New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-18
TIE OLD THEOLOGY IND THE NEW.

"If Mr. MacQucary car no longer accept the
Creed of his Church. a. il i additionally under
stood il is dishonest for him 10 remain in it>
ministry. He should voluntarily get ol;t. and
not wait 10 he kicked out such is the YER
diet Of many, no, only of those who believe the
Crccds Of the Church. but Of those who do not.
Nor j. i, said in the MacQucaiy case only.
Many years ago the same thing WAS said about
Professor Park. Of Andovcr Seminary. whom
the orthodox Of that day regarded danger
out hereto. if not inidcl. but who. strangely
enough. i, now the champion Of orthodoxy. -
against the alleged hctc>ics of Professor Nmyth.
In those days Professor Park was Stclnly told
thai he was " in direct conflict with the cate
chism to which he has promised 10 conform in
ail his theological teachings. Many
strong phrases have Yielded much Of their mean
ing when couchcd in his plant and beautiful
forms Of illustration bun the stubborn English
of the Asscmbly's Catcchi,m i proof against
the entertainments Of his brilliant bur dcccitfnl
rhctoric' And when he occupied the Abbott
Chair. in AnGovcr il vchcmenty asserted
by the orthodox defenders Of the faith that his
theory Of Christianity was "a complete denial
Of native dcpravity." that he modified the
doctrine Of original sin" and that his " notion
If the atoncmcnt was cvasiyc. extremely vague
and UNSATISFACTORY In word. the good Con-
grcgaliOnali>tS of that day said that II was
dishonest for him to remain in the ministry
when he denied the doctrines he had sworn TO
teach. But, without in the least changing his
views on the points ut issue, he has lived long
enough to find himself orthodox, and to use the
same argument against men who are doing
IN ,vlat hn did fotty apo This il "a
striking and suggestive fact and makes it
worth while to ask what REASONS there are
which Justify men like Professor Park in the
last generation. and Professor Smyth to-day in
remaining in the Church while giving a new
Interpretation 10 its Creed.
First Of ALL they find justification in the
fact that they act in accordance with the pro-
ceSscs of nature. which is continually weaving
the new out Of the old. She never advances
by leaps, but by Il movement that Is imper
ccptbc to the observer. She never entirely
lays aside any element, however unsuitable II
may be for her present purpose. but rccrcatcs
it, and reforms il and puts a new life in If, so
that the old lives again in the new. And the
same law. il is argued applies in the world Of
thought. The beliefs OF mankind 10 matter
how divncy true they may be 10 the conscious
ness OF those who hold them. cannot be con-
gea'cd into any permanent form. They arc rs
fluent rs the sea and. if they are TO live at
all, they must, without changing their essential
character absorb something from the thoughts
and opinions, and even idiosyncrasies, of each
age that accepts them 4 man must give some
thing to his Creed, IL well get something
from it, And what he gives TO 1t may often
appear out of harmony with The old traditional
view Of il. Is an eminent theologian himself
a conservative, has recently admitted, in com
mon with all thinking and sensible men, many
alleged hereto, in the Church hold their faith
in the only way in which they can hold II, in
that reasonable aspect which has been shaped
in their minds by The force and pressure of the
whole world of Christian thought. 80 long Is
they remain true 10 the central and essential
idea which characterizcS their system they arc
honest men and uncensurablc.'
And there is another fact that bears on thc
question The difference between the old the
ol0gy and the new theology to-day is certainly
not so great rs the difference between the old
jewish theology and the theology Of Christ
if indeed Christ may be said 10 have had "A
theology. Doubtless, to the orthodox church
men OF the day it seemed a'dishoncst thing for