New-York tribune., 1878-04-05
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
DoRCHEsTERs CONCESSIONS OF LiBER-


can not conceal from the reader its want Oh ioeo'
,urnose and nreeisiop. In speaking of the oppo-
nents Of orthodoxy, the author preserves tone Oh
dinitv and self-respect but in the development Oh
tha spbiect bo fails TO perceive the vital point OF III
on;r and vitiates his reasonngs by their lack OF a
,l;co+ion IN the question: II is his aim TO present an
arcumept in favor of orthodoxy from the eonces-
,ions of hberalists in regard TO Its cafdlha uoe-
trines The argument, If established IL may Oe
said is presumptive but not conclusive IL "o"'0
have more weight with minds accustomed 10 ieah
on the authority of eminent names inciiheu 10 ioi-
low the impulses Of sympathy, and to exercise inc
sentiment of humility and reverence IN the pursuit
Of trntb than TO search the Scriptures with docie
freedom, and TO obey the suggestions OF souhu
reason in the investigation of principles.
The concessions of an opponent IN favor OF
system are no proof of the truth OF that system
Many good things have been said OF buddhiSh ny
men who are not Buddhists But it is certainly
wide leap TO the truth of Buddhism from the
praises of its adversaries. The teachings OF Dr.
Charming aud Theodore Parker arc often com
mended for certain features by orthodox writer's
but il would be singular weakness to infer the
correctness of their teachings from such COM
mendations The system of orthodoxy may pre-
sent many points which command the admiration
of intelligent men, but it would be very fallacious
inference that the last word of theology IS 10 DC
found in the Institutes of CALVIN or 'ne
Westminster Catechism. The term orthodoxy
moreover Is vague and uncertain. III Is
not defined by the author. 1t admits OF many
forms. His own orthodoxy may be very
different thing from that Of Turretln ana
Ridgeley, of Edwards, Bellamy and Hop
pins, of John Wesley and Adam Clarke OF
DR.. Griffin. DR.. Lyman Beecher, Dr. Leonard Woods
DIR. Serene Edwards Dwight, or Dr. Horace Bush
nell of Professor n, W. Taylor President Noah Por-
ter and Professor George p. Fisher, of Dr. Charles
Hodge. of President McCosh, of the family of Alex
ander father and sons But every form of ortho-
oxy we believe is supposed to involve the doctrine
of the Trinity Of the expiatory sacrifice and of
endless punishment. Eliminate these doctrines
from the creed, what will remain of the orthodox
faith If then the concessions of hberalsts are
of any validity of any value they should be dl-
reeted to these points A flow of kindly, indefinite
panegyric does not do the work. The rhetorical
concession of liberalist which does not touch the
vital point in dispute is of no more force than a
Fourth-of-July encomum on the Constitution OF the
United States, or a tender remembrance Of the
Administration of General Grant or General Jackson
As marshaled by the author, these concessions, all
though under appropriate heads, will be found to be
irrelevant they concede only what few theoiogians
are inclined to deny; they do not hit the nail on
the head, because they do not cOncede what con-
stitutes the essence the marrow, the immortal life
of orthodoxy, but only commend some of the beau
tiful and impressive features which may he ad
mired from devotional aesthetic point of
view without admitting the substantial truth of the
system. If the concessions are to the truth of
cardinal doctrine of orthodoxy, then they are not
the concessions of liberalist unless can be
orthodox and liberalist at the same time) and
must be counted out; but if they are not TO the
truth of a cardinal doctrine, they irrelevant to
the subject and of no avail as arguments
The First Book in the volume is entitled " The
Deity of Christ' and the point in favor of which
concession was necessary is the truth of the doc
trine Of the Trinity, or the Trpersonality of the
Godhead. But none of the concessions brought for
ward by the author run IN this direction. There is
not word in his quotations from liberal writers
sustaining the idea of Three Persons and One God.
Professor William Everett is quoted as arguing that
Christ is superior to Socrates that he is the
cond Person in the Trinity. But this concession
in favor Of orthodoxy. The same view
presented by Rousseau in his celebrated parallel be-
tween Jesus and Socrates. 1t is among the conces-
sions referred to by the author and was quoted
with admiration in q discourse by the pastor of the
leading Unitarian Church in Boston the Rev. S. c.
Thacher), more than half century ago. But GER
tany no leaning toward orthodoxy, especially to-
ward the doctrine of the Trinity can be ascribed
either to Rousseau or the Rev. Mr.. Thacher. Their
profound admiration of the character of Jesus inn
piled no assent to the doctrine which is the
stone of the orthodox faith. Again DR.. +. H. Hedge
of Cambridge and the eloquent biographer of Jesus
M. Renan, are referred to among the liberal
lists who have made concessions in favor Of ortho-
doxy But what, in fact, is said by these liberal
n H IL
divine; we want to see In Christianity the power of
God and the wisdom of God made manifest for the
moral welfare of man we want to the spirit of
God entering into human nature to revive
and redeem it; we want a teacher conscious of
Gods in-presence, claiming attention as n voice out
of the heavensn NJ. Renan says: Whatever
may be the surprises of the future Jesus will never
be surpassed. His worship will grow young without
ceasing; his legend will call forth tears without
end; his sufferings will melt the nOblest hearts;
and all ages will proclaim that among the sons of
men there is none born greater than Jesus" Again,
Renan adds speaking of Christ: "a matchess
man. so grand that although here all must be judged
from purely scientific point of view, would not
gainsay those who, struck with the exceptional
character of his work call him God" DR.. Hedge
and NJ. Renan may, doubt, be classed as liberal
ists but their concessions to orthodoxy cannot
hold high rank in that category. The orthodoxy
to which they cOpeede tits certain, would not stand
high at Princeton or Andover, and would scarcely
pass muster under the more ndulgent light of New
Haven. At the utmost they only ratify the conclu-
sions with regard to the Divinity of Christ for
which the Rev. John Miller, of Princeton, was re-
Gently suspended from the ministry by Presby-
terian ecclesiastical court.
The author lays great stress on the assertions OF
an anonymous writer in The Christian Examiner
Unitaran). who afirms that the doctrine Of the
Trinity is rooted in the life of the lndo-European
races. But the very passage adduced clearly shows
that il was not the orthodox Trinity that was in