ADDRESSES
AT THE
INDUCTION
OF
REV. FRANCIS L. PATTON
INTO
The Cyrus IL. McCormick Professorshizj  of
Didactic and Polemic Theology,"
IN
THE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE
NORTH-WEST.
Printed by order of the Board of Directors of the Seminary.
Inter-Oceau [Beach & Barnard] Steam Printing House, 16 Congress St., Scamuon Court.








ERRA TA.
Line 4 of Preface, after Northwest, read " at Chicago, Ill."
Page i2, line 3, for " creatures " read " craftiness."
Page 23, line 5 from bottom, for " were so large " read "were
not so large."
Page 40, line 4, for " reach " read "rear."








PREFACE.
A large audience assembled at the Third Presbyterian Church, Thursday
evening, Oct. 3, to participate in the ceremonies of the inauguration of Rev.
FRANCIS L. PATTON as Cyrus H. McCormick Professor of Didactic and
Polemic Theology in the Seminary of the Northwest.
The exercises were opened with an Anthem by the Choir, after which
the Scriptures were read by Rev. Dr. EDWARDS, of Peoria, Ill., and an appropriate hymn, read by Rev. WILLIS G. CRAIG, of Keokuk, and sung by
the whole congregation. Prayer was offered by Rev. ARTHUR MITCHELL,
of the First Presbyterian Church, when Hon. SAMUJEL M. MOORE, President
of the Board of Directors, addressed the audience.








INTRODUCTORY
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT,
HON, SAMUEL M. MOORE.
The age is a living, moving reality. It is full of interest to
the thoughtful, active mind, and is full of incentives to labor.
Effort, manly effort, is essential to the man, who would even
know what is being done in this active age. Much more is
this true of the man who will give direction and life to the
age. He that is content to sit idle, whilst others move along
and pass by, may catch glimpses of the world in which he
lives, but he will comprehend nothing, enjoy nothing, and the
people of the world will not be the wiser or happier for his
having lived. It may be well for him if he is not run overj
and trampled under foot, of living men. The world can't wait
for men who do not do their part.
It is not only the truth, that is wide awake and pushing
forward. Error, armed at every point, and nerved for the
severest battles, and best contested races, stalks forth upon
any and all occasions, and is defiant. Truth, on the other
hand, none the less confident, shuns not the contest; and goes
forth, it may be less pretending, but none the less courageously.
This active world is so full of destructive error, and its
votaries, that it well becomes those who would aid in every
good to put forth every effort, in the use of all truthful appliances, for the overthrow of evil, and triumph of the truth.
Every Sunday School scholar, can tell us that " all the days
of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty and nine years," and
that " he was the oldest man." In that, he spent more days,
weeks, months and years upon the earth than any other man,




~6               INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.
she was "the oldest man."  But, is it all of life to live?  Or
does not life consist in seeing, hearing, feeling, loving, knowing,
doing? The history of all progress, illustrates the force of the
human mind, and exhibits in its details intense and powerful
thought, in adapting general principles, to the necessities and
wants of the world. Those who lived in former ages discovered very many useful and important general principles,
and they succeeded to an amazing extent in adapting them to
the wants of the -tchez world. How much they left to be
accomplished by those who have lived and acted for the last
half century!  The universe is a study, for the thoughtful,
that can never be completely mastered. Wonder after wonder
is revealed to an astonished and thinking world; and then still
greater wonders remain to be discovered, and astonish other
thinkers, who will be more surprised, at the ignorance of a
previous age, than at the wonderful things they see and know.
The laborious and constant study, and scientific application,
of these, once unknown, general principles has given to this
active age, such agencies, as steam, the printing press, the'railroad, and the magnetic telegraph. The world will never begin
to comprehend, the obligations under which it rests, to Watt,
Fulton and Morse, for their study and application of those
general laws and principles, that led to the development and
use of such agencies. But Watt, Fulton and Morse, much as
they achieved, did not do all that was done. Other men of
science and learning not only in their day, but in previous
ages assisted vastly in paving the way and preparing the
material for their final grand triumph. Or, as one of the
first educators of the West, whose name will ever be an honored
one, frequently said to his students,-" Civil society is one
great undivided whole, made up of an infinite variety of parts;
hence the continued demand for every variety of talent."*
*Rev. R. IE. Bishop, D. D.




INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.                 7
Not only the man of science and learning, but every village
and country and city teacher, and artizan and mechanic, and
farmer and day laborer contributes to the. grand and glorious
result. Everybody contributes to the result, except the idler,
who merely consumes, what others produce.
By steam, all mechanical forces are increased and accelerated.
By the railroad, locomotion and travel and transportation, is
hastened, and space almost annihilated. By the press, error
and truth, are alike scattered, broadcast over the land, as fast
as steam and rail can carry them. By the telegraph, thoughts,
and error, and truth, are at once communicated to.the world.
By all of' these, and such like instrumentalities, the world is
made to move with wonderful, amazing velocity. To keep up
with such progress, men must everywhere and on all occasions
be wide awake'and use, to the utmost, every talent, and redeem
every moment of time, with which they are provided by their
Maker.
How favored, are those who live in such an age! How
grand the privilege of aiding, even to a limited extent, in producing such results! How wonderful it is to live and see and
know, what may be seen and known in such an age! He who
lives but a decade, if he be " a live man," may see, hear, feel,
love, know, and do more, than Methuselah could have seen,
heard, felt, loved, known, or done, in his age, had he lived
thrice the length of his longest of human lives.
The advancement and progress, that has been made in the
past, but prepares the way for other, grander and more wonderful developments and achievements.  Every department
of life is better equipped and better prepared for mastering,
developing, and adapting general principles and laws to the
wants of the world, than in any previous age. Every advance,
makes the foundations, upon which others must build, broader,
deeper, and more enduring, and of course the better adapted




8               INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.
to new developments and the ever new and ever changing;
condition of the world. Men, in every department of life,,
embark upon the unknown future, with more zeal, more of
confidence, and with higher hopes and expectations.
With these advantages, with these encouragements, with these
hopes and expectations, and with the truth, taught, believed,.
practised, lived-what may not be accomplished within the next
half ~century? If so much has been done, towards what remained to be done, what may not be expected? Could the
curtain that veils the next fifty years be lifted, what glorious.
things, and what wonders might be seen! Truly glorious,
things await the young man of to-day! The privilege of being
an actor, in producing such grand results, is high, beyond computation. Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has it
entered intolthe heart of man to conceive, what shall be seen,.
heard, and conceived within the next fifty years. Who would
not love to live and see and enjoy the further and more complete development of these principles, and of the grand truths
that must promote the welfare of the creature, and the glory of'
the Creator?  This being so, it follows, that no one can describe, in adequate terms, the great and inestimable privileges,
and honor, of being an actor, however humble, in the hands of'
his Maker, in working out such grand results.
It is obvious that, at the same time that truth enjoys the
advantages of advanced science and learning, and of accurate
and more perfect thought; error has the same agencies. Error
in its countless forms, now blatant and defiant, and then deceptive, assuming the form of an angel of light, forces into its
service the press to print, and the railroad and telegraph to
disseminate and scatter, its baneful and hurtful influences. His
satanic majesty, has made much of the learning and skill of the
world, subservient to his will. That is especially true of many
of ouriinstitutions of learning, and of very many of the leading




INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.                  9
newspapers of the day. These are fountains from which flow
streams of knowledge. If the fountain be impure, so will be
the stream. If the fountain be pure, so will be the stream, that
must gladden and rejoice, and enrich, the peoples all through
the ages to come. Can a fountain send forth both bitter and
sweet water? The institutions of learning, and the press,
must be brought under the power and control of the truth
and its adherents, and then will flow from them such streams
as rejoice and gladden all who love the word, and would see
the glory of God.
This line of thought has engaged attention, that the objects,
and aims, of life well spent, might be seen, and that the privileges of this age-of the present —might be the more highly
appreciated. If these are properly estimated, all will vie with
each other in teaching, maintaining and defending the truth,
and -all will strive to bring all the appliances of science, and
learning, into complete subjection to the truth, and all will use
every effort, to make' all our schools, and colleges, and the
secular press of the country, useful, and the most efficient
agencies of fostering, promoting, spreading and establishing
the truth. To do all this, every effort must be used to discover and avert the dangers that lie in the way. They must be
known, and we must know their power to hurt, so.. that adequate means may be used to overcome them.
The Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North-west, was
organized by good men, who loved the truth. It was organized
to teach the truth to young men, that they might go forth and
teach that same truth to other countless numbers, and they to
yet others. It is, this strong desire, to see men, everywhere,
in every calling, and in all time, live and promote the truth,
that have caused these good men to give of their substance,
and time, and labor, and effort to establish this school of the
prophets.




10              INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.
Hon. C. H. McCormick has acted wisely and well, in contributing one hundred and twenty thousand dollars to the
endowment of the four professorships of the Seminary. He
has manifested great wisdom in selecting such an object, upon
-which to bestow his means. As long as the truth is taught, he
will rejoice in the fact that he has done a good thing, that
must promote the best interest of the people and the up —
building of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour. For all
this he must ever have the gratitude of all well-thinking men.
Such munificence should be carefully guarded, and used only
for the promotion of the truth.  His reward, however, is
greater, and more enduring than any monument of stone, or of
brass. He has the sweet experience of the fact that, it is better
to give, than to receive. So it will ever be with the man who
realizes that his talents, time, and substance are all entrusted
to him by a kind Providence, that they may be used for the
good of the world, and for the glory of God. He that does
most for the truth, will love the truth the more. He that does
most to promote the happiness and peace, and usefulness of
others, will have and enjoy the greater love for the world. So
it must be with all who have done such things for the truth and
this Seminary. Having done so much, they continue to labor
the more earnestly, and to pray the more fervently for it. Good
and great men have labored for the Seminary. The various
chairs have, from time to time, been filled by men of learning,
piety and ability. Some of them have gone to receive the
reward purchased by grace. With those of our living professors and friends, we have still with us the influence and prayers
of Drs. McMVIaster and Scott. All these men loved, and do
still love, the truth.
" The Cyrus H. McCormick Professorship of Didactic and
Polemic Theology," since the Seminary was located in this
city, was, at first, filled by N. L. Rice, D.D., then by E. D.
McMaster, D.D., and, after his lamented death, by Willis Lord,




INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.                  I I
D.D. These men are all too well known to require that anything should be said of them at this time and place.
To this chair Rev. Francis L. Patton has recently been
elected by the unanimous vote of the Directors of the Seminary, and confirmed by the unanimous vote of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States.
He has accepted, and we meet this evening, to welcome and
induct him into the professorship.  It is meet that he should
come in the. spirit of his master, with his heart full of love for
the  truth, and  a  desire  to  teach  the  truth, as he
finds  it  in  the  word  of God.  We  gladly  welcome
him  here, and commend him  to all, as suited to do the
work that lies before him.  He may see the glorious things,
that older men will not be permitted to see on earth, and it is
fit that he should enter upon this great life work with an appreciation of the opportunities that have claimed our attention.
We know of no grander work to which we could call him. We
trust he " was made a minister, according to the gift of the
grace of God given unto him, by the effectual working of His
(God's) power." This being so, we trust that those taught
and trained by him, may "have grace given " to so " preach
the unsearchable riches' of Christ " as " to make all men see
what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning
of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by
Jesus Christ," and that they may realize that through Christ
"we both have access by one spirit unto the Father."
We trust he and his colleagues may have " grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ." Then their teaching,
and the preaching of those taught by them, will be " for the
perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of.the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of
the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of




12              INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.
Christ; that we be henceforth no more children, tossed to and
fro, and carried with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of
men, and cunning creatures, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto
Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom
the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body
unto the edifying of itself in love."
To you, gentlemen of the Board of Directors, and of the
Trustees, of the Seminary, and to you, his co-laborers as professors, and to you, young gentlemen, who are permitted to
hear and learn THE TRUTH, in order that you may teach it to
others, and to you, friends of the Seminary, and to all who love
the truth, and desire its success,-to all of you, we commend
the man called to do this great work. We ask, that you
receive him in the spirit of the Master, and that you aid and
encourage him in his great and arduous work. Pray that he
teach ONLY the truth, and that he teach the truth in the love,
and in the fear, and in the strength of the great head of the
Church.
PROFESSOR PATTON: YOU  have been elected, and have
said that you accept of this position. You have also subscribed an obligation, that all professors are required to take.
Do you now, as God may give you strength, " in the presence
of the Board of Directors of this Seminary, and these witnesses, solemnly profess your belief that the Confession of
Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church contain a
summary and true exhibition of the system of doctrine, order
and worship taught in the Holy Scriptures, the only supreme
and infallible rule of faith, and your approbation of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government, as being agreeable to the
Scriptures; and do you promise that you will not teach, directly
or indirectly, anything contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said




DR. PATTERSON S CHARGE.              13
Confession and Catechisms, or the fundamental principles of
Presbyterian Church Government, and that you will faithfully
execute the office of a Professor in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the Northwest?"
(Prof. Patton-" I do.")
And now it is my pleasure to introduce Rev. Dr. R. W.
Patterson, who will, in behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Seminary, give to you words of encouragement and counsel.
CHARGE
By REV. R. W. PATTERSON, D. D.
iMy esteemed and beloved Brother  The duty has been devolved upon me of addressing some words to you on this occasion,
in compliance with a fitting custom, and by way of expressing
the deep interest of the Board, and friends of the Theological
Seminary here represented, in the event of your formal entrance
upon the duties assigned to you as professor of Theology in
this institution. These words ought to be few, as we are assembled to-night mainly to perform the inaugural ceremony, and
to listen to the exposition which you are about to give us of
your conception of the noble work to whichk.you have consecrated the prime of your strength.
Most heartily do I welcome you, my brother, on behalf of
the Board, as well as on my own behalf, to the post of honor
and usefulness in Christ's Church, which you have been called
and have consented to occupy among us. You do not come
to us as a total stranger. Though yet young in years, you were
already known to us as no mere novice in Theological study and
attainment, before your name was mentioned in connection with
the chair which you are now to fill.  We are therefore assured
that you enter this field of service, not as an adventurer, but




I4               DR. PATTERSON S CHARGE.
as a laborer who  well understands how  severe are the
toils to be undertaken, and in what'manner the trees
in the vineyard  are  to be pruned  and  cultured for the
highest fruitfulness.   We welcome  you to this sphere of
duty and privilege, as Christ's servant and the servant of the
Church, and as our servant for Jesus' sake. And we extend to
you the right-hand of our fellowship, not unmindful that this
implies a pledge on the part of the officers and friends of this
institution, to co-operate heartily and prayerfully with you as
the instructor of our sons in the greatest of all sciences and in
their preparation for practical enlistment in the grandest and
most far-reaching of all enterprises.
We congratulate you on your willing devotion of your powers to a work so worthy of the best energies of a manly intellect and heart.  We congratulate you, because we deem it a
high honor for any man to be called by the Church to expound
and defend her faith in a school of the prophets, and in a chair
of instruction that is justly deemed inferior to no other. We
congratulate you, because it is made your life's business to
teach the science of God's revealed truth to young men who
are to be the Church's leaders and Christ's ambassadors to this
revolted world in the ministry of reconciliation. We congratulate you, because you are summoned to this elevated sphere
of labor in the most eventful age of the world's history that
has yet appeared-an age full of indications that He who overturns and overturns, is stirring up the minds of men for the
hastening of that mighty conflict which is to have its issue in
the final triumph of truth and righteousness in the earth. It
is a peculiar privilege for any true soldier of the Cross to live,
and march forth under the banners of Immanuel, at such a time.
And most especially is it a privilege for any strong-hearted
soldier to take the position and perform the service of a high
officer in the Lord's army when the sacramental hosts are being




DR. PATTERS(ON'S CHARGE.               15
marshalled for the decisive and closing battles of the campaign.
We congratulate you, because you are called to duty in a new
and hopeful portion of the field, where the skill and tactics of
a good general may be turned to account in pursuance of original designs, and by fresh and peculiarly effective methods.
And we congratulate you, because you enter upon your great
work with youthful vigor on your side, - having been called
to this position at a stage of life when you may reasonably
hope for a longer period of service than has been allotted to
any other Professor of Theology in our American Church..
Most devoutly do we pray that God, in his good Providence,
may give you at least forty years for the instruction of the
Church's sons who are to mold the present and the next generation.
Need I speak of the weig/hty respousibi/ities that are devolved
upon a teacher of Theological science, in such a community
and such an age?  Need I refer to the rising greatness of our
wonderful country, our signally developing city, and the swelling tide of our Northwestern population with its unexampled
enterprise? Need I point to the mental and moral, as well as
physical revolutions that are being wrought in this amazing
era, throughout Christendom, and among all the larger nations
of the earth, beyond the pale of Christian civilization? Need
I allude to the conflict of minds and opinions that is going
forward to-day in almost every land, and that subjects all religious ideas and systems to such an ordeal of criticism and
searching inquiry, as no previous age has known?
I will barely hint at a few of the requisites that seem to me to
enter into the conditions of success in the theological teaching
of this period; hoping that in so doing I shall not appear to
trench upon the fuller range of discussion to which our attention is about to be invited.




i6               DR. PATTERSON'S CHARGE.
First.  I suggest the necessity of habits of calm, judicial
and profound inquiry.  The time has come when every leader
in the Church must be prepared to meet thought with thought,
independent investigation with independent investigation, elementary analysis with elementary analysis, philosophy with
philosophy, specious error with clearly discriminated truth,
sceptical science with believing science, ingenious assumption
with moral evidence. It is useless in these days to appeal to
creeds and confessions, or' to the consent of religious denominations, or even of all Christendom, in the great struggle
with unbelief, unless received opinions be considered in their
proper relations to facts and to the moral nature of man. The
time has past when inquiry could be stayed by denunciation.
or by invoking  the  odium  t#heoiogicum  upon the heads of
doubters. Truth is most powerfully commended from the
midst of her proper atmosphere of serene confidence,-such
confidence as springs from well-balanced and patient thinking
in the light of all available knowledge. I know that you, my
brother, will not attempt to teach theology, in this age, with a
dogmatical spirit, or without those deep and settled inner convictions that result from unprejudiced and serious reflection
upon valid evidences of truth as carefully compared with the
apparent evidences of error.
Pardon me for saying, in the next place, that, in my judgment, every Professor of Theology, and especially in this age,
ought to make it a leading aim, in his inquiries and teachings,
to advaczce his favorite science by safe methods.  We do not
believe that any existing church, or any body of christian men,
much less, any one man, is infallible in rendering judgments
respecting doctrinal truth. We, as Protestants, dare not
assume that any received system of Divinity or interpretations
of the Holy Scriptures are free from imperfections.  No doubt
the essential doctrines of the Bible have already been in the




DR. PATTERSON'S CHARGE.                 I7
~main rightly apprehended by large divisions of the Christian
Church. To suppose otherwise is to pronounce Divine reve-'lation a failure. But there are a multitude of tokens that our
best digested creeds and confessions need further adjustment,;and that our most approved expositions of Scripture are to be
followed by more satisfactory expositions. And it is as much
-the duty of a Professor of Theology to contribute whatever
-he may to Theological progress as it is the duty of a Professor,of Chemistry or Natural History to aid in advancing the'science to which he is devoted. Nay, the call for original
investigations and fresh contributions to Theological Science,
is more urgent than the demand for the furtherance of Natural
Science, by as much as the former is more important than the
-latter. It is possible, indeed, that an instructor should accomplish great good by carrying his classes through the prescribed
ecourse of Theological study if he only clearly and systematically expounds the doctrines of his Church just as he finds
them in the standards, without attempting to shed new light
on any of the difficult questions that are debated in the outside
-world. But in so doing, he falls short of the full work that is
set before a Master in Israel in these days.  The great pro-blem, at this point, is to save essential truth by separating it
from misconceptions, and to teach young men how to keep.abreast of the age, without being swept away by the rising tide,of doubt and destructive criticism.  No stereotyped lessons will;answer at such a time, any more than the hasty rejection of,conclusions in which the Church has rested through all the
ages of her history. Men will think for themselves in these
times. And our candidates for the ministry should be prepared to guide a mighty mental movement which it is neither
possible nor desirable to arrest. If our Theology needs
revision, let us revise it; if it only needs new defences at some
points, let the better methods of defence be made clear and avail



I8              DR. PATTERSON S CHARGE.
able. To send out young men now to reproduce what Calvin,
and Turretin and Owen and Edwards and Alexander said, just as.
they shaped their great thoughts, is to put soldiers into a.
modern army arrayed in the panoply of ancient warriors. We
must clothe our soldiers in the freshest armor, and train cur,
young cadets according to the most improved tactics.
I hardly need suggest that Theology now, more than ever before, must be taught as a practical science. The popular clamor
for practical themes in the pulpit at the present time arises, of
course, from a sad oversight of the vital connection between
true doctrinal faith, and good works in the higher sense, which
are the fruit of an intelligent scriptural faith reigning in the
heart. But all such errors derive their plausibility from theirantagonism to opposite extremes. Our Theology was formerly
taught too much in dry, dogmatical forms, insomuch that the
impression gained ground that we exalted creed and dogma above life and its proper working. Now we need to,
correct the popular mistake for which we have given a partial
occasion, by pointing all our Theological teachings as directly
as possible towards the practical applications that are to be
made of them..A Theology that cannot be effectively preachedr
needs revision; and a mode of Theological instruction that
savors more of the scientific than the evangelical spirit is not
fit for the uses of the Church of Christ.  I know that there is.
a distinction to be maintained between Didactic and Polemical
Theology and Pastoral JTheology.  But is it not incumbent
upon every teacher of our candidates for the Gospel ministry,.
to keep his eye continually directed towards the great practical
ends for which their acquisitions are to be employed? And
are there not a multitude of ways in which the teacher of
Theological Science can  impress upon  the minds of his
students the great truth that every doctrine has its place and
value among the materials that are to be used by the wise




DR. PATTERSON S CHARGE.                 19
master-builder in rightly constructing the Lord's spiritual
temple? The work of the Church is not only defensive. It
must be aggressive. The war must be carried into the enemy's
country; and this not so much by direct assaults upon the
strongholds of error as by faithfully commending the truth to
every man's conscience in the sight of God. It is well for this
reason, that our Theological Professors are being chosen more
and more from the ranks of our experienced pastors.  You,
my brother, will know how to draw on your pastoral experience
in giving mellowness and spiritual force to your ordinary
teachings in the class room; and you will not forget that the
doctrines which your students are to preach have a multitude
of bearings in relation to all the outward duties of common
life, and all the interests of human society, as well as in
respect to the salvation of individual souls.
Lastly.  I cannot lay too much emphasis on the necessity of
infusing into our new Seminary, in all its departments, the
spirit of prayerful zeal for the honor of the Great Master, and
the establishment of His Kingdom in the earth. The temper
of our Theological Seminaries is not sufficiently evangelical.
Our young men come forth to their work needing two or
three years' experience to awaken within them the true spirit
of their calling. This is the popular objection against our
present method of training young men for the ministry. How
shall we fairly and practically meet it? Mainly, as it seems
to me, by raising the spiritual tone of our Seminaries. And
this can only be done by treating the whole process of theological education as a holy service, in which the presence and aid
of the Holy Spirit are as much needed as in the duties of the
pulpit, or in any other labor for the sanctification of Christians,
or the salvation of the perishing. Let all of us who have
special responsibilities to bear in forming the character of our
young Seminary keep in mind the vital necessity for a con



20             DR. PATTERSON'S CHARGE.
tinuous baptism of this school of the prophets with the Spirit
of all grace, that such streams may perpetually flow from it,
as will make glad the city of God, and heal the nations.
I have detained you and this audience too long. I leave
this subject in the midst, earnestly commending you and our
Seminary, and the young men assembled in it, to the Great
Head of the Church, in whose Providential care and guidance,
we trust for all those beneficent results, that constitute the
goal of our hopes and prayers, and toils, in the kingdom of
our Common Lord.




CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND CURRENT THOUGHT.
ADDRESS
OF
RE V. FRANCIS  I. PATTON.








