Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ARTICLE II.-THE AMERICAN BOARD AND THE LATE BOSTON COUNCIL.

THE facts and events which led to the call of this Council were briefly as follows: Mr. William H. Noyes, a member of the Theological Seminary at Andover, and graduate of 1886, in May of that year offered himself to the Prudential Committee of the American Board as a missionary to Japan, giving at the same time a brief statement of his theological beliefs. At the suggestion of the Committee, on the 12th of June, he met the three Secretaries for an extended exposition of his views, a report of which as agreed upon by the Secretaries (without so far as appears any further conference with him) was presented to the Committee. With this report as the basis for their action, on the 15th of June the Committee decided that "it was inexpedient to appoint Mr. Noyes a missionary of the Board at present." "It was voted that the statement of the Secretaries concerning Mr. Noyes' views be submitted to him for approval or for modification as he may desire, and copies of the same, after such approval or modification has been given, be furnished to the Committee."

On the 17th of June Mr. Noyes sent to the Committee a very long communication restating and modifying somewhat the report of his views made by the Secretaries. This was read to the Committee the day following and it was decided "that no change in the action of the last meeting was called for." Mr. Noyes was also informed that it is "inexpedient to appoint" him "a missionary of the Board at present." To this Mr. Noyes replied asking for the reasons for the decision of the Committee and for the interpretation of the phrase "at present." In April, 1887 (after the re-appointment of Mr. R. A. Hume) a renewed application was made by Mr. Noyes and a friend, accompanied by an extended statement of their theological views, in which there is a minute explanation of their opinions in regard to the relation of the heathen to the offers of

the gospel. To this a Secretary replies, noting the application as failing to answer the questions suggested in a letter from the Clerk of the Committee, as to whether Mr. Noyes' views corresponded to those ordinarily held by several churches in the vicinity of Boston, and how they would stand the test of the Resolutions passed at Des Moines. To this Mr. Noyes replied that he had designed only to explain his own views previously expressed, to which he still adhered, and had supposed the action at Des Moines was designed to be cautionary rather than mandatory. To which the Committee replied through their clerk that the Committee were bound by the instructions of the Board and in obedience to those instructions must decline to receive him as a missionary.

This letter closes the first chapter in this somewhat mem. orable history. The story cannot fail to suggest the inquiry whether the traditionary methods of communication between the Prudential Committee and candidates for appointment to missionary service are not susceptible of a radical improvement, at least in all cases of special difficulty or delicacy. The old rule which has been sanctioned by the experience of ages that a witness or accused person or plaintiff should be confronted with his judge and jury surely holds in the present instance. The simple perusal of the condensed recast of Mr. Noyes' opinions which is given by the Secretaries, especially when contrasted with the modifications and re-statements of the same by Mr. Noyes, suggests all that need be said to the effect that in respect to all critical points whether of opinion or policy, the missionary should have direct access to those who hold to him still higher relations than those of judges and jurors. functions of the Secretaries are sufficiently ample and various to task all their energies and wisdom, and their responsibilities are sufficiently onerous and trying to entitle them to all the relief which can possibly be accorded to them. The sympathy and support which might come to the missionaries themselves from the assurance and conviction that they were personally known by the Board whose duty it is to decide so many questions for them, might not unfrequently be of important service to them when in the field of conflict and self-denial and loneliness.

The

After this decision Mr. Noyes could do nothing but seek some other field of labor, and such a field he soon found in the Berkeley Street Church in Boston, inasmuch as this church had entered upon a somewhat extended scheme of home missionary effort, and he was soon employed as an assistant to the pastor. In this capacity he spent somewhat more than a year of service, with great acceptance to the congregation and with success proportioned to his ardor. In the meantime his missionary zeal had not abated, and his wishes being made known to the church, and especially to its younger members, the question was naturally suggested why cannot we send him to Japan as our missionary? Doubtless the possibility of sending one or more missionaries independently of the American Board had also occurred to not a few of its liberal contributors as a possible relief from the tension occasioned by the policy which had seemed to have been inaugurated and yet had failed to be universally approved. The money required for the support of Mr. Noyes for two or three years was soon provided, and a council of churches was called at the request of the Berkeley Street Church to ordain Mr. Noyes as a foreign missionary.

