. It makes him a vanishing spirit destitute of true
sentiment, character, and practical rectitude. Forms of worship and of
religion may be temporary and change, but love of truth and conviction
should always be an active power, uniform, eternal. Even in our
theological schools, where the human spirit is supposed to be exorcised
into worlds of graver and graver realities, we are just now learning
some valuable lessons in the flexibility of theological opinion.

He who stands in a conspicuous place in any community will always be
looked at. What he says and does will be judged by everybody. His person
and life and character, his joys and sorrows, are things of public
gossip and interest. And if the uniqueness of his position in society be
due to some sacred calling, such as a teacher of religious truth, he
evokes the highest esteem and expectations. All truth is sacred; and
truth's propagator is expected to be, not only a truth-seeker, but a
teacher of it in the interests of the public weal. The responsibility of
this is distributed among all men, but nowhere is it so great as with
the professed preacher and teacher of religious truth. He cannot absolve
himself from it. It is the price he pays for his exalted privilege, his
dignified position.

The creed-test of the Andover theological school may be unwarranted at
the present time. Yet while there is such a test, and the old creed
comes up and insists upon being reaffirmed in its original meaning by
each incumbent, we are bewildered the moment we attempt to harmonize
what happened there recently with stalwart conviction and vital piety.
Within a few months we have seen the Andover creed, over which there has
been so much wrangling, and some of whose doctrines make the human heart
to-day sink in despair, receiving unqualified indorsement. With
unfaltering confidence this ancient creed was reaffirmed by a professor
of that school of divinity without modifying the conditions of
subscription. This surprises us. It may be that the recently inducted
Professor of Sacred Rhetoric did not signify explicit allegiance to this
creed, whose doctrines are so inflexibly maintained by our older
theologians, but simply gave his assent, just as the clergy of the noble
Church of England are giving their assent, but not their strict
adherence, to the Thirty-nine Articles. And yet what is progressive
orthodoxy, so boldly and ably enunciated, but a growing away from the
old Andover creed?