moteness from the great intellectual tradition of the Church. It was then perhaps inevitable that a young man coming to Andover Seminary in 1863, determined that the history of Christian doctrine should have its due influence in forming the theology believed by the pupils of that institution, should have found that his work had other difficulties than those involved in its intrinsic nature. The personal aim of the instruction given in the institution, the necessity laid upon each instructor, and especially the two with whose work we are here concerned, of doing his utmost to help each pupil form his belief, and the close relations which under a normal state of things would unite the pupils with the teachers and the teachers with each other, made it possible for able and conscientious men to find each in his colleague's work an element of antagonism to his own, and to himself. No censure is suggested when it is said that Professor Smyth found painful elements in his work and held his position under the consciousness of imperfect harmony with the strongest intellectual and personal influence in the Seminary. In the foregoing cautious but suggestive statement may be found the key to almost every trait of Professor Smyth's character, as exemplified by his career at Andover, and an explanation of almost every act that brought him into public notice. He was, to start with, a deeply religious man from early youth, and most strongly attached to the simple forms of worship in the New England churches. He had inherited from his father a wonderful degree of enthusiasm and a disposition doggedly to adhere to that which he believed to be right. But combined with these traits was a remarkable sweetness of temper and an all-embracing love for his fellow men. Here, then, we have the precise qualities that constitute a doughty antagonist, an unconquerable defender of principles which he has espoused, who can nevertheless pass through a great contest with unruffled temper and without incurring the personal ill-will of those with whom he contends. This man was placed in a position where it was his duty to emphasize the importance to students of theology — of the theology he had embraced — of learning the history of Christian doctrine. Neglect of this branch of education left the young theologians ignorant of movements which had profoundly modified Christian thought, and imparted what may be termed provincialism to the churches of the denomination. - 1 The reference is, of course, to Prof. Edwards A. Park. Professor Smyth's own study of the subject gradually modified his own views on certain points of less than vital importance; ind the change caused him to be all the more earnest in his desire to lead his students along the road he had travelled. Conservatism resisted him. The provincial refused to consider what thinkers outside of his narrow circle had said and written, and opposed filling the minds of young students with such useless matters. Of such a condition of things within the seminary there could be but one result. For a time the inevitable contest was within the seminary itself; ultimately it was waged in the churches outside, but Professor Smyth was always the central figure. In the natural course of events the teaching force of the seminary was changed and the new professors were more in harmony with Smyth's views than those who had resigned. "In 1881," says Professor Hincks, in the memoir already cited, "Professor Smyth found himself the president and senior member of a faculty every member of which except himself had recently become connected with the seminary." Four of his col leagues joined with him in founding the "Andover Review," the publication of which was continued for ten years, under their joint editorship. The Review became the vehicle of a broader type of thought and discussion than that which had usually been put forth by Andover Seminary. In particular it supported the views about which controversy had already begun, and which had the able support of the Rev. Dr. Newman Smyth, of New Haven, a younger brother of the editor,views which to the mind of many laymen untrained in theology were inconsistent with the doctrine contained in the oaths and declarations to which certain of the professors, including Professor Smyth, were required, by the conditions of the foundation, periodically to subscribe. Many English clergymen of the established church are shocked by the requirement to recite the Athanasian Creed on certain Sundays and Saints' days. Some of them disregard the rubric; others read it as a duty, but place upon it an interpretation different from the plain meaning of the words. The Andover creed was and is one which it is safe to say no clergyman of the Congregational denomination now accepts in its literal sense. Professor Smyth, whose conscientiousness, whose love of truth, whose sincerity, and whose honesty with himself, no man who knew him ever could or did doubt, maintained that his views and his teaching were consistent with the creed. But in 1886 some members of the denomination laid a formal complaint before the Visitors of Andover Seminary that some of the professors were teaching in the Review doctrines contrary to those which they were under the most solemn obligation to uphold. The Board of Visitors, three in number, has a large power of control over the affairs of the seminary, independent of, and in certain respects superior to, that of the trustees. A formal trial upon the charge of heresy was held, in which Professor Smyth defended himself by a powerful argument. In the end, however, the Visitors held him to be guilty and decreed his removal from the professorship. He thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which it was his privilege to do. The trustees, who had uniformly supported Professor Smyth, and who had applied in vain for leave to be represented at the trial before the Board of Visitors, now intervened in the case, and maintained that the