This council met on the 22d of October and was composed, as was soon made obvious, of members who were pledged to no theory or plan of proceedure and committed to no theological party. After some interchange of opinions and the rejection of two or three tentative propositions, the council resolved to examine the candidate with reference to his ordination as a foreign missionary. The examination was long and thorough, and as full as could be desired upon eschatology. To all the questions proposed frank and definite answers were given. In the discussions which followed no exception was taken to the opinions avowed by Mr. Noyes one or all as disqualifying the candidate for the missionary work or as inconsistent with substantial orthodoxy. When the vote was taken upon the proposition which prevailed, it was of twenty-five to one, and the one vote was understood not to relate to the matter of orthodoxy. The candidate moreover, insisted that the statements which he made to the Council were for substance the same which he had made to the Secretaries, while he contended that for some reason or other his real opinions had not been under

stood, which fact he explained in part by the fact that his communications were chiefly answers to questions proposed by his examiners, such answers being usually attempts to adjust his own positions to those phrased by his questioner, or to recast these statements in his own language. The examination and discussions of the Council occupied several hours, and the services did not begin till 9 o'clock of the evening; finishing the second chapter of this history.

The third begins with the application to the Prudential Committee from the Berkeley Street Church that they would accept its ordained foreign missionary and send him to Japan. In reply came the proposition that Mr. Noyes should meet the Committee. At the interview which followed he was met at the outset by the request that he would reconcile some of the opinions which he had expressed before the Council with those which had been reported by the Secretaries as having been held and expressed by him more than a year previous. To this he replied that he would prefer that no reference should be made to statements made so long ago and under circumstances so peculiar that he could neither affirm nor deny them, but would present the statement which he had made to the Council; this and this only. The reasons for taking this position are given at great length by Mr. Noyes in his final letter to the church-embodying as it does a detailed statement of what he considered misrepresentations of the views which he had expressed and actually holds. The Committee decline to accept his communication to the Council as an exposition of his actual and present creed. They require in addition an adjustment between what he is understood or reported to have said months, and even years ago, utterances of which he does not acknowledge. the correctness of the construction or the report. They also refer to the resolutions at Des Moines and Springfield as giving them no discretion in the matter. They notice what they consider an inconsistency between two statements of his and other assertions and inferences, and venture the opinion that by his own showing Mr. Noyes cannot be included among those whom the President of the Board would except from the operation of the resolutions of Springfield and Des Moines. The Committee send a letter and Mr. Noyes a communication to the church and the church accepts Mr. Noyes as its missionary.

This is a brief but sad story, but, even in this story the most significant events have been omitted. We refer to the charges of heresy which have been brought against one of the Professors in the Theological Seminary at Andover before the public and the Trustees, and to the fact that certain doctrines which as supposed to be taught by him were made the subject of public condemnation at at least two of the annual meetings of the American Board. It is moreover asserted very confidently that these doctrines are regarded as heretical and subverversive of the Gospel by the great majority of the Congregational and Presbyterian ministers of the United States.

We do not propose to arbitrate between any of these contending parties but would simply offer a few suggestions in relation to the subject matter of this discussion which is upon us and the manner in which it should be conducted.

We cannot but regard it as most unfortunate that the officers and members and patrons of the American Board have become involved in a theological controversy and this upon a question which is capable of arousing any amount of conscientious conviction and honest prejudice. The very language of the resolutions passed with so much confidence and eclat at Des Moines exemplifies our meaning. The second of these resolutions is simply and solely a theological pronunciamento of the Corporation expressing the grave apprehension of the body in respect to certain tendencies of a doctrine which has been recently broached and diligently propagated as being divisive and pernicious and dangerous, and its approval of the action of the Committee in guarding the Board from any committal to any sanction of that doctrine, and advising a continuance of the caution, etc. This resolution is wholly gratuitous and fraught with evil consequences. Were there occasion for any action in the premises the first resolution is ample and business-like; whereas the second in principle and profession invests the Prudential Committee with the function and enjoins the duty of seeing that a certain doctrine does not receive its sanction. All this may have been accidental, but surely somebody has blundered in respect to it and the blunder has been disastrous if we may judge by the use to which it has been applied. Had there been any occasion to affirm a doctrinal

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »