The Washington herald., 1907-02-10
THE NEW THEOLOGY
A Product of Changed Conditions of Thought and Inquiry
Its Restatement of Religious Dogma.

Christ is God manifest in the iesh-GOd
Of God. Light Of Light. very God Of very
GOd-the fullest manifestation Of the
Deity that could be given 10 finite COM
prehension: and His divinity, His unity
with the Father, is the earnest and the
guarantee Of ours.
While I have not space for dealing
otherwise than by way OF allusion with
the question Of the Atouement. wish
quite definitely to contradict the impress
sion that the New Theology denies that
doctrine. Il inJerpTets il afresh. as ev-
cry age and every school of thought has
done X cannot give its adhesion 10 the
form IN which the doctrine has been eX-
pressed in the past for that form was
based. on the one hand. upon a belief in
the historical nature of The fail, which
we no longer hold, and on the other
upon certain crude conceptions Of divine
justice which We have outgrown. But
while we cannot believe that Christ was
punished instead of US. satisfying a
wrGthfUl Deity, whose one desire was 70
iniiict pain on some one. guilty OF limo
cent, and that lie thus reConCiled an
angry God to fallen man. va do believe
that by His saCrifCial life and death He
reConCiled sinful man % a loving God,
and gave us-nOt a means Of escape from
I the consequences Of sin, bUt-the victory
over sin itself BY His example, by His
compassion. by the love which prompted
I Him 60 live and die for sinners, He has
given tne race the greatest encourage
ment and stimulus to live the GOdward
/ life. The reconciliation which He effects
/ between God and the sinner is, in fact,
/ the at-one-ment, that making one and
/ breaking down the middle wall OF par
\ tition' Of which the apostle speaks.
Not PanthcistIc or Unitarian.
/ Among the various false charges-some
| ill-informed. others ill-natured-that are
/ constantly made against the New The
/ ology are these two. that It is Pantheism
! or CnitaTianism. As Il matter OF fact
! both designations are singulaTly wide OF
the mark. Pantheism posts, not so much
/ the immausnce Of God in the world as
/ the identity OF God with the wOrld-twC
wholly different conceptions: or. 10 put
/ this differently. Pantheism. in asserting
1 the immanence of God, loses sight Of His
/ transcendence, while the New Theology
( does nothing of the kind. To hold thai
! God is in all is not to deny that He /:
/ also over all. God is known as immanent
in a way in which He Is necessarily-anC
/ as the word itself indicates-unknown q!
| tra1SCeEdent.
But more misleading and more mis-
chievou- 5 the contention pat forth will
1 u certain barefaCedncss day after day
that the New Theology is pure Unita
rianism." Now this matter admits hap
PLY Of direct disproof. though il Is 20 b,
feared that the most conclusive eyidcnc,
will not silence those who are determine,
to fGsten an obnoxious sectarian labe
upon men who Indignantly disclaim II
I have never seen Il reputation OF TIT
utteranCc of the most representative
modern Unitarian. the late Rev r. 4
Armstrong. who declared in 1901. in com
batting the doctrine Of the incarnation o
God IN Christ, that 1t was n fulfilled
achievement of Unitarian thought 20 re
gard cur Lord as no more than a Svca
ethical and spiritual teacher Now. tn
New Theology halls Him as Saviour. Re
deemer. Mediator. God manifest in tn
flesh. What but sheer perversity woul
claim that these two views are identica
or even rcCOnCilablc?
As a matter of fact, while Unitarian
are in the habit of claiming that the
hold the doctrine of divine immanencs
they demonstrate by their repuguance {
the idea of God 8 incarnation in men tina
they still suffer from heredity, laten
deism. From this deistic leaven Cnita
rianism has except in rare instances
never emancip2ted itself. Ultimately IN
Unitarian's rejection of the incarnation
} is the result of his rejection Of the divin
i-amaneuce. The difference between Uni
tarianism and the New Theology
summed up in the one w0Td-Christ,