St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-30
PLEADING HIS OWN CAUSE.
Prof. Smythe. of Andover, Speaks in
His Own Behalf.
Future Probation and Other Theo.
logical Surmises Discussed.

all The accused professors should be put in
and the arguments made before the conclu-
sion of Prof. Smythe's case was argued at the
outset to-day. as it was yesterday. Judge
French stating that the complainants had
made no preparation for prosecuting
any case other than the one against
Prof. Smythe and Prof. Baldwin,
urging that, while each case should be de-
cided by itself, the evidence and arguments
applicable to all alike should be heard once
for all. Otherwise. he said, the tria,
would be indefinitely and needlessly pro-
longed. Again the question was left I'M
decided. Prof. Smythe then resumed hig
address in his own defense, which was be-
gun yesterday. Following is a synopsis of
PROF. sMYTHE's ADDRESS TO-DAY:
They charge that men are not sinners who
have not heard of Christ, or, at any rate. are
not in danger of being lost. Now, on pages
A and AZ of Progressive Orthodoxy, sinful
ness is predicated of man universally The
quotations they make in support of this
charge are garbed like so many other of
their quotations. PIOf Smythe read MANY
extracts showing that the book plainly teaches
exactly the contrary to what is charged. They
charge me with teaching Il model trinity.
How do they make this out? They have
picked out two or three places where the
trine of the triuity. Yet any tyro in theology
ought to know that the distinction between a
''model'' and the real trinity is clearly pointed
out in the very sentences from which
they quote. The most characteristic express
sions which have been used for
centuries to denote the orthodox
doctrine of the trinity are explained.
In Prof. Parks memoir in defense of the
charge of exalting reason in theology too
much, the citation shows that Prof. Parks
insisted on the need and safety of exalting
reason. Prof. Smythe took up the really and
only important accusation of teaching future
probation after death. II claim said Prof.
Smythe, slowly, solemnly and with tremulouf
earnestness, 1.-The rights under the creed II
hold in this matter whatever
TRUE INTERPRETATION
of Scripture and revelation which God makes
OF himself, shows me to be true. / do not
think | shall commit any sin against, or
violate any obligation under, the creed if I
allow myself to follow with perfect trust
where yer the heart is with the head, and
can discover any trace of Gods holy and
reconciling love. [Incipient applause.1 L
will not avail myself of any mans
want of skill in attacking me, although
/ state in "Progres We Orthodoxy that I
held God as revealed in Christ is central in
theology. deny here and now that there is
anything in what L hold on the doctrine of
future probation inconsistent with the creed.
condition of souls), the makers of the creed
did not use language of their own, but Bible
language. and they attempted an interpreter
ton of their language. The creed on that
point has the meaning of the Scripture
which it quotes, and that meaning only. I
claim that this disposes conclusively
and finally of this whole question
1t is made imperative upon me
to unfold the Scriptures according
to the best light that God shall give me. The
creed must be taken up as whole. 1t is i'm
possible to take it any other Way for il con-
tains clauses which, separately considered,
are contradictory. [ accept the seminary
creed in its historic sence, but do not mean
that the opinions it does not contain may be
read into it, because they were entertained at
the time when it was written. The creed, in
stead of being intended to forbid progress is
itself the child of progress. 1t contains
term after term which are the very means of
progress along the line of modern theology"
Prof. Smythe then considered the claim that
FUTURE PROBATION
is denied in that article of the creed which
says that "They who are effectually called,
do in this life receive certain blessings
This, he said, is an attempt to find the doc
trine in the creed, not where it properly be-
longs in most carefully drawn instrument.
The probabilities are all against the makers
of the creed having designed any such thing.
If they had intended to pronounce upon the
doctrine at all they would have done it with
the same pains which they evidenced in stat
ing other doctrines. 1t is now said that all who
are to be effectuay called are called in this
life. The object and obvious purpose of the
article is to comfort believers by assuring
them OF certain blessings in this life of con-
f1ict and toll. The Interpretation sought to
be put upon this article makes it contradict
the standards of which it forms a part with
certain statements transferred bodily from
the Westminster shorter catechiSm for that
catechiSm refers to elect infants and elect
other persons who have not been Outwardly
called by the ministry of the word, but they
could not receive in this life the blessings,
justification. sanctifcation, etc., which are
promised to the elect who are effectually
called.
The address occupied four and a half
hours in delivery and was listened to with
almost breathlesS attention throughout by
an audience which packed the room.
DR.. Smythe was called in his own defense
and testified that when he was named
professor in Andover 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.. Parke not to believe it. DR..
George Harris testified for the defense
that when he was to be appointed a pro.
lessor in 1882 he
OBJECTED TO CERTAIN POINTS
in the creed, including limited atonement
and federal headship. The witness said
/ accept this creed as expressing substan.
TALLY the system of truth taught in the Holy
Scriptures 1t was understood as part of
the agreement that we should subscribe to
the creed under these conditions. This was
done with the sanction of both the trustees
and the board Of visitors. During the ques-
tioning on the part of the board
of visitors and the answering on
the part of the new professors
the question was raised about the probation
of those not within reach of the gospel. The
reply given by the board Of visitors in sub
stance was that although clergymen might
not teach probation extended beyond this life
for these persons, they were at liberty to hold
this view as private opinion.
Prof. Hncks gave testimony in corrobOr
alton of that of his associates Prof.
Tucker testified that he was elected about
two years before Profs. Harris and Hincks.
He did not meet the board as they did, be-
cause he was not asked to do so. but when
be publicly accepted the creed at Inaugural
ton he read this statement:
The creed am now about to read fully
accept as setting forth truth against the err
rors il is designed to meet.
This closed the testimony. and Prof.
Baldwin proceeded to sum up for the COM
plainants. He was followed by Hon.
Charles 7. Russell, for the accused. His
plea was not concluded when the hearing
was adjourned until tomorrow.
rsl1rsSEkzsEE5.,