he pursued. In teaching the Indians doc- 
 trines that had a legal aspect, such as "justification by im- 
 puted righteousness," he made but very little headway. In 
 his own words, "I found it extremely difficult to treat with 
 them upon this great doctrine " (Brainerd's Journal, Appen- 
 dix II., Sec. 4). Where he succeeded was, first, in teaching 
 them the sinfulness and misery of the estate they were nat- 
 urally in ; and, secondly, in frequentl}' opening to them, in 
 his own words, with his own italics, " the fulness, all-sufficiency 
 and freeness, of that redemption which the Son of God has 
 wrought out by his obedience and sufferings for perishing 
 sinners ; how this provision he had made was suited to all 
 their wants, and liow he called and invited them to accept of 
 everlasting life freely, notwithstanding all their sinfulness, 
 inability, unworthiness, etc." (Journal, Appendix III. short 
 account of Missions). 
 
 Did Brainerd preach " orthodox and consistent Calvinism " 
 to these poor Indians? Wouldn't he have found the among 
 of limited atonement extremely difficult? It may be unhes- 
 itatingly affirmed that while truly "consistent Calvinism" 
 was the general doctrine of the Church not one missionary 
 was sent to the heathen, nor was that doctrine ever preached 
 to them. 
 
 There is another thing which the friends of Missions 
 
87 
 
 must take into serious consideration. What will be the 
 probable effect upon the loyalty to Christianit}^ of many rea- 
 sonable men on learning that the doctrine of " universal 
 atonement," to which they now cheerfull}^ give the adhesion 
 of their hearts and lives, is in respect to the vast majority of 
 the human race substantially a mockery ? There are and al- 
 ways have been practical limitations upon the power of Chris- 
 tians at once to obey the command, " Go, teach all nations." 
 "We hope and believe that these are provisional. In the 
 mean time shall they suffer eternal punishment? Can the 
 church afford to alienate men who have a high sense of jus- 
 tice, without the clearest reason ? It is not necessary for the 
 members of this Board to hold the opinion concerning proba- 
 tion attributed to the respondent. All that any can ask is 
 that it shall be a tolerated opinion for those whom it satisfies, 
 and that they shall not by reason of it be adjudged to be 
 " heterodox." 
 
 What we desire to say upon this point in more full state- 
 ment is this : 
 
 It is possible to understand, on the theory of a limited 
 atonement, how a great ruler of the universe might extend a 
 pardon to some rebels against his authority and positively 
 exclude others. This has been done scores of times by 
 earthly monarchs, not in general arbitraril}^ but with some 
 shadow of reason — perhaps reasons of state. But to say 
 that a Supreme Being offers pardon to all his subjects on 
 certain specified and equal terms, and then refrains from 
 communicating the terms to some, so that they cannot ac- 
 cept it if they would, is incomprehensible and abhorrent to 
 the sense of justice implanted in the breast of man by that 
 very Supreme Being. Communication is the very first ele- 
 , ment of human law. Why not of the divine? If these 
 signers say otherwise, I will not believe them. Nor will I 
 believe that the eminent and merciful Christian men who 
 drew this Associate Creed would have said otherwise, had 
 their attention been called to the proper inferences to be 
 drawn from an Universal Atonement. Let us rid our minds 
 of fallacies. The great Emperor Justinian wrote on the 
 
88 
 
 front of his code of Roman law the sentence : " Justice is the 
 unflagging and everlasting purpose to render to every one his 
 due."' With a human judge, justice is rightly defined to he 
 a. purpose, because it may sometimes fail of accomplishment, 
 ■while with God it is an assured result. No rebellious sub- 
 ject lias a claim to a pardon ; but when offered, if it is not 
 communicated, it is, we insist, a hollow mockery of justice, 
 particularly in the case of an omnipotent God. 
 
 Some may object that this wliole theory of probation after 
 death is quite unnecessarj', since the heathen have a law 
 written in their hearts which they ought to obey; and if 
 they do not, they deserve everlasting punishment. The dif- 
 ficulty with this view is, that it introduces into the divine 
 plan two different modes of treating sinners — one b}^ the 
 doctrines of grace, and the other by the feeble fluctuating 
 light of nature's law. Let it be said with reverence, that 
 this is but a human device or makeshift to help God out in 
 an imperfect system of government. The Supreme Being 
 has but one system of government. It is reasonable to 
 think that his plan of atonement will be made known in 
 some way to sinners, be it by "probation after death" or 
 in some other way that he may establish. It is not for 
 us to make a definite assertion as to the mode of accomplish- 
 ing the divine purpose. We have a right to form and enter- 
 tain a hope, or even a belief, as to the probabilities of the 
 case. 
 
 Either side to this controversy, naturally, seeks the aid of 
 Scripture. There is in ray view nothing decisive to be found 
 there, still 1 think that the verses often cited from the First 
 Epistle of Peter iii. 19 and iv. 6, are by no means adverse to 
 the theory admitted by the respondent, but favor it rather 
 than otherwise. 
 
 There is plainly nothing in " the Associate Creed" to ex- 
 clude this doctrine ; I quote the words bearing on this sub- 
 ject : " The souls of believers are at their deatli made perfect 
 in holiness and do immediately pass into glor}'' ; 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 
 
89 
 
 » 
 blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity ; but 
 that the wicked tvill awake to shame and everlasting con- 
 tempt, and with devils be plunged into the lake that burnetii 
 with fire and brimstone for ever and ever." The position of 
 the righteous and the wicked are here strongly contrasted. 
 The souls of the righteous pass immediately to glory, and 
 only their bodies await resurrection ; the wicked apparently 
 are not to have their destiny fixed until they awake, presum- 
 ably at the time of the general resurrection. It is very plain 
 that there is nothing in this statement to exclude probation 
 after death. Moreover, it is not stated who are " the 
 wicked." The word may mean only those who, having had 
 the offer of pardon made known to them, have decisively 
 rejected it. This view is confirmed by the associated words 
 " shame and everlasting contempt," which cannot with pro- 
 priety be applied to those who have not known the oifer of 
 pardon and its terms. 
 
 In view of the word " heterodoxy," it seems eminently 
 proper to state that the theory of the respondent is in accord- 
 ance with the growing consciousness of the modern Church, 
 or at least is not rejected by it. 
 
 (1.) I respectfully refer to the American Congregational 
 Creed of 1883, and in particular to Article VII. in the state- 
 ment of doctrine. It is there set forth that " we believe in 
 the ultimate prevalence of the kingdom of God over all the 
 earth ; in the glorious appearing of the great God and our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ ; in the resurrection of the dead, and 
 in a final judgment, the issues of which are everlasting pun- 
 ishment and everlasting life." (Vol. iii., Schaff's Creeds, 
 p. 915.) 
 
 The question of the final destiny of mankind is thus left 
 open until the final judgment. There is, of course, room for 
 the doctrine of " probation after death," between the time of 
 death and the day of final judgment. 
 
 The first name attached to this creed is that of the honored 
 Chairman of this Board ; the third name is that of one of the 
 prosecutors of this proceeding. Is it impertinent to ask why 
 did not Henry M. Dexter close up this doctrine of "• probation 
 
90 
 
 after death " ? If he and other representative men left it 
 open, is it "heterodoxy" for a member of the Congregational 
 Church to believe and inculcate it? Is it "heterodoxy " to 
 write in a magazine tliat it is within the bounds of hope? 
 
 (2.) I refer to Dr. Schaff as allowing a ray of liope in his 
 discussion of creeds. After referring to Zwingli's views and 
 the revival of them among evangelical divines in Germany, 
 partly in connection with a new theory of Hades and the 
 Middle State, he continues: 
 
 " This is not the place to discuss a point which, in the ab- 
 sence of clear scripture authority, does not admit of symbol- 
 ical statement. The future fate of the heathen is wisely 
 involved in mystery, and it is unsafe and useless to speculate 
 without the light of revelation about matters which lie beyond 
 the reach of our observation and experience." Then he adds: 
 " But the Bible consigns no one to final damnation except for 
 rejecting Christ in unbeliefs and gives us at least a ray of hope 
 by significant examples of faith, from Melchizedek and Job 
 down to the wise men from the East, and by a number of 
 passages concerning the working of the Logos among the 
 Gentiles" (citing the passages). He thus closes: " We cer- 
 tainly have no right to confine God's election and saving grace 
 to the limits of the Visible Church. We are, indeed, bound 
 to his ordinances, and must submit to his terms of salvation ; 
 but God himself is free, and can save whomsoever and iiowso- 
 ever he pleases, and he is infinitely more anxious and ready 
 to save than we can conceive." 
 
 This author does not commit himself to precise methods. 
 It is plain, however, that he has no controversy of " hetero- 
 doxy " with those who hope that the gospel plan of salvation 
 will be submitted in some form or other to the knowledge 
 of all mankind. 
 
 (3.) The creeds of the Baptist denomination, including 
 both the so-called Calvinistic and Free Will branches of it, 
 admit of this same view. The former state that the final 
 judgment will fix forever the final state of man, in heaven or 
 hell, on principles of righteousness (Schaff, iii., 748). The 
 latter are still more specific, stating, in chapter 21, that there 
 
91 
 
 will be a general judgment, when time and mans probation 
 will close forever ^Ibid., 756). 
 
 It is much that these great denominations of Baptists and 
 Congregationalists, with similar lines of historical develop- 
 ment, should have come to a like general conclusion, that the 
 matter of probation of the heathen cannot as yet be dogmat- 
 icall}' stated. It is enough, for this respondent in the pres- 
 ent inquir}^ if the subject can still be considered open for 
 discussion and reasonable ground of hope. 
 
 In closing this argument, I must express my deep regret 
 that the prosecutojs of this proceeding should have thought 
 it necessary to bring this painful topic before your honorable 
 Board suggesting it as a matter of heterodoxy. I do not 
 desire to question their motives, but I cannot fail to depre- 
 cate the spirit in which they have made unwarranted charges 
 against the character and deeds of five distinguished men, 
 who represent the worth and intelligence of the denomina- 
 tion to which they belong, and who have long been success- 
 ful instructors of youth. Such proceedings shake the confi- 
 dence of men in the stability of the Christian system of 
 truth. The charges turn out to be of slight moment, and 
 not within the true scope of the trust imposed by the origi- 
 nal founders. It is to be earnestly hoped that this Board, 
 acting in a spirit of embolic forbearance and true wisdom, 
 will reach a conclusion at once just to the accused, and cal- 
 culated to subserve the interests of the cause which I assume 
 that we all have greatly at heart. 
 
EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PROFESSOR BALDWIN. 
 
 Professor Baldwin. Mr. Chairman^ and Gentlemen of the 
 Board : — 
 
 We now proceed to introduce the evidence, both docu- 
 mentary and oral, and both brief, in support of the answer 
 of the respondent. Our evidence will be confined to what 
 we deem the main point to be considered by the Board of 
 Visitors; namely, whether Dr. Smyth has in any manner 
 violated by his publications the obligations he has assumed 
 to the Trustees of Phillips Academy in Andover according 
 to the Statutes under which the Seminary is constituted. 
 We believe that the Creed is a broad and not a narrow one ; 
 that it is a practical and not a scholastic one ; that it does 
 not speak a mediaeval theology, but a true and progressive 
 orthodoxy. Other questions have been suggested to you at 
 great length by my learned associate, with all the fulness of 
 research that characterizes whatever comes from his hand ; 
 but the particular question to which our evidence will apply 
 is a narrow one, — simply whether our client can take his 
 stand with security and serenity, as we think he can, upon 
 this ground : That he has made a full and unanswerable 
 declaration of his acceptance of the Associate Statutes and 
 Associate Creed, in the manner in which we think they ought 
 to be understood by every one who reads them, who reads 
 their ?iistory, who reads their very words, or who is cognizant 
 of the uniform construction and usage which has interpreted 
 them for nearly a hundred j^ears. 
 
 Our first exhibit will be the record of the proceedings of 
 the Board of Trustees, already introduced by my friend 
 Professor Dwight, on Dr. Wellmau's resolution. . . . 
 
93 
 
 Exhibit 2 is a record of the action of the Board of Trus- 
 tees on Sept. 27, 182(5, and again on April 19, 1842, both 
 together on the same paper. This is the record of the meet- 
 ings of the Trustees, in which action was taken to determine 
 whether the associate professors were or were not bound to 
 subscribe to the Westminster Catechism. At the first meet- 
 ing it was held they were ; at the second meeting it was held 
 they were not. ... 
 
 Sept. 27, 1826. i " Voted, That in the opinion of this board the 
 Constitution of the Theological Seminary, as expressed in the original 
 and associate statutes, requires that the declaration made and subscribed 
 by every Professor in this Seminary shall be in the following terms, 
 
 viz.: I, Professor , do make solemn declaration of my faith 
 
 in divine revelation, and in the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines 
 of the Gospel of Christ as summarily expressed in the Westmiuster 
 Assembly's Shorter Catechism. 
 
 " Voted, That the above declaration shall be hereafter subscribed and 
 repeated according to the requisitions of the Constitution and the respec- 
 tive statutes; with the excej^tion that the terms 'Papists' and " Sabel- 
 lians ' be not inserted in the declaration of any Professor on the Original 
 Foundation." 
 
 A true copy from the Records. 
 
 C. F. P. BANCROFT, Clerk. 
 
 April 19, 1842. -'' Resolved, That the vote passed Sept 27, 1826, by 
 this Boaid, requiring every Professor in the Seminary to make a declara- 
 tion of his ' faith in Divine Revelation and in the fundamental and dis- 
 tinguishing doctrines of the Gospel of Christ as summarily expressed in 
 the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and that the above declaration shall 
 be hereafter subscribed and repeated at every successive period of five 
 years ' be rescinded, so far as relates to every Professor on the Associate 
 Foundation — so that each Associate Profes.sor shall only be required to 
 subscribe and repeat the creed as it stands in article second of the 
 Statutes of the Associate Foundation in the Theological Seminary." 
 
 A true copy from the Records. 
 
 Attest: C. F. P. BANCROFT, Clerk. 
 
 Exhibit 3 is a certified copy of the doings of the Board of 
 Trustees in the matter of the inauguration of Professors 
 Taylor, Hincks, and Harris, June 12 and 18, 1883. 
 
 1 Records, Tlieological Seminary, Vol. I. p. 2.38. 
 
 2 Records, Theological Seminary, Vol. II. pp. 3, 4. 
 
94 
 
 June 12, 1883. ^ " The Board attended the inauguration exercises 
 of Professors Taylor and Hincks at the chapel Tuesday evening. The 
 exercises were as follows: . . . Reading of the Creed by Rev. John P. 
 Taylor, Rev E. J. Hincks standing by and consenting thereto. The 
 President then propounded to each the following constitutional question: 
 ' Do you now make and subscribe a solemn declaration of your faith in 
 Divine Revelation, and in the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines 
 of the Gospel as expressed in the Creed which you have now readV ' To 
 which each responded, ' I do, believing that the Creed expresses substan- 
 tially tlie system of truth taught in the Holy Scriptures.' Each then 
 subscribed as constitutionally provided, and the President declared them 
 duly inducted into office as Professors in the Seminary." 
 
 June 13, 10.30 a.m. " Inauguration of Professor George Harris. . . . 
 Reading of the Creed by the professor elect. The President then pro- 
 pounded the constitutional question as follows: ' Do you now make a 
 solemn declaration of your faith in Divine Revelation, and in the funda- 
 mental and distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel of Christ as summarily 
 expressed in the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and as more 
 particularly expressed in the Creed you have now read?' To which the 
 candidate replied, ' I do, believing that this Creed expresses substantially 
 the system of truth taught in the Holy Scriptures.' Mr. Harris having 
 then subscribed as required, the President then declared him duly in- 
 ducted into office as Abbot Professor," 
 
 A true copy from the Records. 
 
 Attest: C. F. P. BANCROFT, Clerk. 
 
 We read that to show the contract under which three of 
 the later professors have entered the service of the Seminary, 
 and the manner in which they were inducted into office ; and 
 we shall have further evidence to show what was the under- 
 standing on the part of these gentlemen, as to the effect of 
 their assent to the Statutes and Creed and Catechism, in the 
 case of Dr. Harris, and as to the action of the Trustees and 
 Visitors upon the same, and that all this happened prior to 
 Professor Smyth's taking the last declaration upon himself to 
 the Associate Creed, and prior to the publications complained 
 of by the learned gentlemen who propound this libel.^ 
 
 As Exhibit 4 we will lay in a letter from the Rev. Samuel 
 Spring, D.D., to the Rev. Dr. Jedidiah Morse, written Dec. 
 16, 1808, and printed in Wood's " History of Andover Semi- 
 
 1 Re(;ords, Theological Seminary, Vol. II. j^p. 492, 493. 
 
 2 This testimony will be found on pp. . « 
 
95 
 
 nary," p. 623. We offer this in order to show the practical 
 construction put upon the Creed by one of the first Visitors, 
 Dr. Spring, while he was a Visitor ; he also being, as we all 
 know, one of the main founders of the institution, and Dr. 
 Morse another. 
 
 In explanation I may say this was written after the article 
 in the " Antiiology," which is familiar to many gentlemen here, 
 in which the foundation of Andover Seminary is very severely 
 criticised. It was said in the "Anthology," a Unitarian maga- 
 zine then published in Boston, that Andover Seminary was 
 a bundle of contradictions, and that the Calvinists had given 
 themselves away to the Hopkinsians, and that you could 
 not reconcile the Westminster Catechism and the Associate 
 Creed. ... 
 
 Exhibit 5 is a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Moses Stuart, 
 Associate Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover Semi- 
 nary, at the ordination of Pliny Fiske in 1818 ; and I direct 
 especial attention to p. 17. . . . 
 
 Exhibit 6. Professor Stuart's Letters to Channing, 
 second edition, particularly pp. 21 and 23. These will be 
 commented on hereafter by Dr. Smyth, and it is perhaps 
 unnecessary to call attention to them at this time. 
 
 Exhibit 7. Dr. Woods's Letters to Unitarians, 1820, 
 particularly pp. 44 and 45. 
 
 Exhibit 8. Dr. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Miller, referring 
 particularly to pp. 18, 122 and 124, comprised in the volume 
 marked ^ Miscellanies No. One." 
 
 Exhibit 9. Dr. Miller's Letter to Professor Stuart, 1823, 
 referring particularly to pp. 16 and 290. 
 
 Exhibit 10 will be the Biblical Repository, vol. 1, p. 261, 
 and vol. 2, p. 26, containing Professor S^Alart's articles on 
 "What is Sin?" 
 
 Exhibit 11 will be Dr. Dana's Letters to Professor Stuart, 
 criticising his statements in the Biblical Repository, 1839, 
 with special reference to pp. 24 and '15. 
 
 Exhibit 12 will be Professor Stuart on the Old Testament 
 Canon, with special reference to pp. 386, 391, 404, 405, 413 
 to 419. 
 
96 
 
 Exhibit 13 will be Professor Stuart on the Apocalypse, 
 with special reference to his comments on chap. 20, verse 4. 
 
 Exhibit 14 will be Rev. Dr. Dana's " Remonstrance to the 
 trustees of Phillips Academy," and the "-Additional Remarks," 
 so called, which form a sequel to it, and a postscript, which 
 forms a subsequel to it, all by Dr. Dana, published in vol. 9 
 of " Miscellanies," with special reference to pp. 8 to 10, 13, 
 18, 19, 23 and 24. These contain Dr. Dana's accusations 
 against Professor Park, more particularly, for his heterodoxy 
 at that time. 
 
 I believe that includes all the documentary evidence we 
 shall trouble the Visitors with. Dr. Smyth will make an 
 address to you, and after his address we shall have some 
 other testimony of an oral character to make to you. 
 
 Mr. Hoar. Does Dr. Smyth appear as a witness? 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. You have charged certain particulars of 
 heterodoxy upon Dr. Smyth. He has denied the charge, and 
 he is now going to make a statement in support of his denial 
 of your charges — 
 
 Mr. Hoar. As a witness ? 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. — supposing that in this court, as in all 
 courts where 1 have had the honor to appear, the party ac- 
 cused has a right to be heard, and the Court is glad to hear 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Hoar. We still desire to know whether he is going 
 to submit argument or testimony. 
 • Mr. GastojST. I suppose he has a right to submit both. 
 
 Mr. Hoar. Not together. 
 
 The Chairman. Dr. Smyth may proceed. 
 
PROFESSOR SMYTH'S DEFENCE. 
 
 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 ofiQce." 
 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 
 you, even in these calumnious days, absolutely without 
 reproach from any quarter in this particular. 
 
 I am charged before you with "heterodoxy" — nothings 
 more, nothing less, nothing other. If I am guilty of " hetero- 
 doxy " you can reinove or admonish me' as the issue of this. 
 
98 
 
 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 
 
99 
 
 thought and belief which are now necessary, and in general 
 leaves an open path for such as the future may require. 
 Such a statement doul)tless 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 nob 
 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 philosopliical 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, providencis 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 thouglit 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- 
 
100 
 
 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 
 interpretatioTi of the duties and rights of a Professor in 
 Andover 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 1 shall not press it 
 in wliat 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. 
 
101 
 
 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 dii;tinguishing 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- 
 taofonize it. I submit to vour 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 Revieiv 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 
 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- 
 
102 
 
 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 Avould 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 m}^ office. 
 
 Indulge me in one other preliminary remark. I uegret 
 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 
 Trinit3\ 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 
 
103 
 
 not devolve upon me to occupy your time in trying to 
 explain why he has deemed it necessary to sign his name, 
 in the professed interest of honesty of subscription, to a 
 charge that I teach a modal Trinity, a charge ^yhich he 
 knows full well, or is inexcusable if he does not know, 
 is baseless and false, but unless he and his associates with- 
 draw this charge and others equally preposterous, I must 
 take time to refute them. Fortunately for the demands 
 upon your time the streugth 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 chargre 
 falls. 
 
 Take first the article in the Review 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, 
 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 
 
104 
 
 perfect rule of faith and practice"? Not onl}^ 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 theor}' 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 re- 
 sults of modern critical study may be helped to a firm 
 and immovable conviction of the trustworthiness and per- 
 fection of sacred Scripture as a rule of faith and practice. 
 It is quoted. as though it were designed to favor a treat- 
 ment of the Bible "prejudicial to its sacreduess and 
 authority." 
 
 One is reminded that there is still need of the irony with 
 which a bishop of the English Church two centuries ago 
 discoursed upon "The Difficulties and Discouragements which 
 attend the Study of the Scriptures in the way of Private Judg- 
 
105 
 
 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 iust 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 you 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 
 Creed, he says — referring to the "exegesis of Canticles:" 
 "For my humble self, if I doubt \yhether tlie forty-nine. 
 
106 
 
 senses can all be applied to this book . . . and must be a 
 heretic on this account, I say with Vitringa, Ego sum in hac 
 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 tlie 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 hp would 
 endanger the faith of the whole Church by such innovations 9 
 
 — 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 of 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 
 this charge about the Scriptures, and have listened carefully 
 
107 
 
 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,^ 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"^ — 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 
 
 1 pp. 231, 227, 228. 207, 208, 209, 213, 214, 221^ 222. 
 8 Prog. Orth., p. 209. 
 
108 
 
 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 antitlietic 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 teacliings." 
 
 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 hy 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 
 
109 
 
 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." ^ 
 
 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 faitli and 
 practice. I take no advantage, though I might on tiie 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,"- "the only rule 
 of faith and obedience,"^ "the only rule to direct us how we 
 may glorify and enjoy Him." * 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 
 
 1 Prog. Orth.,pp. 210-213. _ 2 Confession, Art, II. 
 
 * Larger Catechism, 3. * /Shorter Catechism. 2, 
 
110 
 
 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 rule 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 
 expressi(uis 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," ^ 
 "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, wliether 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." ^ Scripture is thus " the only perfect rule of faith and 
 practice." 
 
 See particularly Pt. I., c. 2. ^2 Tim. iii. 17. 
 
in 
 
 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 drawins; the line between what is abroojated in the 
 Old Testament and what is now of divine authority and obhga- 
 tion he sa3's : " The ultimate appeal, then, is to understandhig 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 determuiiug 
 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 
 utterl}' impossible it is for a religion that abounds in rites and 
 forms to make much effectual progress au3'where, 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 th6 Jewish ecclesiastical and civil state, (pp. 404-405.) 
 
 " Rarely will one find an}- considerable portion of the Old Testa- 
 ment where there is nothing in it of the local and temjjoral that 
 must be abstracted, in order for us to reduce it to practice." 
 (p. 404.) 
 
112 
 
 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 ever}' part of the Old Testament in respect to present 
 dut}', 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 
 Bi 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.) 
 
 " Tiie 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 ejvpression 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 
 
113 
 
 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 only 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 moralit}', 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 alwaj's to be 
 applied to judging of our obligations to the ancient Scriptures." 
 
 " There are imperfections in the ancient system ; but thej- 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 
 authorit}' of the Hebrew Scriptures as admitted bj' 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 satisfactor}' 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 histor}- 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). 
 
114 
 
 Particular 2. The complainants quote from the Avdover 
 Review^ May, 1886, p. 522, hut 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 
 alwa3'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 holy 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- 
 
115 
 
 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 \\^ve 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 
 mateiial 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."^ But this is not the point to be 
 
 1 See Allen's Our Liberal Movement in Theology, p. 157. 
 
IIG 
 
 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 earl}- pages of the article on 
 The Atoytement^ from which nearly all the specifications are 
 taken, sufficiently shows this : 
 
 "Now the message of the gospel unquestionabl}' 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 b}' 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 fi'om custom, habit, 
 heredit}', 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 societ}'. 
 Atonement must express and reveal God as the supreme Reason 
 and perfect Righteousness, who cannot den}- 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 ma}' be accepted as postulates in all the in- 
 quir}', 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-daj' 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. 
 
