which had been modified in some particulars to bring into
prominence some of the tenets to which the Associates
attached importance; to interpret the Creed as occasion
104 MY GENERATION
might require; to examine the professors elected by the
Trustees on their Foundation; and "to take care that the
duties of every professor on the Foundation be intelH-
gently and faithfully discharged, and to admonish or re-
move him either for misbehavior, heterodoxy, incapacity,
or neglect of the duties of his office." The relation of the
Visitors to the occupants of chairs on the original or
general Foundation was not clearly determined. The
Stone Professorship of the Relations of Christianity and
Science, established at a later date, was expressly ex-
empted from the supervision of the Board of Visitors.
Keeping in mind the fact that the Board of Trustees was
the governing board, it will be seen that this twofold
jurisdiction was liable to become at any time the source
of friction, if not of contention, partly through the over-
definition of the duties of the Visitors, and partly through
the want of full coordination between the two Boards.
During the period of the controversy (1882-92) the
membership of the Board of Trustees remained practically
unchanged. This Board consisted of twelve members who
were chosen with reference to the interests both of the
Academy and of the Seminary. They were at this time
Hon. Alpheus Hardy, Chairman of the Board until his
death, succeeded by his son Mr. Alpheus H. Hardy as a
member of the Board, and by Rev. Dr. Daniel T. Fiske
as Chairman of the Board; Dr. C. F. P. Bancroft, Princi-
pal of Phillips Academy, and Mr. Edward Taylor, Treas-
urer of both the Academy and Seminary; Rev. Dr. J. W.
Wellman, of Newton and Maiden; Thomas H. Russell,
Esq., of Boston; Hon. Joseph T. Ropes, of Boston; Rev.
Dr. Alexander McKenzie, of Cambridge ; Rev. Dr. William
H. Wilcox, of Maiden; Hon. Robert R. Bishop, of Newton;
THE ANDOVER PERIOD 105
President Franklin Carter, of Williams College; and Rev.
Dr. James G. Vose, of Providence.
The Board of Visitors in the meantime, though consist-
ing of but three men, changed its membership more fre-
quently, creating the constant liability that "a single
personal variation might change its character entirely."
The Board in the earlier stage of the controversy consisted
of President Julius H. Seelye, of Amherst; Hon. Charles
Theodore Russell, of Boston; and Rev. Dr. WilHam T.
Eustis, of Springfield. This was the Board which passed
upon the election of Dr. Newman Smyth, rejecting him
by a vote of two to one. The Board which rendered the
mixed decision in the case of the five accused professors,
condemning one and acquitting four, consisted of Presi-
dent Julius H. Seelye, Dr. William T. Eustis, and Jonathan
Marshall, Esq. The Board which finally recalled this de-
cision and dismissed the case, consisted of Rev. Dr. George
Leon Walker, President; Rev. Dr. Alonzo H. Quint, and
Jonathan Marshall, Esq. The personal votes of the mem-
bers of the Board on these different occasions will be
given in their connection. At no time, except possibly
the last, was the vote of the Board unanimous. The fore-
going facts, if kept in mind, will throw light upon subse-
quent proceedings.
W^hen in 1881 at the close of the academic year, Professor
Park resigned from the Abbot Chair of Christian Theology,
the Faculty, following the usual procedure in professional
schools in the event of a vacancy, began to make inquiries
for the most fit man to present to the Trustees for their
consideration. After many inquiries and much corre-
spondence at home and abroad, they presented the name
of Dr. Newman Smyth, basing their recommendation
io6 MY GENERATION
upon Dr. Smyth's reputation as a broad and critical
scholar, upon his theological opinions embodying, as they
believed, the best traditions of Andover, upon his well-
proven work in the pastorate, and especially upon the
intellectual and spiritual power which he had shown
through his published works in the sphere of Christian
Apologetics. Of "Old Faiths in New Light" (1879) the
"British Quarterly" had said: "The present volume is
one of those books which mark transition periods of theo-
logical thought. It is eminently conservative of orthodox
thought concerning the Bible and the Christ, but is so by
throwing aside many old modes and presenting, if not in
new yet in less familiar lights, their true character and
claims. We have been greatly interested in the discussion,
in its vigorous grasp, its moral penetration, its complete-
ness and its eloquence. Just as Butler constituted a new
apologetic for the men of his day, so men like Mr. N.
Smyth are contributing a new apologetic for our own time
which, as in Butler's case, consists largely in a newer,
broader, and more invulnerable way of putting the ques-
tion." This book, taken in connection with the volumes
on "The Religious Feeling" (1877), and "The Orthodox
Theology of To-day" (1881), gave the clearest possible
opportunity for all concerned to ascertain Dr. Smyth's
theological views as well as to measure his intellectual
ability. The recommendation of the Faculty was unani-
mous and hearty; and after full consideration on their
part the Trustees elected him to the chair of Christian
Theology with no dissenting vote, one member not voting.
Announcement of the election was made through the
public press under date of March 4, 1882; officially through
an editorial in the "Advertiser" of that date. In its first
THE ANDOVER PERIOD
107
issue following this announcement, the " Congregationalist "
declared the appointment unsatisfactory and thereafter
became the organ of disaffection. Under date of March 2,
two days before the announcement of his election, a letter
was sent by a member of the staff of the "Congregation-
alist" to a member of the Faculty, calling upon the Fac-
ulty to withdraw the nomination, as in the event of the
confirmation of Dr. Smyth "the appointment will be
criticized publicly and vigorously."
Cannot the Andover Faculty [the letter ran in part] be per-
suaded to withdraw the nomination of Rev. Newman Smyth to
be Professor Park's successor.'^ Without underestimating the diffi-
culty of finding a suitable man for the place, or questioning their
anxiety to secure the best man for it, or disputing in the least
Mr. Smyth's possession of marked abilities, the fact remains and
daily grows more evident, as the news of his election becomes
known more generally, that such an election is regarded as a
mistake and as an injury to the best interests of the Seminary,
which will be both severe and lasting. So far as I have been able
to learn how it strikes people, and I have taken some pains to
learn, I have heard of only one man who likes it. The best which
can be said of it is that it is a most hazardous experiment, and
people do not feel that Andover just now can afford to run risks
needlessly.
If I understand the situation, Mr. Smyth's nomination is be-
fore the Visitors who have not yet confirmed it. They must
either confirm or refuse to confirm, or the nomination may be
withdrawn. If they confirm, the mischief will be done and the
appointment will be criticized publicly and vigorously in a way
which will not be pleasant however good-naturedly it may be
phrased. If they refuse to confirm, it may be painful for Mr.
Smyth and his friends. It is quite sure to be. But if the Faculty
could see their way to quietly withdraw the nomination, it
seems to me that they would save themselves and Mr. Smyth
some annoyance and the matter could drop, so far as concerns
him, they beginning to look for some one else.
io8 MY GENERATION
This very self-revealing letter brings out clearly two
facts — first the narrowness of the circle in which the
writer operated (he found but one man as the result of
his inquiries who liked the appointment of Dr. Smyth);
second, the determination of the group at this early stage
not to accept the decision of the Visitors should they vote
to confirm Dr. Smyth. It is also a fair inference, from the
pressure brought to bear on the Faculty to withdraw the
nomination, that pressure was being brought to bear
upon the Visitors to reject it. This inference is sustained
by a sentence in a personal letter from President Seelye
received a little later — "The Board of Visitors, notwith-
standing the criticisms with which they have been favored,
not to say flooded, have been convinced by Dr. Smyth of
his profound agreement with the established doctrinal
position of the Seminary."
The chief ground of objection on the part of the "Con-
gregationalist " was a relieving theory put forth by Dr.
Smyth in a defense of the Christian doctrine of retribu-
tion, to the effect that it was reasonable to believe that
those who had had no opportunity to know of Christ in
this life, or to come under the Christian motives to re-
pentance and faith might have such opportunity here-
after. The, occasion for the introduction of the hypothesis
was the challenge of a local club of skeptics to justify
Christianity at this point. The " Congregationalist " re-
garded it as a vague and unsettling theory having no suf-
ficient support in Scripture and contrary to the accepted
doctrine of the universal decisiveness of this life. It was
charged that this theory constituted "a second probation."
To the mind of this generation it seems quite impossible
that so false and contradictory a term as "a second proba-
THE ANDOVER PERIOD 109
tion" should have been made the rallying cry of the alarm-
ist, and still more that within certain limits it should have
been an effective cry. But such was the fact. It actually
succeeded in bringing together various incongruous ele-
ments, confirming the view which I have expressed that
the influences at work were "not altogether theological."
The title of the editorial in the " Congregationalist,"
"Professor Park's Successor," showed the nature of the
appeal to that type of mind which takes alarm in any
change in the method of presenting truth. Professor Park's
method was that of the advocate. It was directed to a
given conclusion and was satisfied with the most effective
means of reaching it. It left a good deal of valuable and
really pertinent truth by the wayside. Dr. Smyth's method
promised to be that of the interpreter. It seemed to
take account of all related truth, and sought to arrive at
a more comprehensive result than any that could be
reached as the conclusion of an argument. The term
"second probation" was also made use of to waken the
antagonism of the promoters of missions. There are
"vested interests" in dogma as there are vested interests
in property. The dogma of the universal decisiveness of
this life, involving the perdition of the heathen, was a
vested interest of incalculable value in the judgment of
certain managers of missionary boards. To question this
dogma was in their language "to cut the nerve of missions."
It were better to make Christianity unreasonable if not
unbelievable. Still further, the term in question was de-
vised and employed for the special purpose of making the
hypothesis of Dr. Smyth, regarding the Christian possi-
bilities of the future state, appear to be contradictory to
the Andover Creed. As a matter of fact the Andover Creed
no MY GENERATION
was silent at this point. The subject had not then come
under consideration. All that could be said was that, in
the judgment of the "Congregationalist," the makers of
the Creed would have condemned the theory in question
had it been before them. But to say this was to deal in that
most dangerous of all creations of the human mind —
"constructive heresy." From this risk the " Congregation-
alist" did not shrink, but proceeded to affirm that any
one holding this hypothesis could not honestly subscribe
to the Creed; and if allowed to subscribe, would subject
the management of the Seminary to the charge of per-
version of funds. Under this construction of creeds and of
credal obligations, the Seminary was conceded to be im-
movably anchored to a "particular phase of orthodoxy
in the past," and it was also conceded that it was the duty
of its guardians to hold fast to this anchorage.
In this effort to establish the theory of constructive
heresy on which the charge of dishonesty in subscription
to the Creed of the Seminary might be based, the "Con-
gregationalist " went so far in its appeal to the prejudices
of all opponents of creeds and of creed subscription in
general that the Faculty felt compelled to arrest the dis-
cussion by showing its sinister motive and its deplorable
effect. They justified their action in this matter, while the
question of the confirmation of Dr. Smyth was still be-
fore the Visitors by saying in the introductory paragraph
of their Letter to the public: "While the election of a
Professor at Andover is in the hands of the Visitors, it
would ordinarily be improper for either the Board of
Trustees or the Faculty to engage in a public discussion
of it. If we exceed the customary rule in the present in-
stance, it is because the discussion has swept into its
THE ANDOVER PERIOD 1 1 1
current questions far broader and more vital than that
of the confirmation or rejection of the Professor-elect —
questions that touch not only the life of Andover Sem-
inary, but the perpetuity as well of all trusts conditioned
by a creed, and even the possibility of an orthodoxy at
once stable and progressive." This letter was signed by all
the members of the Faculty in active service. The sub-
stance of the Letter was given wide circulation in the daily
press. I find in referring to the files of the "Independent,"
at the time, while it was as yet under the unfettered edi-
torial management of Dr. William Hayes Ward, the most
influential organ of liberal orthodoxy, that the Letter was
pubhshed in full under date of April 13, 1882, with a clear
interpretation of the Andover situation. It also appeared
in the " Congregationalist " of the same week with edi-
torial comment.
Meanwhile as this discussion went on. Dr. Smyth was
still in the hands of the Board of Visitors. Their decision
had gone to the Trustees in a tentative form, but had not
been made public. It had, however, been foreshadowed
in a brief personal interview, following the official examin-
ation of Dr. Smyth. As I had been asked by President
Seelye, the Chairman of the Board, to introduce Dr. Smyth
to the Visitors at their session at the Mansion House, An-
dover, he courteously called at my house on his way to the
station and briefly outlined their possible verdict. This was
similar in terms to that finally rendered, and was to the
effect that while the Board was fully satisfied with the con-
formity of Dr. Smyth's theological views with their own
interpretation of the Andover Creed, they so far questioned
his habit of mind as a teacher that they hesitated to con-
firm him. Upon Dr. Seelye's asking me what I thought of
112 MY GENERATION
this outcome of the case, I was obliged to answer that it
seemed to me that it was an evasion of the essential issue,
and that it would be so regarded by the Faculty and the
Trustees. My reply, though received with attention, was
evidently not convincing.
The following letter to Mr. Hardy, President of the
Board of Trustees, gives a suggestion of the discussion
which went on between the two Boards while the case
was pending before the Visitors :
My dear Mr. Hardy:
I thank you for forwarding Dr. Seelye's letter, which please
find enclosed. As in his letter to you he referred very kindly to
my attitude toward Newman Smyth, I want to give you briefly
the reasons which hold me to my record.
1. The election of Newman Smyth unites the Faculty. I do
not say that we could not unite upon any other man, but I do not
see the man upon whom we could unite so thoroughly and heart-
ily. If I were writing to President Seelye, I should enter quite at
length into this matter, but you know the story better than I do.
2. The election of Newman Smyth wakens enthusiasm among
students. Of this you have had the testimony.^ And in the pres-
* Andover Theological Seminary
March 11, 18852
Prof. W. J. Tucker:
Dear Sir:
The Congregationalist's editorial on " Professor Park's Successor," which came
to my notice this morning, suggested for the first time that there might be some
opposition to the appointment of Dr. Smyth. As I chance to be almost the only
member of my class remaining here, I feel that I should not do my duty by my
classmates who have gone away, did I not express to you the intense satisfaction
with which the appointment has been regarded by us all. I have also heard from
friends in Union Seminary that the appointment meets with similar enthusiasm
among the students there.
In case the feelings of the students would have any weight whatever, I hope
that at least no negative action will be taken before we have an opportunity to
present the petition, which I know would spring spontaneously from every
member of the Seminary, that Dr. Smyth's appointment be confirmed.
Inasmuch as students, though lower, are yet quite as essential members of the
THE ANDOVER PERIOD 113
ent state of philosophic thought it would be impossible to elect
any one who would awaken enthusiasm, who would not also
waken some opposition. A man might be elected with whom no
party, or no person could find fault, but he would meet with an
apathy more to be feared than opposition.
3. The election of Newman Smyth gives us a man who can
keep up the connection between Andover and the religious pub-
lic. He has made an audience through his books. Newman
Smyth is not an orator like Professor Park. It is a question
whether he cannot do a larger and more timely work by his pen
than by his voice. But he is a preacher, as his pastorate at
Quincy, Illinois, testifies, and as the attempt of the Center
Church at New Haven to secure him also testifies.
4. The election of Newman Smyth is the "truest conserva-
tism." So a man writes to us who estimates the impression upon
the public. It saves to the Church men who are thinking most
deeply, and who feel most the attacks of skepticism.
It is a noticeable fact that no skeptic, no secularist, no man of
doubtful orthodoxy has claimed Newman Smyth as a heretic.
No man has pointed out the heresy which has been charged upon
him. It has been reserved for the friends of Orthodox Christian-
ity, under what seems to me to be an utter misapprehension, to call
attention to and emphasize his position in regard to the future.
What was at most entirely incidental, what has its complete
explanation in the fact that the work that he was doing, was
purely apologetic, has been seized upon and held up as a dog-
matic utterance covering the whole case. I should apprehend the
greatest consequences to the younger ministry from the rejection
of a man of such marked conservatism, and constructive ten-
dency. If such a man cannot be accepted in illustration of the
organism of a seminary as professors, I cannot believe that those who have the
interests of Andover Seminary in charge, will deliberately disappoint the nu-
merous students both here and elsewhere, who are hoping to complete their
preparation for the work of maintaining the old faith in the new light under
the instruction of the one man in America whom we have long regarded as best
qualified to give us the equipment that we need.
Very respectfully yours
William DeWitt Hyde
114 MY GENERATION
orthodoxy of to-day then young men will begin to look elsewhere
than to orthodoxy for their teachers and helpers.
5. The election of Newman Smyth bears investigation. To go
back to his nomination, it was a fact that the reading of his books
brought the Faculty into complete unity. It was a fact that he
grew by investigation and correspondence in the esteem of the
Trustees. It is a fact that the Board of Visitors, "Notwithstand-
ing the criticisms with which they have been favored, not to say
flooded, have been convinced by Dr. Smyth of his profound
agreement with the established doctrinal position of the Semi-
nary." (Quotation from a private letter from Dr. Seelye.)
Why then should not the "confirmation of Dr. Smyth be with
me a matter of strong desire? " I do not think that I am held by
the thought of consistency. The reasons which at first suggested
his name have grown in weight under the disclosures of the past
week.
It did not occur to me when I began to 'v\Tite, that this state-
ment would go beyond yourself, but you are at entire liberty to
use it as you think best.
Very sincerely yours
Wm. J. Tucker
In due time the decision of the Visitors was rendered
to the Trustees, but in tentative form, that in place of
their own proposed rejection of Dr. Smyth the Trustees
might be persuaded to withdraw his election. In this
communication, according to the report of the "Spring-
field Republican" based on the text of a copy in its pos-
session, the Visitors declare themselves "convinced of the
general harmony of Dr. Smyth's theological views with
those which have been identified with the history of the
Andover Seminary from the beginning." They are fully
satisfied that "he heartily accepts the Creed," and that
on the special points raised — as to sin, atonement, and
the future state — "he is in substantial agreement with
THE ANDOVER PERIOD 115
the characteristic doctrinal position of this Seminary."
They do, however, find it a difiiculty that "he seems to
conceive of truth poetically rather than speculatively,"
and fear that this "rhetorical quality would interfere with
his precision as a teacher." It is, they say, on these con-
siderations rather than on doctrinal questions that they
hesitate and seek for further light. They ask the Trustees
to reconsider the matter in view of these objections. The
Trustees made prompt reply to this communication
through a committee, acknowledging the courtesy of the
Visitors in re-submitting the matter to the original
Board, and expressing their gratification with the de-
clared approval of Dr. Smyth's theological views, but
saying that in their judgment the reasons given for the
hesitancy of the Visitors in ratifying his election were not
suflScient to warrant them in withdrawing his name, and
asking in return for further consideration on the part of
the Visitors.
In their second communication to the Trustees, the
Visitors made their tentative decision formal and final,
somewhat enlarging the statement, but making slight
changes in the phraseology already reported. In the minute
which they adopted by a vote of two to one, Judge Russell
voting in the negative, they say: "The Board of Visitors
would again express their conviction that the theological
views of Dr. Newman Smyth are in general harmony
with those which have been identified with the history of
the Andover Seminary from the beginning. After his full
and explicit acceptance of the Creed and his frank addi-
tional statements in response to our inquiries, it is im-
possible for us to doubt his substantial agreement with
the doctrinal position characteristic of this Institution.
ii6 MY GENERATION
His natural frankness, his moral earnestness, and his
Christian sincerity are too evident to permit us after our
conference with him to raise any question upon this point."
The point upon which the rejection of Dr. Smyth
turned, as restated officially, was that it is his habit *'to
use language more as expression of his feelings than of
his thoughts, and to conceive of truth sentimentally and
poetically rather than speculatively and philosophically."
Of this decision Dr. Duryea wrote: "I am sorry for the
record of the Visitors. I wish they had acted and given
no reasons. The disparity between their encomium and
criticism cannot be accounted for on any hypothesis
readily suggested to the ordinary reader. This will leave
them open to the charge of leaning on both sides, and
coming out of a very small crevice, under the pressure
they were not able to bring themselves to resist."
Of course there was no way of exposing the fallacy of
the judgment of the Visitors regarding the habit of Dr.
Smyth's mind, except as it should be made evident through
his subsequent career. As that became more and more a
matter of public attention, it was seen how capricious the
judgment had been. Called at once to the First Church
of New Haven, he made the pulpit of that historic church
at that academic center a fit complement to the intellec-