Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

"We have every shade from the genuine disciples of the Genevan school to the thorough-paced Socinian, though the former among the clergy is much more rare than the latter. The Rev. John Codman, of Dorchester, indeed, is the only clergyman of Massachusetts whom we know to be a thorough Calvinist. Much division has long existed between what are called the high-toned Hopkinsians and the moderate Calvinists, or semi-Arminians, in Massachusetts. They are now said to be in a successful train of amalgamation, and that many of the most strong and offensive features of the Hopkinsians are softening; and, among others, that which exhibits a willingness to be damned for the glory of God, as the most decisive evidence of conversion. Still, it is common in the revivals to demand this unconditional submission,' as they are pleased to call it, to the will of God."

The establishment and growth of Andover Theological Seminary is described in detail. We can take room only for the writer's opinion of it:

"The number of pupils is upwards of sixty" (the school, he remarks, had flourished beyond the expectation of its founders), "among all of whom, professors and pupils, there is probably not one who does not maintain the doctrine of general atonement, natural ability, unconditional submission, and other Hopkinsian peculiarities. . . . Their peculiar tenets have a prominent place in the correspondence of the young men, while prosecuting their studies, and, when they commence preaching, in their pulpit exhibitions. The spirit of proselytism is a most striking feature of their character, and leads them to lay greater stress on the errors which they have imbibed, than on the great and consolatory doctrines of the Christian faith. It seems to be nearly impossible for them to compose a sermon without interweaving them into the fabric, so intimately are they connected with every principle which they maintain, or so zealous are the preachers to propagate them. Their success, too, is as great as extraordinary zeal in either a good or bad cause will generally secure. While their piety seems to be, and we hope is, great, it is tinctured with all their aberrations from the glory of the gospel."

Among these dangerous young men there were in the senior class Joel Hawes, for many years a champion of orthodoxy; Edward W. Hooker, afterwards professor in the seminary at East Windsor, Conn.; and Richard C. Morse, one of the originators of the New York "Observer," and its proprietor for thirty-four years. In the middle class were Alvan Bond, professor in the seminary at Bangor, and pastor in Norwich, Conn., thirty years; Levi Spaulding, missionary in Ceylon fifty-five years; and Myron Winslow, missionary in India forty-six years. In the junior class were Jonas King, missionary at Athens forty-one years; Henry J. Ripley, professor in the Baptist seminary at Newton nearly fifty years; Joseph Torrey, professor in the University of Vermont forty years; Aaron Warner, professor in Amherst College; and Francis Wayland, president of Brown University. Only one student became pastor of a Unitarian church, the late Dr. Orville Dewey.

The following paragraph is almost identical with much that has been written in the present decade:

"Some have thought that this seminary would form a barrier against the

spread of the Boston heresies, which it opposes with great zeal. The Unitarians do not themselves seem to think so, for while they write against the Andoverians in the 'General Repository' for maintaining the divinity of Christ and the atonement, they at the same time compliment them as much nigher to themselves than the Old Calvinists, and have, no doubt, penetration enough to see that the tenets taught in this great centre of operations of the New England churches do, in their nature and necessary consequences, lead to the Socinian ground. That this will be the result, as it has been in France, a few years will show, unless the Head of the church purify this fountain by casting into it the salt of truth. Several of the anti-Trinitarians of Massachusetts, we well know, were but lately Hopkinsians.”

Were it not for the last sentence, we should be almost ready to affirm that the whole paragraph appeared year before last in a denominational journal.

The historical sketch closes with this edifying observation:

"Piety is on the side of Calvinism, in all cases, though many pious men are erroneous in some of their opinions."

Well, Unitarianism did not absorb the Congregational churches after all, and is less likely to do so now than seventy years ago; and Andover Seminary has not, in the succeeding seventy years of its very respectable history, gone back to Old School Presbyterianism, nor has it been a hotbed of heresy. Dr. Willson, in 1817, undoubtedly expressed the fears of the large body of Presbyterian ministers in America and Great Britain.