117 
 
 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 ? Evidentl}' 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 
 
118 
 
 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 universality 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 tljat 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 Keply, 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 
 
119 
 
 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 41 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.'" 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 
 
120 
 
 of God . . . which even his will cannot contradict nor super- 
 sede." "... God cannot be regardless of law nor indifferent 
 to sin in saving man fiom 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 
 provided 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- 
 
121 
 
 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 — j)erhaps they 
 remen.bered 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 
 ohstat? 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 being. He 
 
122 
 
 who affiims 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 Procfressive 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 Cliurch 
 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 «f 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, 
 
123 
 
 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 .sMt generis.'" ^ 
 
 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, hi/postases, that is three different modes of subsistence 
 of the one same undivided and indivisible whole. . . . Here the 
 orthodox doctrine forsook Sabelhanism or modalism which, it is 
 true, made Father, Son, and Spirit strictl}' 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. Channing," 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, 3'ou have all along explained the wovd 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 satisf}' ^'ourself that 
 this is doing us justice? What fact is plainer from Church Historj-, 
 than that the word persoii was introduced into the creeds of ancient 
 times, merel}' 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 wa3's 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 the}' used the word person. They designed to imply 
 by it, that there was some real, not merely nominal distinction in 
 
 1 Hiatory of Christian Doctrine, T. 365. 
 
 2 History of the Christian Church, III. t>75. 
 
124 
 
 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 they 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 you 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 heartil}- 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 VTTooraoi^, it betra^'s 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 terra 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 npoGcoTta (aspects) in God. All these, 
 however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the 
 words perfectly agreed in substance." ^ 
 
 "Where names have not been invented rashlj'^, we must bewai'e 
 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 3'et that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit 
 the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence [^proprietate'] . 
 I am not so minutely precise as to fight furionsl}' for mere words." 
 
 "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 property from the Son, and the 
 
 1 Op. cit , pp. 21-2,3, 2d ed., 1819. 
 
 2 Op. cit. I. p. 148. Calv. Traas. Soc. Ed. 1845. 8 /;,. pp. 150, 151. 
 
125 
 
 Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arius and Sabel- 
 Hlis, as well as the otiier ancient authof's of error." ^ 
 
 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 i)roposition 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 orthodoxy, or with ' consistent ' Calvinism as explained 
 in the Creed. Substituting the words ' conducted within ' for 
 ' confined to,' and not doubting a universal Avork 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. Schaff's Popu- 
 lar Commentary)^ . . " would men receive that spiritual 
 power which is the condition of all spiritual life." 
 
 Particular 9. I reafi&rm 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. 
 
 1 76. p. 173. 
 
126 
 
 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 
 Hopkins. 
 
 " 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 piety is something more tlian 
 a blind sehtimentalism, 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 infidelity, 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 wliat he loved to call ' a consistent 
 Calvinism.' His readiness to encounter the hardest subjects and 
 the stui-diest 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 hekl him fast until the maniac 
 gave up, and cried, ' Hopkins, you are my 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 
 
127 
 
 are.' In his thirty-fifth year, Hopkins seized at what he deemed a 
 tacit concession of Dr. Mayhew, that Arininianism could not be 
 sustained by reason. He writes to Bellamy : ' I think he [iVIa}'- 
 hew] says that which ma}- be fiiirly 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 they 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.' " ^ 
 
 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 what is immediately 
 necessary and practical. For the most part, a single line of 
 
 1 The works of Samuel Hopkins, I. pp. 17(J-178. 
 
128 
 
 inquiry has been followed, under the guidance of a central and 
 vital principle of Christianity, narael}', the realitj' of Christ's per- 
 sonal relation to the human race as a whole and to ever}' menaber 
 of it, — the principle of the universality of Christianit}'. 
 
 "This principle has been rapidl}' 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 centur3^ We have sought to applj' 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 faithfull}' and loyall}', 
 and whithersoever it might lead. We have trusted it whollj- and 
 practically. By the publication of this volume we submit our 
 work to the judgment of a wider public. If we have an}' where 
 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 necessar}' implications and consequences, we ask that 
 any further discussion of these conclusions should recognize their 
 co7inection with the principle from lohich they are derived^ and their 
 legitimacy, unless this principle is itself to be abandoned." ^ 
 
 On page 39 " a better understanding of the revealed central 
 position of Christ in the universe, and of the absoluteness 
 of Christianit}''," 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 
 
 1 Prog. Orth., pp. 3, 4.(^f. pp. 13, 14, 16. 
 
129 
 
 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 
 ditlieult question. It is, in our opinion, to be looked on as an ap- 
 pended inquiry, rather than as an essential question for theolog}'. 
 Still it is not wanting either in practical or speculative importance, 
 and, at an}- rate, is at present much in dispute. 
 
 " B. A Related Questiox. 
 
 " 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 onlj' a temporar}- question. The time 
 ma}' come, we think will come, when all will hear the messages of 
 the gospel during the earthly lifetime, and will know the gospel so 
 thoroughh' that knowledge and corresponding opportunity' will be 
 decisive. Then there will be less occasion for perplexit}', as there 
 will be no apparent exclusion from those opportunities which at 
 present are given to only part of the great human famih'. 
 
 '' 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 inquir}' 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 nearl}- in accordance with the large 
 meaning of the gospel, and which is exposed to the fewest serious 
 objections. Certainl}-. 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 destin}' 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. Tlie theorj- which we shall advance presently is 
 otfered under these conditions." 
 
130 
 
 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 centi'al 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 
 
131 
 
 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 ; tlie 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 of 
 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 ma}^ 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 measura 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 
 
132 
 
 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- 
 
133 
 
 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 P^ounders 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. 
 
134 
 
 Beyond this they cannot go. They 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.'''' Tliis 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: " tlie 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 burneth 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 tliree 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 pcrliaps Matt. xxv. 4. 
 
135 
 
 their wickedness. The Shorter Catechism which is here 
 followed so closely says nothing about the destiny of the 
 wicked. The fraraers 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 he 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 certainlj^ 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 
 tlie 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- 
 
136 
 
 ment which is wholly absent when and where it properly 
 belonsfs. 
 
 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 in 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 niay 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 absolutely 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 
 
137 
 
 wliich it has in its original appearance. An}^ interpretation 
 which it is impossible to give to it as first written certainly 
 cannot be 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 
 
138 
 
 all other elect persons who are incapable of hearing the 
 gospel. What now are these" blessings ? The article before 
 us enumerates them in part. Thej 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 infancv, 
 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 sio-ht, 
 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 puttino- 
 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 
 
139 
 
 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 maj- 
 employ at his good pleasure. It thus requires for its consist- 
 ent interpretation that the article resj)ecting 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 Instory 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 bj'' 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 
 
140 
 
 thus 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 wlien they composed 
 the article respecting the doom of the wicked. 
 
 Besides this inferential argument, I know of but one otlier 
 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 Tiinity, 
 and which has treated the articles of Progressive Orthodoxy 
 
141 
 
 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 
 
142 
 
 is perishing, and is in clanger 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 j)er- 
 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 mystery, and its assurance 
 that ' the dead in trespasses and sins^ without Christ, having no 
 hope, without God in the world, now had access hy 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, — 
 
143 
 
 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 Deitv 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 I will subsequently 
 try to show, is a characteristic, a special note and feature of 
 
144 
 
 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 everj'- one of the charges which 
 are properly in issue the complainants have failed to show 
 
145 
 
 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 douht 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 I 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 1 have reviewed, the complainants had 
 raised directly the vital issue, although it is perhaps credit- 
 able 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- 
 
146 
 
 tive, 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 d history from the days of Tertullian ; or the 
 
147 
 
 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 oroinq; 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 positiveness 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 belieA^e] that God of his mere good pleasure from all eter- 
 nity 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 b}- 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}' 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," 
 
148 
 
 Now if •yon take these articles, each as it stands, giving to 
 each its natural, histoiical, 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 
 this 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 Orioinal 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 onlj'. 1 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- 
 
149 
 
 nical and well-understood use of terras, 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, you 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 
 
150 
 
 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 many 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 ititerprets 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 
 
151 
 
 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." ^ And the editor of the 
 Conc/rec/ationalist, between four and five years since,^ 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 minutice which it may embrace."* And 
 Dr. Hodge, in the Princeton Mevieiv, 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 perfectly notorious fact, that there are hundreds of min- 
 isters in our Church, and that there alwaj's have been such minis- 
 ters, who do not receive all the propositions contained in the 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms. . . . The principle that the 
 
 1 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, 
 
 * Sermon on the Faith of Former Times, 1848, note to p. 16. 
 
152 
 
 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." ^ 
 
 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 
 by the Congregational Synod, at Cambridge, New England, A.D. 
 1648, which, in substance, we adopt, as agreeable to the rules and 
 spirit of the gospel." ^ 
 
 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 inquir}', believe every word of it. Nor did 
 our fathers. I myself made two exceptions to it when I was re- 
 
 1 Reprinted in Church Polity, pp. 330-332. 
 
 2 The Covenant of Third Church of Christ in Salem, Salem, 1841, pp. 6, 7, 8. 
 
153 
 
 ceived into the Presbytery of New York fifty-five years ago. Nor 
 were those exceptions any barrier to my admission.^ 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 man}' 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 yet be raised up, and show 
 to the church that there is small space for the couch of bigotry in 
 the nineteenth centur}'.^ " 
 
 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 Hop- 
 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 Foundation was established. 
 
 2 Life and Times of Gardiner Spring, II. pp. 21, 22. 
 
154 
 
 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 : " F'or 
 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 
 wliich 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 
 
155 
 
 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. 
 
156 
 
 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") Pro'f. 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 the}^ 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 
 
157 
 
 at was in substance to assert the idea of a distinction in the 
 Godhead," which is perfect!}^ true as the history shows. He 
 said later that the fathers were " in substance right, their 
 pneumatic philosophy plainly inadmissible." ^ 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. 1 do 
 not wish to 
 
 "Compound for sins [I am] inclined to 
 By damnhig 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 
 
 i Bibliotheca Sacra, vii. p. 314. 
 
158 
 
 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 my 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 Cliristian 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 Hopkinsiaus 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 
 
159 
 
 thrown away, aTid 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. 
 
 8. 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- 
 
160 
 
 sequence of " and " were constituted sinners." The latter is as 
 old as the Vulgate/ 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 ' descetidanis were 
 constituted sinners,'' 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 w^orks 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 constituti sunt multi." Vulgate transl. of Rom. v. 19. 
 
 2 " Queraadmodum enhn per inobedientiam unius hoininis peccatores con- 
 stituti sunt multi : sic et per obedientiam unius justi coustituentur iiiulli." 
 Com. on Rom. v. 19. 
 
 3 " Eadem quippe ratione constituiraur peccatores in Adamoqua justi con- 
 stituiiiiur in Christo." Inst. Theol. Eleivt., Pars Prima, Locus Nonas De 
 Ptcmto. Q. IX, § xvi. ed. Lugd. Batav. 1G96, Vol. I. p. USl. 
 
161 
 
 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 /br SM^stewce 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 /e(iera^ 
 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 
 
162 
 
 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 sense. 
 
 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 rieht 
 for seven years to amend the Creed. They 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 anj^thing 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 
 
163 
 
 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 li^re, as vevy 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 againsi 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,^ 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 ivorks. 
 They would use the term figuratively ..." Thus by a 
 1 The Associate Creed of And. Theol. Sem., pp. 44, 45. 
 
164 
 
 " 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 
 Netherlanders 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. 
 They more especially express 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 
 
165 
 
 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 hut one, . . . living and 
 true God ; that the ivord of G-od, . . . contained in the 
 Scriptures of the Old and Neiv Testament,^ 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 Persons, the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost ; and that these Three are One God, the 
 same in substance, equal in power and glory ; that God cre- 
 ated man . . . after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, 
 and holiness ; that the glory of God is man's 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. 
 
166 
 
 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 some to everlasting 
 life, and that he entered into a covenant of grace to deliver 
 them out of this state of sin and misery . , . hy a Redeemer ; 
 that the only Redeemer of the elect is the eternal Son of God, 
 who for this purpose became man, and . . . continue^ to be 
 God and man in two distinct natures and one perso7i 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, 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 jg 
 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,^ 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 
 
 1 S. C, offices. 2 s. C, will. 
 
167 
 
 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, ^^^^^ sanctification and the several benefits tvhich 
 . . . do either accompany or flow from them ; ^^lat ^Jiq soids 
 of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and 
 do immediately pass into glory; ^"^^ their bodies, being still 
 united to Christ, ""^'^^^ at the resurrection'^^ . . . 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 burneth with fire and 
 brimstone for ever and ever. I moreover believe that God, 
 according to the counsel of his own loiUand for his own glory ^ 
 hath foreordained whatsoever comes to j9ass,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 
 
168 
 
 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- 
 tionfnot 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}" 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." 
 
 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 
 
169 
 
 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 asrain 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- 
 
170 
 
 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 always 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 GosjDel. 
 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. &1. 
 
171 
 
 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 histor}^ of man to find how differently 
 a system, which has been superseded, appears when it is ap- 
 
172 * 
 
 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." 
 Thl^ 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- 
 
173 
 
 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 
 
174 
 
 days — 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 of 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- 
 doxy 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."^ 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 whicli 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,^ 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. 
 Draper, 1859, p. 101. See also The Panoplist IV. pp. 372, 373. 
 
 2 Memorial, p. 99. 
 
175 
 
 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 "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 bv 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. 
 
 4. The character of the advisers of the Associate Founders, 
 their humility, and their faith in doctrinal progress, the school 
 
176 
 
 of theology to which they belonged, concur to the same 
 result. I have spoken thus far of the so-called Origmal 
 Founders particularly, 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 qaote from the memoir 
 by Dr. Park. 
 
 " When tired," sa3's his biographer, " of hearing the stale charge 
 that he had started new doctrines into Kfe, he responds : ' I now 
 declare, I had much rather pubUsh 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 saj-.' 
 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 ; 3'ea, has never been mentioned b}' 
 any writer since the apostles ; and whenever that shall be dis- 
 covered and brought out, it will be new. And who linows but that 
 some such 7iew discoveries may be made in our day? If so, un- 
 happy and very guilty will be the man who shall attempt to fright 
 people, and raise their prejudices against it, b}' raising the cry of 
 New Divinity. Indeed, I question whether an author can, with 
 a riglit temper and view, take this method to run any doctrine 
 down, b}' appealing to the prejudices of people, and keeping up 
 a constant loud cry of new, upstart divinity.' " ^ 
 
 " ' There is no reason to doubt,' he says in his seventy-second 
 ^•ear, ' that light will so increase in the church, and men will be 
 raised up, who will ]nake such advances in opening the Scripture 
 and in the knowledge of divine truth, that what is now done and 
 
 1 Works of SamTiel Hopkins, D.D. Boston, Doctrinal Tract and Book 
 Society, 1852. Vol. I., pp. 177, 178. 
 
177 
 
 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 liira, 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 Cieed are sanctioned. And how long 
 can such a method of administration be perpetuated ? If 
 indeed the language of the instrument were perfectlj^ plain, 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 231. 
 
178 
 
 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, HopJcintonian 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 Hopkins's Works, I., 237, 238. 
 
179 
 
 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 evangrelical 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. " ^ 
 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 Revieiv and in Progressive Orthodoxy. 
 
 I offer this as a complete and full justification against the 
 charges of the complainants. 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 238. 
 
isroTE. 
 
 Thk following are the particular charges which are specially consid- 
 ered, or referred to, in the foregoing argument : — 
 
 Page 103. 
 "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 114. 
 "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 ' (iod and Man.' " 
 
 Page 114. 
 
 " 3. That no man has power or capacity to repent without knowledge 
 of God in Christ." 
 
 Page US. 
 
 "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 as 
 to be in danger of being lost. (' Progressive Orthodoxy.,^ p. 55.) " 
 
 Page 119. 
 
 " 5. That no man can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ. 
 (' Progressive Orthodoxy,^ pp. 63, 64.) " 
 
 Page 119. 
 
 " 6. That the atonement of Christ consists e.ssentially 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 g,ugmented value in the view of 
 God, and so render God propitious towards them." 
 
 Page 120. 
 
 " 7. That the Trinity is modal, or monarchian, and not a Trinity of 
 
 Persons." 
 
 Page 125. 
 
 " 8. That the work of the Holy Spirit is chiefly confined to the sphere 
 of historic Christianity." 
 
 Page 125. 
 
 " 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 125. 
 
 " 10. That faith ought to be scientific and rational rather than 
 scriptural." 
 
 Page 127. 
 
 " 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 118 and elsewhere, is 
 the answer filed by the respondent with the Board of Visitors on Nov. 
 30, 188G, and extensively published by the daily press. 
 
TESTIMONY OF NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D. 
 
 Q. ■ (By Mr. Baldwin.) You are pastor of the First 
 Church in New Haven ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you formerly a student in Andover Seminary ? 
 
 A. I was, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever attend the lectures of Professor Park ? 
 
 A. I did, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you be kind enough to tell us whethei' you recol- 
 lect in his lectures any statements which in any way attracted 
 your attention as varying from the subordinate parts of the 
 Creed, or from any parts of the Creed? 
 
 Mr. Hoar. I do not see what it has to do with this in- 
 quiry, whether Dr. Park has broken the Creed. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. We are simply pursuing the line of proof 
 shown by our previous exhibits, that from the first there has 
 been a large liberty of opinion at Andover, as has been so 
 fully explained in the statement of Dr. Smyth. 
 
 Mr. HoAE,. If it goes beyond the Creed, then it has been 
 unlawful; and if it does not go be3'ond the Creed, you need 
 not prove it, because we are perfectly willing to admit it. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Do you object to it ? 
 
 Mr. Hoar. I have stated already my objection. I do not 
 see that it has any thing to do with the subject before us. 
 
 The Chairman. It is understood that it is intended to 
 bring out the customary principle as to the acceptance of the 
 Creed. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. As such it is admissible. 
 
 Q. Please state, then, whether any such remarks as I have 
 
182 
 
 inquired concerning, were made by Dr. Park. Take, for in- 
 stance, the eternal sonship. 
 
 A. I recollect distinctl} , sir, and my notes of the lecture, 
 which are taken partly in shorthand, show, that when Pro- 
 fessor Park approached the doctrine of eternal sonship, he 
 told us that here we come to a point of divergence between 
 the old and the new divines, and that the new divines do not 
 assert dogmatically a thing which should be asserted figura- 
 tively. 
 
 Q. And in regard to that special doctrine did he use any- 
 particular expression signifying his own view? 
 
 A. It was commonly understood, and I suppose it will 
 not be denied, that he affirmed that the word son should be 
 predicated of Christ in his humanity, rather than in his di- 
 vinity, as denoting the constitution of Christ's person in the 
 incarnation in the human life. He also asserted, of course, 
 the divine distinction, — the Logos doctrine. 
 
 Q. In regard to the doctrine of sin, was there any diver- 
 gence there ? 
 
 A. I have not looked at my notes on that point. 
 
 Q. Please go on, then, to th« time when you were elected 
 a professor in Andover, and to your interviews at that time 
 with the authorities of the Seminary in regard to your assent- 
 ing to the Seminary statutes and Creed. 
 
 A. I had the pleasure on a former occasion of meeting the 
 Board of Visitors, and I stated distinctly and definitely how 
 I personally could subscribe to the Andover Creed. My 
 memory is very distinct and definite upon this point, and I 
 presume the Visitors will recollect it. 
 
 Q. What year was it, sir ? 
 
 A. The event made more impression on me than the date ; 
 I think it was in 1882. I stated that I could accept and sub- 
 scribe to the Andover Creed as a whole, interpreting its 
 clauses by comparison among themselves, and in accordance 
 with the terms of subscription which I understood had always 
 been the usage of the Seminary, as sanctioned by the Board 
 of Visitors. But I could not possibly subscribe to the Creed 
 if I were required to take each clause and each article by 
 
183 
 
 itself. I instanced one clause in particular, which I could not 
 take out of its connection with the whole contents of the 
 Creed, namely, the clause relating to the Federal Headship, 
 because I had been taught by my instructor in theology, Pro- 
 fessor Park, not to believe in that. That was the manner in 
 which I expressed my willingness to assent to the Creed, 
 heartily and in good conscience and frankly as a whole, and 
 according to what I understood to be the recognized principle 
 of Creed subscription at Andover. 
 
 Q. How was that statement received by the Board ? 
 
 A. I think we passed on to the theological examination. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. We shall desire to read at the proper time, 
 in argument, the record of the action of the Board of Visit- 
 ors on Dr. Smyth's case, and from his written publications. 
 
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR HARRIS. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Baldwin.) State, if you please, Dr. Harris, 
 what were the circumstances attending your assent to the 
 statutes and Creed of the Seminary at the time of your re- 
 ceiving the appointment to the professorship you now hold. 
 
 A. Having been elected by the Board of Trustees to that 
 office, a meeting of the Board of Visitors was held in this 
 building in November, 1882, at which, besides the members 
 of the Board, there were present Mr. Hincks, Mr. Taylor, 
 and myself, all professors-elect. After some questioning on 
 the part of members of the Board and quite full replies by 
 us, it was stated by myself, I think, certainly by one of the 
 three professors-elect, that there were some points in the 
 statements of the Creed with which we found difficulty. It 
 was proposed that the Creed should be read by the Secretary, 
 and that either of us should interrupt the reading at any 
 point to indicate our divergence from the Creed. Mr. lius^ 
 sell, then the secretary of the Board, read the Creed, and the 
 interruptions occurred at various points. 
 
 I cannot remember all of the objections that were then 
 made, but I do know that this doctrine of the Federal Head- 
 ship was one, and that the statement made with regard to 
 the covenants of grace and redemption as implying a limited 
 atonement, was another. 
 
 At each point some member of the Board, and as I remem- 
 ber more especially Dr. Eustis, explained the sense in which 
 these doctrines were held by him or by them, and could be 
 held by us, showing the connection of the doctrines one with 
 another, showing the bearing and meaning of the Creed as a 
 whole, and so on. I remember that when the end of the 
 
185 
 
 reading and the explanation had been reached, I remarked 
 that I wished I could take Dr. Eustis's explanations instead 
 of the Creed. 
 
 We then submitted to the Visitors — I think I was the 
 person who submitted it — a proposal of the form in which 
 we were willing to take the Andover Creed, which, as nearly 
 as I remember, was this : " I accept " (my uncertainty is as 
 to that word " accept ") " this Creed as expressing substan- 
 tially the system of truth taught in the Holy Scriptures." 
 The proposal was, to accompany our signatures, either in 
 writing or orall}-, with this statement, when the Creed should 
 be publicly taken. To this the president of the Board replied 
 that there was no objection to it, and that for his own part, 
 he thought it would have a good effect in the existing state 
 of public opinion. I do not, of course, quote the language, 
 but the statement in general. I am not aware that the Board 
 of Visitors passed any formal vote in this matter, but it was 
 a distinct understanding, considered on our part as having 
 somewhat of the nature of an agreement with them, that we 
 should take the Creed under those conditions. When the 
 time of our induction into office came, the Creed was so taken 
 by each of us, with the statement which I have designated, 
 and, as we understood, with the sanction, not only of the 
 Board of Trustees, but also with the sanction of the Board 
 
 of Visitors. 
 
 Cross- Examination. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. French.) Was your attention at that time 
 called to this subject of future probation ? 
 
 A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you make any reply with reference to it ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you questioned about it ? 
 
 A. I was. 
 
 Q. At that time ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What was said ? 
 
 A. During the questioning on the part of the members of 
 the Board, and of the answering on the part of the profess- 
 
186 
 
 ors, the question was raised as to my opinion concerning, — 
 I think it was as definite as this, — concerning the probation 
 of those who do not have the gospel. I am not certain as to 
 that, but, however, I replied with regard to that point, and 
 my reply in substance was this : That I recognized the liberty 
 of clergymen, and the liberty of those who should take this 
 Creed to hold the opinion that there might be for those who 
 do not have the gospel a probation after this life ; that for 
 myself I had not reached a definite conclusion concerning it, 
 that I had not accepted it. I do not remember, I think, any 
 thing more about that. 
 
 Q. That you had not at that time accepted it? 
 
 A. That I had not accepted it. I had emphasized, how- 
 ever, the liberty, not only of clergymen, but of those who 
 might take the Creed, to hold that opinion. 
 
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR HINCKS. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Baldwin.) Will 3^011 state to the Board 
 what occurred at the time of your examination and inaugu- 
 ration with regard to subscription to the Creed ? 
 
 A. I met the Board of Visitors in company with Professor 
 Harris and Professor Taylor, as stated by Professor Harris. 
 The examination was conducted by President Seelj'e, who 
 began the examination by asking me certain questions with 
 respect to my views concerning the Holy Scriptures. These 
 being answered, the examination passed on to Professor 
 Harris, who was asked certain questions concerning Christian 
 doctrine, which he answered. After the examination was 
 over, the Creed was read by one of the Visitors, as Professor 
 Harris has already stated. One of the three gentlemen who 
 were under examination, expressed inability to take all the 
 statements of the Creed separately, in minutely literal inter- 
 pretation, to which Mr. Eustis replied that they themselves, 
 the Visitors, did not take the Creed verbatim et literatim, and 
 then went on explaining the Creed, as has been stated by 
 Professor Harris. After the explanation of the Creed and 
 our assent to it as expounded. Professor Harris made, the 
 proposal that we should employ at our inauguration the 
 formula which he has already given, to which the president 
 of the Board heartily consented, saying that in view of the 
 existhig state of feeling, he thought it would be a good thing 
 to take the Creed in that way. 
 
 Q. Did you take it in that way ? 
 
 A. When we were inaugurated we repeated this formula as 
 our acceptance of the Creed, — "I assent to this Creed believ- 
 
188 
 
 ing that it substantially contains the system ot truth taught 
 in the Holy Scriptures." That is as near as I can recollect 
 the formula. 
 
 Q. No exception was taken by the Trustees to that 
 method ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR TUCKER. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Baldwin.) Will you state, Professor 
 Tucker, whether any thing was said by you as to your sub- 
 scription to the Creed at the time of your induction into 
 office ? 
 
 A. My election preceded, I think, b}^ two years the elec- 
 tion of the gentlemen who have testified. I find this, state- 
 ment which I made upon my subscription to the Creed July 
 1, 1880. I did not meet with the Board of Visitors upon my 
 election, not having been notified by them of any call to that 
 effect. When I took the Creed I took it reading this state- 
 ment before subscription : " 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. No confession so elaborate, and with such intent may 
 assume to be the final expression of truth, or an expression 
 equally fitted in language or tone to all times." 
 
 Crom-Eza m {nation. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Hoar.) You say that accompanied your 
 signature to the Creed ? 
 
 A. It was not copied into the book ; the reading of it 
 accompanied the signature. 
 
 Q. You read that at the time when it was proposed to you, 
 you should sign the Creed, and then you signed the Creed 
 without putting down more than your name ? 
 
 A, Simply my name. 
 
 Q. And to whom was this exposition given? 
 
 A. This was given in the presence of the Trustees and 
 Visitors, so far as present. I do not remember who were 
 there ; it was a public inauguration. 
 
190 
 
 Q. It was not a matter of consultation with the Visitors 
 beforehand, as to whether that would be all that the consti- 
 tution of the Seminary would require ? 
 
 A. It was not. I made the statement before reading the 
 Creed, then read the Creed, and, no objection being made, 
 signed the Creed after that statement. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. That is all we have to offer. 
 
 Mr. French. We have nothing to offer in reply. 
 
PROFESSOR BALDWIN'S ARGUMENT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Board: 
 
 My associates have requested me to open the defence, and 
 to say, as I do so, that inasmuch as no opening has yet been 
 made by my friends on the other side, stating the facts they 
 intend to present to you, we trust that after the conclusion 
 of what I have to say, they will be kind enough to open their 
 case, so that my brethren who follow me may have the bene- 
 fit of knowing what line of argument they ought to meet. 
 
 I\Ir. Hoar. We have heard that statement so often, sir, 
 that I think we had better repudiate it once and for all. We 
 did open our case. Judge French stated it at the original 
 hearing. We have not duplicated that opening by going all 
 over it with the same three gentlemen again, because we have 
 divided these five complaints, which were lumped together, 
 into five separate ones. We have taken for granted that the 
 time which was spent was profitably spent, at any rate to 
 save an}' repetition. Our case has been opened elaborately 
 and stated. These gentlemen are charged with heterodoxy, 
 b}' whicli I understand and mean, not the entertaining of any 
 untrue or erroneous opinions, — that is all I meant when I 
 said there was no charge of heresy. They may entertain the 
 soundest opinions that ever were held, the most progressive, 
 coming nearer and nearer to the light, and approved by God 
 and man. Our position is that it is heterodoxy, because the 
 framers of this Andover Creed have required a certain con- 
 formity to that Creed; and the sole question which we pre- 
 sent for your decision as the Board of Visitors, is whether 
 
192 
 
 they have departed substantiall}^ — I should not criticise 
 very much all we have heard about the true mode of looking 
 at the Creed, within the limits of interpretation, consistently 
 with holding a more solid front of theological belief, — 
 whether they have departed from it or not. We have speci- 
 fied the particulars in which they have departed from it, and 
 how we can give them any greater information or understand- 
 ing, I do not know. We have had it met by their client in a 
 perfectly manly, frank, honorable statement of what he con- 
 ceives to be the statement, which is just what we think ; and 
 when we have heard all they say why our allegation is not 
 so, we propose to conclude our case, and we do not propose 
 to mix it up and discuss it a little piece at a time. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Mr. President and gentlemen, it was the 
 hope of the pious founders of Andover Seminary that they 
 were constituting what would be a centre of Christian thought 
 and influence that would endure forever and ever ; and I 
 think I may say that thus far they have not been disap- 
 pointed. They trusted that learned and able men would be 
 raised up generation after generation to make it this centre 
 by their teaching and example. It has been from its outset 
 a centre of thought and influence to American orthodoxy. 
 I think we may say that its teachings have often had their 
 influence across the sea, and certainly through the breadth of 
 our own country from its very first foundation. 
 
 Truth has been taught at Andover with a sincerity of con- 
 viction which was founded on a wide and generous scholar- 
 ship. It has been the tradition of the Seminary that the 
 professors should not content themselves with the mere 
 routine of the lecture room, but that they should publish to 
 the world the fruits of their thought and stud3^ They have 
 done that from the first. P'rom the days of the old Pmioplist 
 under Professor Woods, and the Bibliotheca Sacra under Pro- 
 fessor Stuart and Professor Phelps and Professor Park and 
 their associates, down to the Andover Revieiv of to-day, An- 
 dover has always had some channel of its own, through which 
 to communicate to the public its best thought. 
 
 The professors have not always been in accord on points 
 
193 
 
 of detail in tlieolos^y. Dr. Woods was not in accord with 
 Professor Stuart. There were dissensions that we all know 
 of when Professor Murdock was in the Seminary. Professor 
 Emerson in his opinion as to the form of subscription to the 
 Creed and Catechism differed from some of his associates, 
 and Professor Park differed from some of his in his day. 
 The German theology of Professor Stuart and some of his 
 associates was very stoutly attacked by others then connected 
 with the Seminary, mainl}^ I think, bj^ those who did not 
 know the German language. But now for several years there 
 has been at Andover the most perfect harmony of fellowship 
 and feeling among its faculty. Not, as has been stated by 
 Professor Smyth, that they all think identically the same 
 things in matters of detail and non-essentials, but that they 
 have that harmony of spirit, and that feeling of a desire to 
 stand for the peace of the churches and of the Seminary, 
 which is inculcated so strongly by the language and the spirit 
 of the statutes, and the Creed upon which it is founded. 
 
 But at the opening of the year that is now drawing to a 
 close, one of the trustees saw fit to bring before the Board of 
 Trustees, serious accusations against a number of the faculty 
 of the institution. The Trustees proceeded to take action 
 upon his proposal, but before they have gone so far as to com- 
 mence a regular hearing, those proceedings are dropped, and 
 Dr. Well man comes before this Board, in his capacity as a 
 Trustee at first, (I think now he claims only to act as an 
 individual,) and presents here accusations which charge upon 
 five of the professors, including the President of the faculty, 
 heresies as to almost every cardinal feature of the Christian 
 faith. 
 
 ' At the time when these charges were first preferred before 
 this Board last summer, it will be recollected that their form 
 was general. The charges were made, but there were no 
 specifications to support them. The charges were made 
 against all, as for a joint offence ; and the charges themselves 
 were indefinite and uncertain, — imposing from their very 
 uncertainty. The Board required the complaint to be di- 
 vided, and the charges to be supported by proper specifica- 
 
194 
 
 tions. We have had the specifications, and we have heard 
 the evidence adduced in their support, and the case has nar- 
 rowed down to the simple compass of a book called "• Pro- 
 gressive Orthodoxy," and a couple of articles in the " An- 
 dover Review." 
 
 The charges had declared that Professor Smyth "held, 
 maintained, and taught," certain heretical doctrines. But 
 the proof is wanting that he has taught a single doctrine 
 which it is claimed by the prosecutors is erroneous. 
 
 Mr. French. I do not think you will find the word 
 "taught" in the charges. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin (reading from the complaint). " First, we 
 charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth holds beliefs, has 
 taught doctrines and theories, and has done other things as 
 hereinafter enumerated, which are not in harmony with, but 
 antaoonistic to the Constitution and Statutes of the Semi- 
 nar}', and the true intention of its founders, as expressed in 
 those Statutes. 
 
 " Secondly, we charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth . . . 
 is not a man of sound and orthodox principles in Divinity ; 
 . . . but that, on the other hand, he believes and teaches in 
 several articles, hereinafter enumerated, what is antagonistic 
 to the Seminary Creed. 
 
 " Thirdly, we charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth . . . 
 believes and teaches, in several particulars, hereinafter enu- 
 merated, what is opposed to the Seminary Creed." 
 
 Mr. French. You have objected that every one of these 
 charges is too general, and j^our case has been conducted 
 upon Charge 4, and the specifications under Charge 4. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Do you abandon the first three ? 
 
 Mr. French. No. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Then three of your cliarges assert that 
 they have taught things contrary to the Creed of the Semi- 
 nary, and you have not a scintilla of proof to maintain your 
 accusation. I call it a railing accusation, with no evidence 
 to support it. 
 
 This solitai-y Trustee who comes before the Board with 
 these charges, extraordinary in their amplitude of charge 
 
195 
 
 and their povert}'- of proof, is supported by a corporal's guard 
 of individuals, one of whom is the editor of a well-kaown 
 journal of our denomination, which holds a position in Massa- 
 chusetts, in which, perhaps, it claims to speak as tlie organ of 
 Massachusetts Congregationalism. The "Andover Review," 
 published from the seat of the great Congregational Seminary 
 of Massachusetts, might put forth its claims to be considered 
 the organ of Massachusetts Congregationalism. I have no 
 doubt that the learned gentleman who has signed these 
 charges thinks that his organ is the better organ. Each be- 
 longs to a separate school of thinking. One of these schools, 
 that to which the Congregationalist belongs, is sedulous to 
 state old truths in old forms. The other school, to which 
 the '■' Andover Review " may be said to belong, is dominated by 
 the principle announced by Dr. Hopkins, " I never want to 
 write unless I have something new to say." They believe in 
 stating old truths, but in stating them, if they can, in fresh 
 lights, — lights calculated to impress them, with the convic- 
 tion of freshness, on the human heart. 
 
 To the editor of one of these publications, it may seem a 
 stupendous breach of trust to clothe a seventeenth century 
 idea in a nineteenth century dress. It may seem to him 
 charitable and Christian to charge this as- a crime hardly 
 equalled by embezzlements and forgeries, in an age not with- 
 out ma!]}' examples of such offences. But my client has 
 fought no battle in the newspaj^ers. If his former pupils 
 have come before the public through the press with an indig- 
 nant denial that they ever heard from his lips any of the 
 doctrines imputed to him by the prosecutors, it has been 
 done entirely without the knowledge or approval or assent of 
 tlie respondents, or any of them. We have preferred to 
 meet our accusers face to face in this presence, and utter our 
 defence here. 
 
 Progressive Orthodoxy, then, and the two articles from 
 the " Andover Review," are claimed to be contrary to the 
 obligations imposed upon Prof. Smyth by the statutes of" 
 his foundation. We say that they are not ; they say 
 that they are. And here is the precise question which 
 
196 
 
 Judge Hoar has stated is before the Visitors, and which 
 we accept. 
 
 The revelation of God's ways to men, say these Statutes, 
 is twofold. It is given by the Scriptures, and it is given in 
 the works of God. This idea that a progressive and con- 
 stant revelation is being made of the divine character by the 
 works of God, from year to year and age to age, was so dear 
 to the founders of the professorship which Dr. Smyth holds, 
 that they repeat it twice in their additional statutes, on pages 
 26 and 27. "• The professor," they say, " shall, agreeably to 
 the permanent Creed hereinafter mentioned, faithfully teach 
 that revealed Holy Religion only which God constantly 
 teaches men by His glorions works of creation, providence 
 and redemption." And on the next page they say that " he 
 shall subscribe a solemn declaration of his faith in divine 
 revelation, and in the fundamental and distinguishing doc- 
 trines of the gospel as expressed in the following Creed, 
 which is supported by the infallible revelation which God 
 constantly makes of Himself in His works of creation, provi- 
 dence and redemption." 
 
 Why emphasize, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, why em- 
 phasize so particularly by this iteration the fact that God is 
 constantly revealing Himself from age to age more clearl^^, 
 more clearly in one age than in the age before, b}^ His works, 
 and by His works of creation, providence and redemption? 
 Is it not for one thing because the Westminster Catechism 
 says that He is nuide known by His works, and then says 
 these works are the woiks of creation and providence, and 
 stops there ? This Creed says God shows Himself infallibly, 
 and more and more clearly as time goes on, by His works of 
 creation, providence and redemption; and that word re- 
 di'mption stamps its character deep on the Creed of Andover 
 Seminary, in its widest and most generous sense. The 
 Bible, no doubt, is the key of the universe, but the Bible is 
 not the universe. It tells us how to read the phenomena 
 that science and inquiry bring to our e^^es. We must accept 
 the facts that astronomy gives us, the facts that geology 
 gives us, the facts that biology gives us, the facts that evo- 
 
197 
 
 lution gives us, and apply to them the key of the written 
 revelation of the Holy Scriptures ; and that is the solemn 
 duty that this creed casts upon the Brown Professor of 
 Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Let me read to the Visitors the definition of Calvinism 'by 
 Webster, in the edition of his dictionary of 1828, published 
 shortl}^ after these documents took their shape : " Calvinism. 
 The distinguishing doctrines of this system are, original sin, 
 particular election and reprobation, particular redemption, 
 effectual grace in regeneration or a change of heart by the 
 spirit of God, justification by free grace, perseverance of the 
 saints, and the trinity." That is a list, no doubt fairly ex- 
 pressive of the Calvinism of the early part of the nineteenth 
 century, a definition which excludes from its distinguishing 
 features, most of those doctrines on which the weight of the 
 charges of the prosecutors rests. We find nothing here, for 
 instance, as to eschatology. We do find that particular 
 election and particular redemption are distinguishing doc- 
 trines of Calvinism. They are not, thank God, distinguish- 
 ing doctrines of the Creed and Statutes of Andover Seminary. 
 The Creed of Andover Seminary, as the Board well know, 
 contains different statements of the truth of redemption and 
 of atonement. It tells us in one breath, in the familiar 
 phraseology of Calvinism, that redemption is for the few, is 
 for the elect ; and then it follows with a wider message, that 
 redemption and that the atonement are for all men. And the 
 Creed of Andover Seminary closes with what is almost a 
 doxology of praise to God that in His good counsel and good 
 pleasure evil will finally give place to good. This declara- 
 tion that all actions and events, both in the natural and 
 moral world are under His providential direction, 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, this 
 
198 
 
 ascription, I say, of homage to God, gives a character to the 
 Andover Creed which is foreign to the old spirit of old 
 Calvinism. 
 
 Take those two professions of this Creed, universal atone- 
 ment and the universal change of evil to good in the far 
 distant future, and add to it what they took from the West- 
 minster Catechism, that Christ was the eternal Son of God, 
 and you have three principles laid down, three principles 
 combined for the first time, as has been said by my learned 
 associate, in Christian theologic statement, from which de- 
 ductions can be drawn and must be drawn of the most far- 
 reachincr character. It has been the business of the Andover 
 professors to draw these deductions from these postulates 
 for three-quarters of a century, and in so doing they have 
 always had the adherents of the ancient system of narrow 
 redemption, narrow election, and narrow atonement, against 
 them. It has been constantly the Andover theology against 
 Princeton theology, Dr. Miller against Dr. Stuart, the old 
 school theology in Andover itself against the new school 
 theology in Andover itself. Dr. Woods against his associates 
 in the faculty, Dr. Dana against his associates among the 
 Trustees. The Andover Creed is a nineteenth century Creed 
 joined to a seventeenth century Creed, and wdiere it differs 
 from it, it must control it, as this Board held, your prede- 
 cessors, in 1844, on the complaint of Prof. Woods and Dr. 
 Dana, in regard to the non-subscription of the associate pro- 
 fessors to the Westminster Catechism. I quote the language 
 of the Board from page 430 of Woods' History of Andover 
 TheoTogical Seminary. 
 
 "XIV. The two creeds and declarations" (that is the 
 declarations of the original Constitution and of the associate 
 founders) " are verbatim^ excepting that the associate decla- 
 ration omits what is said of the catechism ; but this omission, 
 the original founders say, is supplied in the creed connected 
 with it, and more than supplied because the Creed is the 
 most explicit. We cannot tlierefore discover any inconsht- 
 ency between the two taken as a whole." 
 
 Mr. Fkench. What do you understand to be meant by 
 
199 
 
 that; that there is nothing in the Creed that is not sub- 
 stantial! v in the Westminster Catechism ? 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. Perhaps it would be better for me to con- 
 clude my argument, and then you close. 
 
 Mr. Feench. Very well, I will not interrupt you again, 
 sir. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin. I have no hesitation, however, in replying 
 to my friend Judge French, and in saying that if the West- 
 minster Catechism does in any way conflict with the Associ- 
 ate Creed, and it is impossible to reconcile them, then the 
 associate Creed must control, in my judgment. That they 
 do accord in substance, which is all we have to inquire about 
 to-day, has been decided by that Court which is superior to 
 this Court, under the laws of the Commonwealth ; and the 
 law laid down by that Court in 1815 is, of eourse, the law 
 for us in 1886. That case, the case of the Trustees of Phil- 
 lips Academy vs. King, in the 12th Volume of Mass. Reports, 
 it will be recollected, was one brought by the Trustees of 
 Phillips Academy for a certain large legacy from the estate 
 of Madam Norris. It was the contention of the Trustees 
 that the legacy was good, because the Theological Seminary 
 was built on a foundation broad enough to cover both Cal- 
 vinism and Hopkinsianism ; that the Associate Creed and 
 the Westminster Catechism harmonized for substance, and 
 that that was sufficient to support their title to the legac3^ 
 The Supreme Court took that view, and the legacy was ob- 
 tained, and it is being used to-day by the Seminary for the 
 support of its professors and its establishment. 
 
 Is there any doubt, j\Ir. Chairman and gentlemen, that the 
 rule of law which gave that money to the Seminary dictates 
 to the Seminary how that money is to be applied ? If they 
 got that legacy because the Westminster Catechism and the 
 Associate Creed were in substantial harmon}^ must they not 
 apply those funds, may they not apply those funds, in teach- 
 ing on a platform which says that the Westminster Cate 
 chism and the Associate Creed are in substantial harmony ? 
 Not that they are in literal harmony ; not that in non-essen- 
 tials they are not diametrically opposed. Take the letter for 
 
200 
 
 instance that I read from Dr. Spring, in putting in the evi- 
 dence in this case, found in Woods' History, page 623. Says 
 Dr. Spring, the author of the Associate Creed more than any 
 one else, and a Visitor on the original Board, in speaking of 
 the attack on the framers of the creed b}^ a Unitarian periodi- 
 cal : ''It has proved that we all have the Bible on our side 
 when we depart from several answers in the Catechism. The 
 transfer of sin, the sin of Adam, and the transfer of Christ's 
 righteousness are scholastic nonsense and jargon." That was 
 the language in which, in the form of an unoificial letter. Dr. 
 Spring could characterize some of the language of the Cate- 
 chism, which, together with the Creed formed the platform 
 on which he stood as a member of the Board of Visitors. 
 
 So he says on page 594, in another letter to Dr. Morse : 
 " We need not feel encumbered with the doctrine of eternal 
 generation, because God is styled the Father and Christ the 
 Son of God, any more than with the eternal fellowship of 
 the trinity. The endearing words Father and Son are used 
 to express the sublime eternal relation between the first two 
 persons of the Godhead, because as I conceive no better 
 words could be adopted. The relation is the most sublime 
 and endearing." 
 
 We all know the poverty of human language to express 
 the great thoughts of theology. Dr. Spring recognizes it 
 there, and yet he says that eternal generation, which the 
 term used seems to imply, is rejected. The term Son has no 
 reference to a succession of age, to a descent from father to 
 child. It refers, in the best word that human language can 
 supply, to the sublime, endearing, eternal relation of the 
 different subsistences of the Godhead. 
 
 It is Orthodox, then, to stand upon Andover Hill and 
 teach the Westminster Catechism, and teach imputed sin, 
 imputed righteousness. It is lawful also to stand there and 
 teach what has been taught for generations, the wider doc- 
 trine of the Associate Creed. 
 
 The Creed of Andover Seminary is one, to understand 
 which, you must read between the lines. Dr. Woods, in his 
 History of the Seminary, has given us, on page 32, the ten- 
 
201 
 
 ets of Hopkinsianisra, and they assert: " First, that all true 
 virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested benevolence ; 
 second, that all sin consists in selfishness." Neither of these 
 definitions is found in the Creed, and yet no Hopkinsian, 
 like Dr. Spring or Dr. Woods, could have assented to that 
 Creed without reading between the lines that sin was selfish- 
 ness, and that disinterested benevolence was happiness and 
 holiness. The omissions of the Creed mean as much as its 
 propositions. 
 
 In the history of Dr. Woods, the Creed is frequently 
 spoken of as a compromise Creed. It is better spoken of, 
 I think, better described, in the language of Dr. Smyth as a 
 comprehensive Creed. It is a Creed meant to be wide 
 enousfh to brine: within it all shades of belief comprised 
 within the lines of evangelical doctrine. It is a Creed of 
 the times, of this time, of this century. It is not so very 
 far back to 1807 and 1808. Those were not times of dul- 
 ness and inaction in the world. They were the times when 
 the French Revolution and Napoleon were transforming 
 Europe ; when the whole circle of society was broken up 
 with new movements and with new thoughts. It was in 
 those times that this Creed arose as a new creation, expres- 
 sive of the best thought of the day. And no higher concep- 
 tion has yet been formed of sin than that it is selfishness, or 
 of holiness, than that it is disinterested benevolence. 
 
 It is of no consequence that any particular theory now 
 held, future probation, for instance, if you please, was not 
 in the minds, so far as we know, of the framers of the Creed. 
 The only question is whether the language of the Creed 
 necessarily excludes it. This question came before the 
 Supreme Court of the United States sixty years ago, in a 
 case of great magnitude, commonly known as the Dartmouth 
 College case. The members of the Board will recollect that 
 Dartmouth College exists under a charter from the British 
 Crown. After the Revolution the Legislature of New 
 Hampshire saw fit to pass an Act turning the college into a 
 university in name, calling it Dartmouth University. They 
 changed its mode of government by virtually deposing the 
 
T-- 
 
 202 
 
 old Trustees named by the founders, or who had succeeded 
 to those thus named, and by adding to their number certain 
 State officers. The college applied to one of its great alumni, 
 Daniel Webster, to see if its franchise could not be pro- 
 tected ; and after study and reflection Mr. Webster told them 
 it could be, on this ground : That the National Constitution 
 declared that no State could pass any law impairing the 
 obligation of a contract. And what was a contract? Mr. 
 Webster argued to the Supreme Court of the United States 
 that the term contract included any gift made by one and 
 accepted by another ; that that was an executed contract. A 
 charter was a tender by the State of certain franchises, and 
 its acceptance made a contract between the State and the 
 holder of the charter. And that contract, Mr. Webster con- 
 tended, the State could not impair. The case was argued 
 with great ability by leading counsel, and the gentlemen on 
 the other side insisted that the framers of the C( nstitution 
 never could have had the thought of a charter in their minds, 
 — a charter from the British King, least of all. They were 
 talking of contracts such as notes and bonds, and not of 
 charters and grants of franchises. But when the great 
 (^'hief Justice Marshall came to dispose of the case in favor 
 of Dartmouth College, as he did, he said the question was 
 not whether, the framers of the Constitution thought, when 
 they used the word coiitract^ of charters, but whether the 
 word they used, whatever it was, was such that it might 
 be interpreted to cover charters. And Dartmouth College 
 held its own charter on the novel ground, to American 
 jurisprudence, that a charter was a contract, protected by the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 And so, in construing this Creed, the question is not what 
 the founders meant by their words, when they put universal 
 atonement alongside of Christ as the eternal Son of God, 
 coupled with this doxology and ascription of praise to God as 
 he who would bring good out of all evil, but wliat may be 
 fairly derived from them by Christian teachers. What will it 
 allow them to hold, putting together these great principles and 
 drawing therefrom any and all legitimate deductions ? That 
 
203 
 
 principle governs this case, as it governed that of Dartmouth 
 College. 
 
 And I need not say, Mr. Chairman, that no creed can mean 
 the same thing to different men. We all look at truth, as the 
 old warriors looked upon the shield, silver on one side and 
 gold on the other, with a different aspect as we may approach 
 it from a different side. I do not see you at this moment as 
 my friend Judge French sees you. The point of view at 
 which we stand creates the image which is presented to our 
 minds. To a man of narrow range of scholarship and 
 thought, a Creed means one thing ; and the same words, to 
 a man of philosophic insight, of deep reflection and of great 
 scholarship, means something else. Which is right, the in- 
 terpretation put upon it by the bigot, by the man who has 
 not spent years of study to get at the real meaning of the 
 words, or the judgment of the man who has given his life to 
 unfolding the meaning of similar doctrines and searching 
 to the very bottom to find out what truth is? " The letter 
 killeth ; the spirit giveth life." 
 
 And so this Andover Creed has been interpreted, as these 
 books show, as our testimony has shown ; and it is not denied. 
 So has this Creed been interpreted for eighty years. Has 
 there been any other mode of interpretation? Why have 
 not my friends shown it ? They have not shown it, because 
 they could not show it. From the first Board of Visitors to 
 the last there has been the same spirit of tolerance and cath- 
 olicity in the construction of the Creed. The same con- 
 struction has been put upon it that the Supreme Judicial 
 Court of Massachusetts impressed upon it early in its history, 
 in laying down the law for this case, and for every case that 
 can ever arise, under the terms made use of in 1808. 
 
 I do not mean that the action of the Board of Visitors, of 
 the Board of Trustees and of the professors, in adopting, in 
 sanctioning, and in enforcing this liberal construction has 
 passed luiquestioned or unchallenged. If it had, the fact 
 that such was the construction would not have half the force 
 that it has now. No, from the very foundation of the Semi- 
 nary there were men like the prosecutors of to-da}', men who 
 
204 
 
 were hanging on the wheels of time trying to hold them back, 
 who have opposed this doctrine on the part of the governing 
 Board, and on the part of the teaching force of the Seminary. 
 ]^et me read a word or two from what Dr. Dana wrote of 
 Dr. Stuart and of Dr. Park. 1 read now from the 24th page of 
 Dana's Letters to Stuart in opposition to articles in the " Bibli- 
 cal Repository " on the nature of sin : " In a word, my dear 
 sir," says Dr. Dana, addressing himself to Prof. Stuart, " I 
 cannot but apprehend that you are far too sanguine in antici- 
 pating the speedy disappearance of the doctrine in debate, — 
 the doctrine of original sin. Unquestionably it is one of the 
 grand pillars on which the Andover Institution rests. Can 
 that which was true in 1808 be false in 1839 ? Rather let 
 me ask, can a doctrine which the Church of Christ, from its 
 first existence, has defended with such energy, and cherished 
 with such ardor, be ever blotted out and lost ? I have confi- 
 dence that it will not." 
 
 Dr. Dana regarded the cause of Andover Seminary as lost 
 when Stuart preached those doctrines, and Park afterwards 
 came upon the stage to defend them. This is what Dr. Dana 
 said of Prof. Park in 1853. 
 
 "' His views of human ability are extravagant and extreme. 
 They obviously tend to foster in men a spirit of pride, of self- 
 sufficienc}^ of independence of God, and, emphatically, of 
 procrastination. Is there no reason to fear that, in this very 
 way, too many have found their eternal ruin ? Is there no 
 reason to fear that the unconcerned, the irreligion, and the 
 false religion, which so sadly prevail at the present day, may 
 be traced to the same source?" 
 
 And in another place he says : 
 
 " It is with real pain and grief that I make these state- 
 ments. I have not a particle of enmity against the Professor. 
 Far, far, rather, would I employ my pen in commending his 
 fine talents. But if these talents are employed in opposition 
 to fundamental truth, and in defence of dangerous error, their 
 intluence is only to be dreaded and discountenanced." 
 
 Like expressions might be found in the writings of Prof. 
 Woods ; and Dr. Miller's letters to Prof. Stuart contain a 
 
205 
 
 similar criticism from a sister seminary. In the semi-centen- 
 nial Plistory of Andover there is quoted a remark by Dr. 
 Spring on Dwight's Theology. The first volume of that 
 work was published shortly before the foundation of the 
 seminary, and Dr. Spring wrote of it thus : " Certainly the 
 L'ord must reign, or he would never have suffered such a 
 book to be published." A year from that time Dr. Spring 
 and Dr. Dwight were sitting together as members, of tlds 
 Board ; and that is a fair instance of the tolerance of differ- 
 ence of opinion on unessentials which has ever characterized 
 the management of this institution. I read one other quota- 
 tion from Dr. Dana's letters to Dr. Stuart, written in 1839, 
 in reference to this same doctrine of Dr. Stuart on the nature 
 of sin. Says Dr. Dana : " In view of the existing state of 
 things, it is impossible adequately to describe the importance 
 of our theological seminaries. From the very nature of the 
 case, they must possess and wield an immense power either 
 for good or for evil. While they are faithful to God and to 
 His truth, the church will not fail to cherish them as her 
 choicest hope, her richest, dearest treasure. But what if they 
 should prove recreant to their high destiny? What if the 
 streams which issue periodically from these fountains should 
 become impure and polluted ? Alas, words cannot paint the 
 bitter disappointment, the deep-felt grief, the disastrous, wide- 
 spread and almost interminable evils which must ensue." 
 
 He therefore wanted Stuart to retract his views on the 
 nature of sin ; but I need not say he did not. 
 
 Now, let me suggest this : That this doctrine of a possible 
 future probation, which is attacked by the libel of the prose- 
 cutors, is one that has been found helpful to very many 
 minds in grappling with the problems of evil and sin and 
 human destiny. It has been found to be a powerful answer 
 to agnosticism. Of all the forms of error that exist to-day 
 among educated men, I think I am safe in saying that agnos- 
 ticism is the most deadly, — the thought that there may be 
 nothing above this Avorld, Jhat it is not worth while to in- 
 quire whether there is or is not, that we have not time for it, 
 that we have. not the ability for it, that we have not the 
 
206 
 
 power to ascertain, and therefore that we have no incentive 
 to try. Agnosticism has sometimes taken the shape of theo- 
 logical treatises by eminent theologians, eminent in their 
 way, like Mansel. God is unknowable, they tell us, except 
 as he is explicitly revealed in his written word. No, says 
 the Andover Creed, the Andover Professors : He is also con- 
 stantly revealing Himself in His works of creation, provi- 
 dence, and redemption. I think the doctrine of agnosticism 
 is met arid silenced by this thought of a possible future pro- 
 bation, as it can be in no other way. Old Calvinism said 
 that God worked in His good pleasure when and how He 
 might for the salvation of the elect who were not outwardly 
 called in this life, who never heard the ministry of the Word, 
 and of the elect' infants. But how? Calvinism had no 
 answer, and therefore men, when they were led up to that 
 door and told they could go no further, became agnostics or 
 infidels. Here is a theory of thought and hope which shows 
 how God's ways in His dealings with man can be reconciled 
 with man's views of justice and what is due to himself. And 
 are these gentlemen to be blamed for putting before the 
 American public a view of that sort which has carried heal- 
 ing with it to many a wounded soul? As I compare a book 
 like Progressive Orthodoxy with the ancient and rigid state- 
 ments of a former age, of the last century and of the century 
 before, it is almost like hearing St. Paul preach at Athens 
 about their worshipping the unknown God, when he luid a 
 God openly to declare unto them. Here is a suggestion made 
 towards a better knowledge of God, a hope spoken of, not made 
 essential in Christian theology, but thrown out as a sujDport to 
 those who need it, and seized with welcome by many hearts. 
 Unless, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Andover Creed 
 can be accepted and interpreted hereafter as it has been in 
 the past, the hopes of the founders that that Creed would be 
 perpetually expounded by able and learned men will certainly 
 be frustrated. No learned and able man, in the true sense 
 of that word, will be found to come before you, as years go 
 on, and take that Creed in any other way than as you, gentle- 
 men, have taken it, or these professors, who are on trial to-day, 
 
207 
 
 have taken it. And suppose the day comes (as it may) when 
 you cannot find anybody to accept each decLiration of the 
 Creed in a literal sense, and yet the Boaid of Visitors insists 
 on a literal meaning of every word independent of every 
 other, not looking at the whole, but taking it in its details, 
 and calling for a subscription to every point without refer- 
 ence to it in its entirety. If that time ever comes, the time 
 will have come too, when Congregationalists may well fear 
 that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the 
 exercise of its high Cy Pres powers, will step down and order 
 this institution to be closed, or changed into a foundation for 
 some other mode of preaching the truth. This is the doc- 
 trine of administering trusts as near as may be to the will of 
 the dead, when circumstances have so far changed that they 
 cannot be exactly administered in accordance with the origi- 
 nal intention, which has come here from the Courts of Great 
 Britain. What have they done there ? Formerly it was the 
 law of Great Britain, as you know, that the Roman Catholic 
 religion could not be publicly taught, could not be privately 
 taught. Suppose in those days a good Catholic died leaving 
 property for the benefit of his church. The Court of Clian- 
 cery of Great Britain seized upon that fund. They said, 
 true, the dead left it for a public and charitable purpose, and 
 it shall be applied to a public and charitable purpose, but not 
 to his. He wanted it to go to an illegal purpose ; we will 
 take it and apply it to the Church of England, the established 
 church. Over and over again was that done under the Cy 
 Pres doctrine in Great Britain. Is this Board willing to take 
 one step which might tend to put Andover Seminary at the 
 disposition of the Chancery Courts of this Commonwealth 
 under that same doctrine ? I trust not. I trust not as a 
 Congregationalist who hopes that this Seminary will go on 
 for centuries and be administered in tlie same way in which 
 it has been administered from the very beginning of its his- 
 tory. Here is prosecuted the son-in-law of a former member 
 of this Board, and I am glad that he is defended by the grand- 
 son of another Visitor who once held a seat, and the first seat, 
 upon this Board, and by the grandnephew of another. 
 
208 
 
 How easy it would be, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for 
 these professors to draw their salaries and spend their lives in 
 the pastoral quiet of Andover, without ever venturing into 
 print and giving the world the benefit of their researches. 
 They have been willing to spend their time and strength and 
 thought in giving Andover a name in the theological world, 
 ift giving their best thoughts, their best hours, their best 
 work, not simply to teaching, but to publishing their views. 
 Are they to be censured for it ? Certainly not, unless they 
 have published something which is contrary to the true spirit 
 and intent of the Statutes they have subscribed. If this pros- 
 ecution rests on any thing, it is a breach of contract between 
 them and the Trustees of Philli})s Academy ; and I need not 
 say that to prove a breach of contract the plaintiff has the 
 burden of the case, and must make it out by clear evidence. 
 Tliis idea of my friends on the other side, or their suggestion, 
 that a theory thrown out tentatively in Progressive Ortliodoxy 
 is the assertion and teaching of a dogma, I repudiate. Let 
 me read what Professor Park said once of a similar claim in 
 regard to an expression of Tholuck as to a final restoration. 
 "An opinion, when entertained in the shape of a subordinate 
 and incidental theory, is as different in its influence from that 
 same opinion when entertained in the shape of an essential 
 and conspicuous doctrine, as the alcohol in bread is different 
 in its effect from the alcohol in brandy." When we teach 
 future probation as a dogma in Andover Seminary, and charge 
 it upon our young men as a thing for them to teach and preach 
 as a vital and fundamental and essential doctrine of religion, 
 then it will be time for my friends to say that we are teach- 
 ing doubts instead of truths. 
 
 The question as it seems to me is this : Ts Andover Semi- 
 nary to go on hereafter as it has gone on for eighty 3"ears ? Is 
 it to live forever and ever ? It may, Mr. President and gentle- 
 men, if you this day determine that the Creed and Statutes 
 of the Seminary are to be read in the same spirit of union 
 and harmony in which they were formed ; in the way in which 
 every creed must be read which has in it the first elements of 
 perpetuity. 
 
HON. CHARLES THEODORE RUSSELL'S ARGUMENT. 
 
 Gentlemem, of the Board of Visitors : 
 
 If I know my purpose I am not here in the spirit of an 
 advocate : much less of a partisan of any particular "phase of 
 orthodoxy in the past " or in the present. I have heretofore 
 subscribed the statutes nnder consideration, and for many 
 years, in my humble way, I participated in their adminis- 
 tration. For several of these years I had the pleasure to be 
 associated with the two senior members of the present Board 
 in such administration, — during all which I think we differed 
 but upon a single occasion. 
 
 I am here to give you such aid as I may in meeting a duty 
 in character most important and responsible ; in result 
 reaching far beyond present persons and present times. In 
 a "judicial ca[)acity " you are " to determine, interpret and 
 explain the Statutes." And you come to this duty under a 
 solemn pledge " to exert your abilities, to carry into execu- 
 tion the Statutes of the said Founders, and to promote the 
 great object of the Institution." 
 
 It becomes then of primal importance to ascertain what 
 principles of interpretation and construction are to be applied 
 to these Statutes ; and especially what principles these 
 Founders themselves applied or intended should be applied. 
 It is to this point that my argument will be addressed. 
 
 It is not necessary, after the elaborate, eloquent, and 
 exhaustive exposition of Professor Smyth, yesterday and to- 
 day, that I should, if I were able, deal with the theologi- 
 cal questions in controversy. I am quite content to leave 
 this part of the case where he has left it. I need hardly 
 add that while I address you in behalf of the only respondent 
 
210 
 
 Professor Smyth, now on trial, I intend m}'^ argument to apply 
 without repetition to his associate Professors. 
 
 All courts of justice, before hearing a cause, require the 
 parties to come, by their pleadings, or statements, to an issue 
 in law or fact, single, certain and material ; which tendered 
 by one party and accepted by the other, when decided by 
 the Court, shall determine the controversy. Eminently ne- 
 cessary as such rule is to the rights of parties, it is equally so 
 for any intelligible determination, from the record, of pre- 
 cisely what the tribunal did, and what it did not, decide. Still 
 more essential, is such precision of statement, where the de- 
 cision becomes a precedent, and an authoritative, perhaps 
 conclusive, construction of such credal statutes as those now 
 under discussion. 
 
 This rule, old as the common law, and in proceedings like 
 these, everywhere, with us, guarded by Constitutional pro- 
 vision, is just as necessary to theological as legal contro- 
 versies, especially where such controversies assume the now 
 somewhat antiquated and repellent form of public complaint 
 and prosecution for heresy. 
 
 That eminent theologian and scholar. Cardinal Newman, 
 says, in one of his University Sermons, " Half the controver- 
 sies in the world, could they be brought to a plain issue, 
 would be brought to a prompt termination." " When men 
 understand what each other means, they see, for the most 
 part, that controversy is either superfluous or hopeless." 
 
 Recognizing this truth, and in no spirit of captious legal 
 obstruction, this respondent asked for a clear and definite 
 statement of the charges intended to be made. This would 
 naturally and necessarily involve a statement of the particular 
 parts of the creed, be it Calviuistic, Westminster Shorter 
 Catechism, or associate, upon which the complainants relied, 
 and the particular acts the respondent had done, or the par- 
 ticular opinions and doctrines he held, which violated such 
 parts. Such specification the respondent has never obtained. 
 We do not comphiin of dislocated and dismembered citations 
 from the respondent's book, in allegation or evidence, so much 
 as we do, that the complainants give us nowhere their 
 
211 
 
 hypothesis or construction of any parts of the creed, or even 
 tell us the parts, which they say we violate. Till this is done 
 we do not know whether our controversy is one of interpre- 
 tation and construction, or of fact. 
 
 I began these preliminary suggestions with a citation from 
 an eminent theologian of another country. May I close 
 them with one from an equally eminent theologian of our 
 countr}^ — I mean Prof. Park? In the opening chapter of 
 his pamphlet on " The Associate Creed of Andover Theologi- 
 cal Seminary," published in 1883, he says : " There are sev- 
 eral doctrines for the maintenance of which, in a special de- 
 gree, the Andover Seminary was founded. In this chapter 
 four of these doctrines are specified, because their practical 
 importance is easily seen, and because their truth has been 
 recently denied. Appended to the statement of each doc- 
 trine is a statement of the contrasted error" (p. 3). 
 
 "The first of these four doctrines is: The Bible, in all its 
 religious and moral teachings, is entirely trustworthy. The 
 contrasted error is : We are not authorized to confide in 
 all the biblical teachings, even in all which relate to re- 
 ligion and morality. Some of them are false and hurtful ; 
 or some may be false and hurtful ; or so far as any of them 
 are in our view opposed to the Christian consciousness, we can- 
 not positively believe them, even if we do not positively dis- 
 believe them " (p. 3). 
 
 The citation of one of these specifications is sufficient to 
 show the character of all. They at once reveal to us their 
 author's conception of the creed and the alleged or contrasted 
 error, and eliminate at once and clearly, either an issue of con- 
 struction, or of fact. 
 
 Such specification is all the respondent has ever asked; and 
 such the ablest of theologians, concurring with us, deems es- 
 sential, at the very entrance, upon the same substantial dis- 
 cussion, which the complainants have forced upon us, without 
 such specification. 
 
 We are told this is no trial for heresy : — but a friendly suit, 
 to repress the greatest breach of trust of the century. It is 
 said, the question is, not whether the respondent is right or 
 
212 
 
 wrong in his views ; whether progressive orthodoxy is truer 
 or better than Calvinistic orthodoxy ; but simply, whether 
 the views of these professors are inconsistent with any part 
 of an ironclad creed, by which certain most eminent and 
 progressive gentlemen, nearly a century ago, attempted by 
 " a complicated and iron-bound endeavor to anchor the or- 
 thodoxy of the future, as by a chain cable, to one of its partic- 
 ular phases in the past." How far this is true, I will consider 
 when I state the issue. I only say now, whether it be true 
 or not, this is no such cold, comparative, impassive, imper- 
 sonal question to you. Reverend and Honored Sirs. 
 
 Before you can take the seats, you so well fill, you have a 
 solemn duty. Let me state it in the words of the Statutes : 
 " He shall, moreover, in like manner, subscribe the same 
 Theological Creed, which every Professor elect is required to 
 subscribe, and a Declaration of his faith in the same Creed shall 
 be repeated by him at every successive period of five years." 
 Art. 19, Statutes. 
 
 Whatsoever it may be to others, this creed, ironclad or 
 elastic, complicated or simple, with whatsoever construction 
 or interpretation you put upon it, is to you, and each of you, 
 to-day, a living, personal, present faith. 
 
 What then is the issue before 3'ou? 
 
 In April, 1863, the respondent, Egbert C. Smyth, was ap- 
 pointed Brown Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Pas- 
 toral Theology in the Theological Institution in Phillips 
 Academy, Andover, as the successor of Dr. Shedd, upon the 
 foundation established by Moses Brown under dates of Feby 
 8, 1819, Nov. 4, 1820, and June 11, 1824. 
 
 Deeds and Donations, 146-151. 
 
 The date of this Foundation, Feb'y 8, 1819, is important, as 
 bearing materially upon a subsequent part of this argument. 
 
 By the terms of this Foundation " all the Articles of the 
 Associate Statutes, which apply to Professors on that Foun- 
 dation, viz. : the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, 
 shall apply equally and with the same force to the Professor 
 
213 
 
 on this mj Foundation, and the said second, third, fourth, 
 fifth, and sixth articles of the said Associate Statutes shall 
 be for the regulation of this my said Professor forever, in 
 the same manner as for the other Professors on the said 
 Foundation." 
 
 The Foundation is then made " subject to visitation in the 
 same manner as the said Associate Foundation is now subject 
 to visitation." 
 
 Deeds and Donations, pp. 147-8. 
 
 Art. 2 of the Associate Statutes provides : — 
 
 Article If. Every Professor on the Associate Foundation 
 shall be a Master of Arts, of the Protestant Reformed Religion, 
 an ordained Minister of the Congregational or Presbyterian 
 denomination, and shall sustain the character of a discreet, 
 honest, learned and devout Christian ; an orthodox and con- 
 sistent Calvinist ; and after a careful examination by the 
 Visitors with reference to his religious principles, he shall, on 
 the day of his inauguration, 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 in- 
 fallible Revelation which God constantly makes of Himself in 
 his works of creation, providence and redemption, namely : — 
 
 Then follows the Associate Creed and Declaration. 
 
 Art. 3 provides for the repetition of the Creed and Decla- 
 ration every five years by the Professors. 
 
 Art. 4 provides for the honorable maintenance of the Pro- 
 fessors. 
 
 Art. 5 is wholly devoted to regulations of their duties and 
 services. 
 
 Art. 6 provides for filling vacancies. 
 
 Professor Smyth was appointed, subject to these Statutes, 
 and these alone, by the Trustees. 
 
 I shall not stop to discuss at length, this proposition, be 
 cause it is now so well settled by the established construc- 
 tion of this Board, as to be no longer open to question. 
 
 For nineteen years after the establishment of the semi- 
 
214 
 
 nary, no professor was required to, or did, sign any thing but 
 the Associate Creed and Declaration. For. a few years 
 subsequent, from 1826 to 1842, under the action of the 
 Trustees, all the professors were required to subscribe the 
 declaration of the original Founders. But attention of 
 the Visitors and Trustees was called to the matter, by the 
 refusal of Dr. Emerson and Dr. Stuart to make such sub- 
 scription, upon the ground it was not required. The ques- 
 tion then passed under the careful adjudication of the 
 Trustees, and subsequently of this Board, to which Dr. 
 Woods made his elaborate and able plea, and Dr. Dana his 
 earnest and solemn protest. The Board, then composed of 
 Dr. Heman Humphrey, Dr. Codman and Judge Terry, ren- 
 dered judgment upon it, in a very carefully drawn, exhaus- 
 tive opinion in 1844. (Wood's Hist., pp. 424-482.) 
 
 Since then for forty-two years, under this judicial decision, 
 no professor, upon the Associate Foundation, has subscribed, 
 or been required to subscribe, any thing but the Associate 
 Creed. 
 
 When the Brown professorship was established in 1819, 
 the Professors were subscribing only the Associate Creed, 
 and this under the inspection of the Board of Visitors, of 
 whom Mr. Brown was one. 
 
 See Wood's Hist., pp. 368, 424. 
 
 Professor Smyth was, upon his appointment, carefully ex- 
 amined by the then Board of Visitors " with reference to his 
 religious principles." Being found by them to be " a Master 
 of Arts, of the Protestant Reformed Religion, an ordained 
 Minister of the Congregational Denomination," and sustain- 
 ing " the character of a discreet, honest and devout Christian ; 
 an orthodox and consistent Calvinist," he was confirmed by 
 them. 
 
 On the day of his inauguration, he publicly mads and 
 subscribed "a solemn declaration of hisfa^th in Divine Rev- 
 elation, and in the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines 
 of the Gospel as expressed in the following creed, which is 
 
215 
 
 supported by the infallible Revelation which God constantly 
 makes of Himself in his works of creation, providence, and 
 redemption, namely : " and he then repeated and subscribed 
 the Associate Creed. 
 
 This Creed and Declaration he has repeated every succes- 
 sive five years for thirteen years up to this time, and to-day 
 he repeats and subscribes it. 
 
 In doing this, his entire sincerity and good faith are as- 
 serted, and would be presumed bylaw, without assertion, and 
 are put beyond all question, by the eminent Christian char- 
 acter and intelligence of the respondent. 
 
 I repeat, what then is the issue ? 
 
 Simply this, 
 
 (1) Whether Professor Smyth has done any act, or holds, 
 maintains and inculcates any opinions, or theological doc- 
 trines, which are so inconsistent with any portion of this 
 creed, fairly, reasonably, rightly interpreted and construed, 
 as clearly to show that his subscription to, and adoption of, 
 it must be either dishonest, unintelligent, or evasive and 
 criminal. 
 
 (2) Whether he has done any acts, or holds, maintains, and 
 inculcates any opinion or theological doctrine, which take 
 from him " the character of a discreet, honest, learned and 
 devout Christian ; an orthodox and consistent Calvinist." 
 
 I do not understand that the complainants charge the 
 Respondent with " misbehavior, incapacity or neglect of the 
 duties of his office." But they do charge, with more or less 
 indefiniteuess, that he has done acts, or holds, maintains 
 and inculcates opinions or doctrines, such as I have stated, 
 and that therefore Professor Smyth is guilty of ''hetero- 
 doxy," under the 20th article of the Associate Statutes, and 
 ought to be removed or admonished by you according as 
 you shall find the " heterodoxy " to be of the first or second 
 degree. 
 
 This is the issue. They charge — we deny. 
 
 To determine this issue we must find what is the law, 
 under which it arises. In other words, what do the con- 
 trolling Statutes and Creed mean and require? To settle 
 
216 
 
 this it is of primal and transcendent importance to ascertain, 
 by what principles and rules, these Statutes, and this Creed 
 are to be construed and interpreted. I apprehend the whole 
 controversy may turn upon this. 
 
 Before enteiing upon the discussion of these principles 
 and rules, let me submit, that sincere and honest differences 
 in the interpretation, construction or acceptance of these 
 Statutes and this Creed, within just, intelligent, reasonable 
 limits, do not constitute "heterodoxy." If they do, then, 
 the compromising framers of the Creed, in its very origin, 
 were heterodox and not orthodox one to the other. Eight 
 distinguished, and all but one, reverend gentlemen, peers 
 each of the other in character, intelligence, honesty, learning, 
 Christian sincerity, and conscientiousness, have subscribed 
 this creed and made it a personal faith. Three sit in your 
 seats, and five in those of the Professors. The five are on 
 trial before the three, for " heterodoxy " in a matter purely 
 of interpretation, and construction. Your Statutes provide 
 that a majority of your Board may decide all questions ; and 
 if only two are present, and divided in opinion, the vote of 
 the President shall decide the question. Suppose two only 
 present, and that they differ widely but honestly on the 
 construction and interpretation of this creed, as Trustees, in 
 days gone hj, have, and perhaps, in the present day do, may 
 your President not only decide, but impeach his associate of 
 "heterodoxy" and admonish or remove him? 
 
 Before a Judge can take his seat' upon the bench of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, he must make, not a 
 declaration, but oath, that he will support the Constitution 
 of the United States. Yet seven of these judges decide that 
 the colored man is not a citizen, and two hold the opposite 
 opinion. Five declare that Congress has no power to issue 
 legal tender notes, and four again hold the opposite. And 
 yet did anybody ever charge the minority with violation 
 of their oath, or of the Constitution, or impeach them of 
 " heterodoxy " to any of its provisions ? 
 
 No. Honest and fair construction and interpretation, 
 within just and reasonable limits of comprehension, are not 
 
217 
 
 "heterodoxy," nor culpable, though to others they may seem 
 misconstructions and misinterpretations. And especially is 
 this true, in matters of religious opinion and dogma. It is 
 here little more than the assertion of the right of private 
 judgment, the grand characteristic of the protestant church 
 from the beginning. The light of fair, reasonable, honest, 
 individual construction and interpretation of that he sub- 
 scribes, is in every man, be his subscription to the Andover, 
 or the Apostles' Creed, the great historic creeds, protestant 
 or catholic, or that of the village churches of New England. 
 
 If there is any thing peculiar in this creed it is the manifest 
 intention to make it, by adoption and repetition, an ever-liv- 
 ing, personal, perpetual faith, to those who come under it. I 
 do not contend that you can add to, or take from, it a word. 
 Much less that you can pervert or evade it. Like some pic- 
 ture of the old masters, you may not put to it one touch of 
 the pencil, but you may brush away its dust, set it in a new 
 frame, and hang it in any brighter sunlight of heaven, and 
 thereby bring out of it new and latent force, expression and 
 beauty. 
 
 What this Creed is to you, it is, and was intended to be, 
 to every soul who subscribes it; never a monumental relic 
 of the past, but "as the sun and moon forever" a living 
 faith, holding its protective power over the Institution, of 
 which it was an incident, for " the defence and promotion 
 of the Christian Relifrion " bv increasino- the number of 
 learned and able Defenders, not of Calvin, nor of Hopkins, 
 nor Emmons but "of the Gospel of Christ, as wed as of 
 orthodox, pious and zealous Ministers of the New Testa- 
 ment." 
 
 The Creed was made for the Seminary, not the Seminary 
 for the Creed. The Seminary was founded, not for the times 
 alone of its founders, but " as the sun and moon " for all time. 
 Hence the long study, the careful preparation, the nice ad- 
 justment, the comprehensive and tolerant spirit of the Creed. 
 Its framers, never, in a spirit of mutual jealousy and distrust 
 framed their Creed to put one another, or you, or your pro 
 fessors into handcuffs and strait-jackets. In the polemic and 
 
218 
 
 anxious spirit of their time, they sought to guard and con- 
 serve the truths of religion, without sacrificing its freedom 
 of thought or investigation. They built their ship of oak 
 and iron, because they meant it to float on the tides of time 
 and progress ; not to strand on the rocks and shores. They 
 met, representatives of the differing, almost hostile schools of 
 orthodoxy, in a lofty spirit of Christian compromise, and not 
 without thought, labor, perplexity, and sometimes discourage- 
 ment, they framed a compromise creed, ironclad enough for 
 security, comprehensive enough for the toleration of all 
 orthodoxy, put together with such artistic Christian work- 
 manship, that holders and emphasizers of some of its parts, 
 could yet accept the others, without either breach of trust or 
 heterodoxy. 
 
 When thus they founded their Seminary, and carefully 
 protected it with their creed, they meant to plant by the 
 river of God a tree, which, drawing thence its ever-living 
 vitality, through root and trunk and branch, should ever 
 shed its fruits for the healing of the nations. They did not, 
 in a spirit of religious self-sufficiency, intend thereby, to set 
 up a cold stony monument of all past attainment, and a 
 boundary to all future progress, with their names upon its 
 base, and inscribed in old black letter, upon its rocky sides, 
 " Thus far and no farther forever." 
 
 I am confirmed in this by the modest and yet grandly sub- 
 lime words in which they close their Statutes. 
 
 '' To the Spirit of truth, to the divine Author of our faith, 
 to the only wise God, we desire in sincerity to present our 
 humble offering ; devoutly imploring the Father of Light, 
 richly to endue with wisdom from above, all his servants, the 
 Visitors of this Foundation, and the Trustees of the Seminary, 
 and with spiritual understanding the Professors therein; that 
 being illuminated by the Holy Spirit, iheir doctrine may 
 drop as the rain, and that their pupils may become trees of 
 renown, in the Courts of our God, whereby He may be glori- 
 fied." 
 
 Associate Stat. Art. 28. 
 
219 
 
 I submit this is not the natural language of men, who in- 
 tended to set an impassal)le limit within their Institution to 
 all religions investigation, or who sought, " by a complicated 
 and iron-bound endeavor to anchor the orthodoxy of the fu- 
 ture, as by a chain cable to one of its particular phases in the 
 past." 
 
 They doubtless intended to moor their ship with anchors 
 and cables of more than ordinary solidity and strength, but 
 in doing so, they were too good, and too old navigators, not 
 to realize that if they would have her float, in safety even, 
 they must payout so much of cable, as, with the same ground 
 tackle at the bottom, the same hull upon the surface, and 
 the same flag at her mast-head, would allow her to rise with 
 the tides, and veer her bows, now east, now west, now north, 
 now south, just as the storms of assault came upon, or the 
 winds of doctrine blew over her. 
 
 They anchored their ship, whatever the anchors and cables, 
 to nothing, but "the defence and promotion of the Chris- 
 tian Religion, by making some provisions for increasing 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 ; " and they came to this anchorage, it may 
 be, aided by the charts of Calvin, and Hopkins, and Emmons, 
 and Spring, and Woods, but most of all because, in their own 
 introductory words, they had been "■ seriously reflecting upon 
 the fatal effects of the apostasy of man without a saviour, on 
 the merciful object of the Son of God, in assuming our na- 
 ture, and dying for our salvation, and upon the wisdom of 
 his appointment of an order of men to preach his gospel in 
 the world ; " and because they desired to raise up such an 
 order of men, under the instruction of Professors " who 
 should, agi'eeably to their permanent Creed" and "according 
 to the best light God should give " them " faithfully teach 
 that revealed Holy Religion only, which (xod constantly 
 teaches men by his glorious works of Creation, Providence, 
 and Redemption." 
 
 Surely this Creed is not more inflexible and absolute, than 
 the law God gave his chosen people, as they gathered at 
 
220 
 
 Sinai, or wandered in the desert. Our Divine Saviour de- 
 clared that he came neither to destroy the law, nor the 
 prophets, and that heaven and earth should pass away before 
 one jot or one tittle should pass from the law. And yet, as 
 he sat upon the slope of Olivet, teaching future teachers, he 
 took this law up, and by interpretation and construction filled 
 it with new and amazing life, vigor, beauty and obligation. 
 
 Upon the strictest construction, the Creed cannot exceed 
 in any exaction it makes, the law of the Sabbath, which 
 God himself so respected, as to withhold the manna in those 
 sacred hours, whose rest, it was a capital offence for man to 
 violate. Yet what new light broke out of this law, as it 
 passed under the construction of the great Expounder, when 
 he looked upon the suffering, or walked with his disciples 
 through the fields of corn. " In it thou shalt do no work," 
 said the Statute. " It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath 
 day " said the Expounder. Construe by the intent and 
 not the letter. " The Sabbatli was made for man, not man 
 for the Sabbath." This, to Jew and doctor, was new depar- 
 ture. " It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed on the Sab- 
 bath day." " Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful 
 on the Sabbath day." And they said it, because they did 
 not appreciate the distinction between law under the strict- 
 est letter, and law under divine construction and interpreta- 
 tion. They comprehended not the distinction between 
 abrogating and destroying law, and filling it with new life 
 and energy by rightfid exposition and development. 
 
 I have dwelt thus long upon the proposition that this Creed 
 is open to construction and interpretation, because, it seems 
 to me to be practically contested by the ablest of the advo- 
 cates of the strict, literal construction. Prof. Park, "As- 
 sociate Creed of Andover Theological Seminary," p. 45, 
 says: — " It is said that a professor may take the Associate 
 Creed with abatements and reservations, because other creeds 
 are so taken, but we reply : — This Creed is not other creeds. 
 Examine its unique style." . . . 
 
 " Every distinct and complete statement begins in such a 
 way that the man who reads it, declares that he believes it ; 
 
221 
 
 thus, the very structure of the Creed, in its warp and woof, 
 binds the articles together and holds them so that not one 
 shall drop out. Every article is to be believed on its own 
 account, and because it is woven in with the others, — be- 
 lieved as standing by itself, and as supported by those around 
 it." 
 
 I do not know by whom " it is said that a professor may 
 take the Associate Creed with abatements and reservations, 
 because other creeds are so taken." We do not say that the 
 Creed may be taken " with reservations and al)atements," and 
 we are not aware that other creeds are so taken. We do say 
 that this Creed, like all creeds, from the Apostles down, may 
 be taken, and ought to be taken, subject to all the ordinary rules 
 and principles of construction and interpretation, and in this 
 I think we have the support of Prof. Park, notwithstanding 
 the language I have cited. For on page 78 of his pamphlet, 
 where he is attempting to supply what he felicitously calls 
 "a hiatus" in the Creed, "a mere vacuum," in reference to 
 the intermediate condition of the wicked immediately after 
 death, in regard to which the Creed says nothing in express 
 terms, he says, " The style of the Associate Creed resembles 
 that of many other creeds written by Congregational divines, 
 who have been distinguished for their strict Calvinism in re- 
 gard to the intermediate state. We are bound to interpret it 
 by the usage prevailing at the time when the Creed was com- 
 posed." He then states what " this usage indicates." If then 
 " the very structure of the Creed, in its warp and woof, binds 
 the articles together and holds them so that not one shall 
 drop out," it is still elastic enough to let in, by interpretation 
 and usage, what in the same pamphlet, page 78, is called " an 
 omission in the Andover Creed." 
 
 I think we have the support of this ablest of the literal 
 constructionists, farther, in the manly, earnest, and self re- 
 specting language in which he asserts his own fidelity to the 
 Creed, on pages 85, 6 and 7, — "I thought that I accepted 
 the Creed in all its details, as well as in substance. I now 
 think that I have taught all its doctrines in the sense in- 
 tended by its chief framers " (p. 86). 
 
99-? 
 
 And yet, if yon will read the pamphlets I hold in my hand, 
 by Dr. Dana, Dr. Lord of Dartmouth College, and a some- 
 what able lay writer, to say nothing of many others, yon will 
 find that they as sincerely believed the tlien Abbot Professor 
 guilty of " heterodoxy," as Dr. Wellman and his associates 
 now do the indicted Brown Professor. — Clearly, then, and 
 there, there were two constructions of the Creed. — And had 
 your predecessors sustained the narrow and literal construc- 
 tion, they would have taken from Andover, thirty years of 
 the grand life, labor, and influence of the most eloquent, 
 learned, and distinguished theologian of his generation. 
 
 This attempt to limit this compromise Creed, not by right 
 and appropriate rules of construction, but by their own special 
 dogmas and doctrines, somewhat aggressively asserted by emi- 
 nent and sincere men, has met the administration of the An- 
 dover Institution all along its course. Dr. Woods encountered 
 it in 1808. — Dr. Murdock in 1824, when he came to repeat his 
 subscription, and the Trustees, previously to his subscription, 
 requested him to answer this question : — "As the sermon on 
 the atonement which you have published is differently under- 
 stood by different persons, the Trustees ask you the following 
 question, viz. : " Are all the sentiments contained in your 
 sermon, in your view, in accordance with the Creed of this 
 Seminary and with all those sentiments which the Statutes 
 require its Professors to teach ? " 
 
 Dr. Murdock answered in the affirmative, and then repeated 
 the Creed. 
 
 Trustee's Record, September 22, 1824. 
 
 This action must, of necessity, have had on inspection of 
 this record, the supervision and approval of the Visitors. 
 
 Dr. Stuart encountered and conquered the attempt in his 
 day. Dr. Park met it with most significant triumph in his 
 day. To-day, his successor, with four of his associate Pro- 
 fessors, confronts it in a public prosecution for " heterdoxy." 
 Surely, the thing that has been, is the thing that shall be, and 
 there is nothing new under the sun. 
 
 It is said, practically, this Creed must be construed as sui 
 generis. " This Creed is not other creeds. It differs from 
 
223 
 
 all other creeds." I do not concede this. I believe, rather, 
 that " the style of the Associate Creed resembles that of 
 many other creeds," and that " we are bound to interpret it," 
 not only " b}^ the usage, prevailing at the time when the 
 Creed was composed," but by all the ordinary and usual rules 
 and principles of Statute and Credal construction. While I 
 am sure, if it differs from other creeds in the terms of its 
 subscription, it is wholly upon the liberal side. Let me read 
 the terms in which professors in Theological seminaries of 
 the Presbyterian Church, in this country, are required to 
 subscribe. 
 
 " In the presence of God and of the directors of this Semi- 
 nary, I do solemnly and ex animo adopt, receive, and subscribe 
 the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, as the Confes^ion 
 of my faith, or as a summary and just exhibition of that 
 system of doctrine and religious belief which is contained 
 in holy scripture, and therein revealed by God to man for 
 his salvation ; and I do solemnly ex animo profess to receive 
 the Form of Government of said Church as agreeable to the 
 inspired oracles. And I do solemnly promise and engage not 
 to inculcate, teach, or insinuate any thing which shall appear 
 to me to contradict or contravene, either directly or impliedly, 
 any thing taught in the said Confession of Faith or Cate- 
 chisms ; nor to oppose any of the fundamental principles of 
 Presbyterian Church Government while I shall continue a 
 professor in this seminary." 
 
 To this declaration, confession, and promise, old school, 
 and new school, together, now constituting the Presby- 
 terian Church of the United States, alike ex animo subscribe. 
 Would the prosecutors and defenders of the heresy charged 
 upon Lyman Beecher, or Albert Barnes, construe and inter- 
 pret all parts of this " system of doctrine and religious 
 belief " in the same sense ? And is the Andover Creed 
 more narrow, or more liberal ; more explicit, or more general, 
 than this ? Can a subscriber, solemnly and ex animo, to this 
 Presbyterian system of doctrine, subscribe to the Andover 
 Creed without " heterodoxy " ? 
 
224 
 
 This is not only a question of construction, but of some 
 practical significance ; because Art. 2, Stat., requires every 
 professor to be " an ordained Minister of the Congregational 
 or Presbyterian denomination." And further, because if 
 under strict and iron construction the time shall arrive, 
 when no professor and no visitor will consent to subscribe 
 the Creed as it stands at present, so that " it will soon be, 
 if it is not now, antiquated and obsolete," Prof. Park gives 
 us the quieting assurance that, " the Seminary is free to 
 invite its professors and visitors from the Presbyterian 
 Church north, south, east, or west ; -and when the whole 
 Presbyterian Church in America has departed from the 
 Confession, the Seminary can import its professors from 
 Scotland." 
 
 The Associate Creed, etc., p. 97. 
 
 And so notwithstanding the long and painful discussions 
 and labors of the Founder's counsellors, the Creed is elastic 
 enough to take within its comprehension, professors, who 
 "solemnly and ex awmo, adopt, receive, and subscribe the 
 Confession of Faith, and Catechism of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America as the confession 
 of their faith," and " the Form of Government of said 
 Church as agreeable to the inspired oracles." In view of 
 the history of the Statutes and Creed, this construction is 
 broadly liberal, and it is not surprising that the learned Pro- 
 fessor should guard it from all application on the liberal side 
 of Orthodoxy, with this sentence. " The Seminary is liberal 
 towards all men of the two denominations, who adopt the 
 substance of the Shorter Catechism as that substaiice is ex- 
 pressed in the Creed, and is exclusive toward all men, who 
 do not adopt the substance of the Catechism, as that sub- 
 stance is expressed in the Creed." 
 
 The Associate Creed, p. 97. 
 
 As this respondent adopts whatever " substance is ex- 
 pressed in the Creed," he is clearly entitled, in like manner 
 
225 
 
 with American and Scotch Presbyterians, to the consequent 
 liberality of the Seminary. 
 
 If, then, these Statutes and this Creed are subject to the 
 ordinary rules and principles of construction and interpre- 
 tation, what are these rales and principles? They are not 
 only everywhere fixed and settled, but they have been so 
 conclusively determined, and asserted in their application 
 to these precise Statutes and this Creed, that they are no 
 longer open to doubt. , 
 
 The first of the Statutes, those of Phillips and others, 
 were made and accepted in August and September, 1807 ; 
 the associate Statutes in March, 1808 ; and the additional 
 Statutes of the originnl Founders, by which they came into 
 experimental coalition with the associate Founders, in May, 
 1808. By all the Statutes, the Justices of the Supreme 
 Judicial Court are made the Supreme Appellate Board of 
 Visitors. 
 
 Judge Jackson, then at the bar, is said traditionally, to 
 have examined and revised these Statutes. 
 
 And Prof. Park says, " Associate Creed, etc., p. 48, 9, 
 " The provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court was 
 made after a lengthened consultation with such eminent 
 lawyers as Gov. Caleb Strong of Northampton, and Hon. 
 George Bliss of Springfield." 
 
 By these Statutes it is provided that if after an experiment 
 of " seven years coalition, upon visitatorial principles, it shall 
 appear to the Board of Visitors that the visitatorial system is 
 either unsafe or inexpedient," it may be dissolved as specially 
 provided therein. 
 
 Art. 28, Associate Statutes. 
 
 By Art. 27, the Founders reserved the right within seven 
 years " to make such amendments or additional articles," 
 etc., " as upon experience and due consideration shall be 
 deemed necessary, the more effectually to secure and promote 
 the real design of this our Foundation." 
 
 At this time the associate Founders, with Mr. Abbot, Dr. 
 Timothy Dwight, Hon. George Bliss, and Dr. Samuel 
 
226 
 
 Spring were the visitors ; and they so continued, with the 
 exception of Mr. Abbot, and Mr. Norris who died, to the 
 end of the seven years' experiment. 
 
 Associate Stat. Art. 12, Ad. Stat. Art. 2. 
 
 In 1811, Mrs. Norris, widow of Joh;i Norris, one of the 
 associate Founders, died, and left a legacy of 130,000 to the 
 associate Foundation, to which her husband had made his 
 donation. 
 
 This legacy the heirs, or Executor of Mrs. Norris, keen 
 as any theological doctor on the scent for heresy, refused to 
 pay, upon the ground that the Statutes and Creed of the as- 
 sociate Founders were so " heterodox " to, and inconsistent tvith, 
 those of the original founders of Phillips Academy, that the 
 Trustees could not take the legacy. 
 
 It is not a little significant, that the first charge of heresy, 
 or " heterodoxy," against any body connected with the 
 Seminary, barring the objection of- Dr. Dana to the appoint- 
 ment of Dr. Woods, was against the associate Founders them- 
 selves. It was practically charged upon them, and argued 
 by the most eminent counsel in the Commonwealth, that 
 they had established within the iron-guarded, Calvinistic 
 precincts of Phillips Academy, an institution with statutes 
 and creed utterly " heterodox " to the creed of the Phil- 
 lipses. 
 
 The then Trustees of the Academy invoked the decision of 
 the Supreme Court, and brought suit for the legacy. This 
 suit was heard by the Court in November, 1814 ; and brought 
 distinctly before the Court the Statutes of the Founders of 
 the Academy, and the Statutes and Creed of the Associate 
 Founders for construction and interpretation. The case was 
 instituted and conducted under the supervision of the Treas- 
 urer, Mr. Samuel Farrar, who had been the legal draughts- 
 man of the associate Statutes, and under that of the Trustees, 
 among whom were three of the Phillips faiiiily, and Drs. 
 Pearson, Dana, Morse, and Holmes. The case was argued 
 for tlie Executor by Mr. Dexter, and Mr. Merrill, and for the 
 
227 
 
 Trustees by Mr. Prescott and Nathan Dane. As I under- 
 stand, neither of the eminent counsel of the Trustees sym- 
 pathized in the religious views of the Trustees, — they must 
 have presented the case, in argument, as specially instructed 
 by them, and to their entire satisfaction — I infer, as I see by 
 the records, they paid them some $2500 for the service. The 
 Court reserved their decision four months, until March, 1815, 
 when they gave it, as reported in Trustees Phillips Academy 
 vs. King, Executor. 
 
 12 Massachusetts Report, 546. 
 
 To this decision I now ask attention. The earlier part of 
 it js concerned with a question of technical law, whether a 
 corporation is capable of taking aud holding property as 
 trustee (p. 553). 
 
 The other question discussed is the construction and inter- 
 pretation of the Statutes. To this I call your attention in 
 detail. 
 
 " Another objection is urged upon us, — 'That the legacy 
 is void ; because the trustees of Phillips Academy, by the 
 act of June, 1807, were made capable only to hold property 
 for the support of a theological institution, agreeably to the 
 will of the donors, if consistent with the original design of 
 the founders of the academy. And the original design of the 
 founders of the said academy was to propagate Calvinism, as 
 containing the important principles and distinguishing tenets 
 of our holy Christian religion, as summarily expressed in the 
 Westminster Assembly's shorter catechism : whereas the de- 
 sign of the donors of the associate foundation is to add to 
 Calvinism the distinguishing principles of Hopkinsianism, 
 an union or mixture inconsistent with the original design of 
 the original founders of the academy and of the theological 
 institution." 
 
 " This objection appears to me to be founded on a mistaken 
 view of the original design of the founders of this academy ; 
 which, as far as it can be collected from the case agreed, ap- 
 pears to have been to teach youth the great end and real 
 
228 
 
 business of living ; to convince them that goodness and 
 knowledge must be united to form the most perfect charac- 
 ter in human life ; that vice, in the most comprehensive sense, 
 ought to be hated and avoided ; and that virtue, in an equally 
 extensive sense, ought to be loved and praised : to cultivate, 
 establish and perpetuate in the Christian church the true and 
 fundamental principles of the Christian religion, as far as that 
 institution might have influence, by an early inculcation of 
 those principles on the minds of the pupils. And after 
 detailing a number of particulars, as means to accomplish the 
 end and design of the institution, it is declared that the first 
 and principal object of the institution is t]je promotion of 
 true piety and virtue ; the second the instruction of the 
 English, Greek and Latin languages, together with writing, 
 arithmetic, music, and the art of speaking; the third, practi- 
 cal geometry, logic and geography ; and the fourth, such 
 other of the liberal arts, sciences and languages, as oppor- 
 tunity might thereafter admit, and as the trustees should 
 direct. The name of Calvin or Calvinism, as the end and 
 object of the institution, is not mentioned. The objec- 
 tion therefore avails nothing against the legacy in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 "The objection seems to have confounded the benefactors 
 to the academy, on whose bounty the theological institution 
 or seminary is established, with the original founders of the 
 academy. For although it is true that Mr. John Philli2:)s was 
 one of the founders of the academy, we must, in this instance, 
 distinguish between him as a founder and as an after donbr 
 or benefactor. In his will he directs tlie donation therein 
 given to the trustees of this academy, to be appropriated to 
 the support of such charity scholars as miglit be designed for 
 the Gospel ministry, and having received the first part of 
 their education at the academy, and before a theological pro- 
 fessor should be instituted in this or in the Exeter academy, 
 as was expected in some future time, they might be assisted 
 in their theological studies under the direction of some emi- 
 nent Calvinistic minister of the gospel ; until such time as an 
 able, pious, orthodox instructor should be supported in one 
 
229 
 
 or other of those academies, as a professor of divinit}-, by 
 whom they might be tauglit the important principles and 
 distinguishing tenets of our holy Christian religion. 
 
 "It deserves notice, and is evidential of the good sense and 
 vital Christianity of tliis holy man, that although this instruc- 
 tion was to be from some eminent Calvinistic minister, until 
 an ortliodox instructor (that is, one who should teach, ex- 
 plain and inculcate the important principles and distinguish- 
 ing tenets of the religion of Jesus, as it had been delivered 
 to the saints) should be instituted ; yet he is to teach noth- 
 ing but our holy Christian religion. He is not to teach 
 Calvinism. 
 
 " If it be objected, that Calvinism and Christianity are iden- 
 tically the same, then it seems to me that the principle of the 
 objection would be to give the preference to Calvin over 
 Jesus as a religious instructor, and to rob the latter of 
 some honor and glory, which I have ever considered as be- 
 longing to him over all his followers and other teachers." 
 
 " The deed from Mrs. Phoebe Phillips and others to the 
 trustees of Phillips Academy, containing the constitution of 
 the theological seminar^', alludes to the Westminster Assem- 
 bly's shorter catechism : but I can find nothing of Calvinism 
 as the object of their intended foundation ; except once, where 
 they quote a passage from the will of Mr. John Phillips. 
 And although the preamble to the statute of June 1807, 
 enlarging the capacity of the trustees of Phillips Academy, 
 has the words " in furtherance of the designs of the pious 
 founders and benefactors of said academy," it is very clear 
 that the legislature did not intend to comprehend the after 
 benefactors of the academy witJi the original founders ; be- 
 cause when the law directs how the increased revenue should 
 be disposed of, it provides that it shall always be applied 
 " to said objects " [that is, for the purpose of promoting the 
 theological institution] " agreeably to the will of the donors, 
 if " [that will or those objects be] " consistent with the origi- 
 nal design of the founders of the said academy." 
 
 " It was but reasonable for the legislature, when increas- 
 ing the capacity of the trustees, and enabling them to extend 
 
230 
 
 the objects of education, to take care that this should be 
 done in a manner not inconsistent with the design of the 
 orimnal founders, who were dead. But there was not the 
 same, or indeed any reason at all, for the legislature to inter- 
 fere in what then was, or what might afterwards become a 
 matter of dispute between two sets of donors or benefactors ; 
 the bounty of neither of whom had been accepted by the 
 trustees, and who were capable of adjusting and appropriat- 
 ing their own bounties. 
 
 " I should not have thought it necessary to take any fur- 
 ther notice of this objection, were it not that the counsel for 
 the defendant brought forward in the argument, and urged 
 upon the consideration of the court with great force, several 
 specific propositions or articles of two opposing creeds, or 
 which the counsel contended were directly contrary to each 
 other ; insisting that the intent of the founders was to main- 
 tain Calvinism, or the theology of Calvin ; and if there were 
 but one single article or proposition, in the creed of the 
 associate founders, contrary to Calvinism, the trustees of 
 the academy would have no right to take and appropriate 
 the legacy in question ; and should the creed imposed by the 
 associate founders omit a single article contained in the creed 
 of Calvin, or as Calvinism was understood at the time of the 
 foundation of the academy, it would be such a departure 
 from' the intent, design and plan of the original founders, 
 that it must intercept the intended legacy, and prevent any 
 right from vesting in the plaintiffs. It was then stated to be 
 an essential article in the creed of Calvin, and what all Cal- 
 vinists must necessarily believe, to make them Christians 
 according to the Calvinistie theology, ' that the original sin 
 of Adam is imputed to all his posterity, in some way or man- 
 ner, that they are all and every one actual sinners ; ' whereas 
 the associate foundation did not admit this article in the 
 creed taught in their branch of the theological school, but 
 substituted the following article in lieu thereof, and made it 
 a necessary part of the religious creed of the professors, and 
 to be by them taught to the students in the institution ; viz., 
 ' Adam, the federal head and representative of the humau 
 
231 
 
 race, was placed in a state of probation, and in consequence 
 of his disobedience all his descendants were constituted sin- 
 ners,' — which latter article, it was urged, is not only an arti- 
 cle of a system of religion called Hopkinsianism, but it is 
 so inconsistent with, and contrary to the system of Calvin- 
 ism in general, and particularly to the foregoing article of 
 the creed of Calvin, or of a Calvinistic Christian, as taught 
 in the assembly's shorter catechism, as could not be taught 
 in consistency and harmony with the design, views and in- 
 tentions of the original founders of the academy : and thus 
 the legacy being given to promote Hopkinsianism in opposi- 
 tion to Calvinism, as explained in the said catechism, is void, 
 and ought not or rather cannot be recovered by the plain- 
 tiffs, who, as trustees of the academy, cannot take any dona- 
 tion or bequest contrary to the intent of the founders. 
 
 " To this objection, thus drawn out and explained nearly 
 in the words of the eloquent argument, it is enough to reply, 
 There is a clear, intelligible meaning, consistent with the 
 whole course of the providential government of God over 
 the natural and moral world by general laws, so far as the 
 subject has been investigated, which may be applied to the 
 two articles attempted to be contrasted, with no greater lati- 
 tude in the use of language, than is frequently applied by 
 orthodox divines to words and phrases in the Bible, not 
 always to be taken literally : in which sense these proposi- 
 tions or articles will mean the same thing. And in such 
 sense they are consistent with the revelations contained in 
 the Bible ; which revelations make up the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the religion of Jesus. Hence there is no necessity 
 of conjecturing a variety of meanings, which the words may 
 possibly be susceptible of, in minds more habituated to dwell 
 on the theories of certain divines, than ' on the religion of 
 Jesus, as delivered by himself and those who are authorized 
 by God the Father to preach it. And I hesitate not to say, 
 that in all cases like this, we ought to be satisfied, whenever 
 we can reconcile the language of honest Christians by yield- 
 ing to them that charity of construction, which it is allowed 
 b}^ all that we should apply to the Holy Scriptures. 
 
232 
 
 " For myself I confess that I do not clearly perceive any 
 other sense, than that in which tlie two articles mean sub- 
 stantially the same thing, notwithstanding some diversity of 
 expression, in which they can be said to be true, and con- 
 sistent with the Christian religion. And, knowing as we all 
 do, the founders, as well as the after-benefactors who have 
 set up the associate foundation, to be persons of great piety 
 and most sincere believers in the religion of Jesus; and that 
 the first and principal object with all of them has been to 
 establish, teach and enforce the belief and practice of that 
 religion on the students of the institution, and through them 
 on the whole world of mankind; — why should we now be 
 called upon to apply a7i astute^ narrow and uncliaritahle con- 
 struction upon a few technical propositions, merely to divert 
 the legacy of a pious woman from an object nearer to her 
 than life itself? — And let me add, in this case, the ol)ject is 
 great and noble, beyond almost any thing in our countr3^ 
 
 " The same course of reasoning and observations would 
 apply to the objection, as it was attempted to be applied to 
 a supposed contradiction between some other tenets of the 
 two supposed opposing systems of theology. But it cannot 
 be necessary to protract this opinion more in detail, on this 
 general objection." 
 