MR. PRESIDENT, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD  OF DIRECTORS;
GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  BOARD  OF TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE NORTH-WEST:
Beyond the explicit promise just given * I have no guarantee
~to offer for the faithful discharge of the duties, which, by your
election, and the concurring voice of the highest judicatory of,our Church, have been entrusted to me. But the subscription
-formula to which  I have  given  assent  contrasts so posi-tively with a sentiment which is fast gathering strength, that I
-feel, in a measure, invited to appear before you, to-night, holding a brief for theology.
Very decided testimony to the value of the doctrinal system
-taught in our standards is given, alike in the provision made
by the munificent founder of the chair of Didactic Theology,,and in the solemn pledge which by your Constitution is required,of its incumbent. I need not say that a very different opinion
-respecting the importance of theology is gaining currency.
Nor is it strange. For, if theology were an isolated study, if
its province were so large, and its relations so wide, its advocates in all likelihood would encounter no opposition. But so
*far-reaching are its problems, that open conflict is the only,course possible to those who cannot recognize its claims.'Theology must vindicate its right to a place in the peerage of
*........ and do promise that I will not teach, directly or indirectly, any thing,contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said confessions and catechisms, or the fundamental
principles of Presbyterian church government, and that I will faithfully execute the office
of a Professor in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North-West."-Extract
ferom Constitution of Pres. Theo. Sem. oJ North-West.




24                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
science, or its advocate will be regarded as one who in these:
days of needle-guns and railroads is making a dogmatic stand
for flint-locks and stage coaches.  The dogmas of theology
must be seen to stand in vital relation with human conduct, or
they will be treated as fossils worthy only of a shelf in a cabi —
net of antiquated opinions, and valuable only for the light they
throw on the history of human progress.
I purpose, then, to offer a defence of the department withk
which I shall have to deal, and the theme to which I inviteattention is, Christian Theology and Current Thought.  I
intend to notice some of the leading questions which are of
present interest in the sphere of religious opinion, and it will
be convenient to group them under five divisions, viz:-Chris —
tian theology, as related to secular science; as exclusive; as.
formulated; as progressive; as symbolical.
By following this order, we shall gradually narrow the dis —
cussion and bring it nearer home.
I. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AS RELATED TO SECULAR
SCIENCE.
Theology, as didactic, occupies awell-defined area. It does:
not profess to teach botany, to decide doubtful questions in.
geology, to account for the origin of species, to discuss rival,
schools of ethics or adjudicate between conflicting systems of'
psychology.  Theology as apologetic, on the  other hand;
touches secular science at a great many points, and the theologian is brought face to face with scientific hypotheses and
becomes of necessity, a party to controversy.
It is a noteworthy fact that the questions in science which:
awaken the most general attention, are those which concern our'
religious beliefs, and the interest felt in them is due largely to.
their theological relations.  For there are some physicists;
whose devotion to Nature rises to ecstasy when they have hit:




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  25
upon a fact which they suppose will damage an ancient faith.
These are the men who suppose that the laurels of Galileo
and Luther are to grow green again on their brows, and, that
under their leadership, the world is to witness a completed
reformation in a discarded Bible. Religion helps the sale of
scientific books more than is acknowledged. For outside of
the narrow circle of scientific specialists, the ordinary facts,
of science would produce but little impression. It is onlywhen men go below the surface of mere phenomenal existence,
and strike the foundation granite of our religious nature, that
they attract general attention. Men are religious at bottom,
and the book which attacks our religious being is sure of being
read by him who is anxious to oust his conscience, as well as
by him who stands in timid apprehension that science will one
day rob him of his God. The aspirant for popular scientific.
fame has his best ally in our religious nature.  This it is,
which sells his books and crowds his lecture room. And it:
is this same religious nature which has invested some questions
with an importance out of all proportion to their intrinsic
value, until the pigeon fancier is cited as a damaging witness.
against the inspired account of the origin of species.
It is useless to deny that scientific conclusions are gaining;
ground which are in open conflict with the Bible. Nor is.
it the wisest policy for Christian apologists to announce their
readiness to show the possible harmony of these hypotheses
with Revelation. This is only a respectable way of beating az
retreat. It is to fire and fall back. The true course is to give
up, or make a stand. And the theologian is bound to protest
against those conclusions in secular science which ignore, contradict, or exclude, Christian theology.
As these three categories seem to comprehend the ques —
tions at issue between science and Scripture, let us notice therm
separately,




-26                    INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
Conclusions which ignore Christian Theology.
There is a growing impatience with theological conceptions,of the universe. Theology, we are reminded, is holding her
sceptre in palsied hands, and her dominion, like the Pope's, is
suffering from the encroachment of the secular power. Theism
-fares no better than polytheism  at the hands of advancing
science. The Reign of Law leaves no room for Providence.
The priests of Baal have appeared in the role of Elijah, and,
witth something of Elijah's sarcasm are proposing a prayer
gauge.
But we take the liberty to say that the assertors that religion
is on the wane, are at fault in their arithmetic. Human wis-.dom has not all segregated into a scientific lump, leaving only
fools to go to church.  Christian missions and Christian mu-:nificence testify that the world  is not losing faith in God.
iBut if it were, universal atheism would not dethrone Him.'Though, one by one, the believers in God should renounce
~their faith or pass away, until the last survivor, like Humboldt's.Aturian parrot * should find himself speaking in a strange
language to the men of his time, yet he might well give his
solitary testimony and remain unshaken in his faith.
And, if there is a God, it is absurd to sneer at theological
conceptions of the universe: for faith in Him must of necessity color our ideas of the world. If by that causal judgment,,which is the birthright of every man, we are led up to God,
then the road which leads us up must take us down again to.a consideration  of the works of His hand.  The facts of:science are corroborative of theism. The uniformity of nature,
the unity of force, the unknowable power which baffles analysis,' "There still lives, and it is a singular fact, an old parrot in Maypures which cannot
obe understood, because as the natives assert, it speaks the language of the Atures-an,extinct tribe of Indians whose last refuge was the rocks of the foaming cataract of the
Orinoco."-Hunzboldt, quolted -in M.adsley's Physiology and Pathology of Mind, f. 9.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                 27
are in exact correspondence with the Scripture doctrine of one
Personal God; and it is unseemly for men who confess their
ignorance of the agency which is behind phenomena, to scout
theism without study. Nescience has no right to ridicule
faith. For in that a man says I do not know, he affirms that
the theist may not be so far astray; and while the Being of
God is with him a matter of doubt, his cosmogony can only be
provisional, and his ridicule of a theistic cosmogony is weak
and wicked.
Conclusions which contradict Christian Theology.
Theism conditions revelation, and revelation strengthens
theism. The two are mutually auxiliary. Christian theology
proceeds on the assumption of a Revelation. The Bible must
expect free handling, and win confidence by standing scrutiny.
Scientists have the right to show, if they can, that its claims
are not established, or to break down its authority by proving
it false. But this cannot be done by confronting it with an
unproved hypothesis. The attempt is made, notwithstanding,
to displace the teachings of Scripture by hypotheses which are
not only unproved, but which in the nature of the case, are
unprovable. It surely does not require much penetration to
see that there is a wide hiatus between the proposition man
may have developed out of a monkey, and the proposition man
must have so originated. The chasm between the may have
been, and the must have been, is to be spanned before there
can be a strong case against the Bible.  There are some
questions, and this may be one of them, which, aside from revelation, cannot be conclusively settled; and, for this reason, theology is, properly speaking, ancillary to science, as furnishing
material for more complete induction. The milestone which
informs us of our distance from a neighboring city, leaves us
quite in the dark respecting the direction in which the mileage
is to be counted; and, so, looking on a brother man who holds




28               INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
a position quite remote from the two extremes of human life,
it might be difficult to say whether he was moving downward
from purity to barbarism, or upward from a savage state to
civilization.  It is revelation which sheds light on man's
primitive condition, and furnishes reply to Lubbock and
Tylor.
Conclusions which exclude Christian Theology.
The doctrine antipodal to theism is evolution. And evolution is a device for banishing God. According to this theory
life is spontaneously generated from dead matter; the higher
forms emerge out of the lower, and man is the long result.
Primitive man was a savage as we might expect him to have
been, and civilization is a growth. The moral intuitions are
only hereditary experiences, and mind is only matter which
thinks that it thinks. Evolutionists do not all carry the theory
to the same length. Mr. Wallace does not allow that Darwinism accounts for man's body, to say nothing of his soul. Mr.
Mivart holds that bodywise he has monkey ancestors, but
takes refuge in creationism, and maintains that God is the
Father of his spirit. Life is the unit of Mr. Darwin's scientific
speculations, and though Huxley would not say credo, to the
doctrine of Abiogenesis, he leans very decidedly towards it.
The love of unity, one can easily see, will have a tendency
to make those who favor evolution at all, desirous of referring
everything to it and Mr. Herbert Spencer is the man who has
carried the premises of evolution to their logical results, and
whose constructive mind has reduced to symmetry the labors
of specialists in the different fields of inquiry.
The conclusions reached by this method are not only contradictory to theology, they are exclusive of theology. Evolution assigns mind a place in physics, and when mental science
becomes a department of physiology, faith ends and skepticism
reigns. Morals cease to be authoritative, when right and




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  29
wrong resolve themselves into questions of utility, and are
compared to the instinct of the retriever.
In the hands of the physiologist, the thinking subject is reduced to zero. Thought is as mechanical as digestion, and
one is as moral as the other. The idea of God becomes a
delusion; religion a farce, and the only thing man has to look
forward to is a coffin and a grave. Such is the effect of mere
phenomenal studies that men have come seriously to believe
that matter can develop into conscious life; can invent the
hypothesis of a God; can assert that it is mind and persistently
challenge refutation; can believe that its actions are voluntary
though in reality as mechanical as the motions of a clock; can
believe that it shapes its conduct in accordance with the will
of its hypothetical God; can be the subject of emotions which
irresistibly suggest immortality and that, on the strength
of a belief in an immortal life, it can foster hope and
listen to entreaty.  There are men who, denying God mind,
personality, will, can believe that matter has developed these
conceptions and has been the dupe of itself, that human history
has been a wholesale cheat, and that the agencies which have
revolutionized states and written poems; which have won
victories and discoursed philosophy; which have made laws
and painted Madonnas, are resolvable into the forces of chemistry and magnetism.
There was a point in the retrogressive journey of doubt
beyond which Descartes could not go. These men, however,
are trying hard to think, and at the same time doubt the thinking self. But, by a necessity of thought, they are compelled,
in the act of advancing their ideas, to embody a protest against
them. They write books to prove that the personality which
conditions all they say has no existence, and to prove to men,
whose personality they take for granted in the fact that they
address them, that their personality is a cheat. How mind




30                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.'can manage to devour itself is a curious problem, over which
we must not linger.  Enough has been said to show that the
domain of theology is contiguous to the realni of science, and
that the border land is a battle ground.
It would appear, then, that the dispute between secular science and Christian theology cannot be settled by a policy of
non-intrusion.  There was strife between the herdsmen of
Abram  and those of Lot because they stood  on common
ground, and the conflict between Scripture and science comes
of their dealing with the same questions.  The dispute, unlike
the patriarchal one, cannot,be settled by a re-distribution of
territory, for physical science, as we have seen, with a greediness exceeding Lot's, claims undisputed possession of the
entire realm of knowledge.
As little can we accord with the sentiment that theologians
have no right to scientific opinions. To do so would be to
allow that the theist repeats his creed and says his prayers
under scientific sanction.  If a man knows that it is day, he
need pay little attention to him who avers that it is night; and
if a man knows, on God's authority, that Adam was made in
the likeness of God, he may answer Darwin with an indignant
negative.
A railway collision has been facetiously described as the
attempt of two trains to pass each other on the same track.
Science and theology, dealing with the same questions, have
come to a standstill, We shall continue to claim for theology
the right of way, until the arguments for the inspiration of the
Scriptures have been candidly examined and fairly set aside.
Besides, if special scientific culture is the pre-requisite of a
questioning reception of a scientific hypothesis, it is useless




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    31I
for scientific men to write books for the purpose of convincing.
the lay reader.  Let the scientific dogma go forth with the
claim of infallibility at once, and let the furnace of ridicule be
heated for the theological Daniel who refuses assent.  No,
indeed. Logic is a universal science, and men who understand its laws can tell whether the facts which are adduced inany case will support the inferences based upon them. Exceptional culture in science is no more necessary, however desirable, as the condition of an opinion on the value of a scientific
hypothesis, than it is necessary that a man should be a thief in
order that he may be an intelligent juryman in a larceny case.
Christian theology has a right to be recognized as an element
in human knowledge. And when men refuse to recognize God
as Ruler and Revealed, they lack the true inductive spirit. It
is not scientific to adopt a theory covering a class of unexamined facts which the theory will not explain. A theory which-meets
a protest in a persistent personality, which has no explanation
of moral convictions, no answer to the claims of Scripture, noc
mode of accounting for the origin and growth of the Christian
Church, is surely not a satisfactory theory of the universe. The:
theist, however, finds himself in possession of a consistent
faith. He accepts his personality as a fact, the laws of belief
as veracious, and moral intuitions as obligatory. Belief in God
is the necessary result of the constitution of his nature.  Revelation does not surprise him, and because attested, is accepted.
Its pages throw light on the genesis of man, the origin of marriage, the permanence of species, and they have scientific
value. It is surely more likely that the theistic hypothesis is
true, and that a theory which is at war with the universal beliefs
of mankind, and which stands only. by wholesale discredit of
testimony, is false. If probability were conceded to be the
guide of life, and if, as the advocates of an improbable hypothesis, the men alluded to did not assume the attitude which