Our other illustration is more recent. At the meeting of the London Presbytery in November last a protracted discussion was held concern ing the propriety of adopting some statements explanatory of the sense in which subscription is made to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The proposed explanations were finally adopted by a large majority, but were opposed by a minority, headed by Rev. Dr. Kennedy Moore. He took exception to the declaration that Christ's sacrifice was a propitiation for the whole world. He held that the Confession teaches a limited atonement made only for certain elect persons. He is also reported to have said that he himself did not believe in universal propitiation, that the only corollary to a universal propitiation is a universal salvation, that if they went on altering the doctrines in the way they were doing, they would arrive at the doctrine of universal redemption. His strongest objection to the doctrine seems to have been a fear concerning the inferences from it.

Such instances, which might be cited by the score, may at least suggest that it is extremely difficult to predict the results which will flow from a given cause, and that the alarms of good men may be misleading, as indications of what is coming. It is wiser to discuss truth in its own light and on its own merits than to think first, last, and always of the havoc we suppose it will create at some other point by and by. The reformer cannot ignore probable results. The original thinker cannot

disregard inferences and tendencies. But results and inferences must usually take a secondary place in the consideration of new opinions and new methods. The calculation of consequences would never give the impulse of a moral reform. The prudence which cares more for inferences than for principles would never advance a single degree in the better understanding of truth. Utilitarianism is not ultimate either in ethics or theology.

Leaving out of view those who are fond of novelty for its own sake, we recognize two types of mental habit: there are those who seek truth and follow wherever it leads, and there are those who are reluctant to admit any new opinion, or any readjustment of old opinion, because they fear the disturbing effects. Some minds are always hospitable to new knowledge and impulse; others habitually oppose theories that tend to disturb the equilibrium of accepted opinions. Both classes profess that they are ready to accept whatever is true. But the one class searches for truth, the other stands aside and accepts new knowledge only when deprived of all excuse for declining it. There can be little doubt which of these two classes has led the world's great advances.

We offer some observations on the causes of that mental habit which regards probable inferences more than it regards the truth.

First of all, apparent inferences from a new view furnish the easiest means of judgment. When Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood was introduced it was opposed on the ground that it would revolutionize medical practice. It was easier to insist that the prevailing methods needed no improvement than to make thorough investigations in the light of newly discovered facts. The introduction of machinery has been opposed over and over again, because it would leave no employment for workingmen. Railroads should not be built because horses would become useless. This is the easiest kind of objection. Dr. Kennedy Moore thinks that universal atonement means universal salvation. He cannot believe that all men will be saved, so he will not believe that all men might be saved. It is, perhaps, too much trouble to go back to the Bible and ponder its teaching without regard to this or that inference, and, again, too much trouble to make patient inquiry as to the necessity of the inference. It requires mental toil and a disturbance of comfortable assent to reopen great subjects, and so from pure indolence we may allow a supposed inference, which may be by no means inevitable, to suppress the most important inquiries. The opinion which we suppose will be disturbed is involved with a whole set of opinions; it has been incorporated into scores of old sermons which we hate to throw away; it has, perhaps, been advocated in printed books or articles in which we have taken some pride; and indolence, to say nothing of other human weaknesses, protests against any even an honest and necessary — inquiry, which threatens the overthrow of that cherished opinion. Before we dismiss a new view because we fear a dangerous inference from it, let us be sure that we are actuated by some

better motives than indolence or the pride of consistency. Nothing blinds like self-interest.