 It may be urged, and granted, that all that is here said is 
 not necessary to the decision ; and hence is obiter dicta. It 
 may be said, the Justices of the court were Unitarian, and 
 hence coming under one of the anathemas of the Creed, were 
 incapable of making, or indisposed to make, the clear dis- 
 tinctions, or unable to appreciate the precise formulated doc- 
 trines of the great Masters of orthodox theology. — All this 
 may, or may not be true, without touching, in the slightest, 
 the force of my inferences and argument. 
 
 This court was the body, which the associate Founders had 
 made, after mature deliberation, their appellate and supreme 
 visitors. It was the tribunal before which they, and not their 
 opponents, brought their case. 
 
 There can be no doubt but that the court, in this case, be 
 it in decision or dicta, did discuss and determine the con- 
 
233 
 
 struction of these Statutes, and state distinctly the principles 
 of interpretation to be applied to them. 
 
 When this decision was made in March, 1815, Bartlet and 
 Brown of the associate Founders were living, and with Mr. 
 Bliss, Dr. Dwight, and Dr. Spring, constituted the Board of 
 Visitors. His Honor, William Phillips, Hon. John Phillips, 
 Andover, Hon. John Phillips, Boston, Samuel Farrar, Drs. 
 Morse, Pearson, Dana, and Holmes, were Trustees. 
 
 The experimental seven years' " coalition " of the Statutes 
 expired in May, 1815, after this decision. This brought the 
 whole matter of Statutes and Creed entirely within the con- 
 trol of Visitors and Trustees. 
 
 Associate Statutes, Art. 28, Stat, and Deeds, p. 99. 
 
 "■ If after an experiment of seven years' coalition, upon 
 visitatorial principles, it shall appear to the Board of Vis- 
 itors, that the visitatorial system is either unsafe or inexpe- 
 dient, the coalition may, nevertheless, be continued upon 
 such other principlesior system as may be then agreed upon 
 by the Trustees and Visitors aforesaid, in consistency with 
 the original design of this our Foundation," or the fund 
 might be withdrawn, etc. " But if at the expiration of the 
 seven years' experiment, or within the said term of seven 
 years, the Board of Visitors and the Trustees aforesaid be 
 well satisfied with the safety and expediency of the visita- 
 torial system, and that a perpetual coalition is important, and 
 desirable, union shall be established upon visitatorial princi- 
 ples, to continue, as the sun and moon, forever." 
 
 How opportune came this decision, at the moment this 
 large responsibility devolved upon Visitors and Trustees, to 
 help them meet it ! How still more opportune, that it 
 came in the lifetime of the Founders, — and while Dr. Dana 
 was upon the Board of Trustees " to sound the alarm," and 
 other eminent doctor's, as well as several distinguished mem- 
 bers of the Phillips family were there to take up its warning 
 sound ! 
 
 What did those Visitors and Trustees? Professor Park 
 
234 
 
 says (The Associate Creed, etc., p. 81), " In the years 
 1815-16, the whole constitution of the Seminary was re- 
 considered by the two boards of visitors and trustees, and 
 no cliange was made in it ; there was no mitigation of its 
 strictness." 
 
 No, " there was no mitigation of its strictness," because 
 the Supreme Court had just considered it, and significantly 
 asked why the}^ " should be called upon to apply an astute, 
 narrow, and uncharitable construction upon a few technical 
 propositions ; " and had declared " there is no necessity of con- 
 jecturing a variety of meanings which the words may possibly 
 be susceptible of, in minds more habituated to dwell on the 
 theories of certain divines than on the religion of Jesus, as 
 delivered by himself and those who were authorized by God 
 the Father to preach it. And I hesitate not to say, that in 
 all cases like this, we ought to be satisfied whenever we can 
 reconcile the language of honest Christians, by yielding to 
 them that charity of construction, which it is allowed by all, 
 that we should apply to the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 Visitors and Trustees had no reason to mitigate the strict- 
 ness of Statutes, so construed and interpreted, and under 
 which construction they had just claimed and taken a large 
 legac}'. — But what is more significant, they neither criticised, 
 questioned, nor repudiated this construction : — more, they 
 accepted and affirmed this construction. The whole con- 
 stitution of the Seminary was reconsidered just after this 
 decision, and certainly, in its light. — To this Seminary it was 
 not only a decision in an important litigation, but the delib- 
 erate opinion of its ultimate visitors. 
 
 What was the result of this reconsideration by Visitors 
 and Trustees, made just eighteen months after the decision 
 of the Supreme Court ? 
 
 Let me read it as it stands recorded, on pages 148 and 149 
 of the Trustees' Record for September, 1816. 
 
 Record, Deeds, and Donations, p. 136. 
 
235 
 
 " The following communication was received from the 
 Visitors, viz. : — 
 
 " At a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the Theological 
 Seminarj^ in Andover, Sept. 25, 1816 — whereas by the 
 twenty-eighth Article of the Statutes of the Associate Found- 
 ers of said Institution it is provided, that if, after an experi- 
 ment of seven years the Board of Visitors and the Trustees 
 of Phillips Academy are well satisfied with the safety and 
 expediency of the Visitatorial system, and that a perpetual 
 coalition is important and desirable ; — union shall be estab- 
 lished upon Visitatorial principles, to continue forever: — 
 Voted, that the Board of Visitors are well satisfied with said 
 system, and that a perpetual coalition upon said principles 
 is, in their opinion, important and desirable, and that the 
 concurrence of the Board of Trustees of Phillips Academy 
 
 herein be requested. 
 
 Samuel Spring, Secretary. 
 
 " Whereupon, Voted, that this Board are well satisfied with 
 the safety and expediency of said system, and that a perpet- 
 ual union is important and desirable, and they do concur 
 with the request of the Board of Visitors, and declare that 
 the perpetual union contemplated by the Statutes is estab- 
 lished." 
 
 But this affirmation of the living associate Founders by no 
 means stopped with their acts as visitors. In January and 
 February, 1817, with this decision of tlie Court, and this 
 action of the Visitors and Trustees open before, and partici- 
 pated in by, him, Mr. Bartlet provides the Seminary with a 
 chapel, and on the 8th of May, and the 15th of Septem- 
 ber, 1818, conveyed it, with other lands, completed and fur- 
 nished, to the Trustees, subject to these associate Statutes, 
 just then construed by the court, and made permanent, with- 
 out change, by himself and his associate Visitors. 
 
 Deeds and Donations, pp. 137, 139, 143. 
 
236 
 
 February 8, 1819, only four years after the Court's decision, 
 and three after that of himself and associate Visitors, practi- 
 cally confirming it, Moses Brown, the other surviving F'ound- 
 er, founded, with a donation of twenty-five thousand dollars, 
 the professorship, which Professor Smyth now holds, and 
 placed it under these same associate Statutes, just then so 
 recently construed by the Court, and thereafter by himself 
 and associate visitors made perpetual. 
 
 In March, 1820, Mr. Bartlet asked leave of the Trustees 
 to put up another College for the use of the Seminary, and 
 in September, 1821, tendered it complete to them, " to be for- 
 ever used for the sole purpose of promoting the interests of 
 said Seminar}^, according to the Constitution and Statutes 
 of the same." 
 
 Deeds and Donations, p. 161. 
 
 In 1821 the Trustees and Visitors, by a unanimous vote, 
 applied for and obtained an act of the Legislature, by which 
 Moses Brown, William Bartlet, George Bliss, Calvin Chapin, 
 and Jeremiah Day, the then Visitors, were made a corpora- 
 tion, by the name of the Visitors of the Theological Institu- 
 tion in Phillips Academy, in Andover. By the third section 
 of this act, an appeal from the Visitors was given to any per- 
 son aggrieved by any act of theirs " contrary to the Statutes 
 of the Founders of said Institution," or in excess of their 
 jurisdiction; to the Supreme Judicial Court, and they were 
 further "authorized to declare null and void any decree or 
 sentence of the Visitors, which they may consider contrary 
 to the Statutes of the Founders, and beyond the just limits 
 of the powers prescribed to them thereby," while nothing in 
 the act contained was to be construed to limit or restrain the 
 Court from exercising all such jurisdiction over the Visitors 
 as " they might exercise had not this special provision been 
 made." 
 
 Act Jan. 17, 1821, Deeds and Donations, p. 165. 
 
 They thus made these Statutes a Statute of the Common- 
 wealth. 
 
237 
 
 Can there be any doubt, after these, their acts and doings, 
 and omissions to do, of the broad, tolerant, progressive and 
 effective spirit, in which the Founders expected and intended 
 these, their Statutes should be construed and accepted ? 
 To-day, seventy years after its utterance in the ears of the 
 Founders, we simply ask you to adopt the language of the 
 Supreme Court. " Knowing, as we all do, the Founders, as 
 well as the after-benefactors, who have set up the associate 
 foundation, to be persons of great piety, and most sincere 
 believers in the religion of Jesus ; and that the first and princi- 
 pal object^ with all of them, has been to teach and enforce the 
 belief and practice of that religion on the students of the in- 
 stitution, and through them on the whole world of mankind, 
 why should we be now called upon to apply an astute^ narrow^ 
 and uncharitahle construction upon a few technical proposi- 
 tions?" 
 
 We simply ask you, with them, to say we " hesitate not to 
 say that, in all cases like this, we ought to be satisfied, when- 
 ever we can reconcile the language of honest Christians by 
 yielding to them that charity of construction, which it is 
 allowed by all that we should apply to the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 12 Mass. Rep. 563-4. 
 
 Upon the construction made by the highest Court of the 
 Commonwealth, and the designated appellate and ultimate 
 Visitors of the Institution, in the lifetime of the Founders, 
 and accepted, confirmed, and ratified, as thus shown by them, 
 we take our stand. 
 
 But we go farther, and assert that this same construction 
 was not only accepted, by the original Founders, Trustees, 
 and Visitors, but that it has been adhered to by all Trustees 
 and Visitors, from the impeachment of Dr. Woods, the first, 
 to that of Dr. Harris, the last Abbot Professor. 
 
 There was one conscientious and able Trustee, heresy 
 haunted and aggressive, who stood by the Seminary at its birth, 
 and opposed the appointment of Dr. Woods, as first Abbot 
 Professor, by the Founder himself, for that he suspected or 
 
238 
 
 feared in him " heterodoxy " to Calvinism or the Creed, one 
 or both. — That he had some ground for this suspicion seems 
 to he conceded by Dr. Woods, in his Later and more conser- 
 vative years, — when he had come into harmony, if not coali- 
 tion, with his former accuser. Dr. Woods, after citing some 
 passages from his " Letters to Unitarians," says (p. 180 Hist. 
 Andover Seminary), — 
 
 "Now I must acknowledge that the passages, above quoted 
 from my ' Letters,' are manifestly inconsistent with my pro- 
 fessed belief and my promise as a Professor. And on reflec- 
 tion I cannot but think it strange, that the Trustees did not 
 exercise the same watchful fidelity in this case, as they did 
 afterwards in the cases above referred to ; and that neither 
 they nor the Visitors ever admonished me for doing what 
 was plainly at variance with the Constitution of tlie Semi- 
 nary." 
 
 Upon these suspicions or charges, as is apparent, both 
 Trustees and Visitors declined even so much as to make 
 inquiry. 
 
 The next in the category was Dr. Stuart, of whom Dr. 
 Woods says (Hist. p. 152-3), — 
 
 "After the lapse of about twenty years, it appeared that 
 on some points of speculative divinity, particularly in anthro- 
 pology, there was not an entire agreement between his opin- 
 ions and those entertained by Dr. Porter and myself. But 
 it was otherwise in regard to the great principles of experi- 
 mental and practical godliness." 
 
 " The labors of Professor Stuart in his department contrib- 
 uted in a pre-eminent degree to the reputation and usefulness 
 of the Seminary, and had a powerful influence in promoting 
 in our country the study of the Scriptures in their original 
 languages, and in settling the principles of exegesis. In the 
 important improvements which have been made in this 
 branch of sacred learning, during the last forty years, Pro- 
 fessor Stuart had a leading agency. 
 
 " In regard to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, Pro- 
 fessor Stuart, for a time, dissented somewhat from the com- 
 mon doctrine ; and he freely expressed his opinions on this 
 
239 
 
 subject in the lecture room, and hinted at them in some of 
 his publications." » 
 
 Next came Dr. Murdock's case in 1824. Page 178. 
 " A case occurred nearly twenty years since, in which the 
 Trustees, in the discharge of the duty devolved upon them by 
 the Founders, appointed a Committee to inquire into the 
 opinions contained in a publication of one of the Professors. 
 The Committee examined the publication, and, in a written 
 communication to the Professor, pointed out various passages 
 which seemed to them inconsistent with the Confession of 
 Faith to which he had given his assent. This they did, not 
 to bring against him the charge of heresjs but to ask of him a 
 satisfactory explanation of what he had published, and to 
 impress upon him the importance of guarding against any 
 deviation, real or apparent, from the doctrinal standard ap- 
 pointed bv the Founders." 
 
 Most significant was the result in this case, as I have stated. 
 Dr. Murdock was required to answer this question with its 
 preamble, " As the sermon on the Atonement which you 
 have published is differeritlg understood by different persons, 
 the Trustees would ask you the following questions ; viz. : 
 Are all the sentiments contained in your sermon, in your view^ 
 in accordance with the Creed of this Seminary, and with all 
 those sentiments which the Statutes require its profes^ors to 
 teach?" Dr. Murdock answered in the affirmative and then 
 repeated the Creed. And so ended this impeachment of 
 "heterdoxy," — and it so ended under a Board of Trustees, 
 of which Dr. Pearson, Dr. Morse, Dr. Dana, Dr. Holmes, Dr. 
 Justin Edwards, His Honor William Phillips, Samuel Farrar, 
 and Judge Samuel Hubbard were members. 
 
 In all the long and bitter controversy with Dr. Murdock, 
 two years later, with his well-known views, no charge of 
 " heterodoxy " or disregard of the doctrines of Creed or 
 Statutes was made, and Dr. Murdock was removed on wholly 
 different grounds. 
 
 Next came the conspicuous case of Prof. Park. — In his 
 case, as in this, a dissenting Trustee, supported by a college 
 President, brought, filed, urged, and at last published, in de- 
 
240 
 
 tailed specifications, charges against tlie Professor of Cliristian 
 Theolog3^ 
 
 Pages 8 and 9, Dr. Dana's Remonstrance, assert, — 
 
 " Tlie present Professor of Christian Tlieology has, agree- 
 ably to the Constitution, solemnly declared and subscribed 
 his assent to the doctrines of the Westminster Assembly's 
 Shorter Catechism, and solemnly engaged to teach them, to 
 the exclusion of all opposing doctrines and errors. That 
 Catechism recognizes the doctrine of original sin. Is it 
 consistent in the Professor to hold and teach that our nature 
 is not sinful, and that original sin is not sin ? What though 
 it be admitted, in the case of infants, that they need atone- 
 ment and regeneration, in order to enter heaven ? Are not 
 atonement and regeneration, where there is no sin, obviously 
 supernumerary and absurd? 
 
 "The Catechism recognizes a Regeneration, involving 
 a real renovation by the Holy Spirit, and a restoration of 
 the divine image. Is it consistent to hold and teach that 
 Regeneration consists in a change in the balance of the 
 susceptibilities; or in a change from sinful action to holy 
 action ; or even in a change from a nature [not sinful] in- 
 clining to sinful acts, to a nature [not holy] inclining to 
 holy acts? 
 
 " The Catechism brings distinctly to view a Covenant made 
 by God with Adam, the father of the race ; a covenant in- 
 cluding all his posterity. This doctrine has ever been viewed 
 by the greatest divines, as a kind of corner-stone in theology ; 
 absolutely essential to explain many things in the gospel sys- 
 tem, which otherwise would remain forever dark and inex- 
 plicable. It is therefore perfectly natural that the avowed 
 enemies of religion should assail it, as they have actually done, 
 with inveterate hostility, and with blasphemous ridicule. But 
 can it be consistent, in a Professor who has taken the Cate- 
 chism as his Creed, to explode the doctrine, by teaching that 
 there is no evidence of any covenant of works between God 
 and Adam, as the father of the race ; or with Adam, includ- 
 ing his posterity ? 
 
 " The Catechism declares an Atonement, such as involves 
 
241 
 
 3b- full satisfaction made by the Redeemer to the offended law 
 and justice of God. It speaks of Christ as " undergoing the 
 wrath of God " (meaning, the manifestations of his wrath), 
 *' and the cursed death of the cross." With what consistency 
 can a Professor, who has declared his adhesion to the Cate- 
 chism, maintain that it cannot be said that Christ's passive 
 obedience frees us from punishment ; and that in the case 
 of the penitent, the demands of the law are evaded, or 
 waived ? 
 
 " In fine ; the Catechism declares most explicitly, that we 
 are justified by the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, 
 and received by faith. Where, then, is the consistency of 
 maintaining that Christ needed obedience for himself, and 
 could not perform a work of supererogation for others ; that 
 if Ciirist obeyed the law for us, we need not obey it for our- 
 selves, for that the law does not require two obediences ; 
 neither in this case, is there any grace in our pardon ; that 
 Christ's obedience being imputed to us, involves a double 
 absurdity." 
 
 " These are only specimens of the doctrines now taught in 
 the Seminary. But they are specimens which comprehend 
 the whole range both of doctrinal theology, and experimental 
 religion. The doctrines are at irreconcilable war with the 
 genuine doctrines of the gospel." 
 
 On page 10, he says : — 
 
 " I remark here, that there are many mistaken views of the 
 Professor, which have come to my knowledge, which I have 
 not specified. Such are the following : that there was a 
 period when Christ began to be the Son of God — that if he 
 was a man, and if he was a holy man, he must have had ability 
 to sin — that temporal death makes no part of the penalt}^ of 
 the law, nor is it, properly speaking, the punishment of sin — 
 that it is in the power of human beings to hinder the execu- 
 tion of some parts of the divine decrees. Assertions such as 
 these, I must declare — begging the Professor's pardon — are 
 very reckless, and very dangerous." 
 
 These charges were supported by Dr. Lord, and by an 
 anonymous laj^man, and answered by the late Dr. George 
 
242 
 
 Allen in a pamphlet entitled " The Andover Fuss, or Dr. 
 Woods vs. Dr. Dana on the Imputation of Heresy against 
 Prof. Park respecting the doctrine of Original Sin." 
 
 The Visitors, after examination of Prof. Park, utterly 
 overruled Dr. Dana's protest against his appointment, and 
 confirmed him ; and the Trustees and Visitors entirely over- 
 ruled or disregarded all Dr. Dana's subsequent charges. 
 
 Dr. Dana tells us that for forty-five years he had been a 
 Trustee, — "With the venerable Founders of the Seminary 
 I was intimately acquainted ; I knew their favorite objects 
 and designs; I have carefully pondered their Constitution 
 and Statutes, and I have watched with deep solicitude, the 
 course of things in the Institution from its past inception to 
 the present time." 
 
 Remonstrance, p. 5. 
 
 And he closes his Remonstrance thus : " But I have done. 
 Should what I have written be successful, under the blessing 
 of God, to promote true and pure religion; to send a salutary 
 alarm to the churches; to check the j)rogress of fatal error ; 
 to induce Christians to grasp with new ardor the holy and 
 saving doctrines of the Bible, and to contend earyiestly for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints, my object will have been 
 attained, and I shall regard myself as the most favored of 
 men." 
 
 And yet so variant was the action of the Trustees, under 
 the liberal construction of the Court, from his ironclad no- 
 tions, that he says he has been " painfully constrained to say 
 their course, for some years, has been to him most mysteri- 
 ous, and inexplicable." 
 
 Remonstrance, p. 4. 
 
 And elsewhe -e he says, " My Brethren will permit me to 
 say, that would we guard the Seminary from its dangers, and 
 disencumber it of its evils, we must adopt a new system re- 
 specting creeds." — And the ^'■new systein'" was required, 
 because the Trustees refused to take cognizance of what he 
 
243 
 
 declares to be "deviations" "certainly essential," "for they 
 are not only erroneous explanations of doctrines previously 
 assented to, but contradictions and denials. Witness the 
 cardinal doctrines of original sin, of justification, and of the 
 Covenant with Adam^ 
 
 Remonstrance, p. 13. 
 
 It was a " new system respecting creeds " that Dr. Dana 
 asked in his day, and it is a new system respecting Creeds, 
 bis successors ask to-day. They befriend new departures in 
 law, if not in Theology. 
 
 Prof. Park, The Associate Creed, p. 86, after stating, 
 among other things, that except Dr. Dana, not one of the 
 Trustees or Visitors " ever intimated to me that he doubted 
 my strict allegiance to the creed " says " I thought that I 
 accepted the Creed in all its details, as well as in its substance. 
 I now think that I have taught all its doctrines in the sense 
 intended by its chief framers." 
 
 Nobody will doubt the sincerity and truth of these declara- 
 tions. And I cite them in connection with Dr. Dana and Dr. 
 Lord, only as confirmatory of how much, under just and 
 proper construction, the Statutes and Creed take in and CDm- 
 prehend. 
 
 We come now to the last adjudication of Trustees and 
 Visitors, under the Statutes and this Creed. And this 
 touches again the Abbot Professorship. 
 
 On July 2, 1882, the Trustees elected Rev. Dr. Newman 
 Smyth Abbot Professor of Christian Theology, to succeed 
 Dr. Park. I suppose of all the " heterodoxies," and incon- 
 sistent holdings and beliefs, charged upon the Respondent, 
 the one most relied upon is that contained in the llth speci- 
 fication in these words. "That there is and will be, proba- 
 tion after death for all men, who do not decisively reject 
 Christ during the earthly life," etc. 
 
 Perhaps no name in this country is more closely connected 
 with the possible hypothesis covered by this charge, than 
 that of Newman Smyth. When he was elected, his writings 
 
244 
 
 were before the Trustees, and in their deliberate judgment 
 there was nothing in them, which should prevent the election 
 of their author to his professorship. 
 
 The election came to the Visitors for confirmation, and had 
 their most deliberate and careful consideration and judgment. 
 
 Let me read from this judgment — " The Board of Visitors 
 of the Theological Institution at Andover, having been duly 
 notified by the Trustees of the election of Rev. Newman 
 Smj'th as Abbot Professor of Theology, and having had, after 
 lepeated consideration by themselves of his election, a frank 
 and full conference with the Professor elect at which a majority 
 of the Board of Trustees were also present, have adopted the 
 following minute which they hereby lay before the Trustees. 
 
 " The Visitors have been convinced of the general harmony 
 of Dr. Smyth's theological views Avith those which have been 
 identified with the history of the Andover Seminary from 
 the beginning. He frankly and heartily accepts the creed to 
 which the Abbot Professor must subscribe, and affirms that 
 he is surprised to find after a careful study of this creed that 
 it is in such accord with his own views. 
 
 " Some of the publislied works of Dr. Smyth have by many 
 careful thinkers and earnest friends of the Seminary been 
 intei'preted as sanctioning views contrary to the doctrines 
 commonly held by our churches and clearly declared in our 
 articles of faith. These views especially relate to sin, the 
 atonement and the future state. A teacher who should 
 countenance, however unwittingly, a departure from the 
 received faith on these points would evidently not be well 
 fitted for the office of instructing young men in the truths 
 of the Gospel. We have therefore carefully examined Dr. 
 Smyth upon these, and also upon his general doctrinal opin- 
 ions, and he with admirable frankness and with a sincerity 
 which cannot be doubted has made it evident that however 
 he may have been interpreted, his real views upon these 
 themes are in substantial agreement with the characteristic 
 doctrinal position of this Seminary." 
 
 Minute of Visitors. 
 
245 
 
 To this minute, the Trustees by their Committee replied, 
 March 23, 1882, from which reply I make the following 
 extract. 
 
 " The Trustees of Phillips Academy have received your 
 communication with regard to the election of the Rev. New- 
 man Smyth, D.D., as Abbot Professor in the Theological 
 Seminary which is in their care, and whose interests are, in 
 part, committed to you. They have appointed us a Com- 
 mittee to present to you their reply. The Trustees wish to 
 express their appreciation of the pains taken by the Visitors 
 to reach an intelligent and trustworthy judgment upon the 
 serious matter in which their concurrent action has been 
 sought. They desire, also, to express their gratification that 
 3'ou concur in their judgment regarding the Theological 
 belief of Dr. Smyth, and in their estimate of his character 
 and ability. 
 
 " They are glad that the result of your deliberation and 
 investigation is the conviction that the views of Dr. Smyth 
 are in substantial agreement ^ith the doctrines taught in the 
 Seminary in the past, and in harmony with the creed to which 
 the Abbot Professor is required to give his assent." 
 
 Trustees' Reply to Minute. 
 
 The Trustees conclude by renewing their request for the 
 confirmation of Dr. Smyth. 
 
 The Visitors thereupon re-considered their action, and, by 
 a majority of their number, refused to confirm his election. 
 In the Minute then adopted the Board of Visitors say : — 
 " The Board of Visitors would again express their conviction 
 that the theological vie\Vs of Dr. Newman Smyth are in gen- 
 eral harmony with those which have been identified with the 
 history of the Andover Seminary from the beginning. After 
 his full and explicit acceptance of the creed, and his frank 
 additional statements in response to our inquiries, it is im- 
 possible for us to doubt his substantial agreement with the 
 doctrinal position characteristic of this Institution. His 
 natural frankness, his moral earnestness, and his Christian 
 
246 
 
 sincerity are too evident to permit us after our conference 
 with him to raise any question upon this point." 
 
 Visitors' Records. 
 
 Thus from 1807 to 1887, the construction and interpreta- 
 tion of these Statutes and Creed have been uniform, by 
 Court, Visitors and Trustees. — Insinuations, suspicions, 
 charges of heresy and " heterodoxy " to the Creed have run 
 down the line of Seminary Administration, from the day a 
 dissenting Trustee first raised them against a Founder's pro- 
 fessor, to that in which his successor raises them against 
 nearly the whole Faculty of the Institution, and all his asso- 
 ciate Trustees. No " heterodoxy " has ever been eliminated, 
 and until to-day no public prosecution has been entertained. 
 Yet, in the administration of the Seminary, have been united, 
 generation after generation, some of the most intelligent, 
 conscientious, learned, orthodox men, clerical and lay, which 
 this Commonwealth has produced. 
 
