I cannot deny that I stand in awe, as in expectation, before the present emergency. I am not content with any protest against the injustice of methods, or with any endeavors after the readjustment of organizations. The problem to my mind is grander, and simple in proportion to its grandeur. It is nothing less, it is nothing more, than the problem which confronted the mind of Mills and his associates, when he proposed to send the gospel to dark and heathen lands, and said, "We could do it if we would." We can always do it if we will. Consecration persisted in can have but one issue. If we are straitened it is in ourselves. We are not straitened for room. The field is the world, and the world still belongs to God. Only obey his spirit and you will not be afraid to trust in his providence. If God is at work within you He is surely at work without. And the inward and the outward work will agree. "He cannot deny himself."

I therefore commend you in your spirit to God. "Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." William Jewett Tucker.

ANDOVER, October 16, 1887.

EDITORIAL.

COMMENT ON CURRENT DISCUSSION.

REV. DR. PENTECOST, the evangelist, argued at Springfield that, unless an opinion or hypothesis is actually incorporated into the creeds as an article of faith, it cannot be held by missionaries of the Board. He said :

"Now, sir, I submit that it is absolutely impossible to show from any creed, or from any article of faith, or from the announcement of any recognized ecclesiastical council, that this new hypothesis belongs in any way to the faith of the Congregational churches. If this Board is to carry out the will of the churches so far as their expression of faith is concerned, then this Board must limit its examinations to the declaration of the faith of these churches, as expressed in the articles of faith and creed, and not as uttered by seminaries or by advanced theologians."

It is not likely that all those who sustained the action of the Committee agreed to this kind of argument. Would it not be equally pertinent to maintain that nothing should be required of candidates which the churches have not seen fit to put in the creeds? The creeds are silent concerning the fate of those who do not have the gospel. What right, then, has the Board to exclude those who hold this or that opinion on the perplexing subject? The creeds, with very few local exceptions, do not declare the decisive character of the earthly life for all members of the race. What right, then, has the Board to require a belief which the creeds do not require?

The argument proves too much. Under it the speaker himself would fail of appointment. It is well understood that he holds to the premillennial advent of Christ. But, according to his own view, the Board must refuse any man who holds that hypothesis or opinion, no matter how well qualified he may be in all other respects; for it has no place in the creeds of the church, while many creeds affirm that Christ's second coming is only at the day of final judgment. Let him apply his test to premillenarianism in his own language: —

"It is safe to say that if you read every article of faith in every Congregational church in all the land, if you examine the minutes of every ecclesiastical association, but limiting yourselves to the churches especially, you will not find one line, or one syllable, or one suggestion, that the churches in this land hold to that as an hypothesis, much less as a doctrine."

And then his own conclusion touching premillenarianism would be:"But the Board must only give expression to the faith, as the faith has been expressed by the churches. The very moment that they depart from that rule they depart from their authority, and are undertaking to do or to adjudge doctrines and speculations which they are unwarranted in attempting to do."

If he were pleading his own case he would probably argue just as VOL. VIII. — NO. 47.

33

rejected candidates have argued; that the creeds do not exclude belief in the premillennial advent of Christ, and that it is a belief or hypothesis concerning which liberty is enjoyed by ministers at home.

Dr. Pentecost said, in the last sentence of his address on Thursday morning :

"I think it is fair to say that any one who moves amongst the churches, any one who deals face to face with the unbelievers, any one that meets them in the inquiry room, will admit that this hypothesis, which is not a doctrine, has nevertheless taken hold of the unbelievers in our country, and stands as one of the most difficult barriers that we have to surmount in getting at the average unconverted man in New England."

We are not disposed to question the fact that some persons who are found in inquiry rooms avail themselves of a misapprehension of this theory as an excuse for delay, although we should wait for the testimony of more than one person before attaching so much importance to it. But every doctrine or opinion which extends the grace of God more widely has been used as an excuse for postponing repentance. This misuse, even of the most characteristic truths of the gospel, had been pointed out by the previous speaker, Rev. Dr. McKenzie.

We are also very positive in the opinion that a wrong impression has been made on some minds by persistent misrepresentation of the hypothesis on the part of those who oppose it. They have almost invariably, and after repeated correction, represented it as the hypothesis of a second rather than a Christian probation. The very best answer to objectors in the inquiry room is a statement of the hypothesis exactly as it is held by those who entertain it. Dr. Pentecost could say that for himself he rejects the hypothesis, and that even those who hold it insist that it enhances the importance of the present life for those who do have the gospel.

Dr. Pentecost made an affirmation which is not in accordance with fact. He said:

:

"Every gentleman that has spoken on this platform favoring the adoption of the amendment . . . has disavowed utterly the fact that he believed in the new hypothesis."

The only speaker who made such disavowal was Rev. Dr. Walker, who said he did not agree with Dr. Parker in theology upon the point especially before the Board at that time. No other speaker of the minority indicated his own opinion concerning the hypothesis of future probation. This misstatement made more ungracious the subsequent remark in which he charged that those who (as he alleged) say they do not believe the hypothesis really do believe it, since, in his opinion, their eyes and tones belied their language. One who fancies men use language which they do not use is hardly competent to draw theological inferences from their facial expression and vocal inflection.