Another cause of the habit under consideration is distrust of men. There is even distrust of our Christian brethren. It is assumed that other men, other Christians, will not discriminate as we do. Much is made of the effect of new views on the popular mind, as if the popular mind were an impersonal somewhat that does no thinking, has no conscience, and cannot distinguish good from bad, nor true from false. Admit, it is said, that at this point in the Bible the writer had no revelation, but only the knowledge of his time, and the average hearer will hasten to the conclusion that the Bible is full of errors and has no authority. If Paul expected the coming of Christ in his own generation he loses all claim to inspired authority. The popular mind, we are told, will make quick work with it. We protest against such a representation as wanting in proper, not to say decent, regard for the intelligent people who constitute our Christian congregations. The popular mind has sometimes discriminated more clearly than its teachers. The refusal to admit that there is any inaccuracy or fallibility in the Bible, even when it palpably exists, has been detected and has tended to weaken the force of valid reasons for its authority. The preacher who exaggerates the claims of a doctrine is sure to be found out, and will be listened to doubtfully even when he is candid and true. It would be nearer the truth to assume that the popular mind is conservative. The preacher who advances new views is more likely to receive condemnation than approval. Popularity is often sought by declaiming vehemently in the phrases of the good old doctrines. But, at all events, we have little respect for the preacher who is afraid to trust his intelligent congregation to discriminate the spirit of Biblical truth from its letter, or who assumes that error will receive a more favorable response than truth.

Indeed, the habit of judging doctrines and theories chiefly by their expected results is really distrust of truth. It almost amounts to saying that we will not accept a certain interpretation of truth unless compelled to accept it, and merely because it involves some disturbance of the popular faith, and because it is thought better to leave good people unmolested in their doctrinal opinions. Better some narrowness, we say, than frequent readjustment of old-time theology. It was distrust of truth which made many of the clergy hostile to scientific theories of the antiquity of the globe, and of the gradual processes of evolution. It was distrust of truth which resisted the progress of Biblical learning and the studies of historical criticism. It is distrust of the truth which frowns on the attempt to frame conclusions concerning the Bible in accordance with larger knowledge of its structure, and which is intolerant of restatements of Christian doctrine.

In the last analysis there is lack of faith in God. When unchangeable forms of belief are imposed on generations yet to come it is assumed

[blocks in formation]

that in the next century God will not teach his people by the Spirit as He has taught in the past; that the children will not be as wise, obedient, and Christian as the fathers. When the only response a new and broader view of truth can gain is apprehension of dreadful consequences, there is lack of faith in God. One who trusts God is not afraid of the results of any candid search after truth. He expects the fulfillment of Christ's promise that the Spirit will guide believers into the whole truth. He is certain Christ's prayer will be answered in behalf of those who should hereafter believe. He believes that those who come later will have clearer insight and more comprehensive vision and more spiritual apprehension than has yet been vouchsafed to inquirers after truth.

The history of religious progress should make us mindful of certain considerations which are calculated to dissipate needless fear.

It should be borne in mind that very rarely have the results of new doctrinal views been correctly foreseen. We should therefore not be overconfident in predicting the results of present agitation.

It should be remembered that things dreaded have often proved to be things desirable. Extending knowledge of the universe has given more exalted thoughts of God. Broader views of the universality of the gospel have proved to be conducive to zeal in missionary effort. The challenge of arbitrary theories of God's sovereignty has removed many a dark shadow from man's thought of his Heavenly Father.

Above all, it should be remembered that it is impossible to stand still. Not to go forwards is to go backwards. "He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils," said Lord Bacon. The evils of change may be less than the evils of stagnation. As knowledge concerning the Bible, the world about us, human society, human nature, and the significance of Christianity increases, doctrinal opinions must be siutably adjusted to meet the changed conditions - or even that which we have will be taken from us. Caution is commendable, but it is not the peer of courage, and courage itself is never rash. Diplomacy has but an inferior place in religion. The prudential spirit which calculates results before it will launch out on the deeps of truth never could have created Pauls and Luthers.

It is always safe to accept truth, in whatever shape it may appear, and whithersoever it may lead, and to trust the results with the God of all truth.

A COMMUNICATION.

NEW HAVEN, CONN., January 14, 1886.

To the Editors of THE ANDOVER Review.

Accept my thanks for your kind and extended reply to my

GENTLEMEN : letter of December 11.

My objection to your three postulates is removed by your explanation that you used the words "sinfulness" and "atonement" in other than their customary meanings. But would it not be better in such discussions to adhere to the recognized usages of language? I do not find any authority for your use of the words referred to.

« НазадПродовжити »