action of the Visitors was vitiated and was invalid by reason of that refusal, inasmuch as the trustees, the guardian of the funds of the seminary, were really attacked when one of the professors was put on trial, and had therefore a right to be heard in their own defence. The court ultimately, in 1891, held that the trustees were justified in their contention, and on that ground it decided that the action of the Visitors was invalid. The decision obviated the necessity of a consideration of the case on its merits. Although Professor Smyth's original accusers asked permission to renew the charges, the Board of Visitors, the membership of which had been almost wholly changed during the seven years the case. had been pending, declined to proceed further, and the whole affair came to an end. No better or truer account could be given of Professor Smyth's bearing during these years from 1884 to 1891 than in the following words of Dr. Hincks in the memoir already cited: Those who had good opportunities of observing him at that time believed that he displayed admirable qualities - tenacity of purpose, patience, serenity. He was conscious of passionate loyalty to truths which he was accused of attacking; he fully believed that the verdict which condemned him was as unjust as the ultimate action of the Board which rendered it virtually pronounced it to be; but he uttered no bitter words. He did use most faithfully the means at his disposal of vindicating himself, believing that he owed this to his colleagues, to the institution he served, and to the Christian public as well as to himself. When vindication came he was satisfied with it. It was his due; he obtained it, and was content to forget the painful experience out of which it came. He was generous in the day of triumph as he was patient in the years of trial. No exultant or taunting word escaped him. He calmly went on during the years of life that remained to him, teaching with ever growing zeal and devotion the truths which he had been accused of attacking. Yet it cannot be denied that the theology which he taught was different, at least in spirit, at least in the relative emphasis laid upon the various doctrines, from the theology which was prevalent at Andover before his time, and from that which was preached a generation ago from most of the pulpits of his denomination. Nor will it be disputed that the mollifying change was due to his brave stand for liberty more than to any other single influence. During the last thirteen years of his life controversy did not trouble him. It had not ceased, but he had borne his part in it and could afford to disregard it. The controversy appeared, during the years it lasted, in the councils called to ordain or install ministers of the Congregational denomination, and in the discussions of the American Board regarding the imposition of rigid doctrinal tests upon its candidates for foreign missionary service. The Board now concedes to its candidates the liberty he asked for his pupils. In some cases the opponents of Professor Smyth were successful, in others they failed. But long ago most of the rejected candidates, rejected because the councils deemed them tainted with heretical doctrine, were accepted by other councils and installed over churches or sent to preach the Gospel in other lands. The battle for liberty of thought upon points that have now come to be regarded as not essential and fundamental has been fully won. Professor Smyth was, so all who have had the opportunity of judging are agreed, an inspiring teacher, full to the brim of enthusiasm for the subject he taught, industrious in preparation, clear and skilful in the presentation of facts. He was always the sympathetic friend and helper of his pupils, and a dissolver of their doubts. His home was made a welcome resort for them, and in making it so his wife, a true helpmeet in all respects, bore a large part. From the beginning religion pervaded his life. If the doctrinal views which he carried from Brunswick to Andover were somewhat modified as his knowledge of the history of Christian thought broadened, there was an intensification. rather than a weakening of his spiritual nature. He believed with all his soul that which he professed to believe and that which he taught in the class-room, and he carried his belief into all his acts and all his thoughts. Bowdoin gave him the degree of D.D. in 1866, and that of LL.D. in 1902. Harvard also conferred the degree of D.D. in 1886. Professor Smyth was a member of the American Antiquarian Society, of the American Historical Association, of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, and of the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was elected to this Society at the December meeting in 1882. Although he was a frequent attendant at the meetings of the Society, he contributed but sparingly to its Proceedings. Indeed, although a prolific writer, he left a singularly small amount of published matter, except in the form of sermons, lectures and addresses, and articles in the Andover Review, which he edited, and in other periodicals. This is another way of saying that his work was chiefly that in the class-room, and that he did not take from the time required for that the hours necessary for the production of books. The one thing that seems most to have interested him outside of the domain of church history in general was the theology and the personality of Jonathan Edwards, whom he regarded as a commanding character in that history. He was attracted early to that subject by the fact that Mrs. Smyth was a descendant of the famous New England theologian. Later, through the same connection, he had access to a mass of the unpublished manuscripts of Edwards, and was engaged in the preparation of a part of it for publication just before his death. Mrs. Smyth died in February, 1904, and her husband did not long survive her. After a brief illness he died on the 12th of April of the same year. |