USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > Andover > History of Andover theological seminary, 1933 > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
A second controversy into which he was drawn was with the Yale professor of theology, Nathaniel W. Taylor. Taylor represented a position farther removed from Edwards than was the case with the Hopkinsians. It was by no means liberal from the Unitarian standpoint, but it was not conservative enough for the Hopkinsians. Woods therefore entered the lists in defence of the older point of view. The principal point of attack was Taylor's doctrine that in a moral system
₹ 165 }
like that under which man lived with a reasonable freedom of choice on man's part God could not prevent all sin. In his "Letters to Taylor" Woods condemned the principles of the system taught at Yale and drew unjustifiable inferences which Taylor promptly denied. The extended controversy between the Hopkinsians and the Taylorites, in which Woods had only a small part, brought little good, and it resulted in the withdrawal of the Hopkinsians from any relation with Yale Divinity School, and the establishment of another Congrega- tional seminary, which presently found its permanent home at Hartford. Woods had still another tilt over the doctrine of perfectionism held by Asa Mahan, a former pupil at An- dover and in the period of controversy president of Oberlin.
The New Haven theology affected the Seminary, for Woods and Stuart were not agreed about it. "Professor Stuart," says the narrator, "would flash out one set of views on the lower story; Dr. Woods would reply with rumbling thunders in his lecture room in the second story ; and good Professor Emerson would draw off both lightning and thunder in the third story, and tell the seniors that there was no real cause for alarm-the brethren evidently did not quite understand each other."22
Dr. Stuart after retiring from the field of Unitarian con- troversy ventured into the arena of discussion with the Uni- versalists, writing as a biblical exegete in 1830. Woods no sooner demolished the ramparts of the Perfectionists than he criticised the Episcopalians, and he retired from his pro- fessorship with a parting shot at the Swedenborgians. This atmosphere of criticism and hostility did not augur peace for Woods' successor.
The strong emphasis upon the Creed made it inevitable that the question of subscription to it should arise, and of further subscription to the Westminster Catechism. Within five years of the organization of the Seminary it became necessary to apply to the Legislature for power to hold additional funds. In granting this request the Legislature added the proviso that no student should be deprived of any privileges in the Seminary or subjected to forfeiture of any scholarship aid
{ 166 }
WILLIAM HENRY RYDER
JOHN WESLEY CHURCHILL
GEORGE FOOT MOORE
EDWARD YOUNG HINCKS
WILLIAM JEWETT TUCKER
CHARLES CUTLER TORREY
GEORGE HARRIS
WILLIAM LADD ROPES
EGBERT COFFIN SMYTH
JOHN PHELPS TAYLOR
"on the ground that his interpretations of the Scriptures differ from those which are contained in the articles of faith adopted by said institution." To compel students to agree with the Creed was considered an invasion of religious liberty and the right of free inquiry.
There was no question about the Faculty. In 1826 the Trustees had voted that both the Creed and Catechism must be accepted by all the professors, but sixteen years later that vote was rescinded so far as concerned the pro- fessors on the Associate Foundation, so that these professors should only be required to subscribe and repeat the Creed. The Visitors gave their approval, but the slighting of the Westminster Catechism and the denial of the Old Calvinist doctrine of the imputation of sin in the theology of Woods aroused the antagonism of Dr. Daniel Dana, who originally had stood out alone in the Board of Trustees against the compromise with the Hopkinsians. Militant for the Old Calvinists, Dana stirred up the "Andover Fuss" in 1849 by addressing a remonstrance to the Board on the state of the Seminary under its care. Though he had been a Trustee for forty years, earlier remonstrances had not been heeded. Can- didates for ordination were not measuring up to the standards in the matter of total depravity./Worst of all, the new pro- fessor of theology, Edwards A. Park, was not sound in the faith. His inaugural left much to be desired, and now it was clear that there was error in Zion. The professors were deviating from the Catechism. The release from subscription to that document was "a wound in the vitals of the Consti- tution." "Would it not be lamentable if a seminary, reared at an immense expense, for the express purpose of defending and diffusing pure gospel truth, should become the instru- ment of corrupting that truth, and of spreading destructive error through the churches and the community ? " Four years later Dana returned to the charge against Park. In a con- vention sermon and in argument with Professor Hodge of Princeton, Park had defended his own Hopkinsian position on sin and human ability, and had even attacked important articles of the Catechism. The Andover professor main-
{ 167 }
tained that all sin consists in action. "That position," said Dana, "would sweep away almost every doctrine of the Bible," and "nullifies the cardinal and fundamental doctrine of nat- ural depravity." An anonymous writer, discussing the case, concluded that Dr. Dana was losing his memory.
It might be anticipated that the situation in 1881 would precipitate more trouble. The defenders of the old theology were aggressive because they felt that important truths would be lost to the Congregational churches of New England with the passing of the old traditions. The Faculty suggested to the Trustees the name of Newman Smyth for the vacant chair of theology, and the Trustees voted in his favor twice. The Visitors approved his election from the point of view of fidelity to the Creed, but by a vote of two to one they refused to give the necessary sanction to his election on the ground that Smyth lacked the mental characteristics that were needed for clear, lucid teaching. It was an unhappy choice of ground for the opposition, for Smyth possessed conspicu- ously the quality of clear explication of his opinions. The real reason for the opposition of two of the Visitors seemed to be that they did not agree with the theological opinions that he had recently expressed in print. Newman Smyth had criticised the New England theology as essentially rationalistic and mechanical, and preferred a philosophy which should find room for "the relation of the whole man through the per- son of Christ to the whole God." Theology should be christo- centric, and its spirit less static. Experience rather than reason, a theology resting on biblical criticism rather than on anybody's logical interpretation, an ethical rather than a dogmatic emphasis-these were the dynamic principles of his art. Others had been saying the same thing. A writer in the Boston Advertiser wrote in commendation of the ideas that Smyth had expressed : "He has taken up the new line of march in theological constructions with a strength of thought, with a moral confidence in his convictions, with a breadth and range of vision, and with an insight into existing needs, that places him at one bound in the front rank of the men who are to lead the next generation of religious teachers. His
{ 168 }
essay is the new Protestant landmark in religious thought."
It was impossible to change the minds of the two men who had alone the power to prevent Smyth's election. Apparently the machinery of the Board of Visitors was a stumbling-block to any progressive development of the Seminary, particu- larly since it was their function to maintain the test of the Creed. The Trustees thought they saw a way around the obstacle by appointing Smyth a lecturer. That would not require creedal avowals, but he declined such a subterfuge. Then money was raised to establish a new and independent chair of instruction, but before the way was opened Smyth was called to a commanding position as minister in New Haven, and the case was closed.
It seemed to the progressive friends of the Seminary that a great opportunity had been missed to make Andover a leader in the way that theology should go. The conservatives breathed more easily when the line of defence held. The Con- gregationalist assumed the championship of the old theology, and particularly deprecated the attitude of Newman Smyth on the subject of retribution after death. He had suggested that those who in this world have no opportunity to know the appeal of Christ might have an opportunity in the life of the future. This doctrine of second probation, as it was called, became the center of discussion in the period of controversy which followed. The discussion of second probation did not come unheralded. The thought of it was suggested by the idea of a general atonement which had been maintained by the Younger Edwards. The Calvinistic dogma of eternal punishment was being relaxed. At several installation coun- cils, including that of Smyth at New Haven, the question of a larger hope was raised, and the weight of opinion was getting more liberal. Such a discussion easily affected the missionary organization of the denomination, and the cry was raised that the acceptance of such a theory would cut the nerve of missions. The Andover Creed did not deal directly with the question, but it was plain enough that any relaxa- tion of the idea of future punishment was contrary to the spirit of the Creed.
{ 169 }
The attitude of the Faculty was vital to the success of either party to the controversy. At the time there was an almost entirely new Faculty at Andover. Egbert C. Smyth, the brother of Newman Smyth, was its senior member, for he had come to the Seminary in 1863 as the successor of Pro- fessor Shedd in the department of history. He was president of the Faculty from 1877 to 1896. He was equipped with foreign university study, and his scholarship was broad and accurate. His historical information was supplemented by his knowledge of philosophy and he was a master in theology. In his study and teaching of history his chief interest was the interpretation of the Christian thought of the centuries. Professor Harris, his colleague for sixteen years, spoke of him as a teacher who quietly opened the way of a more spir- itual and ethical theology, and as a lover of nature and art and literature, as far as he discovered in them an avenue to the spiritual. Harris called him "a man beloved, a sympa- thetic friend, a mediator, a hopeful optimist, who taught men to express themselves, knowing it is better to speak five words that can be understood than ten thousand words in an unknown, indistinct tongue."
John Wesley Churchill came five years later than Smyth, to serve the Seminary as teacher of elocution for thirty-two years. Sympathetic with a liberal attitude in theology, he had no hesitation in joining his colleagues in their plans for broadening the Seminary. Though much of his thought was conservative, he became one of the leaders of the forward movement at Andover. Ten years after Churchill came John P. Gulliver to be the first professor on the recently established foundation of the relations of Christianity and Science. He was a man of experience when he came to Andover, includ- ing twenty-nine years of pastoral service and four as presi- dent of Knox College. He was a prophet of reform, and fought many a battle against evil.
The next year brought William Jewett Tucker to the Bartlet chair of sacred rhetoric. After eight successful years in Manchester, New Hampshire, he had been pastor of the Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City
{ 170 }
for four years. He brought with him a deep human sym- pathy which made him popular with students and Faculty alike. He was among the first to see the social implications of the Christian religion, and his pastoral experience had made him understand and sympathize with the aspirations of the working folk. He faced the new period that was dawning with a realization that theological concepts and formulas must be changed. He was an interpreter of a dynamic Chris- tian thought, as Park was of a static theology. But it was his moral leadership which made him a power in pulpit and class- room. He was much in demand in Congregational pulpits. In his department of homiletics he taught what he exempli- fied, that it is the consecrated personality of the preacher which makes his sermons effective. He joined heartily in the mod- ernizing process through which the Seminary was passing, and his courage and strength, with his ability to make the Congregational constituency see the reasonableness of the Faculty, were a bulwark to his colleagues in a time of stress. In later years at Dartmouth he was to become known more widely as a great college president, a lecturer on various foundations in Boston, Cambridge, New Haven, and New York City, and a frequent contributor to the Atlantic Monthly.
The year 1883 added five new professors. One of these was Dr. John Phelps Taylor, a minister in New London, son of a former professor, Dr. John Lord Taylor. The senior Taylor had been president of the Faculty, and had taught biblical theology on the Smith foundation to men of the special course. He saw the importance of a chair devoted to that special subject, and made provision for it. Reverend Edward Young Hincks came from Portland, Maine, to teach the biblical doctrines while Taylor took care of the history and customs.
A flurry of excitement was caused by the resignation of Pro- fessors Mead and Thayer because they objected to repeating the Creed every five years. This repetition of the Creed, it may be noted, ceased in 1900, by virtue of a ruling of the Visitors that the provision on this subject in the Statutes was "directory and not essential." Mead had come four years
{ 171 }
after his graduation from the Seminary to teach the He- brew language and literature. Soon afterward Thayer had arrived fresh from Germany and enthusiastic for new thought and science. His attitude, which was very different from the dogmatism of Park, lecturing across the hall, is expressed in his statement to his class: "Gentlemen, it is not for me to defend the Faith. A true faith will defend itself. It is my duty to guide you with open mind, humble spirit, and a pure heart to the Truth, the Truth alone, wherever it may lead you, and be ye sure that it will always lead you to a fuller knowledge of Christ, who is the Truth. Hold as for your life to that attitude of mind. Seek the Truth and the Truth will make you free." Both Mead and Thayer were too jealous of their personal liberty to remain under suspicion because they dis- liked to sign the Creed so often, and their resignation came soon after nearly twenty years of distinguished service on their part. They differed from the professors who remained in that they demanded that the boards of control should guarantee their freedom, while the others were content with their right to defend their freedom. The Trustees elected George Foot Moore to follow Mead. He came from a Pres- byterian pastorate in Ohio, and remained for nearly twenty years at Andover. During that time he won a world-wide reputation as an Old Testament scholar. Then he went to Harvard as professor of the history of religions, where he gained renown second to none in that field. Mr. Frank E. Woodruff was called from a fellowship at Union Seminary to occupy the New Testament chair, but he retired after four years to go to Bowdoin.
George Harris was the fifth new professor of the year. The Trustees were desirous that the discussion of theological questions in the Seminary should be on a broader platform than a single issue about the future life, and if Newman Smyth could not be obtained for the Abbot chair of theology, they wished to secure a competent, fearless, progressive teacher, who would treat every question on its merits. The Faculty was in full sympathy with that purpose. The choice fell upon Dr. Harris, who at that time was minister to the Central Con-
{ 172}
gregational Church in Providence. Harris had graduated from Andover in the class of 1869, he was known to possess the desired qualifications, and his coming was not opposed by the Visitors.
Of the Faculty as a group Harris said at the anniversary of one hundred years : "It was a company unbroken for years, knit together in personal love, united in a common interest, in the service of an institution, in the cause of truth and right- eousness. In those years a victory was gained for the freedom of a Christian man."
Since the controversy over Newman Smyth was a theo- logical issue, interest centered around the inaugurations of the two men who were to teach theology. The address of Pro- fessor Harris was very long, but it was printed in full in the Christian Union, with editorial comment on the theological disturbances. Dr. Park, now in retirement, but mentally active and deeply concerned with the new theology, carefully prepared a brochure of ninety-six pages, and it was published by a committee of six sympathizers. The pamphlet was con- troversial, intended to spike the guns of the Faculty, and to prove their disloyalty to the old Creed. Park had wielded the instruments of offence for so long that he had absorbed the atmosphere of conflict. Some years before, while in the midst of his professional career, he had disagreed with his colleagues over matters of Faculty administration so far that he had re- fused to fraternize with them or bear his part in the adminis- tration. The attack upon the new Faculty could be justified only on the ground of theological militarism. Newspaper com- ments criticised the pamphlet as technical, adroitly attempting to prove from the Creed that the professors were guilty of holding a doctrine which the Creed did not mention. But Park was sustained by many of the denominational leaders who felt that the members of the Faculty were teaching a new and false theology, and who found in the implications of the Creed, if not in its text, belief in the present life as the only period of probation for man.
The Andover Faculty was indeed introducing a new the- ology, but it was not so radical as the conservatives seemed to
{ 173 }
think. The Faculty was handicapped always by the necessity of adjusting a fixed creed to a dynamic movement. It was unfortunate that the center of interest should be a doctrine which was only a corollary of the main principles, because the main issue was much larger than the doctrine of second probation. The New England theology had stood foursquare on the doctrines of the trustworthiness of Scripture, the sin- fulness of man, the governmental theory of the atonement, and the certainty of future punishment. The new theology granted recognition to the modern criticism of the Bible, and to the doctrine of an immanent God and an evolutionary principle in nature ; reflected the ideas of Bushnell regarding the nature of man; and shifted the emphasis from the atone- ment to the incarnation. The new emphasis on the incarnation was a return to the Greek theology, which after the fifth cen- tury had been overshadowed by the emphasis on sin and the need of salvation which was characteristic of Latin theology. It seemed as if the Andover theologians were tearing away a precious garment of the Christian faith.
