The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-30


book plainly teschss exactly the con-
tray. "They charge me- with leach
ing a model trinity How do thev
make this out? They have picked
out two or three places where the
word model occurs, in .di cussing the
doctrine of the tIinliy. Yet any tyro
in theology ought to know that the
distinction between model and the
real trinity is clearly pointed out in
the very sentences from which they
quote. The most characteristic ex-
pressioIs which have been used for
fife en- centuries to denote the ortho
dox doctrine Of the trinity sre en-
ployed."
After citing Pref. Parkef'a memoir
OF DR.. Hopkins in deienss from the
charge of exalting reason in theology
too mrch, the cita ion showing that
Prof. Parker insisted o. the need and
safety exsltipg reason, Prof. Smyth
took up the really and only important
sccussti n OF teaching future probe
ton after death. Il Call it," ta'd
Prof. Smyth slowly, go EMMY and
with earnestne 70, "the right under the
creed TO hold in this matter what
ever tue Interpretation of Scripture
and revelation which God makes of
of Himself to be true. / do
not think l shall commit any sin
againet or violate obligation under
the creed if / allow myself 10 follow
with perfect trust wherever with
hesrt as with head l can discover sny
traces of Gods holy and reconciing
love. InCipient applause l will
not avail myself of any mans want of
skill in attacking me. Although l
state in Progressive Orthodoxy that l
hold God as revealed in Chrlst a csn-
trail in theology, l deny here and now
that there g anything in what hold
on the doctrine OF future probation in
consistent with the creed. On the
subject of escha'ology (the ultimate
condition of sonls), the makers
of the creed did not use Ian
guage of their own, but
Bible language, and they attempted
no Interpretation oil that language.
The creed On that point has the mean.
ing OF the Scdptures which IL quoteR,
aud that meaning only. | claim that
this disposes c)rclusively and fiDallv
of this whole question. IApp ause.
1t is made imperative upon me by my
pledge given on entering my Office as
professor, TO unfold the s riptures &C.
cording TO the best light that God
shall give me. The cTeeu NUT be
taken as whole. 1t is Impossible to
take it any othsr way, for it ,ntains
clauses which, separately considered,
are contradictory. l accept the semi-
nary creed in It's historical sense, bu;
l do not mean the opinions 1t does
not contain may be read into it be-
Cause they were entertained at the
time when it was written. TIE creed,
instead of being intended to forbid
prog ess, is itself the child tf pro.
gresJ. IL contains term after term,
which ara the way makes OF progress
along the line of modern theology"
Prof. Smyth then considered the
claim that future probation is denied
in that article Of the creed which says
that "they who are etiectuslly called,
do in this life recsivs certain bless.
ines" This, he said, is an attempt to
find the doctrine in the creed, know
where it properly belongs in a most
carefully drawn instrument. The
probabilities are all again t the makers
of the creed having designed any such
thing. II they bad intended to pre-
nounce upon the dcCt ine at all they
would have done it with the same
pains which they evinced in stating
al lnnk.tsan te,, aas1 haf oil
who are ever to bs e1ectusiiy called
are called in this life. The object and
obvious purpose of this article is to
mlort believers by assuring them of
csItan blessings in this life of conflict
and toll. The Interpretation sought
TO bs put upon this article makes it
contradict the standards OF which it
forms part with certain State
ments transferred bodily from the
Westminster shorter catechism, for
that catechism refers to elect infants
and elect other Lersons who have not
been outwardly called by the minis
try Of the word, but they could not re-
ceive in this lifAthe blessings, justifi.
cation, qualification, etc, which are
promised TO the elect who are effectu-
ally called. The address occupied
four and half hours in delivery, and
was listened to with almost breathless
attention throughout by an audience
which packed the room.
DR.. Smyth was called in his own
defense and testified that when he
was named a professor in Audaver
Seminary, he said he would subscribe
TO its creed as a whole, but could not
accept the point of federal headship,
because he had been taught by DR..
Park not to believe it.
DIR. Geo. Harris testified for the de.
Tense that when he was to bs ap.
pointed professor in 1882 he objected
to certain points in the creed, includ-
ing limited atonement and federal
leaders hip. The witness sa,d; 81
accept ths creed as expressing Sub
atantially the system OF truth taught
10 the Holy Scriptures. 1t was under
stood as a sort OF agreement that we
should subscribe to the creed under
those conditions. This was done with
the sanction OF both the trustees and
Board Of Visitors,
DUNG the questioning on
the part OF the Board of Visit
ora and the answering on the
part of the new professors
the question was raised about the pro-
baton OF those not within reach OF
the gospel. The reply given the
Board OF Visitors, in substance, was
that although clereymen might not
teach probation extended beyond this
life for these persons, they were at
liberty to hold this view as private
opinions.
Prof. Kinks gave testimony in coz
roboralion OF that OF his s;ocstes.
PiOi. Tucker testified he was elected
about two years before Prois. Harris
and Kinks. He did not meet the
board as they did because he was not
asked to DO so, but when he publicly
accepted the creed az his inauguration
he read this ttatement: "The creed l
am row about to read l fully accept
as setting forth truth against the er-
rors it is designed to meet"
This closed the testimony and Prot.
Baldwin proceeded to sum up the
complsinants. He was followed by
the Hon. ChaH, 7. Russell Tor the