 For eighty years these Statutes and Creed have, without 
 deviation, been construed in the manner I have stated : — 
 strictly and firmly, in every necessity to security; broadly, 
 tolerantly, and liberally, in every essential to that intellectual, 
 and spiritual freedom and progress, without whose conserving 
 influences, creeds fall from living organisms, to fossils. 
 
 These liberal rules and principles of construction, so well 
 established in relation to these identical Statutes, by Court, 
 Trustees, and Visitors, are precisely those everywhere recog- 
 nized by all Tribunals, civil or ecclesiastical. 
 
 They are clearly and distinctly announced by the English 
 Courts in numerous cases, to only one of which I need refer, 
 the great case of Voysey vs. Noble, decided in the Privy 
 Council in 1871. 
 
 3 Privy Council Rep. 357. 
 
 The court say : — 
 
 '' Before examining the charges and comparing the proofs 
 adduced from Mr. Voysey's publications with the charges 
 
247 
 
 founded thereon, and with the Articles and Formularies of 
 the Church alleged to have been contravened, it will be well 
 to enunciate, briefly, tlie rules of judicial exposition with 
 reference to the Articles and Formularies of the Church. 
 
 "In this respect we have the guidance of previous and 
 recent decisions of this Tribunal, expressed in clear and 
 definite language. 
 
 " In the cases arising on the work called ' Essays and 
 Reviews^'' Williams vs. BisJioj) of Salisbury^ and Wilson vs. 
 Fe7idalU Lord Westbury, in delivering the opinion of the 
 Committee, said: 'Our province is, on the one hand, to 
 ascertain the true construction of those Articles of Religion 
 and Formularies referred to in each charge according to the 
 legal rules for the interpretation of Statutes and written 
 instruments; and, on the other hand, to ascertain the i:)laiu 
 grammatical meaning of the passages which are charged as 
 being contrar}^ to or inconsistent with the doctrine of the 
 Church ascertained in the manner we have described.' 
 
 " Hut it is to be observed, that in inquiries of the nature 
 now before us, tliis Cojumittee is not compelled, as in cases 
 affecting the riglit of pro^jcrt}', to affix a definite meaning to 
 any given Article of Religion the construction of which is 
 fairly open to doubt, even should the Committee itself be of 
 opinion (on argument) that a particular construction was 
 supported by the greater weight of reasoning. Thus, Lord 
 StoivelU in the case of Her Majesty's Procurator vs. Stone^ 
 thus expressed himself : 'I think myself bound at the same 
 time to declare that it is not the duty nor inclination of tliis 
 Court to be minute and rigid in applying proceedings of this 
 nature, and that if any Article is really a subject of dubious 
 interpretation it would be highlj- improper that this Court 
 should fix on one meaning, and prosecute all those who hold 
 a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation. It is a very 
 different thing where the authority of the Articles is totally 
 eluded, and the party deliberately declares the intention of 
 teaching doctrines contrarj- to them.' 
 
 *' We have thought it right to refer to the canons of con- 
 struction thus judicially expressed, because on the one hand 
 
248 
 
 they allow to the party accused a fair and reasonable latitude 
 of opinion with reference to his conformity to the Articles 
 and Formularies of the Church, and on the other they aiford 
 no sanction whatever to the contention of Mr. Voyi<ey, that 
 unless there be found in the publication complained of a con- 
 tradiction, totidem verbis^ of some passage in the Articles, he 
 is at liberty to hold, or rather to publish, opinions repugnant 
 to or inconsistent with their clear construction. 
 
 "As regards those Articles of Religion as to the construc- 
 tion of which a reasonable doubt exists, the question may 
 arise how far opinions of a similar character to those charged 
 to be heretical, have been held by eminent Divines without 
 challenge or molestation, because the proof of their having 
 been so held may tend to show the bona fides of the doubt. 
 In this respect also we have ample guidance from authority ; 
 and it will be found that where the Article in question is 
 subject to reasonable doubt, and eminent Divines have held 
 opinions similar to those impugned in the case before the 
 Court, that circumstance alone has been held to be of great 
 weight in induciuo' the Court to allow a similar latitude of 
 construction to the party accused, without itself deciding 
 upon the construction of the Articles. 
 
 " Thus, in the case of Williams vs. The Bishop of Salisbury 
 the judgment of the Judicial Committee contains this pas- 
 sage : — 
 
 " ' It is obvious that there may be matters of doctrine in 
 which the Church has not given any definite rule or standard 
 of faith or opinion ; there may be matters of religious belief 
 on which the requisition of the Church may be less than the 
 Scripture may seem to warrant ; there may be very many 
 matters of religious speculation and inquiry on which the 
 Church may have refrained from pronouncing any opinion at 
 all. On matters on which the Church has prescribed no rule, 
 there is so far freedom of opinion that they may be discussed 
 without penal consequences. Nor in a proceeding like the 
 present are we at liberty to ascribe to the ('hurch any rule or 
 teaching which we do not find expressly and distinctly stated, 
 or which is not plainly involved in or to be collected from that 
 which is written ' (pp. 385-7). 
 
249 
 
 "111 considering these first three charges, as in the consider- 
 ation of thofcc that follow, we have been most anxious to ar- 
 rive at a fair construction of Mr. Vo^sei/'s writings, not only 
 by examining the context which he has referred to as bear- 
 ing on the passages cited, but also by attentively considering 
 whether any previous writer, himself in Holy Orders, has 
 been allowed, with impunity, to assert opinions similar to 
 those of Mr. Vwysey^ so as to afford reasonable ground for 
 holding that Mr. Voysey has merely availed himself of the 
 privilege of adopting a possible interpretation of the lan- 
 guage of the Articles, although it may appear to us that such 
 interpretation is not sound or correct. But we can find noth- 
 ing of the kind" (p. 391). 
 
 " We have fulfilled the duty of examining minutely the Ar- 
 ticles of charge exhibited against the Appellant. We have 
 not been unmindful of the latitude wisely allowed by the 
 Articles of Religion to the Clergy, so as to embrace all who 
 hold one common faith. The mysterious nature of many of 
 the subjects associated with the cardinal points of this faith 
 must, of necessity, occasion great diversity of opinion, and it 
 has not been attempted by the Articles to close all discussion, 
 or to guard against varied interpretations of Scripture with 
 reference even to cardinal Articles of Faith, so that these 
 Articles are themselves plainly admitted, in some sense or 
 other, according to a reasonable construction, or according 
 even to a doubtful, but not delusive, construction. Neither 
 have we omitted to notice the previous decisions of the Eccle- 
 siastical Courts, and especially the judgments of this Tribunal, 
 by which interpretations of the Articles of Religion, which 
 by any reasonable allowance for the variety of human opinion 
 can be reconciled with their language, have been held to be 
 consistent with a due obedience to the Laws Ecclesiastical, 
 even though the interpretation in question miglit not be 
 that which the Tribunal itself would have assigned to the 
 Article" (pp. 404-5). 
 
 These rules are equally recognized by the authorities of 
 the Presbyterian Church in this and other countries, as the 
 just terms of credal subscription. 
 
250 
 
 " The great dividing question is, how is the subscription or 
 assent to our standards to be interpreted ? Or, with what 
 degree of strictness is the phrase ' system of doctrines,' as it 
 occurs in the ordination service, to be explained ? On this sub- 
 ject, which is one of vital importance, there are, if we do not 
 mistake, two extremes equally to be lamented. On the one 
 hand, there are some, who seem inclined to give the phrase in 
 question, such a latitude that any one, who holds the great 
 fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, as they are recognized 
 by all evangelical denominations, might adopt it ; while on 
 tlie other, some are disposed to interpret it so strictly as to 
 make it not only involve the adoption of all the doctrines 
 contained in the Confession, but to preclude all diversity in 
 the manner of conceiving and explaining them. They aie 
 therefore disposed to regard those, who do not in this sense 
 adopt the Confession of Faith and yet remain in the Church, 
 as guilty of a great departure from moial honesty. This we 
 think an extreme, and a mischievous one. Because it tends 
 to the impeachment of the character of many upright men, 
 and because its application would split the Church into in- 
 numerable fragments. These are among its most prominent 
 evil tendencies. That it is an extreme, we think obvious, 
 from the following considerations. It is making the terms of 
 subscription imply more than they literally import. Two 
 men may, with equal sincerity, profess to believe a doctrine, 
 or system of doctrines, and differ in their mode of under- 
 standing and explaining them. 2. Such a degree of uni- 
 formity never was exacted, and never has existed. The 
 Confession, as framed by the Westminster Divines, was an 
 acknowledged con^iromise between different classes of theo- 
 logians. When adopted by the Presbyterian Church in this 
 country, it was with the distinct understanding that the mode 
 of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views. 
 And from that time to this, there has been an open and 
 avowed diversity of opinion on many points, among those 
 who adopted the Confession of Faith, without leading to the 
 suspicion of insincerity or dishonesty. 3. It is clearly impos- 
 sible, that any considerable number of men can be brought 
 
251 
 
 to conform so exactly in their views, as to be able to adopt 
 such an extended formula of doctrine precisely in the same 
 
 sense." 
 
 3 Princeton Rev. 1831, p. 520-521. 
 
 " That this is the true interpretation is evident, 1. From 
 the signification of the words as established by usage, which 
 cannot be arbitrarily altered The 'system of doctrine ' con- 
 tained in the Kacovian Catechism is the Socinian system, 
 and he who adopts that catechism before God and man pro- 
 fesses himself to be a Socinian. The ' svstem of doctrine ' 
 contained in the ' Form of Concord ' is the Lutheran system ; 
 that contained in the Apology for the Remonstrance is the 
 Arminian S3'stem ; and by parity of reasoning the system of 
 doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession is the Cal- 
 vinistic system. No man therefore can honestly adopt that 
 confession who is not a Calvinist ; and no man can honestly 
 profess to be a Calvinist who does not adopt all the ' essential 
 and necessary articles ' of Calvinism, as a known and histori- 
 cal form of faith. More than this the words do not signify. 
 More than this no church court has the right to demand. 
 And less than this no such court is authorized to accept. 
 2. This has been the interpretation put upon the formula in 
 question from the beginning. No man has ever been sub- 
 jected to discipline in our church for the denial of anything 
 in our standards, which did not include the rejection either 
 of some doctrine held in common by Calvinists and all other 
 evangelical churches, (such as the doctrines of the Trinity, 
 Incarnation, etc., etc.), or of some article of faith regarded 
 as essential to the integrity of the Calvinistic system. 3. To 
 demand more than this would be destructive to the unity of 
 the church. There never was a period in our historj^ in which 
 all our ministers agreed in adopting every proposition con- 
 tained in the Confession and Catechisms. It is notorious 
 that such agreement does not now exist. On the other hand, 
 to demand less than the adoption of the Calvinistic system 
 in its integrity, would destroy the purity and harmony of the 
 
 church." 
 
 37 Princeton Rev. p. 303-304. 
 
Under the Vatican, in the infallible Roman Catholic 
 Church, they are recognized rules and principles of construc- 
 tion and interpretation. 
 
 " Religious orders are not religious sects, having creeds of 
 their own. The Dominican does not differ from the Augus- 
 tinian, and both from the Jesuit, in the same way as Bap- 
 tists, for instance, differ from Methodists, or Methodists from 
 Episcopalians. Non-Catholic denominations disagree as to 
 their belief, while Jesuits, Augustinians, and Dominicans 
 have the same faith, and are united in the same judgment, 
 as all other members of the Catholic Church. The variety 
 of religious orders arises from the special way in which each 
 practises the Evangelical counsels, in accordance with the 
 special end for which it was established and sanctioned by 
 the Church. The questions that gave rise to their different 
 schools are those outside of the creed, or which the Church 
 has not settled by any decision. So long as the Church does 
 not speak, each may adhere to his own opinion, provided he 
 be ready to submit his judgment to that of the Church, when 
 in her authority she does speak. The controversy may 
 sometimes seem to bear upon matters already defined ; it is 
 not, however, to disprove them, but to unfold them from a 
 scientific point of view. In this doctors may disagree ; the 
 theory advanced by one may be in opposition with another's 
 theory, and these again may widely differ from a third and 
 fourth, proposed by other theologians ; nor can it be other- 
 wise ; but as all of them leave the Catholic dogma un- 
 touched, their theorizing, without becoming a part of 
 Catholic teaching, is left unchecked." 
 
 Prof. Russo, True Religion, 99. 
 
 " As this answer might seem to have been invented for the 
 purpose of shielding ourselves against the attacks of the 
 reformers, it is not out of place to remark that the doctrine 
 thus laid down was not unknown fifteen centuries ago. 
 ' What ? ' says Vincent of Lerins, ' is there no progress in 
 the Church of Christ? There is progress in it, and very 
 
253 
 
 great progress, but it is indeed progress and not change^ — 
 vere progressus sit ille fidei, non permutatio, — for by progress 
 a thing increases, remaining still itself; whereas by change 
 it is transformed into something else.' And, after having 
 shown how the human body passes through all the phases of 
 its development, while still retaining its identity, ' even so,' 
 he continues, ' must the Christian dogma, following the law 
 of a similar progress, strengthen with years, increase with 
 time, rise with age, yet still incorruptible and unalterable in 
 its integrity.' " 
 
 Prof. Russo, True Religion, 103. 
 
 " Ever immutable, ever substantially the same, Catholic 
 dogma, according as it advances in time, dilates its deep 
 bosom, and discovers more and more that treasure which has 
 its source in the Infinite. Now it dispels the lingering 
 shadows of the past from a truth which is to illumine the 
 future. Now it begets, at the appointed time, the conclu- 
 sions which spring from its eternally fruitful principles, 
 according as the assaults of error urge it on to the develop- 
 ment of those divine seeds. Thus dogma goes on increasing 
 without, brightening with all the truths which God raises 
 over his Church, growing larger and clearer in the minds of 
 men, but never changing, never transformed." 
 
 Prof. Russo, True Religion, 105. 
 
 I cite this work because it has been commended to me by 
 high Church authority, as accurate and reliable. 
 
 These principles are impliedly and necessarily recognized 
 in the Statutes themselves. 
 
 The Founders built their Institution, not merely for their 
 own, but for all time. They protected it with a creed, com- 
 promised originally, but to be, not an anchor holding for- 
 ever, those administering the Institution to " a phase of 
 orthodoxy in the past," but ever and alwa^'s to each of them 
 a living, personal, present faith. 
 
 Over all the}' put a Board of Visitors, who bavijig them- 
 
254 
 
 selves first subscribed this creed, should construe and inter- 
 pret it in all cases, brought judicially before them. 
 
 That such construction might be guarded from theological 
 bias, they put two clergymen and one layman on this Board. 
 
 That it might not suffer by the impetuous ardor of youth, 
 nor the freezing conservatism of age, they provided that no 
 one should be eligible as a Visitor till forty years of age, 
 and that no one should remain on the Board after seventy 
 years of age. The Board was to be one of acting, living 
 men, identified with the present, not with the past. 
 
 That they might be guarded against all inadvertence, they 
 are required to read the whole associate Statutes at each 
 annual meeting of the Board, and to renew their creed sub- 
 scription every five years. So constituted they were to be 
 as in the Founders " place and stead," "the Guardians, Over- 
 seers, and Protectors of the Foundation forever," subject 
 only to the Supreme Visitors, " to determine, interpret, and 
 explain the Statutes of this Foundation," " and in general 
 to see that our true intentions, as expressed in these, our 
 Statutes, be faithfully executed ; always administerting jus- 
 tice impartiall}^ and exercising the functions of their office 
 in the fear of God, according to the said Statutes, the Con- 
 stitution of the Seminary, and the Law of the Land." 
 
 The creation of so complicated an original and appellate 
 jurisdiction " to determine, interpret, and explain the Stat- 
 utes of the Foundation " clearly indicates that the Founders 
 supposed questions upon their construction would arise in 
 the progress of the administration of the Seminary. — While 
 their ultimate Visitors, the Supreme Court, on a question 
 raised on the construction of these very Statutes, had unmis- 
 takably told them the principles which the " Laws of the 
 Land " would apply. 
 
 It only remains to ask if anything has been shown to have 
 been done or held by this Professor which makes him, in 
 subscribing this creed, guilty of evasion, untruth, and dis- 
 honesty. Modify as you please, generalize as you may, soften 
 all you can, in plain common words the charge comes to this. 
 if you find him guilty, I pray you as an act of justice, put 
 
255 
 
 your finger on the act, or opinion condemned, that at last we 
 may know what our crime is. 
 
 Burke said he could not indict a whole people, but these 
 complainants, with more felicity, have practically embraced 
 in their charges, a whole Faculty, all but one of a Board of 
 Trustees, and a majority of the great denomination of which 
 Andover is the cherished Institution, and you the honored 
 representatives. — Under these charges the personal conse- 
 quences of this trial are of great significance. But its public 
 import is vastly more significant. You may indeed try to 
 anchor this institution, and the denomination which sustains 
 it, to " a particular phase of orthodoxy in the past," but I 
 have so little confidence in the anchorage that I shall be only 
 too glad, if you do not strand and shipwreck both in the haz- 
 ardous attempt. I know you appreciate the magnitude and 
 importance of your decision. I fervently pray it may be 
 "according to the best light God shall give you." 
 
EX-GOV. GASTON'S ARGUMENT. 
 
 3Iay it please your Reverend and Honorable Body : 
 
 My words will be few, my speech will be brief; for I 
 think that after Dr. Egbert C. Smyth appeared before you 
 in the full proportions of a noble and Christian manhood, 
 and made his defence, the day of his trial was over. Then 
 what need of further speech from me or from anyone? I 
 should feel that I should trespass upon your time if I should 
 undertake to reiterate in feebler form and phrase the words 
 wh'ch you have heard from his lips. 
 
 I approach this discussion with diffidence, for it leads me 
 aside from the ordinary duties of my professional labor, into 
 fields that can be more appropriately occupied by those 
 whose lives have been consecrated to the service of God, 
 and whose duty it is to lead men upward and onward to 
 eternal happiness and peace. But there ai'e some matters 
 which have not yet been presented at length, that I desire 
 briefly to submit to your consideration. 
 
 And in the first place, what is this trial? What are its 
 issues? what are its purposes? This is not a trial for breach 
 of trust. These are not the prosecutors, this not the tribunal, 
 and this not the respondent for such a case. What is it? 
 It is a trial that should rise to a high moral and religious plane, 
 and which should be conducted in the spirit of fairness, candor 
 and truth. I do not remember any important trial where I 
 ever acted as counsel before where there was not an opening 
 of the case, — we have not had any thing in the nature of an 
 
257 
 
 opening here ; and it seems to have been the policy of the 
 other side to prevent us from having any thing in the nature 
 of a statement of their case or of the particular grounds upon 
 which the}^ intended to rel3^ We have their statements as 
 they appeared in print, at the first hearing on certain pre- 
 liminary matters, and that is all we have, except certain 
 remarks which Judge Hoar has made, to which I shall here- 
 after respectfully invite 3'our attention. Why is it, that in 
 the consideration of this great subject the ordinary method 
 has been departed from, and we have nothing from the com- 
 plainants as to the course of argument which they intend to 
 pursue ? 
 
 I have said, Mr. Pi-esident, this is not a trial for breach of 
 trust. If the heirs of these donors, these great donors, great 
 in purpose and charity, see fit to go before the proper tribunal 
 and claim that the funds which their ancestors dedicated, as 
 the}^ thought, to the service of God, are misapplied, then they 
 would go before the Court having jurisdiction of trusts, and 
 present the case there. The trustees, and not this respondent 
 hold the purse strings. It is not claimed that this respond- 
 ent has any control of the moneys of the Institution at 
 Andover, or that he has the power to control them : and if 
 he attempted such misapplication, this is not the tribunal 
 to furnish the remedy. 
 
 My friend Prof. Baldwin rather complained in his address 
 of yesterday that we had not had the benefit of an opening, 
 and I make the same complaint to-day. In response to 
 Prof. Baldwin's complaint. Judge Hoar replied as follows: 
 
 " We have heard that statement so often, sir, that I think 
 we had better repudiate it once and for all. We did open 
 our case. Judge French stated it at the original hearing. 
 We have not duplicated that opening by going over it with 
 the same three gentlemen again, because we have divided 
 these three complaints, which were lumped together, into 
 five separate ones. We have taken for granted that the 
 time which was spent was profitably spent, at any rate to 
 save any repetition. Our case has been opened elaborately 
 and stated. 
 
258 
 
 "These gentlemen are charged with heterodoxy, by which 
 I understand and mean not the entertaining of any untrue 
 or erroneous opinion. That is all I meant when I said there 
 was no charge of heresy. They may entertain the soundest 
 opinions that were ever held, the most progressive, coming 
 nearer and nearer to the light, and approved by God and 
 man. Our position is that it is heterodoxy, because the 
 framers of the Andover Creed have required a certain con- 
 formity to that Creed, and the sole question which we pre- 
 sent for your decision, as the Board of Visitors, is whether 
 they have departed substantially. I should not criticise 
 very much all we have heard about the true mode of 
 looking at the Creed, within the limits of interpretation 
 consistently with holding a more solid front of theological 
 belief." 
 
 Therefore, I repeat this is not a suit for money, not a suit 
 for redress for breach of trust. It is a prosecution for non- 
 conformity to a certain Creed, and you are asked, if you find 
 that there is such nonconformity, to pronounce your judg- 
 ment and sentence. Prof. Egbert C. Smyth may be travel- 
 ling in the pathway which leads to the gates of heaven, but 
 that is of no importance here. The streams which issue 
 from the institution of which he is the head, may be as " pure 
 as Siloah's brook that flowed fast by the oracle of God," 
 but no matter for that, this Reverend and Honorable tribunal 
 is nevertheless requested to admonish or remove him. The 
 motive and the animus of the prosecutors are as we think 
 quite apparent. The respondent must interpret the Creed 
 as they interpret it. He must consent to be bound by their 
 fetters. If his belief is in substantial accordance with the 
 Creed, that, I think, is not enough to satisfy these prosecutors. 
 He may be travelling in the pathways which lead to eternal 
 blessedness and truth, but, if there be any departure from 
 the Creed in its severest and sternest construction and inter- 
 pretation, he must be punished. The eminent senior Counsel 
 of the complainants has with honesty stated what his posi- 
 tion is. I desire to read his statement to you. I beg your 
 attention to it. It is the statement made by a very able 
 
259 
 
 man, who is intellectually as well as morally honest. That 
 statement is as follows : — 
 
 " I ought to say, perhaps, at tlie outset, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen, that I presume it would be very distinctly under- 
 stood by the members of this tribunal, that I am not here to 
 discuss any theological questions. I very much suspect that 
 my clients would consider me entirely incompetent to be 
 trusted with any such duty as that, and fear whether I might 
 not, in my own private personal capacity, awa}^ from this 
 reverend presence and these weighty considerations, fall back 
 on Shakespeare's phrase, ' A plague on both j^our houses,' 
 with great cordiality and good will. Yet that will not, I 
 trust, interfere with my presenting, what I am employed to 
 do, their views of the relation of this tribunal to the case 
 before you, under the technical objections which liave been 
 so elaborately and at such length argued by the 'distinguished 
 and learned gentleman who has appeared for the respondents. 
 The question here before you is, for your decision mainly. 
 Have the terms of the trust on which certain citizens of 
 Massachusetts chose to place their money been complied 
 with by those having it in charge, or would it be complied 
 with if they allowed a certain thing to be done or taught in 
 the Seminary at Andover, which it is charged before you 
 has been taught and done. 
 
 " Now, that is a matter which is to be determined upon 
 certain legal rules. There are a great many persons in 
 Massachusetts, of whom I confess I am one, who do not 
 believe it is sound public policy ever to make a condition of 
 the vesting of property beyond the life of one generation, on 
 opinions. Nobody can tell where it will lead. Nobody can 
 tell that the donors themselves would entertain all the 
 opinions without modification. But it may be done under 
 the laws of Massachusetts, and you gentlemen have, by ac- 
 cepting your place on the Board of Visitors, charged with 
 the trust which the statute of the founders imposed upon 
 you, undertaken to see that it is honestlj^ and faithfully done. 
 
 " Now, if it were the Copernican system, or the Ptolemaic, 
 that was in controversy, if a man under the laws of Massa- 
 
260 
 
 chusetts, who owns his money, which he has accumulated by 
 honest industry, or whicli has come lawfully into his posses- 
 sion, which the law allows him to dispose of, provides that 
 that money shall be appropriated to the vindication of the 
 notion that the earth is Hat, and that the sun goes around it 
 day by da}', and you undertake a trust in which that is to be 
 maintained, if you find that the persons who are receiving 
 the money are teaching something that differs decidedly from 
 that, you do not execute your trust, — perhaps you would 
 not hold so absurd a one as that, — but you do not execute 
 your trust, if you do not decide that question honestly and 
 fairly when it is before you lor adjudication." 
 
 Now, there is the proposition, and I beg your Honor's at- 
 tention to the illustration which my brother has given. If 
 a man gives his money to teach the false doctrine that the 
 earth is flat, then it is the duty of the persons who have that 
 money in trust, to cause that falsehood to be taught. And, 
 by analogy, if there be in this written Creed of Andover 
 something which you know, and I know, and the world to- 
 day knows, is false, you are invoked by the argument and 
 the logic of my brother, to* execute the trust in such a man- 
 ner that the false things shall be taught under your direc- 
 tion. If that is the law, I respectfully suggest that these 
 prosecutors might find better employment than seeking to 
 enforce it. 
 
 So far, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have discussed the 
 general and the moral aspects of the case. I come now to 
 this complaint, and I ask your attention to it. The rules of 
 law (which in this regard are also the rules of common sense) 
 require that when a man comes before any tribunal with 
 grave charges against another man, it is his duty to prove 
 them. That burden, by all moral and legal rules, rests upon 
 these prosecutors. And what have they done ? We have 
 heard the sounding notes of preparation. It has been 
 heralded forth that this respondent was to be proved guilty, 
 not only of heterodoxy, but of heres}', and that this noble 
 man, whose high character and learning nobody is bold 
 enough to question, had broken solemn promises, and beeu 
 
261 
 
 false to his faith, and to his duty. That is the charge. In 
 the name of all that is just, he who prefers such charges 
 should be held by you up to the full measure of his duty, 
 either to abandon the charges or to prove them. 
 
