Morning journal and courier., 1886-12-30
News by Telegraph FROM ALL QUARTERS. PROF. SMITHS DEFENCE. A MasterIy Exposition Of
 His Faith. THE PROFESSORS CASE CLOSED. Professor Baldwin Sums
 Up For Them. LORD HARTIhGTOH AT HOME. Rising Hopes Of A Coali-
 tiOn Cabinet.
THE ANDovER CREED.

U1U1 NltUlHCUs
 THE ANDOVER CREED.
 Professor Smyth Makes a Telling 1 Statement of His Positfon-The Case Closed for the Accused Professors and Professor Simeon E. Baldwin Sums Up for Them.
 BOSTON, Dec. 29-The Andover trial was
 resumed at a. m. to-day. Profe ssor Egbert c. Smyth resumed his statement in his own behalf. The frst particular to the respondents belief, 'tthat mankind, save as they have received knowledge of the historic Christ, are not sinners or, if they are, not of such sinfulness as to be in dan- ger of being lost" {s'Progressive Orthodoxy p 55). In reply to this charge Prof. Smyth read other quotations from Progressive Or thodoxy," several of them being from pages between the two pages referred to by the
 complainants. The next par ticular, as to a belief that "no man can be lost without hay ing had knowledge of Christ" was then con- sidered, Prof. Smyth reafirming his former reply to it, that he holds that all men, being sinners, are lost without Christ Particular 6, as to the atonement of Christ, was briefly replied to, Professor Smyth saying that the complainants have confused two lines of approach to the sub iect and failed to observe that the familiar one is recognized, but not pursued, because it is so well understood. Particular 7, re- garding belief ''that the Trinity is modal or monarchian and not Trinity of persons" Professor Smyth styled a sheer blunder; one, however, which nothing but the oppressive exigencies of this friendly suit could have led sensible men to commit. He would put the question whether any tyro in theology could not have told these en that the dis tinction between 8 modal or real Trinity is conveyed by the use of the phrase which they quote, one of them, mode of manifesto tion and mode of being, the latter being the phrase used in the book. Particulars 8, re- garding belief 'stbat the work of the Holy Spirit is chiefly confined to the sphere of historic Christian | ity;" g, ''that without the knowledge of God | in Christ men do not deserve the punishment | of the law, and that therefore their salvation | is not wholly of grace;'" and 10, "that l faith ought to be scientific and rational, ! rather than scriptural, !" were then considered, the first two with substantially the same | answers were given in Prof. Smyth's ! former reply, and all three in connection | with numerous quotations in addition to l those already made. Particular Il related I to probation after death. Prof. Smyth cited 1 passages from Progressive Orthodoxy" to
 show that the charge might have been met | by simple denial, But he would not avail himself of that line of defense. He claimed full liberty under the cross to hold in this
 to him correct. creed contains no explicit declaration upon the question at issue; it says nothing about ! the condition of men who die without op- portunity to hear the gospel, or to accept or 1 reject an offered Saviour in the intermedi- ate stage between death and judgment. The article cited does not assert that the effectu- ally called are called in this life, deal with the number of the elect. It becomes evident that it's interpretation by complain ants is forced one and makes the article
 contradictory to the standards of which it
 puts it out of harmony with the creed to which it has been transferred. Prof. Smyth argued this question at lenghth
 and then said that upon every one of the | charges which are properly in issue the complainants have failed to show that he holds, maintains and inculcates in his office l as professor anything not in harmony with or antagonistic to the creed of the seminary, l and that he is entitled to complete acquittai | the board to something more than technical ! acquittal. The professor said that he accepted the outcome of the Il creed, as a whole, but denied
 the force of each individual statement taken | apart from other statements. The creed
 must be so interpreted as to avoid contra | dictions. He vent to the seminary with the
 understanding that the interpretation of the l creed was what he now. believes it to be, and | that was the position of his father-in law, the 1 former chairman of the board of visitors. He maintained that he had not violated his ob- l hgations, even upon 8 technical construction | of the creed; and If, as he believed was the case, the creed is summary of principles ! which are to be developed from generation l to generation, he had done some thing better. ''The creed admits 1 by it's silence" he concluded,
 "and still more by it's principle as 8 legiti- ! mate ina ulry all that has been contended for by my associates in the Andover Review and | in Progressive Orthodoxy and I offer this l as a clear, complete and fulI justification I against all the charges of the complainants. ;" | Professor Smyth spoke four and a halfhours 1 and was listened to with almost breathless at l tention by 8 very large audience. At the close of the address there was an outburst of ap- | plause which met with stern rebuke from I the chairman.
 l Dr. Newman Smyth, of New Haven, was ! called as witness and said that when he was | named as professor Q6 EalO n6 WOui0 SUD scribe to the Andover creed as whole, but | not accept the point of federal headship, be- cause he had been taught by Dr. Park not to believe it. Dr. George Harris objected l to some of the points in | the Andover creed when he was I appointed professor in 1889. Among these 1 points were federal headship and limited | atonement He accepted the Andover creed as expressing substantially the system of l truth taught in the holy scriptures. The l question was raised before the board of visit ors as to the probation of those not within reach of the gospel. It was decided in sub ! stance that clergymen might hold as pri- vate opinion that probation extended beyond this life for these persons; it might be well I not to teach it. Prof. Hineks' testimony was the same in substance as the other pro- \ fessors. Prof. Tucker did not meet the board of visitors when he was elected two years previous to Profs, Smyth and Hincks because he was not asked to do so. At his inauguration he publicly accepted the creed and read statement to that effect The case of the respondents was then closed.
 After recess Professor s. E. Bald win made an argument for the respond ents in which he said: For the past year at Andover there has been the utmost harmony not perhaps on the minor points of belief, but on those general principles and on the adherence to the creed that has produced harmonious working together for the best
  at the beginning of the present year come members of the board of trustees and
 bring sweeping charges against five members of the family, which they have failed to specify as ordered by this board and have utterly failed to support by evidence. It is rot reasonable to bring such charges against earnest and honest men who simply clothe seven teenth century truth in 2 nineteenth century 1 dress. They have been bound to teach the revelations given them by God and have done so in all the light of the thought that is
 being constantly layished upon it. The old Calvinism distinctly held that redemption l was for the few, while the Andover creed l these Andover professors have had to stIug- gle against the old Calvinistic creed and it has been constant fight of liberal ortho- doxy against that of Princeton and even against the same feeling at Andover. It | has already been decided by the Supreme | court that inc seminary has been founded m