New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-05
MR.. RIPLEY,S CAREER.

s. reformer and literary critic was born In Greenfe,
3 Mass, on the Sd of October. 1902. He was the so
!, of Jerome Ripley. prominent merchant Of Green
- = field and of Sarah Franklin Ripley, who was near
a related to Benjamin Franklin, and was the younges
=, and the last survivor of ten children, fou
boys and six girls. He was fitted 70
d college by a kinswoman, Mrs. Margaret Rip
g ley, who was an admirable scholar and re
r markabe woman. He was graduated A. b
, at Harvard University in 1923, and b. d. at th
Cambridge Divinity School in 1926 He was
: Mathematical Tutor in the University from 1925 t.
, 1926. In 1923 he was settled over COngreQa.
tional Church in Boston, and he remained in this
charge until 1S41. During considerable period
ne resided in Europe, making careful study OF
French and German literature. He entered upon
his intellectual life at peculiar time. He heard
the first mutterings of the Unitarian contro versy.
lie nurtured when pastors had begun to
doubt the Atonement. the Trinity and Original Sin
doctrines in which they had avowed their belief
at their ordination The forces of the New En- gland
mind gathering themselves together for protest
or for unbelief. 1t was hard then to know what
any clergyman actually accepted. Some So
cinians. Some were in doubt whether they were
| S0cinians or not But over all was atmosphere
| of uncertainty and gradually ecclesiasticism was
giving way at several of its strongholds which
| considered the most important, and. we may add.
the most mpregnable. More than one writer has
attempted to depict this phase of igious expert
ence; perhaps has yet depicted it accurately.
1t is unlike any other intellectual charge which IS
Of record. 1t was cautious, and sometimes there
was in it a suspicion. IL more of wary conceal
ment. Men went into the ministry hardly knowing
what they believed, and even doubling sometimes
whether there should be Christian ministry at all.
The fruit of these speculations came afterward, as
we shall presently see.
Upon his return from Europe Mr.. Ripley entered
at once into the discussion, which was for several
years prolonged with all the force of q robust and
positive nature. He was not as those know who
knew him well for controversy but he did not
shirk from it. He had adopted original methods Of
considering religious questions and possessed an
alacrity of attack and of defence. He had been
trained to limited extent, in the battles between
the Trinitarans and the Unitarians of New-Eng-
land. He published in 1889 "Discourses on the
Philosophy of Religion" and found old associates
with whom he must cOntend.and was pitted against
thinkers with whom he had not long before been n
affectionate fellowship But he was a man of such
admirable intellectual valor that no opponent
daunted him, while his scholarly attainments
made him an extremely difficult person to
meet in controversy. He had fitted himself
for these contests by his profound studies of the
German theoogians. He knew everything of
Herder and something of Kant Tho Cambridge |
Divinity School, dreadfully disturbed by these un-
reasonable men who persisted in carrying premises |
to conclusions in elevatng reason to higher plane
than that to which they were accustomed, found |
themselves forced to the rescue Tho controversy
may appear at this time unimpOrtant to the men
who then engaged in it the struggle was for spirit
ual life or death. The religious teachers Of New
England, in the calm routine of the pastOrate,
had been playing without knowing it with the
edge-tools Of doubt and dissent. When the
wind of these rude polemics swept down upon the
quiet chambers of the Cambridge Divinity School
1T found its teachers unprepared either by study or
experience for the rigid conclusions of the Trans
cendenta Philosophy for its negations, and even for
all which it half grudgnsly accepted. Mr.. Ripley
was the foremost champion of the new and original
thought 1t certainly was not his fault if piety
had become a form, and if Unitarians did not know
whether they believed or not. He could hardly be |
blamed for endeavorng to give to Untarianism |
more spiritual aspect That he should accept the
teachings of Schleermacher not pleasant to the
mind of Mr.. Andrew Norton who was inexpressiby q
shocked and who considered the German to be an | q
atheist. Mr.. Ripley defended the Germans Dis i
,Ousses Religion" in a letter to the Cambridge q
man, remarkable alike for its subtlety and good i
Judgment. There more to come hereafter ,
5ut TINS was ln9 beginning. his reply TO Pro- Y
essor Norton was published in 1910. \
Mr. rockingham has written the history of this 8
erod. and of the ferment of mems minds which z
Iept them in an equpOse between Kant and Cousin g
( anybody at that time was positive and definite
was Mr.. Ripley. His mind was eminenty eclectic Il
n s3S he began the publication of the Spec- o
lens of Foreign Standard Literature" The series b
xtended to fourteen Volumes and was entirely
athOc in its character 1t presented to the Z"
merican mind the intellectual conclusions of c,
ousin, JOuffroy and Constant to which Mr.. Ripley
ontTibuted intrOductiOns 1t may be proper 10 Il
lenton in passing, that to this series Margaret in
uller gave a translation of Eckerman's "Conycr. F
,tions with Goethe" and other contributors were et
rofessor Felton, j. S. Dwight, William Fl. Chan ca
ing. James Freeman Clarke, Samuel Osgood and ia
harles I. Brooks. The pure critical character of r
r. Ripleys mmd renders this series of great value D.
I'd it remains monument both of his admirable | is
tellect and of his discriminating taste. An ed | of
on of tho Philosophical Miscellanes," forming ey
10 first two volumes of the SERIES which were pu
ecially from Mr.. Rpley's hand, was republshed
Edinburgh in 1857. o
The active thought Of those Massachusetts ri
ope who had cast far behind them the fetters of rel
ldition, naturally sought medium of communi- d
ton with the thinking publicj and this was W,
md IN The Dial magazine which was remark cri
le because it was not only unlike anything be- in
re it, but unlike anything with which it was con- INC
nporaneOus The editors of this periodical were COZ
. Ripley, Miss Fuller and Mr. Emerson In Its sec Hi
d number, Mr.. Ripley published a letter COM the
nding Herder's &" Letters to a Young Theolo- ha
IN" To The Dial he was a constant contributor ha
we are unable to name distinctly his articles inc
was not his way to shrink from liberal estimate VIII
whatever came under his hand His review of ard
rtineau's Rationale of Religious Inquiry was be.
,ductive of much controversy, more or less ign
'ftable. However deep differences, rat
however strongly he might dissent from those the
h whom he was engaged, he retained his philo- me
hica balance, was then as he was to the end equ