 Who is Professor Egbert C. Smyth, and who are his asso- 
 ciates in this de'fence? Professor Egbert C. Smyth is a man 
 of learning, a man of piety, a man of truth. He has been 
 for more than a score of jea.vs a teacher in this institution 
 which so many people love. Under his teachings have sat 
 scores and hundreds of men, who have gone forth to the 
 whole world, and through them the voice of Andover has 
 been heard at home and abroad. 
 
 I think that all of the .Professors, who are here accused 
 of heresy or heterodoxy, are admitted to be men of piety, 
 of ability, and of learning. No one ventures here to assert 
 that any of them lack these important qualities. 
 
 How are the charges proved against this respondent and 
 his associates? My brother French offered in evidence some 
 extracts from a book written by these Professors or some of 
 them called " Progressive Orthodoxy," and some extracts 
 from two "Andover Reviews," and sat down. He then said 
 in substance that that was his case. Progressive Orthodoxy ! 
 I do not think my brother or his clients love the word "pro- 
 gressive." It alarmed them, and if it had not been for that 
 fatal word in the title, I doubt whether anybody would have 
 found any heresy in the book. The word " progressive " 
 suggests at once to them the ideas of heresy. " Progressive 
 Orthodoxy" and two "Andover Reviews" are the proofs 
 which these gentlemen bring of the grave offences charged 
 " of a breach of trust which has scarcely a parallel in an age 
 filled with them." Would you not have thought, Mr. Chair- 
 man, that some out of the scores and even hundreds of men 
 who have been taught by Dr. Smith, who have heard his 
 words, and have listened to his teachings would have been 
 brought here to testify to his heresy or heterodoxy ? What 
 has he taught in the lecture-room at Andover ? What has 
 he proclaimed from the pulpit? Hundreds of living men 
 have listened to his teachings, and know how he has dis- 
 
262 
 
 charged the duties of his office. Thousands have heard him 
 from the pulpit. These men know whether he has tauglit 
 or proclaimed any thing which is heretical in its character, 
 or which is opposed to the Creed of Andover. None of these 
 men are brought here to testify. Of his teachings in his 
 office, you have learned nothing from the prosecutors. They 
 rest their case upon these garbled extracts, torn from their 
 context and perverted from their true meaning. That is all 
 the evidence they have produced. And when my brother 
 French said this was their case and sat down, as we thought, 
 with a solemn and somewhat distressed countenance, we 
 were amazed. As I looked at him, there came rushing upon 
 my recollection at that moment a story which I once heard. 
 It was given as a specimen of Scotch wit. A Scotch clergy- 
 man having wrought himself into tears, one of his parishion- 
 ers turning to another said, " What is the minister grieving 
 about ? " The reply was " Were you where he is, and had 
 as little to say for yourself as he has, you would grieve 
 too." 
 
 It is a well-established principle, established by that learned 
 tribunal of which my brother Hoar was once an ornament, 
 that the absence of testimony which can be produced, is a 
 circumstance which courts and juries are to consider. Has 
 Prof. Smyth taught any heresy in the lecture room at Ando- 
 ver, has he taught heterodoxy there ? Where are the pupils ? 
 Where are the Trustees, under whose immediate supervision 
 he performs his duty? Has any one of them heard it ? Not 
 one. Who has ? Nobody has heard it ; and the only proof 
 of his heterodoxy given, is from perverted and garbled quo- 
 tations to which I have referred. 
 
 I ask the attention of this Honorable Court to a statement 
 of Prof. Smyth in his answer : 
 
 " In conclusion, I would respectfully call your attention to 
 the number and character of the offences for which I am 
 arraigned. I am charged with disbelieving the trustworthi- 
 ness of the Scriptures as a religious guide ; with holding a 
 humanitarian view of Christ ; with denying the doctrine of 
 the Trinity ; with disowning man's free agency, his universal 
 
263 
 
 sinfulness and guilt, and exposure to the penalty of the law; 
 with rejecting tlie doctrine of Atonement b}^ the sufferings 
 and death of Christ ; with teaching that salvation is not 
 'wholly of grace;' and with breaking 'in repeated instances,' 
 'solemn promises.' Such accusations have no reality to me. 
 I accept the Creed of the Seminary, interpreting it by no 
 private opinion, but according to the well understood and 
 commonly recognized laws of Creed-acceptance, laws which 
 have been in vogue in this country from the earliest times, 
 and which have governed subscriptions in the history of this 
 Seminary from the beginning, and which have been recently 
 recognized by 3'our Reverend and Honorable Body. I wel- 
 come, if for any reason you deem such scrutiny necessary 
 or useful, the most searching examination possible into the 
 accusations now preferred, and I shall be pleased to expedite 
 .and facilitate such examination to the full extent of my 
 power. 
 
 " At the same time, I hereby deny that I hold any beliefs, 
 or have taught doctrines or theories not in harmony with or 
 which are antagonistic to the Constitution or Statutes of the 
 Theological Institution in Phillips Academy, Andover, in 
 which I am Brown Professor of Ecclesiastical History, or 
 contrary to the ' true intention ' of its founders, as expressed 
 in these Statutes, or that I believe or teach any thing antag- 
 onistic or opposed to the Creed of the said Institution, or in 
 violation of the statutory requirements or the 'true intention' 
 of the Founders as expressed in their Statutes." 
 
 Is Prof. Smyth an intelligent man? Does he know whereof 
 he speaks? Is Prof. Smyth a truthful man? Then, if he be 
 intelligent and true, that denial is worth whole pages of 
 accusation. Suppose that these writings which have been 
 put in here from " Progressive Orthodoxy " and from the 
 " Andover Review" were his, although but very few of them 
 are, — but he does not stand upon any such defence as that, 
 — suppose they are his, and he comes in as a true and honest 
 man and says what he has said in solemn phrase before you, 
 does not that utterance sweep away all these accusations and 
 meet and destroy all the evidence they have offered? You 
 
264 
 
 Lave heard what he says, and who, Mr. President, shall gain- 
 say what Professor Smyth asserts? If what he says is true, 
 this is both an answer and a perfect and full defence. Who 
 shall say that Dr. Smyth does not believe in all the doctrines 
 of the Creed, when he says he does, and when he says he 
 has signed it conscientiously and has kept it faithfully ? 
 
 I shall not go into any theological discussion, and the 
 suggestions which I am making seem to me to steer clear of 
 that. But this, I think, even with my limited information 
 and learning upon the question, I may say : That the Creed 
 of Andover is not that narrow, bigoted, confined Creed which 
 many people think it is and must be, remembering the time 
 of its origin. Taken in its entirety, and it cannot be properly 
 taken except in its entirety, the Creed is a broad one, com- 
 paratively, and is not confined to the narrow, limited con- 
 struction which my brethren on the other side, or their 
 clients, attempt to place upon it. It' is, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen, no Procrustean bed, upon which the limbs of him 
 who is placed upon it, if they are not long enough to fill it, 
 are to be stretched to its length, or, if they are too long, are 
 to be lopped off, to meet its proportions. That is not the 
 Andover Creed. That is the Creed which our opponents 
 seek to have you impose upon the Seminary. That is the 
 kind of furniture you are asked to provide for the bed-cham- 
 bers at Andover. It is not such a Creed, by any just or by 
 any proper construction of words. 
 
 Prof. Smyth has gone over the matter in detail, with an 
 exhaustive learning, and with a fervid eloquence, and has 
 shown you, if human logic can show you, that these extracts 
 that have been put in evidence, if properly taken, upon any 
 honest construction, violate no article in that Creed. I have 
 said that it is a broad and a liberal Creed. I think I can 
 further say that it contains within itself some elements of 
 contradiction, because it was not the work of one mind, nor 
 was it the work of concurrent minds, meaning by concurrent, 
 minds which travel in the same pathway. It was the result 
 of a compromise, and as you, with your power of analysis, 
 look it over, you find that when it is separated into parts. 
 
265 
 
 and disjointed, some parts of it oppose other parts. But that 
 has not been the practical construction of it heretofore. The 
 practical construction of the Andover Creed, as appears 
 clearly from the historical matters which have been presented 
 to you, has been to take it as a whole, and you cannot fairly 
 take it any other way. 
 
 Now, then, I say for reasons which, if I should undertake 
 to repeat them, would sound feeble in comparison with the 
 way in which they have been put by Dr. Smyth and by my 
 associates, there is nothing in the evidence which the com- 
 plainants have produced which shows that any doctrine held 
 by Dr. Smyth or by his associate professors, contravenes any 
 substantial doctrine of the Creed. 
 
 I have said that the Creed was the work of several minds 
 holding somewhat varied opinions, and that the framers of 
 the Creed came as near together as men of varied opinions 
 could come, and gave expression to their beliefs in the form 
 of the Creed which has stood the test of years. I have said 
 that it is a broad Creed. Were it otherwise in its general 
 character, it would be redeemed by the clause which I pro- 
 pose now to read to you: 
 
 "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 the Chris- 
 tian faith, as expressed in the Creed by me now repeated, 
 together with all the other doctrines and duty of our Holy 
 Religion, so far as may appertain to my office, according to 
 the best light God shall give me." 
 
 I see here something more than the dawn of the light of 
 religious freedom. I see that upon Andover Hill, years and 
 years ago, the light of truth burst upon men. I see that 
 upon Andover Hill shackles were broken. I learn that upon 
 Andover Hill it was long ago determined that devout and 
 Christian men mioht teach the doctrines of the Creed accord- 
 ing to the best light God should give them. And Iras Prof. 
 Egbert C. Smyth, by anybod3^'s contention, done otherwise 
 than to teach the doctrines of the Holy Religion and of the 
 Creed, according to the best light God has given him ? Did 
 
266 
 
 not that sentence, or part of a sentence, "according to the 
 best light God shall give me," have a most significant mean- 
 ing? Did not that open to religious and devout men, who 
 agreed to the general and substantial doctrines of the faith, 
 a certain degree of liberty, and was it not intended it should 
 do so? Will anybody, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, who 
 recognizes his obligations to God, and his duties to man say, 
 upon the facts which are before you, that Dr. Egbert C. 
 Smyth has done any thing but teach the doctrines of his faith 
 according to the best light God has given him ? And if he 
 has done that, he has done what he is permitted to do by this 
 very Creed, and by the form of the obligations which he has 
 assumed. 
 
 Now, let me repeat a little. I say that the proof has 
 failed and ingloriously failed. Where are the living wit- 
 nesses who can come here and by their speech condemn Prof. 
 Smyth, if he is to be condemned ? No voice from the lecture 
 room comes here by any procurement of these prosecutors. 
 No voice from any pulpit which he has filled comes here by 
 any procurement of theirs. There has been none of that 
 essential and important testimony which ought to have been 
 adduced by those who make this charge of broken promises. 
 The testimony from Progressive Orthodox3% and those two 
 Reviews, taken in the spirit in which they were written, and 
 honestly interpreted prove nothing ; and I challenge the 
 reverend and legal gentlemen who shall respond, to meet, if 
 they can, the candid and clear statements and forcible loo-ic 
 of Dr. Smyth. 
 
 You, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, constitute a perpetual 
 Court. It never ceases to exist. Different men may fill 
 your seats, but the Court is perpetual. If what I have heard 
 read here by Dr. Smyth and by my brother Russell, who is 
 ver}^ familiar with matters connected with your institution, 
 be true, then there has been no time in the historj^ of 
 Andover when so few charges of heterodoxy or heresy could 
 have been made as now. You have heard the doctrines and 
 utterances of the old divines. You have heard of old con- 
 troversies at Andover, of differences of opinion in former 
 
267 
 
 years, which furnished better reasons for charges of heresy 
 than now can possibly exist. I do not think from what I 
 have learned that there has ever been an entire concurrence 
 of opinion in matters of faith in the officers and teachers of 
 this Institution. I do not think there ever can be such con- 
 currence. Men will complain and if they bring all their 
 complaints before you, you will be not only a perpetual 
 court, but you will be in perpetual service. My brethren 
 could find enough in these old documents which have been 
 read for the employment of a dozen courts, if the authors 
 had not passed awa3% and gone to their great account. But 
 when I remember all this, and see what the practice of this 
 Institution has been, I respect it the more, because it has 
 allowed, within certain limits, the practice of free religious 
 thought. It has been allowed, and I am happy to say that 
 this tribunal has allowed it, — that we have proved here. 
 
 How did most of these five professors enter upon their 
 sacred service at this Institution ? It was done in the way 
 which they have stated here, in which there was not an 
 absolute taking of the Creed without qualification, which 
 qualification was made before the Trustees and the Visitors 
 in open assembly at the time of their being installed. What 
 voice, Mr. President, was raised then to say that they should 
 do that which my brother Hoar now claims they ought to 
 have done? Who said to them: "If the Creed says the 
 earth is flat, you, also, must say it is flat. You shall not 
 qualify it. It is an ironclad Creed. The sternest interpre- 
 tation, even in these days of light, shall be placed upon it, 
 and if we can catch you tripping in any little detail, in any 
 thing not essential, we will prosecute, or persecute, you for 
 heterodoxy or heresy. Our Creed is chained to the past. 
 Its chains shall not be broken. If you are in the road of 
 progression, your ways are not our ways. Progression is 
 heresy " ? 
 
 Now let us see the spirit, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 which, knowing this Board as I do I should expect, and the 
 public would expect, would be manifested by it. One of 
 the grave charges which the prosecutors make here is that 
 
268 
 
 Prof. Smyth maintains, holds and inculcates a possible pro- 
 bation after death. Now, Prof. Newman Sm3^th had written 
 a book, before he was presented as a professor at Andover, 
 and this book was known. And I beg to read from it. 
 
 " Then there is a third truth which seems to be left in 
 the shadows of the Gospel of the Kingdom ; and that is the 
 nature and intent of the divine administration of Hades — 
 the place of departed spirits — from the time the dying leave 
 the present world until the judgment day. There is a period 
 of life after death ; and before that last great day, when this 
 world-age shall be over, of which the Bible gives us some 
 intimation, but concerning which it affords no distinct reve- 
 lation. It does tell us something concerning that interme- 
 diate state : enough at least to assure us that it shall not 
 prove to be a loss of consciousness, and purposeless sleep of 
 ages, for souls awaiting the great day of awakening." 
 
 " Such are the Biblical elements of the doctrine of the in- 
 termediate life, and they ought not to be quietly ignored by 
 Orthodox theology, or left unadjusted to our whole teaching 
 concerning the last things. If it be said that there is danger, 
 that the consideration of these obscure passages might lead 
 individuals to whom the Gospel is now preached to cherish 
 fallacious hopes of a second probation after death, it is also 
 true that the failure to take into account these hints and 
 possibilities of Scripture, may involve for us, the righteous- 
 ness of the government of God in great difficulty and betray 
 us into an un-Scriptural dogmatism with regard to God's 
 dealing with tliose who die without the Gospel. The only 
 really dangerous thing is error — to go bej-ond or to fall short 
 of, the truth of revelation — Romanism in Luther's day, had 
 gone far bej'ond it ; but that is no reason why Protestantism 
 should now fall short of it." 
 
 These words were written by the Rev. Newman Smyth 
 befure his examination. If any as strong language has been 
 used by his brother, Egbert C. Smyth, upon that question, I 
 have failed to see it. What did this enlightened Board do ? 
 I hope that I may be corrected if I am mistaken; I state 
 now what I have heard. What did this enlightened Board 
 
269 
 
 do ? They did not confirm the nomination of this gentleman 
 to his professorship, but expressly declared that it was not 
 in consequence of any of his theological views. You followed 
 in the light of the example of your predecessors. You rec 
 ognized the spirit of religious freedom, and did not reject the 
 nomination on account of the views of the candidate upon 
 this question. But what are you asked to do now? You 
 are asked to punish Dr. Egbert C. Smyth for entertaining 
 the same views which his brother entertained, and which 3'ou 
 have declared did not furnish a reason for rejection of the 
 nomination of the latter for a professorship at Andover. 
 Y''ou are asked for this among other reasons to say that his 
 voice shall be heard no more at Andover. 
 
 There is one thing as to the purposes and wishes of our 
 brethren and of these prosecutors, of which we have not 
 been clearly informed. What do they wish you to do with 
 Dr. Egbert C. Smyth? My brother. Judge Hoar, in the 
 words which I have read to you, recognized the candor of 
 this respondent, and he, as does everybody else, recognizes 
 in him true manhood and the spirit of a devout Christian. 
 What do the prosecutors want you to do with such a man, — 
 a rare man, whose equal and peer in all respects it will be 
 difficult to find ? What do they want you to do with this 
 great teacher and upright Christian man ? Will you send 
 him from the halls of Andover, or will you keep him there 
 and fetter him ? One or the other thing they must want you 
 to do, or else they have no occasion to be present here. I 
 suppose that is what Dr. Wellman wants, — one of the Trus- 
 tees, who did not desire to trust his own body to do the duty 
 which the Statutes imposed upon them, of investigating heresy 
 and heterodoxy ; did not like to trust them, but stepped out- 
 side and came here, signing himself ••' Trustee." That is 
 wliat Dr. Wellman, I suppose, wants, but I think he will de- 
 sire it long before he will get it. And he wants these other 
 gentlemen, a magnificent Faculty, removed, or trammelled, 
 or censured. If you send them away, that will of course be 
 the end of them at Andover, but not elsewhere. If you fetter 
 them, or trammel them, or admonish them, the days of their 
 
270 
 
 usefulness at Andover will be over. What are you going to 
 do? For what purpose was this high, grave and important 
 tribunal called together but to do one or the other of these 
 things? But with the most profound respect for this tribu- 
 nal, I say that to do either one of these things would be, — 
 I measure my words, — an outrage. While I respect all 
 tribunals (and especially this), that have in charge matters 
 of important public concern, I must be pardoned for saying 
 that there is a tribunal that is above and over them all. I 
 allude now not to that great tribunal, to which we all must 
 at length submit ourselves, but to that human tribunal, the 
 tribunal of intelligent, honest and Christian public opinion, 
 a tribunal, as Mr. Webster said, which men, associations, and 
 even nations must regard. 
 
 Now, to do what these gentlemen ask you to do, would 
 be not only to outrage honest, true, public sentiment, but 
 to outrage the principles of religion, justice and law. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I began by saying that I had but a few 
 words to utter. I fear I have gone beyond my suggestion, 
 certainly I have gone beyond my intention. Andover is a 
 place of much religious importance. I would like to read at 
 this point, possibly a little out of its connection, an extract 
 from the words of the donors. It sometimes, perhaps not 
 very often, happens that God gives to large hearts large 
 means — it was so here. Let me read it, and commend it to 
 the attention of the four gentlemen who institute and prose- 
 cute these pi'oceedings. 
 
 "To the Spirit of Truth, to the Divine Author of our 
 faith, to the Only Wise God, we desire in sincerity to present 
 this our humble offering ; devoutly imploring the Father of 
 Lights, richly to indue with wisdom from above all His ser- 
 vants, the Visitors of the Foundation, the Trustees of the 
 Seminary ; and with spiritual understanding the Professors 
 therein ; that, being illuminated by the Holy Spirit, their 
 doctrine may drop as the rain; and that their pupils may 
 become trees of renown in the courts of our God, whereby 
 He may be glorified." 
 
 Suppose, Mr. President, a word of yours could bring these 
 
271 
 
 Founders back to life, that they might look upon this scene. 
 Suppose in obedience to your call, they should come here 
 filled with the spirit in which that last utterance of theirs 
 was made, what do you think they would say? Would they 
 look at Egbert C. Smyth, and say to him "Abandon your 
 office, leave the Institution, which our benefactions have 
 founded ! " ? Can you not imagine that they might say to him, 
 " You have ability, piety and learning. You have been true 
 and faithful. Continue in your service. Point out to men the 
 paths which lead to blessedness and peace, with the best light 
 God has given you " ? Might they not say to these prosecu- 
 tors, " Cease this strife, and obtain, if you can, the spirit 
 under which we made our gifts to this Institution " ? 
 
 Andover is loved by large numbers of those who believe 
 in the doctrines taught there. It is respected by those out- 
 side of it. Its history has been filled with achievements 
 worthy of the love of religion and learning which inspired its 
 origin. Keep it ! Keep it faithfully ! Let it not become the 
 plaything of human passions, or the instrument of a bigot's 
 zeal. Save it! Rescue it from these troubles, and men will 
 bless you for the service ! 
 
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR WILLIAM J. TUCKER. 
 
 3Ir. President, and Grentlemen 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 
 
273 
 
 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 j-our knowledge, because it has 
 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 
 aigument 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 
 onl}'- 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, 
 
274 
 
 commended or forwarded by the Foundation of the Andover 
 Theological Seminary, who seemed to be grouped here at the 
 end of the creed, ahiiost 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. 
 
 I 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- 
 
275 
 
 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 necessaril}' attach 
 to an}^ 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 professors 
 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, Hincks 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 conti-ary 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 
 
276 
 
 the Alumni." For I remember that when attempts have 
 been made at reguhirly constituted alumni meetings to 
 inaugurate proceedings like the present, they have ignomin- 
 iouslj tailed. 
 
 I am singled out, Mr. President, in connection with Pro- 
 fessor Smyth 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 ©f 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 whicli 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 
 
277 
 
 into some real relation to Christ's atoning sacrifice before 
 any sonl 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 possibilit}^ of a Christian probation to all men, leads 
 away 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}^ 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 npon 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 an}'^ 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 tliat 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- 
 
278 
 
 tianity and Naturalism it is of some consequence which way 
 the influence of Andover counts. The present controversy 
 may seem provincial. It is called so by some who have not 
 discovered its larger bearinsrs. 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. 
 
 / ansiver 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 
 
279 
 
 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 Christianit}^ 
 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 Universalism. 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- 
 
280 
 
 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 
 
281 
 
 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 
 
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 
 
283 
 
 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 tjie 
 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 3^0 u 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 rehitive 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 a.ssumed 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 Aiidover 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 th^ 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- 
 
285 
 
 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 (xod is not the very 
 same thino; 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 opeu 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- 
 
286 
 
 ings and death of Christ, but the onl}' 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. I 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 I 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 heatlien 
 nations I could not have assented to it, nor could I assent 
 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 
 
287 
 
 that which is given in the earthl}^ life. I slioiihl not have 
 dreamed of ascertaining the rehation 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 liberty 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 agree 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 mj^self, although my judgment of them is now more favor- 
 able. These and kindred clauses pertaining to man, and not 
 the clauses which embodv revealed truth concerninfj 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- 
 
288 
 
 tion to be figurative and poetical expressions, in order to 
 reach the conclusion that no ohjecLion could he 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 liis 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 
 witli 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 Creed 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 b}^ 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 
 
289 
 
 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 thouglits. I remained through 
 the winter with my parish, and at the end of four months 
 was dismissed by 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 
 inauo-uration 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 
 an^ public threats have been abundantly verified. There 
 have been petty insinuations, and constructions offered which 
 if they wei'e 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 Seminarx'^ 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 atten- 
 
290 
 
 tion ever been as distinctly called in that quarter to the con- 
 siderable growth which the Seminary has had. I have been 
 tempted, and have sometimes yielded to the temptation, to re- 
 view every sentence of mine which would be printed to ascer- 
 tain if by any i^ossibility 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 Orthodox}'^ in 1885, nor with 
 articles in the " Andover Review" for April and May 1886. 
 
 During the last five months T 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 Fiiday 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 as 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- 
 
291 
 
 sions with ourselves, that, tliere 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 rev^elation. 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. 
 
292 
 
 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 
 
293 
 
 of God, but tliat 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 unevancjelized nations has other knowledgje 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 
 
294 
 
 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 Orthodox3^ 
 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 \vas 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- 
 
295 
 
 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 ol)served 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- 
 
296 
 
 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 diflBcult 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 
 
297 
 
 I think by Schelling, although attributed to Coleridge, that 
 every man as to philosophy is born either a Platonist or Aris- 
 totelian. It is equally 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.. 
 
298 
 
 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 
 really 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 m3^stical 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- 
 
299 
 
 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 ver}^ 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 fi-om 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 Andover Sem- 
 inar}^ 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 tlie laws which govern 
 historical research in one field must govern it in every field; 
 
301 
 
 and that problems for which revelation does not furnish means 
 of solution must he 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 supernaturally given source of spirit- 
 ual enliglitenment and cany 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 you 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 versioiL 
 and other causes ; on the history character use and authority 
 
302 
 
 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 
 Cieed 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 misunderstandinsr 
 as to his conception of the Bible created by 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 
 
303 
 
 the same gentleman, " Then, as insph-etl 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 a[)Ostolic 
 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 saying 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 stud}' 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- 
 
304 ■ 
 
 oughly wrought into their own thinking as the apostles' 
 conceptions of Christ and his Kingdom were united with 
 their own thouglit."' 
 
 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 itnier 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 ray 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 
 
30o 
 
 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 w^ere possible) would thwart their wishes both 
 by 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- 
 
306 
 
 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 tlie 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 m}^ 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- 
 
308 
 
 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 Professoi'ship. 
 
 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. 
 
 Sijice it has been determined that it is advisable for me to 
 make a statement in connection with the statements of my 
 
809 
 
 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 
 
310 
 
 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 
 defined 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 solel}^ for tlie 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 entirel}' 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. 
 
311 
 
 Fiske's Exposition : Cnpples, Upham & Co., Boston, Dec. 17, 
 1886.) 
 
 Upon my election to office in the Seminarj^ 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: " Tou 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 meeum 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 
 
312 
 
 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 confiimed. 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 Sj)irit 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 sj^mpathy with the doctrinal con- 
 clusions at which they arrived. Every theological and Scrip- 
 tural /ac^ 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 ujion 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 iu the soul of man ; but Theology is the Science 
 
313 
 
 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, 
 nev.^ light in Criticism, that is constantly breaking forth. If 
 fresh light in any 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 
 afiirmation 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 " Pi'obation " a necessity 
 for mv theolosrv or mv 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 
 
314 
 
 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 ; nevertlieless, the circum- 
 stances of this public statement make it proper for me to say 
 that, inasmuch as I am convinced that this liypothesis 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- 
 
315 
 
 fore, in view of such harmony with these tests of Orthodoxy, 
 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 sincerel}^ 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 sincerelj^ and 
 intelligently affirm that there exists in the religious com- 
 munity a Avide-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. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 
 ^ 14Nov^62'^C 1 
 
 IN STACKS 
 
 OCT 31 1962 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^^ 51962 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (C70!>7slO)476B Bitkeley ^ 
 
BV4C76 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY