The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-12-25
THE NEW THEOL0GY-A REACTION.

mitted to live in an interesting period
of the worlds history. 1t is interest
ing especially to believers in Christian
ity. There is a revolution going on in
the Christian church similar to that
which was witnessed in the sixth CEN
fury, though in a different direction.
Then it WAS from liberalism to despo-
tism; now it is from despotism to lib
eralism. Then the world was giving
up the early Universalism of the church
and taking ON endless misery with its
cognate sentiments; now it is giving
up endless misery and approximating
to Universalism with its cognate senti-
ments. We can hardly call it crisis,
for the crisis has not yet come, but that
a great and important change is grad
ually taking place in the religious SEN
timents of the people, no one who is
carefully watching "the signs of the
tines can deny. AS Universalists, we
welcome this change, and augur from
it the most suspicious results. But it
behooves us to be cautious and not ex-
agerate its Importance or expect from
it more than what facts and tenden-
cies will justify. Religious error, which
has grown gray with the hoary antiqui-
ties of many centuries, has not yet been
entirely removed, and will not be, so
long as inveterate prejudice rules the
theological world, or a worn-out phrase
ology is used to express its professed
sentiments. In illiterate corners and
back woods the old ideas still linger,
and even among more enlightened Cir
Giles the continued use Of the old terms
help to perpetuate the sentiments
which they formally expressed.
Sudden changes are not to be expect
ed in the religious world. Ideas that
are rooted in mans religious nature are
not easily torn out. From their very
nature we are led to regard them as
very tenacious. They are wrought in
to the soul with the force of sincere
conviction, and they are held there
with stubbornness which is not east
ly removed. Unlike mere intellectual
convictions, they are permeated with
emotion which fastens them as firmly
as the ivy is fastened to the oak: the
tendrils are strong and are not readily
disengaged. So we must not expect in
a single generation to witness COM
plete change in 1.-THE creed of ChIisten-
DOM
Judging, too, from the lessons of his
tory, we must expect reaction. All
great, and especially sudden, move
ments in the religious world, are follow
ed by a reaction. The Lutheran Refor-
nation of the sixteenth century met
with re-action which for time threat
ened the extinction of the new faith and
virtually did counteract it in Poland,
Hungary, Italy and France. The Pie
tistic movement in Germany in the
eighteenth century was greatly OBJ
structed by the reaction that followed,
and the nationalist iconoclasm of the
nineteenth century, has been met, even
in skeptical Germany, by an increase
of faith and freah out-pouring of the
devotional element. And we already
discover signs of reaction in the move
ment of the new theology which dis
tinguishes the present age. Witness
the concessions made in the reply of
Prof. Smyth, of the Andover Semin-
airy, to the charges of heresy made
against him and his fellow Professors.
Most of the charges, he alleges, are
'indefnite' or Irrelevant" and thus
he evades, if he does not avoid, direct
answer, as fearing to grapple with the
subject. In regard to the trinity, he
denies that he has affirmed anything
contrary to the creed and the statutes
of the Seminary. On the subject of
future probation, he says: 81 do not
admit that hold, maintain and incul-
cate that there is and will be probation
after death for all men who do not de-
cisively reject Christ during the earthly
life, and that this should be emphasized,
made influential and even central in
systematic theology He may be-
lieve in some kind of probation after
death, but no one would suspect that he
did, from anything which is found in
his reply. He also, in conclusion, says:
81 accept the creed of the Seminary,
interpreting it by no private opinion"
las DR.. Arnold did, "but according to
the well understood and commonly re-
cognized 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"
This is strong language. 1t looks like
backing down from the position which
DR.. Smyth was supposed to have taken.
Yet it may be that we have not under
stood him, or that he has not heretofore
understood himself. 1t was said that
DR.. Bushnell declared that he would
sign any creed in christendom if he