32                  INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
justifies skepticism on the ground of the barest possibility,
theism would be the unanimous faith of the world.
May we not hope, however, that the time is coming, and is
not so far away, when the student of physical science will see
that theism furnishes the material for the widest and the safest
induction, and that he is the true philosopher who reads the
universe as the written thought of God, and, under the two
categories of God in nature and God in history, subordinates
all knowledge?
II- CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AS EXCLUSIVE.
Mere theism is minus the gospel. And we must deal now
with a controversy between theism and Christianity.
Thanks are due to Max Muller and other students of comparative theology for the services they have rendered in showing that the religious sentiments are part of the original dowry
of humanity; that monotheism was man's ancient faith; that
human history is an apostasy, and not an improvement. It is
a pity that in helping theism, they have hurt Christianity;
that in co-ordinating, instead of contrasting Christianity with
other religions, they have declared against the very principle
in defence of which the martyrs shed their blood. It was
Christianity as an exclusive religion which the Apostles
preached, and to rob it of this character is to work its ruin.
It is a religion which, if not exclusive, is one for which the
world has no need. It stands on such an exceptional basis
that it must be proved false or allowed unchallenged authority.
In the great fact whence dates its origin, and in which consists
its significance, are found its finality, and its exclusiveness.
Men show plainly by the arguments they use that they do not
assign the proper value to this fact.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  33
Christian exclusiveness, we are told, is unscientific.  Does
not knowledge come by comparison, and how without study
of other religions, can we affirm that Christianity is entitled to
pre-eminence? The Deity of Christ, we-reply, can be determined without the aid of Sanscrit, and without wading through
~the three hundred and twenty-five ponderous volumes of
Buddhist Scriptures. To require us to withhold assent to this
great doctrine until we have pursued a course of reading in
Comparative Theology, is.as absurd as it.would be to require us
to suspend judgment respecting the Binomial theorem, until.
we had studied the Chinese classics. The Bible gives all the
material we need for.reaching a conclusion respecting the
claims of Christ and if Christ is God, the religion which He
came down on, earth to teach, and which He commanded his
disciples to carry round the world, must, without controversy,
be supreme.
It is not from  arrogance or prejudice, it is not because
we are tenacious of an ancient faith,. it is not that we have the
unreasonable conservatism which makes us dread to leave an
old anchorage; still less is it through lack of love, that we
refuse to embrace a Catholicity which will put the Bible on a
level with the Vedas, or count among the people of God the
Buddhist and the Mohammedan.  Nor are appeals to sentiment likely to have much weight with men whose religion is
rooted in an emphatic and uncompromising conviction respecting the Deity of Christ and His atoning death. The point at
issue is purely one offact. If we are calling Jesus God, in
error, by all means we should be made aware of the mistake.
But if this faith is true then the noblest charity is that which
looks squarely in the face the appalling fact of heathenism.
Some try to set aside the exclusiveness of Christianity by a
comparative estimate of morality. And when it is shown that
old religions are not so immoral as they have been supposed,




34                  INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
nor ancient faiths so far astray; and, above all, when picked
examples of exemplary morality are met with, it is argued that.
-since we have undervalued heathenism we have over-estimated.
Christianity, and that religions which embrace such splendid
possibilities as-are actualized in Socrates and Seneca, Marcus.
Aurelius, and Epictetus, deserve better treatment than uncom —
promising contrast with Christianity.
To argue thus, is to mistake the ground on which Christianitybases its exceptional claim. The apostles did not go forth
merely or mainly as the teachers of a code, but as the heralds
of a gospel. They did not base their own position of contrast
on their superior morals, but, on the contrary, the great fact
on which they insisted was that " sin had drawn the bar sinister
across the broad shield of the handiwork of God,"'*  and
that, as the result, the entire race was involved in a condemnation from which nothing could save them  but the blood of
Christ.
Nor does it shake our faith in the exclusiveness of Christianity to be reminded of the common elements held in solution by it and other religions. It is not strange at all that Christianity lays claim to exceptional honor, on the ground of the
exceptional fact which differentiates it, particularly when that
fact is the everlasting union of God and man in the Person of
Christ. To affirm of two things, their identity or equality on
the ground of elements common to both, would not in other
departments of knowledge be counted as good reasoning..
Diamond is not charcoal, though both contain carbon; and
strychnine is not a wholesome beverage, though its elements.
enter into the composition of tea.
Deep in the pagan's conscience, we are told, and behind the
polytheism which directs his worship, and crowds his litera-:ure is the belief in one God.  But the doctrine of the Divine:
* Ellicott. Destiny of the Creature, p. 8.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  35
unity even in its purity will not save men. The heathen holds
in a childish form the maturer faiths of the Christian, Max
Muller says.  But these maturer faiths, we reply, are not
justifying faiths. The heathen is sincere!-yes, and his depravity is seen in the fact that the worst sins can secure the
approval of his conscience.  The heathen had longed for an
Incarnation. -But hunger is not food. They believe in expiation. But their sacrifices are not lhe sacrifice.
Christianity'conditions' salvation on faith in Jesus Christ.
Hence its exclusive character and aggressive spirit. If the
exclusiveness of Christianity is denied, obvious inferences
follow. The conversion of the heathen must then appear
to be at least an undertaking of questionable wisdom. Why
preach the gospel in India if the gospel of Buddha leads to
the same goal as that of Christ? And then, why is Christianity
of more value to us than to the heathen? Why perpetuate it
when we cease to propagate it? Or why was it of more importance that our forefathers should have been enlightened
than that we should proceed with the evangelization of the
world-in a word, what would the world have lost had Christianity perished with its founder?  Deny the exclusiveness of
Christianity, and, so far as redemption is concerned, it would
not be hard to conclude that the incarnation was an uncalledfor event. If the religion of Jesus is co-ordinated with the
other religions of the world, no good reason can be given for
its dominant attitude and uncompromising spirit, and the
marvel will be that a system originating in so pure a mind
should prove so arrogant. But nothing has been said in our
day against Christian exclusiveness, which might not, with
equal cogency, have applied to the Apostle Paul. It would
suffice, therefore, to appeal to his conversion and career, as
furnishing conclusive testimony in favor of the position here
maintained. For, while the latter was shaped by a dominant




.36                INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
conviction that the blood of Christ alone can save the soul, the
former was associated with events which no man in his senses
could misapprehend. The miracle which led Paul to preach
the faith he once destroyed, left him, at the same time, with an
unquestioning conviction that the road to Calvary is the only
road to Heaven.
The whole discussion may be made to turn on this proposition: Faith in Jesus Christ is essential to salvation; and if
this is sustained, the exclusiveness of Christianity will be established. This proposition will be denied by two classes, specifically distinct; that is to say, by those who believe in the atonement, but deny that its efficacy is limited by faith, and by those
who, denying the Divinity of Christ, deny the atonement. Let
us glance at the position assumed by each.
If atonement in design and effect covers every human being,
then the work of the Church was done when Christ went up
to Heaven. How then, is the command to preach explained,
and why is salvation associated with repentance and faith?
Trinitarian iniversalism is a mixture of faith and skepticism.
It receives Heaven on the authority of the Bible, but it rejects
the doctrine of hell, though taught on the same authority. It
tries to defend itself by defending God. But, in vain. For,
if we depend on the Bible for our knowledge of God's character, we must take as an element in His character, the Bible
doctrine of Retribution.
The next great class are those who deny the Deity of Christ;
some by interpreting the Bible, and others by throwing the
Bible away.
Exegesis will lend no support to Unitarianism. Jesus is
more than man. For, to say nothing of His matchless life,
His pure doctrine, His original plan, His wide-spread success, the miracles He wrought,'the prerogatives He claimed,
and the attributes ascribed to Him, it'is enough to appeal to




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                 37
the historic fact that He rose from the dead, and rose in vindication of His Divine claims. Did He rise because he was
God, or did God raise Him from the dead to give emphasis to
a lie?
The resurrection of Christ answers Socinianism  and Arianism at once.  It proves that Christ was more than man, and
that He was not less than God.
Rationalism deals in a more summary way with this central
truth. And it has reduced to its lowest terms the question
concerning the Person of Christ. Jesus is a myth or he is
God. Let us raise the question: What is that Ideal Form
which we see in the four Gospels? Were the Evangelists
biographers or artists? We learn from Greek mythology how
a corrupt age produced corrupt ideals, and how these, when fixed
in marble or in verse, became the educators of the people. Are
we, likewise, to regard the character of Jesus as the product
of the human mind? Is Christianity only an elevated mythology?  If this were a legitimate conclusion, it must effectually
close the debate on the exclusiveness of Christian theology.
To this question it were enough, however, to reply, that an
ugly face cannot cast a comely shadow, and that a character of
such matchless beauty as Jesus of the gospels, never could
have been the reflection of the religious consciousness of a
people like the Jews.
But with more force, it may be further argued, that the
gospels have been traced back to a point so nearly contemporaneous with the events described, that it would have been as
impossible for them to have gained credence, had they been
false, as it would be for the " Battle of Dorking" to pass for
authentic history. Stubborn facts have answered Strauss, and
vindicated the historic claims of the four Evangelists.
Recognizing, therefore, the true humanity of Jesus, we stand
in an attitude similar to that of the doubting disciple, who, in




'38                INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
the act of realizing the manhood of his Lord, rose to the full
confession of His Deity.
Christ is God; and therefore, Christ's gospel is uncompromising. The Deity of Christ is the doctrine of our faith. With
it Christianty stands or falls.
III-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AS FORMULATED.
The Bible is the source of theological knowledge. But the
truths taught in it are unmethodized. No single passage gives
an exhaustive statement of any doctrine, and the doctrines are
not presented in their relations to one another. In saying this,
the organic unity of Scripture is not overlooked. The candid
reader of the Bible cannot fail to regard it as the progressive
unfolding of a plan, and to see that through it, from Genesis to
Revelation, "the same increasing purpose runs."  But this
unity is apparent in the genetic relation of its parts, rather
than in the logical relation of its doctrines.
When the teachings of Scripture respecting a truth have been
collated, and their equivalent expressed in a formula, we have
a dogma.   These truths, or dogmas, brought together, in
logical subordination, and more or less elaborately discussed,
constitute a system. It will suit my purpose to distinguish between theology as dogmatic, and theology as systematic, and
to treat them separately.
I. THEOLOGY, AS DOGMATIC.
Our acquaintance with current literature need not be extensive in order that we may learn with what aversion dogma is
regarded by some.
And this aversion is traceable, we think, to three main
causes: Depreciation of doctrine; mistaken zeal for Scripture phraseology; and false inferences, from the imperfection
of our knowledge and the limitation of our faculties.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                          39
Depreciation of Doctrine.
Dislike of a truth, very commonly takes the form  of a dislike
of the formula which embodies it. And, without denying that
strict loyalty to Scripture is compatible with a desire for a restatement of some formulas, objections to dogma are nevertheless traceable mainly to the slight store set upon doctrinal
truth. But, why should doctrine be disliked? Doctrine professes to be truth, and truth  should  not be lightly esteemed.
Matthew Arnold ridicules our definite doctrinal conceptions.
But if there is material for making them  definite, why not do
so?  Why wish to cloud what God has made clear?  If God
has made the theological landscape stand out, in sharp outline,
in the clear atmosphere of Revelation, why wreathe it in mists?
We are in possession of material for definite theological
knowledge, and when a man  like Matthew  Arnold  tells  us
that the personality of God and the resurrection of Christ are
not parts of his creed, nor properly parts of any man's creed,
he is teaching a system of theological nescience which borders
don Atheism.
Doctrine is of great importance, —we propose to show,-and
if it is, the correct expression of it cannot be a matter of in4difference.
Doctrine constitutes the basis of authoritative ethics.
Moral obligation involves the factors of a personal self
related to a Personal God.   Deny self-hood  by materializing
mind, and obligation ceases.   A man will take short cuts to
justice, and gratify private revenge, when he is persuaded that
after death he has nothing  to fear.   Deny God,' and what
*'" When the National Assembly drew up its famous declaration of the Rights of
man, in I789,'write the name of God at the head of the Declaration,' said the Abbe,Gregoire,' or you leave them without foundation, and you make right the equivalent of
-force. You declare not the rights of man, but the rights of the strongest. You inaugurate
the reign of violence.' The Assembly refused. Gregoire was correct in his judgment,and the Reign of Terror proved that rights unbased in God produce an authority which is'brute force."-Baring-Gould's Christianity, Eng. Ed.,}. 88.




40                    INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
then is the ground of obligation?  You may tell a man that in
the long run it will be to his interest to do right, but you cannot generate obligation out of the love of happiness; and you
cannot reach an authoritative system  of ethics on an Atheistic
basis.
Practice, grows out of doctrine, — a more concrete way of
putting the foregoing idea.   We pray, because we believe in
God's personality. \We send missionaries, because we believe
in salvation by the blood  of Christ.  Surely the doctrine cannot be of less value than the practice which grows out of it.
It is a mistake, therefore, to make disparaging comparisons between men of thought and men of action.   It is not by any
means an unimportant work, to defend our primary beliefs, or
to maintain the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, when the possibility of Christianity is conditioned on the veracity of the former
and the validity of the latter. Nor is it necessary that doctrinal
knowledge should make men juiceless or prevent them from
being practical.  And if, as Mr. Froude* asserts, there has been
a divorce effected between  doctrines and morals, the pulpit is
to blame. For the whole sphere of practical life comes within
the province of the preacher, and perish the theology which
will not let me lift my voice against the man who gambles with
that which is the staff of life, or deals lightly with wedded love.
Religion cannot be separated from doctrine. The antithesis
between theology and religion is even more common than that
between theology and morals. But religion must terminate on
God. And the character of a man's religion will be deter* " Many a hundred sermons have'I heard. in England; many a dissertation on
the mysteries of faith, on the divine mission of the clergy, on apostolic succession, on bishops and justification, and the- theory of good works and verbal inspiration,
and the efficacy of the sacraments: but never, during these thirty wonderful years, never
one, that I can recollect, on common honesty, on those primitive commandments,' Thou!
Shalt not lie, and Thou shalt not steal.''-Short Studies on Great Subjects, 2d Series,,.age 333.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  41mined, therefore, by that of his theology. He may not allow
an objective revelation to influence his religious feelings, but
his feelings, nevertheless, have relation to a subjective theol —
ogy. For a man to fall back on religion, in order that he may
justify his denial of Scripture doctrine, is only a convenient
way of evading the question whether the doctrine of Scriptureis true. If it is true, it is perilous to have a religion which is not:
based on it.  A Christian may distinguish between theology
and religion, by saying that a knowledge of doctrine may exist:
without experimental religion, which of course is true. But
the Christian whose experience is the deepest, would be the
last to disparage doctrine in order to help his piety.
The marrow of Christianity is a doctrine —"Jesus Christ and
Him Crucified." This makes Christianity precious. To omit
this is to rob the religion of Jesus of its value. To keep itljnL
the background is to betray the Son of Man with a kiss.
Inconsiderate Zeal for Scripture Phraseology.
But suppose that a man approves of all we say in regard to,
doctrine, may he not ask, with reason: Why have men not
adhered to scriptural phraseology?  Why have they gone out;
of their way to invent formulas?
Our reply is, that without formulas, we can neither express
doctrine nor protest against error.
Let us' take, for example, the doctrine of the Person of
Christ. The devout mind must desire to have all the knowledge that is possible concerning this great mystery. We know
that He is God, though not from any one proof text; that He
was man, with a human body and a human soul; that the two
natures were distinct and entire-humanity was not deified.
and divinity was not dormant; that there were not two Egos,
two centres of consciousness, but one Person.
Suppose, now, we wish to express these separate truths inr
a single statement; how is it to be done?  We cannot find a




.:42               INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
passage in Scripture which will suit us. If we adhere to
Scripture phraseology, we must be satisfied with a partial.statement, or we must carry in our memory the collated proof;texts. The latter is out of the question, and the former would
teach error, since a part would be taken for the whole.
Now, is it not a fact that in studying Scripture in reference:
-to any truth, we make up our minds as to the meaning of the
combined teachings of Scripture, and that we carry what serves
as an equivalent in our memory? If asked to give our opini.on on any doctrine, would we not do it in our own words,
-without being careful to cite Scripture verbazim?  If, as a'matter of fact, in spite of ourselves, we do use formulas, is
there any harm in writing down these formulas in black and
~white, and, instead of expressing them loosely, aiming at an
exact equivalent for Scripture?
Then what better can we do than fall in with the formula of
our catechism:  "The only Redeemer of God's elect is the
Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became
man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man, in two
distinct natures and one person forever."
-But the Church has been driven to formulated expressions,of:faith as safeguards against error. If a man says he believes,that Paul was inspired, and adds, so was Shakspeare, it will
Tke necessary for Christians to find out the exact sphere of the
word inspiration as used in the Scripture, and to define it.
EIence, when men in the early centuries could call Christ,divine, and yet regard him  as a creature, the Nicene fathers
-formulated the doctrine of the deity of Christ in an unequivocal symbol. And the fact that Christianity is identified with
the doctrine of the deity of Christ justifies the Nicene Creed.
It stands in our literature to-day, not as the monument of an
orthodox trilmph, but as a barrier against the intrusion of,error. And with something of the feeling which a Hollander




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                 43
would entertain toward the man who should break the dykes
and let in the waters of the German ocean, should I regard the
proposition to abolish creeds and expose the church to the
tides of skepticism.
Zalse inferences from the imperfection of our knowledge and the
limitation of onr faculties.
Men look on creeds very much in the light of theological
strait-jackets, and to fetter doctrine with formula is regarded
by them as an act of injustice and impertinence. Human
language, they assure us, is not adequate to express the doctrine of the  Trinity, and it is presumption which merits
unqualified rebuke, to suppose that man-made formulas can
exhaust the mysterious doctrine of the Incarnation.
The objection is not so grave as it is high-sounding. For
what is there in it which will not apply as well to the Scriptures
as to the formulas which are the equivalents of Scripture?
The objection based on the limits of religious thought does
not press with more weight on formulated truth than on
Scripture itself.   But do we allow it to prevent our acceptance of the Scripture?   Do we discard the knowledge
which the Scripture affords because the knowledge is limited?
Is our knowledge indistinct because it is partial?  Must our
vision be blurred because only a small portion of space falls
within our horizon?   Do we worship an unknown God
because we know Him only in part?  Do we fall back in
indolent skepticism because thought is paralyzed in the attempt
to mount upward from the sphere of the Revealed into the
sphere of the unknown? There would be force in the objection, if the formula claimed to be an exhaustive expression of
all the truth concerning the doctrine which it embodies, and if
the materials for it were furnished by the mind. But it claims
only to be an exhaustive expression of revealed truth, which
alters the case. And, if we are compelled, as we have seen, to




44                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
resort to formula to express doctrine, and, since we do not
understand what we cannot express, to deny the right to
formulate is to deny the right to understand.
Let us look at the question in reference to a specific doctrine.
Are we to believe that what the Scriptures say of Christ is
true? Yes. Is there any presumption in predicating of Christ,
without addition or subtraction, what the Scriptures say
respecting Him? None. What becomes of the objection to
formula, then, provided the formula fulfills the condition of
being an adequate expression of the Scripture's teaching? I
grant that it is legitimate to ask whether we can express the
teaching of Scripture; but this, as already hinted, is equivalent
to asking whether we can understand the Scripture. The
formulas, when expressed, will present difficulties. The union
of two wills in one Person is an insolvable difficulty; but it is
inherent in the doctrine, and not the result of the formula;,
The fidelity of the formula is seen in the absence of an attempt
to remove the difficulty by tampering with the facts.
And that these dogmas are metaphysical is not a grave objection. It is as impossible to eliminate metaphysics from
Theology as it is to boil water without heating it. When a
man enters on the study of the Theanthropic Person, he is, of
necessity, dealing at once with psychology and metaphysics.
It is the theme, and not the handling of it, which accounts for
the metaphysical element. It is as difficult for those who
ridicule metaphysics as it is for theologians to run from their
metaphysical shadow.  "God," says the Shorter Catechism,
"is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being,
wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth."  "God,"
says Matthew Arnold, " is a stream  of tendency by which all
things fulfill the law of their being. *  *  *  "  God is an
enduring power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness."
I leave my hearers to judge whether the definition given by




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  45
the apostle of culture is less metaphysical or less obscure than
that given by the Westminster Divines.
2. THEOLOGY AS SYSTEMATIC.
Men who will tolerate the Apostles' Creed find no words in
which to express their contempt for systematic theology. And
I will frankly concede that between a full system and no system at all there is no logical landing-place. To affirm the
necessity of systematic theology, and at the same time deplore
its excess, strikes us as exceedingly weak. It is hard to have
an excess of truth, and a system which is not true we can
afford to dispense with altogether.
I have time only to indicate some of the leading objections
to system in theology, and to present some counter arguments
in its defence.  Systematists wrest the Scriptures, we are told.
Under the euphemism of interpreting Scripture in accordance
with the analogy of faith, they read into proof texts meanings
which they were never meant to bear. This is sometimes the
case, and the men who do it are to blame, not systematic theology. Office-holders line their pockets with public gold, but
office-holding is not to blame.
It is said, again, that systematic theology is impossible. But
since systems meet us on every hand, the expression must be
loosely used. If it means that systems may be more or less
correct, the statement is proper. If it means that the most
unexceptionable system is not free from difficulties, it is equally
true. Calvinism brings into co-ordinate relations doctrines
which apparently conflict, but which are certainly true. But
for the systematic expression of them, we should not know so
well the difficulties which beset them, and the method by
which we know our ignorance is not to be despised. To know
that we do not know is by no means an unimportant item of
information. But physical science, too, has its staggering facts
and labors under the disadvantage of incompleteness. Systems




46                         INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
of theology are not useless because they are not exhaustive of
the questions with  which  they deal.   But, continues  the  objector, the Bible is not a system. Nor does the book of nature proceed on principles of classification. The forests are
not Kew gardens; fishes do not swim under the direction of
Agassiz; nor do the waves roll the sea-shells on the beach with
the care of a cabinet collector. Do we object, on this account,
to the sciences of ichthyology, and botany? Then why object  to  systematic  theology, when  the  student of  the  Bible
does exactly in his department what the student of nature does
in his?
We are told again, that it is  not safe to employ logic as an
instrument in theological investigation. Pressed by argument,
and feeling the perplexities of their position, it is common for'
men to put a stop to controversy by denouncing logic.  "Logically," they say, " your conclusion follows, but-" they do not
abide by the conclusion. In depreciating logic, they are in
the company of able men of opposite schools-Isaac Taylor' and John Henry Newman. But to quarrel with logic is to
quarrel with one's eyes. For logic is the law of inference, and
we must use it, or part company with most of our knowledge.
~ We are not aware that theologians are in the habit of claiming for logic what Isaac
Taylor in his Essay on " Logic in Theology," is at such pains to deny to it. His own
conclusions, however, are enough to justify logical method in theological study, as the
following sentences will show:
"In proportion as the human mind is compelled to feel its dependence upon its instrument, namely, language, it is led, irresistibly, to expect far more aid from the logical collocation of words and propositions, than these implements of thought can ever yield. Language, logically compacted in propositions, avails to give us the best possible command of
the knowledge which we actually possess; but it has no power to increase that stock, even
a particle. Nevertheless, the advantages derivable from a well compacted and a well commanded stock of knowledge are so great-they are so inestimable —that it becomes difficult
to avoid attributing to our logical methods an efficacy which does not belong to them. We
believe ourselves to have acquired knowledge, when in fact, we have done nothing more
than bring our materials into available order. In truth, it may be granted that order is a
positive gain in respect of materials of which we are likely to make no use while they lie
scattered before us in confusion."




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                            47
Intuition will not take us far in theology, and if you say that
testimony will suffice, the testimony relied on is the testimony
of Scripture, which is of unquestionable  value, because the
Bible is the word of God. But that it is the word of God weknow by inference. The inspiration of the Scripture being an
inferential doctrine, we cannot get rid of logic by the device of
appealing to Scripture.
The deductive method in theology is to-day an object of special kreprobation.  And  we* concede that it is fair that specific scriptural evidence  shall be required  for the  separate
doctrines of our faith, and that neither blind devotion to the
Fathers, nor a priori reasoning shall take the place of direct
appeal to the Bible. We differ with the high churchman who
is satisfied  with  a catena of ante-Nicene  quotations, and we
differ likewise with Mr. Morell, who tells us that " the advancement of theology does not depend so much upon any logical
or purely inductive processes, applied to scriptural data, as
upon the clearing of our religious intuitions, and the higher
development of our whole religious consciousness." The way
to reach a safe conclusion respecting any scriptural theme is to
undertake an inductive examination of the Scriptures. Theology, in this sense, is an inductive science, and theologians employ the inductive method.* It is idle, however, to say that
deduction has no legitimate place in theology.  "The truths of
scripture," says Canon  Liddon,t "are not so many separate,
unfruitful, unsuggestive dogmas," and the theologian has as
good right to argue from one doctrine the truth of another, as
* " In professing to follow the method of induction, I use the phrase, as Bacon did, in a
large sense, as standing for that whole mode of procedure which begins with the observation of facts, and makes its final appeal to facts, as establishing the law. But in this process there may be a deductive element; as, when we suppose that the law is so-and-so,
that is, devise an hypothesis, and inquire what consequences would follow, always with the
design of trying these results by facts, and adopting the alleged law only when it can stand
the test."-McCosk on the In1tuitions, 5. 3, Note.
1 Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Christ, p. 44I.




48 -               INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
Leverrier had to infer from the perturbations of Uranus the
existence of an unknown planet. Leverrier's prediction was
fulfilled in the discovery of Neptune, and theological inferences, we allow, need the verification of scriptural proof.
"A living faith is pretty certain to draw inferences," * and
so we argue, with reason, that since sin makes men helpless,
new life must result from the efficiency of Divine grace; and
Scripture verifies the inference. And further, that if the sphere
of efficacious grace is determined by Divine sovereignty, the salvation of God's people is due to electing love. We have thus,
for the separate doctrines of scripture, the double argument of
inference and direct scriptural statement. This, however, is to
understate the evidential value of deductive theology. For, if
it is found that the doctrines which the Bible holds in solution,
when precipitated, crystallize in uniform relations, we instinctively ask:  Is there no design in this?  Do not the teachings
of these different books fall into organic shape because the
books themselves were written for the unfolding of a Divine
plan?  When I take the pieces of a dissected map and find
that they will fit in a certain order and in no other, and that
thus arranged the outline of the map is properly presented, I
am convinced, beyond question, that they were made for each
other, and that I have arranged them correctly. And so, when
I find that the doctrines of the Bible answer to each other, so
that if one is true, another must follow, and from the edge of
one the shape of the contiguous doctrine can be predicted, and
when, moreover, I discover that the separate doctrines, arranged side by side, reveal an outline of theology definite and
congruous, I become stronger in my belief in all the doctrines,
from the congruity of the system which they disclose, and
confirmed in my belief of any single doctrine by its correlation with the rest.
* Liddon's Bampton Lectures, p. 442.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    49
A criterion is in this way furnished for testing a theological
opinion, which challenges examination. When the "moral influence" theory is presented as an adequate account of the
atonement, it must run the gauntlet of doctrinal comparison;,and because it is not in keeping with the doctrine of sin, of the
Deity of Christ, or of regeneration, it must be rejected. For,
to receive it would be to reduce system to chaos, and to neIcessitate the denial of every distinctive doctrine of our faith.
And who will affirm that, in these days, when error is rife, a
comprehensive knowledge of Christian theology is of slight
importance to the minister of Christ?  By theological knowledge, however,'is not meant a mere text-book acquaintance
with the leading articles of our faith, but a knowledge so intimate
and penetrating that the student shall see at a glance the
bearing of one doctrine upon another, and, by a process
shorter than formal syllogism, shall perceive the logical consequences of a heretical opinion.
But it is absurd to complain of system in theology, for
theological truths are so related, that if we know  a man's
place in respect to one doctrine, it will not be difficult to predict his position with reference to others.  Let anthropology
be the starting point, and as a man judges of sin will he be
constrained to judge of the atonement. Let soteriology be the
point of departure, and a man's views in regard to the death
of Christ will be reflected in his ideas respecting sin. This is
only saying that whether a man wishes or not, he must be systematic. It is impossible for a man to continue long in pos-.session of incompatible elements of faith. When he parts company with a doctrine, he soon loses faith in its correlatives.
And the' study of those writers who affect independence of
system will prove that their views are marked by coherency
and logical sequence. The abusers of system are systematic
in their abuse.




50                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
IV. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AS PROGRESSIVE.
An article in a late number of the Contemporary Review e
opens with the following sentence:  "It is universally admitted among reflecting men that in proportion to the growth of a.
cultivated reason, the dogmatic standards of past ages become
less and less adequate as exhaustive charts of human belief."'
To deny one a place " among reflecting men," on account of
his theological conservatism is, to say the least, arbitrary. The
sentence is quoted, however, not for review, but as the indication of a prevailing sentiment from which we dissent. There
would be no wisdom, certainly, in making our Confession of'
Faith the basis of theological instruction if we were ready to
regard it as antiquated and unsuited to the present age; and
the man who is expected to promise that he will teach nothing
directly or indirectly which is contrary thereto should think
twice before he consents to be fettered by a " creed outworn."'
It may surprise some that a man will agree to abide faithfully by a stereotyped expression of doctrine, affirming thereby
that progress is a thing of which he is not sanguine, and which,.
indeed, he does not crave. The subject, therefore, has special
relevancy in my address to-night.t
If truth is not valuable for its own sake, it is not difficult to
see why men should dislike a Theology which offers no inducement for its study in the prospect of new discovery.
And some men seem to think that there is in the simple idea
of progress an advantage which would be missed were the sum
total of theological knowledge already in possession. The
imperfect condition of science, and the hope of contributing to
the advancement of a particular branch of it, have a great deal
to do, we are aware, with scientific enthusiasm. If all that
* Ethics of Creed Subscription.-Contemporary Review for A ugust, It72.
1 This and the following division have been somewhat expanded since the address was
delivered.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  51
ever can be known of chemistry could be put in a book to-day,
the students of that science would begin to labor in more
prolific fields. Should scientific progress stop, scientific ardor
would rapidly cool. It is a mistake, however, to value theological science only'for the intellectual gratification which its study
affords. Theology is the systematic expression of revealed truth.
It is valuable only in the ratio that a man has confidence in it.
If our interest in Theology terminates on the truth, and not on
our study of the truth, there can be no doubt that to know all
that can be known, is better than to be looking for fresh
gains. Whether there is room for progress in Theology is the
question which we are to discuss. What has been said is enough
to show that the man who is expectant of no great advance in
theological opinion is not necessarily to be commiserated.
The progress concerning which inquiry is to be instituted,
is progress in Theology, let it be understood. It will not prove
a progress in Theology to remind us that times have changed
since Calvin burnt Servetus, and reformers refused to shake
hands because they differed on the subject of sacramental grace.
The growing harmony among Christians, and the disposition to
treat each other in a more fraternal spirit, is evidence of the
growth of toleration, but is not due to a convergence of
doctrinal views. It is creditable to Protestantism that " a man
may speak his mind without having his ears cropped," but.to
cite the fact, as illustrating progress in theology, would betray
ignorance of the question under discussion.  And the mistake
would be as great if the denial of progress in theology were
treated as the equivalent of that unreasonable conservatism
which adheres to the old, because it is old, and which makes
"use and wont" a sufficient reason for resisting a needed
change. There are men in our own church who believe that
our standards contain the system of truth taught in the Word
of God, who nevertheless are far from believing that in the




52                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
details of work and worship there is no room for improvement.
If there be any progress in theology, it must be objective or
subjective; it must refer to the receiving of new truth, or the
better understanding of truth already in possession.
Objective Progress.
The Protestant position is, that the Bible is the only rule of
faith and practice.  Progress, so far as it has reference to the
receiving of religious truth on other authority than that of
Scripture is anti-Protestant.  It implies that the Bible is insufficient or incorrect, and is allied with Romanism, Mysticism
or Rationalism.
The Roman and the Anglo Catholic agree in denying the sufficiency of Scripture and in affirming,in opposition to Protestantism,the right of tradition to add to the teachings of the Bible; with
the difference, however, that the latter, by limiting the orbit
of tradition to the first five centuries, saves himself from some
of the difficulties which the former encounters in the attempt to
prove a " general consent " in behalf of the Tridentine theology.   But the  Romanist is able to guarantee the  traditions to which he makes his appeal by citing the infallibility
of the church: an argument, indeed, which loses some of its
cogency from the fact that the infallibility of the Church is invariably certified by a similar appeal to tradition.  It was with
the view, perhaps, of escaping from this vicious circle that Dr.
Newman advocated the doctrine of development as sufficing to
account for the extra-scriptural dogmas of Romanism, without the
necessity of finding support for them in an unbroken tradition..If the church is infallible, however, there is no need of the theory;.and if the church is not infallible, by what right does Dr. Newman'claim authority for the developments in the religious conscious-ness of Romanism, which he would deny to other develop-ments in the religious consciousness of Protestantism? This doctrine sets up a subjective standard of truth. and is simply Ration



INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                   5 3;
alism doing service for the Pope. It was necessary for Romanismi
that the Church should speak in the present and not in the past:
tense; should have power to proclaim new dogmas without the
necessity of quoting patristic authority in support of them.
And the Vatican council has made possible an indefinite progress in theology by affirming the infallibility of the Pope.
Mysticism is in accord with Romanism in so far as it affirms 
the insufficiency of the Scriptures and the possibility, therefore, of
acquiring theological knowledge outside of them. It is different
from Rationalism too, in that the avowed authority on which
this extra-scriptural knowledge is received, instead of being
reason, is the Spirit of God.  The faith of the Romanist terminates on what he believes the Holy Ghost has revealed to
the Church; that of the Mystic, on what he believes the
Holy' Ghost reveals to  himself.   Mysticism has affinities
with  Rationalism, however, in  so  far as it admits only
a subjective  standard  of truth.   Confident that he is
the recipient of special revelation, the mystic may adhere
to wrong interpretations of Scripture, or may entertain
theological opinions which are not found in scripture. In
fact, the opposite views of different men may each be supported  by appeal to  the  same inspired  authority.  The
system leads to an assertion of personal infallibility, and by
the denial of an objective standard of faith to the confounding of truth and error.  It is found in many forms, in connection sometimes with deep piety, and at others with open
infidelity.
The Rationalist believes in progress too, for he sets up a
subjective standard of truth, and instead of believing in an
infallible Pope, believes in his infallible self. There are wide
differences, of course, among those who have adopted a rationalizing method in theology.  There are systems which preserve
the nomenclature of the church, but depart widely from the




.54                INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
(doctrines of the church, if they do not deny them entirely.
And there are others which in the main adhere to the doctrines
of the Bible, with *an infusion,, however, of Rationalistic
thought. But -whether men proceed by way of speculative
independence of Scripture, or by a critical repudiation of it,
the principle which guides them is the same, and it is neither
more nor less than a denial of the supreme authority of the
Bible. Between those who have modified the scripture doctrine of the Person of Christ by the influence of speculation,
and those who affirm the mythical theory of Strauss, there is
all the difference between Christianity and infidelity. But the
principle which justifies the speculative modification is akin,
nevertheless, to that which has resulted in the discredit of the
gospel history.  If the speculative method supersede the inductive method in theology, there will be, of course, no limit
to progress, and, let us add, no test of truth.
It will appear then, that the points at issue, so far as objective progress is concerned, are the  sufficiency and the inspiration of Scripture.  If it is proper for men to speak flippantly of Paul's opinions, if it is right for them to say that
Paul reasoned incorrectly, that he has presented a wrong view
of doctrine, that his utterances respecting the sacrifice of
Christ were colored by Jewish prejudices, of course there is
room for progress in theology, and it is difficult to see where
progress will stop. But to take this ground would be to deny
the authority of Scripture, and throw the whole area of
theology open to fruitless speculation.
Subjective Progress.
Assuming, then, the sufficiency of Scripture and its inspiration, we shall agree that, whatever progress there may be, it
does not mean the inculcation of doctrines which are either
extra-scriptural or unscriptural.  It has reference only to a
better understanding of the Scripture. And this may be due