REV. DR. BOARDMAN, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Chicago Seminary, based his opposition to the appointment of the rejected candidates on tendencies and results of their theology which are unseen by ordinary vision. His exposition of the New Theology had the interest of novelty to its advocates, and we doubt not to its opponents. We therefore mention some of the surprising statements and dark apprehensions of Professor Boardman.

In his summary of the fundamental basis of Christian doctrine, he said:

"Now, what is that theory? Well, sir, I will not attempt to go into the depths of it, but it is a profound thing. Its roots reach a great way back; they only ask for a Being of love and goodness to make out the whole story. They follow down through the creation of the world, the creation of man, incarnation of Christ, the fall of man, possibly. It is too deep for me."

This strikes us as, on the whole, a very good statement. A Being of love and goodness is certainly the basis of all doctrine. We had supposed that the creation of the world and the creation of man become intelligible only in the light of God's holy and loving purpose. The incarnation of Christ is so understood. The fall of man is not involved in the Being of God, but it has a place in Christian doctrine only because the God of love provides redemption for man. The professor, perhaps, meant that from the Being of a God of love the New Theology derives, by an à priori process, the creation of the world, the creation of man, and the incarnation of Christ. But this is not true. These are great facts, which, when they are recognized, theology, old or new, sees to be in harmony with the character of God and a revelation of his character. It is indeed admitted that these are profound facts, unfathomable in their deepest depths, but they are the facts which Christian theology everywhere recognizes. He said that this theology is not the theology the Board has used. But the alternative is atheism, or materialism, or bare Deism. We have conjectured that the Professor may have meant that the New Theology exalts the Incarnation above the Redemption of Christ, and therefore represents the fall of man as incidental and secondary in the scheme of doctrines. This, again, would not be an altogether correct representation; but are we to understand that the Board accepts the alternative view, that sin was the cause of God's revelation in Christ, and that the Incarnation was strictly conditioned on the fall of man ? This would be to exalt the work of Christ above his person, and to make sin as essential as the highest revelation of the love of God. Perhaps the professor will explain somewhat more clearly the contrast which at that point in his argument he had in mind.

Another singular statement was that in which the possibility of forgive ness of the unpardonable sin was considered :—

"You may call it pardon in certain cases, if you choose, but they don't hold that pardon reaches to salvation, the Bible salvation. All men are restrained

from committing the unpardonable sin, from the final rejection of Christ; and if a man commits that sin there is no salvation for him—even the atonement of Christ cannot reach that sin of man at the last. Christ himself is helpless as a Redeemer; He is not able to save to the uttermost; He is not able to reach those who set Him aside. Not only that judicially He sets them aside, but his power is limited, and the atonement does not cover the extent of man's sin. It is the limited atonement I oppose, together with the other."

We do not hesitate to affirm that the Scriptures unmistakably teach that salvation is impossible to those who have finally rejected Christ, or have committed the unpardonable sin. The power of Christ to save is limited by the disposition of men. He is able to save to the uttermost all those who come unto God by Him. Because the atonement is not limited in a certain respect, it does not follow that it is limited in no respect whatever. But one who cherishes the large hope that those who finally reject Christ are still in a salvable condition (although it seems a contradiction in terms) should not be severe on another who hopes that God may in another life reveal Christ to those who in this world never had so much as an opportunity either to accept or reject Him.

Another statement was in the form of an inference that according to the New Theology man is not lost until he has become wholly incapable of salvation.

"The ruin of man is through that final sin that no God had expiated, and such a man actually loses himself; that is, is not susceptible of redemption, and the expiation of Jesus Christ cannot reach sin against himself."

This he declares is a philosophic contradiction, as it brings expiation in only when expiation has become impossible. His inference is absurd and unwarranted. We are inclined to think that the professor meant what was expressed more clearly by others, that if men have a future opportunity of salvation it cannot be true that they are now lost and under condemnation. How can a man be lost if it is possible for him by and by to be saved? But, on this view, a man who in the course of his earthly life repents and is saved was not lost before he repented. The correct view is, that men, being sinners, are under condemnation, and if left to themselves are lost. But they are not hopelessly lost, because the gospel of Christ is or may be offered to them. The distinction is to be made between a lost state which is such by reason of sin, and a lost state which is without hope either because the gospel is not known or is finally rejected. Those who have not accepted Christ are lost, although the same persons may subsequently be saved. The returning prodigal was lost and is found. And if the gospel is brought to some not until after death, they are as truly lost before they know of Christ, as those are who spend a portion of their lives without faith in Christ. We submit that when, in common parlance, men are said to be lost, it is not meant that it is impossible they should some time be saved. It is inconsequential to argue that the supposition of a future opportunity of repentance for those who do not have the gospel now is a denial that they