The Andover Faculty felt the need of an organ for the ex- pression of their opinions, and so founded the Andover Review, which for nine years furnished the medium for the explanation of the new theology. Five members of the Faculty constituted the editorial board, and the Andover Review Com- pany was formed to take care of the business end. A contract was made with Houghton Mifflin & Company to publish the Review monthly. There was the more room for it now that the Bibliotheca Sacra had taken wings to Oberlin. The prospectus of the new review stated that it would "advocate the principles and represent the spirit and method of progressive orthodoxy." The editors hoped to make it representative of the best modern thought, and particularly to "show the obligations of theology to the social and religious life of the time." They were less interested in speculation than in guiding opinion construc- tively to build a vital faith. The Review rallied the forces of the liberals, and brought them out into the open to contend for intellectual freedom and the idea of progress in theology. The thesis of the new theologians was made the title of a book
{174 }
which appeared shortly as "Progressive Orthodoxy." Its chapters were an expansion of editorials which had appeared in the Review, and were an attempt to show the true meaning of the New Theology. They dealt with the incarnation and the atonement, with the work of the Holy Spirit, with Chris- tian missions and eschatology, with the Scriptures and the universality of Christianity. Later a second series of editorials was published under the title of "The Divinity of Christ." The term "Progressive Orthodoxy" was peculiarly expres- sive of the position held by the Andover Faculty. Instead of the static system of the past they would have an intellectual faith that throbbed with life and power. They would put life into the dry bones of orthodoxy, not destroy it. They found inspiration in a Bible that was a progressive revelation of God's dealing with men, in a Spirit patiently wooing hu- mankind to allegiance to the highest ideals, in a hope that God's purpose for the world would not be defeated by pagan- ism, but that in His good way and time He would get His appeal to them and win their response. They were not skeptics or Unitarians, but it was difficult for those who held the old point of view to see anything but heresy in the new. The dis- cussion was enlivened by Joseph Cook, who in his preludes before his Monday lectures to thousands in Tremont Temple, unlimbered his guns against Professor Smyth, and by Profes- sor Park, who issued anonymously the so-called Worcester Creed for the orthodox.
It is quite correct to speak of the new theology as more humane than the old. It was based on the love of God rather than on the rigors of the law. It envisaged human relations as well as divine, and saw that Christianity must be applied to these social relations and their economic and social prob- lems. It is significant that the social settlement movement found a sponsor in Professor Tucker, one of the editors of the Andover Review. It was a long way from a creed that required the professors to denounce Roman Catholics to a practice of friendly neighborliness with Irish Americans in the South End of Boston. And it was certainly a new depart- ure to think of the heathen as subjects of divine and human
₹ 175 }
compassion both now and hereafter rather than as brands to be plucked from the burning, trophies of a selective grace.
The doctrine of second probation sponsored by the Andover Faculty as a part of their broader creed brought them directly into conflict with the American Board in Boston and with the Congregationalist, which represented editorially the older theological position. Personal animosities were inescapable. Unfriendliness appeared in the meetings of the Board and at the Anniversaries of the denomination. It was especially apparent when Andover graduates appeared as candidates for missionary appointments, and it acted to hinder the return to the field of so brilliant a missionary as Robert A. Hume.
The Faculty went on with the regular work of the school, though the controversy was a disturbing element. The wide interest in theological changes, the new social conditions con- sequent upon the growth of urban centers, and the new depart- ments of study at Andover, attracted students to the advanced courses, which were established about 1880. More than one hundred students were enrolled in these courses during the period of controversy. The record of their work was pre- served in the Seminary Bulletin, which was published monthly.
Eventually the controversy came to a head with charges of heresy brought against the five members of the editorial board of the Andover Review. This was in the summer of 1886. The Visitors had received complaints against the professors which called upon the Faculty to disprove the charges that they were disloyal to the Hopkinsian Creed and the West- minster Catechism, and that they taught doctrines that were subversive of orthodoxy. The professors replied promptly. Legal counsel was secured on both sides, and a trial of the professors under indictment was held in Boston before the Visitors. In their decision the Visitors singled out Professor Egbert C. Smyth for judgment, condemning him on three counts : first, "that the Bible is not the only rule of faith and practice, but is fallible and untrustworthy, even in some of its religious teaching"; second, "that no man has power or capac- ity to repent without knowledge of God in Christ"; third, "that there is and will be probation after death for all men
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.