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    55
either to a more correct text or to a better grammatical knowledge.  It is safe to say that we have not much to look for
from the first source.  Neither Codex Sinaiticus, nor Codex
Vaticanus, is likely to affect a single doctrinal conclusion.
What may be looked for from the other source is the sole
question on the subject of progressive theology.
If the question were asked, whether there is room for Christians to make progress in the apprehension of the doctrinal teachings of the Bible, the answer would of course be in the affirmative. For, what are sectarian differences but advertisements
of sectarian ignorance?  It does not follow from this, however,
-that a man is ready to believe that hzis creed stands in need of
revision. And it is only so far as the personal application of this
question is concerned, that there is any room for discussion.
Instead of asking a Calvinist whether he believes in progress
-in theology, let us ask him whether he regards the Westminster'Confession of Faith as a true exhibition of the system of doctrine taught in the word of God.  Supposing that the area of
-the Confession is co-extensive with the doctrinal area of
Scripture, for him to affirm that the Confession of Faith is true,
is, by implication, to deny that he believes in progress.  For
progress would involve a modification of the Confession.
If a man believes that the standards of our Church teach the
true doctrine of the Person of Christ, he will not believe in
progress so far as Christology is concerned. And certitude concerning all the doctrines of the Confession, would be equivalent
to the denial of a belief in progress.  Belief in progress in
-theology, would imply that he had some doubts respecting one.or more of the doctrinal utterances of the Confession. And
his belief in progress would be measured by his incertitude.
It is plain, then, that to say that a man believes in progress
in theology, is to use very vague language.  For his belief in
progress may cover the entire system of theology, or it may




56                 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
have reference only to a single, and that a comparatively unimportant, doctrine.   It may refer to an important change of
opinion, or it may have reference only to a riore exact and dis —
c-riminating expression of a dogma. And, since belief in progress
is just the measure of a man's incertitude respecting the teach —
ings of the Confession, and may admit of indefinite degrees, it
would be wrong to impute to a man revolutionary sentiments
on the whole subject of theology, merely because he avowed
a belief in progressive theology.
It would appear further, that if one is disposed to dispute
the position which I assume, in affirming my belief in the Confession of Faith, the proper course for him to follow is to indicate the weak points in the Confession, and to say where pro —
gress may be looked for, and in what respects it is open to,
improvement. On a priori grounds no one has the right to,
affirm that the Confession of Faith is not true.  And if it is
true, we repeat it, there is no room for a progress which will
necessitate a restatement of its doctrines.  For one to affirm
that there is room for progress in theology, he should be ready
to say what doctrines he doubts or disbelieves.  This would.
remove the discussion at once into the sphere of theological.
controversy, and would take away from the idea of, progressive
theology what constitutes, in our judgment, its most objection —
able feature.' For it is not surprising that a man, either through
constitutional bias or because he has given some subjects less.
examination than they deserve, feels in doubt regarding some
of the doctrines taught in our Confession of Faith, while entertaining no doubt respecting others.  How  many intelligent
lay men there are in our body who would candidly say that.
they experience difficulty in receiving some of the doctrines,,
that of predestination, for example.  This incertitude implies,
that there is room for them to make progress in the apprehension of doctrine; and it may go so far as to leave the impres —




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    57'
sion on their mind that the Church itself has not yet reached.
an exhaustive statement on these subjects.  In fact, it'is hard
to see how they can avoid the feeling that the symbols of the
Church need modification to the extent, that is to say, of the
doctrines about which they stand in doubt.
The matter of subjective progress, it appears, is neither
more nor less than the personal one, regarding the extent to
which we can give assent to the Confession of Faith. It is.
one of those subjects, to which Dr. Newman's aphorism:'' Egotism  is true modesty," is applicable.  It is accordingly
proper for me to affirm my belief that the Confession ofFaith is a true exhibition of the system of doctrine taught:
in the Bible, and that it is so far complete, that no material
modification  of it is needed.   In affirming this,. I denyprogressive  theology.   To  justify  my  denial, would be:
to justify  my affirmation, -would  be to show  why  I believe the separate doctrines of the Confession; or, in other
words, to write a system  of theology.   This I shall not.
be expected  to do.   Nor shall I be asked  to anticipate
the doubts which others may have in regard to particular
doctrines, and endeavor to show that they are not well.
founded.
That to which I take exception in the argument of progressive theologians, is the assumption that our present creeds.
are necessarily inadequate.
The avowal of progressive theology on a priori grounds is,
open to objection. In the first place, because it is arbitraryand high-handed for men to assert that doctrines, for which
ample evidence is presented, are untrue, without being at the
pains to examine the evidence.  This mode of proceeding:
stultifies all reasoning, and destroys the value of testimony..
It is open to objection, moreover, because it is a mode of reasoning which, if allowed in the case of one doctrine, should by




58                INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
rights be allowed in reference' to every doctrine, and which
tends, therefore, to reduce' us to a state of utter skepticism.
These reasons will be presented more fully in connection with a review of the leading arguments in favor of
progressive theology.
It is said that the Confessions of one age are not suited to the
-wants of a succeeding age.  But men who employ this language forget that a creed is not like a coat, made to fit the
wearer and accommodate his taste.  The question is whether
-the creed ever was the equivalent of Scripture. If it was when
it was made, it is not less so to-day. For the idea of a creed
-is not that it shall represent human opinions respecting a
doctrine, but that it shall reflect the teaching of the Bible.
The question is not whether a creed suits men, but whether it
is true to the Scripture. If it was a thousand years ago, it is not
less so now. For, unlike the fashion of this world, which passeth
away, Truth is immutable and immortal. If the principle were,allowed, which the writer in the Contemporary Review has
stated, to wit, " that it is impossible for any creed to continue:adequate from age to age;" it would follow that we never,could say credo to any formulated system  of doctrine.  It
would be impossible to believe that to be true which at the
same time we believed to be liable to indefinite modification.
A creed, in the strict sense of the word, would be out of the question. We should have but little encouragement to proceed with
the work of improving our Confession; there would be no hope
-of reaching a final opinion, and we should have the melancholy
satisfaction of knowing that Christians, a century hence, will
-find the creeds of to-day, as antiquated as some now regard
those which they wish to reconstruct. For the principle which
-underlies the reasoning of progressive theologians, is that, of
necessity, creeds are only tentative.   This argument is
iised sometimes by men who would be very unwilling to




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  59
carry it to its logical results.  But, if it is not reasonable
to suppose that a set of men in the seventeenth century could
make a creed which will meet the wants of the nineteenth century, by parity of reasoning, may we not argue that it is
not likely that a set of men in the third century would succeed
any better? Let us affirm our expectation of progress in theology, not on the ground of any doubt respecting a particular
doctrine, or for the reason that we suppose that the Scripture
lends it little or no support, but on the general principle that
the creeds of the past are unsuited to the wants of the present.
Then what is to prevent us from  supposing that it may turn
out that men have been mistaken in believing Jesus to be God;
that in fact, they have been worshiping the creature rather
than the Creator? Is it possible for us to entertain a doubt
respecting this doctrine, and at the same time rely on Jesus as
our Saviour? We should think not, since the idea would involve the palpable contradiction of believing at the same
time that He is God, and yet that He may not be God. If I
affirm the sentiment quoted a little ago, my belief becomes a
provisional belief, my Saviour a provisional Saviour, and my
confidence a provisional confidence, which at any moment
may be destroyed.
We are reminded, in defence of progressive theology, that
there has been progress in other departments; that the physical sciences do not claim to be complete; and we are asked
why theology should claim to be an exception.  Yes, we shall
be told that even the Church at last has grown liberal enough
to accept the facts of astronomy, that the doctrine which
nearly cost Galileo his life, is a school-room common place;
that what it was then infidelity to affirm, it is now insanity to
deny. But the advance in physical science is due to constant
increase of scientific materials.  Old theories are proved false
in the presence of new facts, and new theories are only tenta



60               INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
tive because based on a partial survey of facts. But we are
not dealing with a science in which a text-book becomes worthless before it is worn out, and new facts are forcing men to a
re-consideration of their theories.  With all the facts of the
science in so small a compass, it ought not to be regarded as
antecedently improbable, that by this time some have reached
definite and accurate conclusions respecting them.  Still,
you will admit, continues the objector, that the Church has
made progress in the apprehension  of doctrine.  Why,
then, do you suppose that progress has been arrested; why
may there not be room for progress now, as there was when the
Reformed Confessions were made? The Nicene age marks one
advance; Augustine another; the Reformation constitutes an
epoch, and the Reformed Confessions are monuments of theological progress. Why are we to conclude that theology has
come to a stand-still?  We answer:  If it be conceded that
the Reformed Confessions mark an advance in theological
knowledge, it must be admitted that they have lessened the
area of ill-understood doctrine, and it is possible that they
so thoroughly discuss the subjects with which they deal as to
leave no room for a new line of thought which does not contradict the positions taken by the Reformed theologians.
If any theological topics have been left unhandled, of course
they may be regarded as furnishing a fine field for theological
investigations. But these topics are certainly very few. And
if progress in any great degree is to be expected, it must be by
upsetting the conclusions already reached.  Is there any antecedent probability that we who have no more facts, and no
better brains than the Reformers had, are likely to reach more
trust-worthy conclusions? This is a sufficient reply to those
who think that because there has been progress in the past,
there must continue to be progress in the future, though it is
not the argument by which we maintain the position we have




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                  6I
taken. We do not believe the Confession, because of an antecedent unlikelihood that the Reformers were wrong. On the contrary, our great respect for them is the result of our conviction that the confessions they framed are so complete, and so
conformable to the Scripture.
But, in face of the wide differences which separate Protestant denominations, is it not bigotry and narrow-mindedness
to affirm that Calvinism  has reached ultimate conclusions in
the interpretation of Scripture?   Is it not, in a word, arrogating infallibility, to affirm that a single type of theological opinion  represents the true doctrine of Scripture?
With  some  minds, questions like  these would  have  a
great deal of force.  And though it may seem arrogant, at
first sight, to take the position which we do, yet, on closer
study of the question, it will not be so regarded. That twelve
clocks, my own among them, indicate, at the same moment, a
different hour of the day, does not prove that they are all
wrong, though they all may be wrong.  And the system of
Calvinism is not proved to be wrong in the simple fact that it
is surrounded by opposing systems.   Whether it is right or
wrong, depends on the evidence by which it is supported. If
there were no evidence for it, it would not be worthy of belief,
even though no competing systems were in the field. And if
it is attested, the presence of other systems cannot justly prevent me from giving my assent to it.   I surely have the right,
without being charged with bigotry, to say whether I believe
that the system of our Confession is taught in the Bible. And
believing, by force of testimony, that it is taught there, surely I
shall not be asked, even for the sake of peace, and to avoid the
imputation of narrowness, to contradict myself to the extent
of saying that I believe that the Confession is false, when
the whole tenor of Scripture teaches me that it is true.
But may not the differences which divide Protestantism find




62                INAUGURAL ADDRESSS.
their solution in a higher and as yet unrevealed unity? This
again, begs the very question in dispute. I cannot believe this,
if I believe the Confession of Faith to be a true representation
of the Scripture. And this, as already remarked, cannot be determined on a priori grounds.  If Calvinism is true, Arminianism is false.  If the. Baptists are right, Paedobaptists are
wrong.  The positions, represented by these names, being
contradictory, we are shut up to one or the other of them.
We do not look for a full agreement in doctrine among Christians. But believing in Calvinism, we believe that if Christendom shall ever have a unanimous faith, it will be a Calvinistic
faith, which was the faith of Augustine, which was the faith of
Paul. And it is worthy of notice that men who have no special leaning towards our doctrinal system, do not hesitate to
avow  that it is found  in the Bible.  "'If Arminianism
most commends itself to our feelings," says Mr. Froude,
" Calvinism is nearer to the facts."  And Matthew Arnold,
though he has no respect for Paul's theology, admits that Calvinism is wrapped up in his " harsh and unedifying image of
the clay and the potter."
In discussing the question of subjective progress in theology,
we have been led to affirm belief in the Calvinistic system,the question, as I have repeatedly said, being purely a personal
one, and the denial of progress implying a belief in a particular system of doctrine as truly representative of the word
of God. But the Calvinist is not the only one interested in the
denial of a progress in theology which finds its support in
apriori considerations respecting the adequateness of ancient
creeds; for these considerations, as we have seen, jeopard even
the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.
V. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AS SYMBOLICAL.
It is a matter of great importance to the private Christian
to have definite opinions respecting the teachings of God's




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    6;
word.  And  were there no visible  organization called the
Church; were Christianity to resolve itself into out and out
Individualism, systematic theology would continue to be a
subject of great value to the diligent student of the Bible.
The fact, however, that theology is alike the badge of denominational distinction,, and the bond of Christian fellowship
is a reason *why I should call attention to two other questions which -are of present interest.
The first: is the right of Sectarianism to exist at all, and the
second is the relation of theology to ministerial and Christianfellowship.
Theology and Sectarianism.
Theology is the basis of organic unity in Christendom.
The divisions of Christendom have been justified on theological grounds. Theological differences separated the Eastern
and Western churches; they gave rise to the Reformation,
and they subsequently divided Protestants. The separate denominations are held together by their theological agreements.
In some instances the theology is expressed in a written form
or symbol, in others as in Romanism and Anglicanism  in a
living organization. The unity of the Papacy expresses itself
in the dogma ubi~ Pe/rus ibi ecclesia; the unity of Anglicanism
in the sentiment that the church is a community of Christians.
"episcopally officered."
Theology must enter into the conditions of Church union,
whether the union be more or less extensive.  And it cannot
but be a matter of regret that Christians have so far differed
in their interpretations of the Bible as to justify so many independent organizations.  Nor does it remove the occasion
of this regret to be reminded of the good effects which grow out
of generous sectarian emulation or to be told that denominationalism is. a wise anticipation of the wants of different types
of mind. For the divisions are the result of difference of




64'INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
theological opinion, and show plainly that some at all events
are greatly in the wrong, since if all were in the right there
would be no disagreement. It is not the organic division
which we regret so much, as it is the doctrinal disagreement
of which it is the exponent. If other elements did not enter
into the discussion we could readily affirm that Catholicity is
preferable to Sectarianism, and that the Church should bend
its energies in the direction of a restored unity. The other
elements which enter into the case make the subject one of
difficulty. That the question is exciting attention one can see
by watching the religious periodicals. Dean Stanley and Dr.
Pusey, the poles apart on most theological questions, are both
anxious for the reunion of Christendom, the former on the
narrow basis of apostolic succession, and the latter on the
broad principle of comprehension.  And the positions taken
by the two men may fairly represent the only reasonable modes
of advocating a reunion of Christendom: a man must, in other
words, hope for it on the ground that all Christians will come
round to his way of thinking, or that they will agree to tolerate
very wide theological differences. There are few who look
for reunion on the basis of unanimity. The " Old Catholic"
movement is not likely to solve the Sectarian problem.
And it is to comprehension we must look, if any where, for
the consummation which by many is devoutly wished for.
The denominational difficulty grows out of the attempt to
unite the two ideas of organic unity and doctrinal completeness.  If organic unity were the only essential, wide divergences
of belief could be tolerated. If organic life were not important
Christianity might run into individualism.  When the break
with Rome occurred the doctrine was pso facto announced
that organic unity was not essential.  It is not strange that
Protestantism became Sectarian. For if men might protest
against Rome, and make two denominations, why might not




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                    65
Protestants protest against each other and make ten.  If
we protest against Rome fordteaching too much, we shall naturally separate from Unitarians who teach too little.
Since organic unity is:not essential, any proposition to unite
the sects on a basis of comprehension must answer the question whether the change will be'attended with a gain greater
than the loss. For it is needless to say there is some advantage in the present state of things which Broad-churchism
would -not possess.
The comprehension scheme requires, first of all, the giving
up, on the part of Christians, of their ideas on church polity.
For as long as Prelacy, Presbyterianism and Congregationalism
are conscientiously defended, on Scriptural grounds, Sectarianism will hold its' own.  The principle suggests a difficulty
at the outset, of whose speedy removal we see no tokens.
Then the principle of comprehension, in order to carry out the
designs.of those who advocate it, ought to admit to Christian fellowship all who are Christians. How are we to determine exactly
who are Christians? What is the minimum of doctrine which will
be considered necessary for' Christian fellowship?   At first
sight, the movement would indicate' a'great advance in Christian charity.  But, on closer examination, we shall find that
this is not the case.  For it is' far less invidious to have a long
creed which is not intendedto include all Christians, than a short
one, which-puts upon those who exclude men from Christian
fellowship the responsibility of. saying they are not Christians
at all.
But, suppose that the principle of' comprehension should go
into effect, what would be the result?  Organic action on the'
part of Christians at large, would be out of the question. They
might agree in observing the week of prayer; they might come
to a better understanding respecting the distribution of mis-.
sionary work; they might pQur their united offerings into?a




66                INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
common treasury.  But they can do that now, and to a great
extent are doing it. The work of the Church would necessarily be entrusted to local agencies; and the only difference, so
far as polity is concerned, would be that the denominations
would be separated by geographical boundaries, rather than by
distinctions of creed. The Presbyterian Church, the Methodist
church, and the Episcopal church would die, and in their place
we should have the Church of New York, the Church of Philadelphia, the Church of Chicago, &c. Suppose this denominational fusion should take place, what great gain, or what
important difference would result?   The Baptist would pass
the church which believes in infant baptism, to wait on the
ministry of one who believes that immersion is the only mode,
and that believers are the only subjects, of baptism. The
Arminian would rather walk a mile than worship next door
with a Calvinistic congregation.  In a word, the principle of
elective affinity would still control the relations of pastor and
people, and we should be just where we were before, with the
difference that we should have parted company with much that
was dear-and valued; we should miss the sympathy which
exists between sharers of a common faith; we should lack
the stimulus which is given to Christian enterprise by national denominationalism; we should foster indifference to
doctrinal truth'; and the world would lose the value of the
separate lessons which the denominations teach. The world
is'in more need of Calvinism than of Comprehension; and
until we all come to the unity of the faith, sectarianism will
be at once the reproach and the redemption of Protestant
Christianity.   "Looking around, then,"* says Mr. Curteis,
"what schemes are at the present moment presented to our
choice, whereby the effort shall be made to organize Teutonic
* Dissent in its relation to the Church of England, Bampton Lectures for 187I. Preface,- p. xIv.




INAUGURAL ADDRESS.                   67
Christendom?  Two only are in view; and they are these(I) the scheme of' the Evangelical alliance,'-(2) the scheme of
the'old Catholic church.' "  Which is an Anglican's way of
saying: we must agree, and so be one; or, we must agree to
differ, and so co-operate.
Let Christians learn, then, to soften the asperities of controversy; to recognize the brotherly relations subsisting among the
sects; and then, in a spirit of preference which does not exalt
itself into exclusiveness, and of emulation which does not run
into rivalry, let them go side by side across prairies, and over
mountains and up rivers, and through cities, carrying  the
same glad message of redeeming love.
We shall be told that the argument which justifies ten denominations, will justify a hundred; that there is no logical
termination to the disintegrating process; that if Calvinists
may separate from Arminians because they differ on the question concerning the ground of election, the most minute shades
of Calvinistic opinions may be made the ground of as many
Calvinistic denominations.  There is force in the argument, we
cannot deny, and it is too well illustrated in the different
groups into which Presbyterianism is broken up.
Still, there is a centripetal force in Christianity which
tends to correct the evils of excessive division.  There is a
desire for solidarity which will, in all likelihood, keep the denominations compact and insure the "permanence of species."
Our church is made compact by her polity and her doctrine.
The three principles of Presbyterianism, parity of the ministry,
popular government, and organic unity, give us a polity sufficiently flexible and sufficiently centralized.  Our theology is
distinct and exclusive. Depravity, expiation, justification by
faith, regeneration and sovereign election, sum up Calvinism
and make it a theologic species. It does not destroy our specific oneness to vary, within limits, in our statements of these




68                 iNAUJGURAL ADDRESS.
doctrines.  Whether a man explains depravity by realism or
federal-headship, or whether he puts the decree of election
before or after the decree of atonement, does not affect vitally
his position in the Calvinistic species.  Our Church has one
theology, and he, is untrue to the Church who seeks to give
specific value to what is not a specific doctrine.  At Princeton,
at Union, at Auburn, at Allegheny,. at Lane, at Chicago, at
San Francisco, one theology is taught,-a theology which, crystallizing round the admitted. fact of man's depraved nature,
finds expression in the correlated doctrines *of election, Incarnation, vicarious atonement, regeneration, justification, sanctification. Men may call it ante-diluvian, if they please; no offence will be given to those who believe that the scheme of
redemption dates with the eternal' purpose' of God, that the
voice of mercy synchronized with the voice of justice, and
that the first promise of offspring was associated with the
promise of a Redeemer.
Theology and Fellowship..
The Westminster confession is our Presbyterian  symbol.
This, however, is not saying, that subscription-to it is the condition of Christian fellowship.  The Church Session. is the door of
entrance to full communion, and our. standards.wisely leave
the  matter of  individual membership  to the  discretion
of the minister and the elders.  No rule applicable alike
in all cases can be given, respecting the amount. of knowledge which shall be' required of.the applicant for. admission to the Lord's table: Nor would -it be consistent for a
symbol which proceeds upon the assumption that the children
of believing parents are members of'the Church, and which
encourages the early profession of faith, to require, as. a condition of full communion, the explicit avowal of all the doctrines of the Confession.  In this respect our church exhibits a
liberality, more real and more reasonable than is. manifested




iNAtTGURAL ADDmtlS.                          69
by those churches which make the public avowal of an elaborate creed, the prelude to Christian communion.  The church
is the school where the doctrines are to be taught, and a faithful ministry will reveal itself in careful pulpit instruction. The
condition of Christian discipleship is faith in Jesus Christ,
and it is not right that the  disciple  should  be  kept from
the table of his Lord, until his education  is far enough advanced to enable him to give an intelligent assent to all the
doctrines of the Confession.
The  official instructor of the people  should  be required
to avow his faith in the standards which he is expected to
teach.   Ignorance of the doctrinal teachings of our standards
is inexcusable in the case of one who, in his ordination vows,
affirms that he  " sincerely receives and adopts the Confession
of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures:"   Nor is it quite becoming for
men to take advantage of their position to speak with contempt
or in disparagement of the  doctrinal' system  which  they are
supposed to accept.*
The Church has the  right to  guard against the  teaching
of error in her pulpits.  And the ingenious writer in the Contemporary Review who has already been quoted, fails in his attempt to justify the holding  in *an  esoteric  way of doctrines
which are not in accordance with the standards of the Church
of which he is a minister.  " The ethics of creed-subscription,"
imply that the minister who avows his -adherence to the standards of the Church does so in good faith, and when he finds
*An article in the December number of the Cotlemhsorary Review, entitled " The Westminster Confession and Scotch Theology," is an indication of a tendency to Broadchurchism in Scotland, though it is restricted in the main, we believe, to a coterie of
ministers in the Establishment among whom are Dr. Wallace and Principal Tulloch. The
writer in the ConlemPorary is strongly in favor of a revision of the Confession, and his
favorite argument is the familiar one, that a Confession, framed so long ago, is unsuited to
the wants of the present age.




a76              INAUGtRAL ADDRESS.
himself out of sympathy with them, there should be little doubt
as to the course which ethical propriety would suggest.
And since the relation between theology and religion
is so intimate, to teach theology to those who are to
be preachers of the truth in this great Northwest, is a
work of incalculable importance and of grave responsibility.  This is the work which you have called me to
do.  I come then  to read the standards with my own
eyes, to teach them according to my own method, and it
will be for you who are the guardians of this Seminary,
and for the General Assembly of our Church to say whether
I am  faithful.  I entered  the ministry when the parted
waters of American Presbyterianism were so near their point
of junction that I belong far more to the Presbyterianism of
to-day than to any antecedent Presbyterianism; and I come
to my present post with the deep conviction that these waters, (unlike the streams of the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence,
where the blackness of the one and the brightness of
the other preserve the individuality of each,) not only
flow in the same channel, but have lost their identity in that
greater stream which their union makes. I desire, as best I
may, to serve our beloved Church in discharging the duties of
the position to which I have been called. And may God, for
Christ's sake, equip me for the work He has given me to do.








ii
I