EDITORIAL. COMMENT ON CURRENT DISCUSSION. THE Board is sharing in the benefits of the missionary revival. During the past year sixty-six appointments have been made, twentyone men, forty-six women. The theological seminaries of the United States and Canada, Presbyterian and Congregational, supply nine men, including appointees who have another year of study. A farewell meeting was held September seventh on account of fiftyeight persons, described as "on the way, or soon to leave for their several fields of labor." Twenty-seven are missionaries returning to their work. Of the new appointments we notice that twenty-one are women, ten men. Of the latter, one goes out as a physician, one as a business agent, two as teachers. One, at least, was appointed before graduation this year from college. Of the six ordained missionaries four graduate from theological seminaries the present year, - two from Presbyterian seminaries, two from a Congregational. At the beginning of the year it was open to the Board to receive a strong reinforcement from the Congregational theological seminaries. This has been virtually repelled by the Home Secretary's policy. This indicates a fall- The receipts of the Board from donations and legacies have fallen off the past year a little more than $26,000. In the States of the Interior there is said to have been an advance of $11,380. ing off elsewhere of something more than $37,000. receipts from donations and legacies the past year with the average of the five years previous, the diminution is more than $30,000. In this estimate the gifts for the Morning Star, amounting to upwards of $41,756, are not reckoned. Specially noticeable is the advance in drafts from the Otis and Swett legacies. From the Otis fund there were taken, in 1885, $43,884; in 1886, $41,144; in 1887, $48,808: from the Swett fund, for the same years respectively, $52,992; $116,000; $154,319. The rapid diminution of these funds, accompanied by a decline in gifts from the churches, is a serious fact. Since in a little more than a year, at the present rate, the Swett fund will be exhausted, it is evident that the friends of the Board will need to put forth special effort to keep its work up to the present standard. We suppose that it is the policy of the Board and of the Committee so to expend the Otis and Swett legacies that the enlarged work which these make possible can eventually be carried on through such advance in contributions as experience gives reason to anticipate. The "Congregationalist," in an editorial article upon "The Policy of the Board" (September 15), says: "When a candidate declares that he does not accept the theory of future probation, but is content to leave the heathen who never have heard of Christ in the hands of God, that is enough, and we see no reason why he should not be accepted so far as this subject is concerned." This is a hopeful announcement. The ground taken by the Home Secretary has been that the dogma of the decisive nature of this life for all men is a vital doctrine of Scripture, ranking with Inspiration and Atonement. The "Congregationalist " now proposes that men be accepted who are not committed to this doctrine. When it adds that no one should be appointed who does not repudiate the "fact" of future probation, "whatever may be true of its possibility," does it not become obscure? What is meant by leaving the heathen in the hands of God? Are they left wholly with Him? If so, may He not vouchsafe to them a knowledge of his atoning love, so that, if they will, they may be saved by it? We have often thought that the formula "leaving the heathen in the hands of God" is used with a reserve that limits his operations. He may do with them what He pleases, only He may not offer to them the atonement revealed to us. This is not, how ever, the thought of the writer of the editorial before us. He concedes that the possibility of future probation may be held, — it is an acceptance of it as a fact which is fatal to service. But what does this mean? If it may be, it may be as a fact. If it is possible, no Christian can help hoping that it will prove to be a fact. This matter of the eternal state of the heathen who die ignorant of redemption is not a question of abstract theology. It is an affair of humanity, of men and women and children, millions upon millions of them. Must a candidate for appointment by the Board repudiate all hope that, in fact, God will have access to them through the consummate revelation of his righteousness and love? If, however, it be simply intended to affirm that future probation is not revealed as a fact, or so that we are assured that it is a fact, it is, perhaps, enough to say that no one of the rejected candidates has ever so regarded it. The Rev. Henry Fairbanks, in a communication to the "Congregationalist," says: : "If a missionary candidate, fully accepting the Word of God, says that he does not find any ground for a theory of future probation, and has no speculation in regard to it, I should think that ought to be sufficient without pressing him to examine further and be prepared to deny its possibility." We welcome this concession. But what is meant by finding "any ground"? Suppose that a candidate thinks there are some reasons for hoping that the conceded possibility will be realized, does this constitute an offense so great that he must be excluded from service? What is intended by the phrase "has no speculation"? Is thought on this subject to be prohibited to the missionary? Dr. Fairbanks argues that the missionary must accept only the doctrines, views, or theories held in common by the contributors who sustain him. The objection even of a minority should suffice. Many contributors to the treasury of the Board are conscientiously opposed to the theory of a future probation. Therefore no person who favors this theory should be appointed. Will Dr. Fairbanks appy his rule consistently, and insist that no candidate be appointed whose opinions respecting the salvation. or condemnation of the heathen affront the conscience and intelligence of "any considerable body of contributors "? The line which it is now proposed to draw respecting the hypothesis of continued probation [our opponents seem to endeavor always to use the phrase future probation] would exclude from service men of the type of Mr. Hume. In a letter to the chairman of the Committee which conducted the negotiations with him which resulted in his permission to return to India, Mr. Hume wrote: "In reference to phraseology, in the interest of truth and clearness, I must ask permission to continue to use the term 'hypothesis,' as indicating a supposition, a matter not revealed, in distinction from 'doctrine,' as indicating something to be taught positively as a part of the revealed system. . . . As I have from the first said, since the Bible seems to me not explicit as to how Christ influences those who never hear of Him in this world, I have no doctrine on this subject, in the sense explained at first. I simply say, I do not know. Still, among the possible modes by which Christ may reach such with his grace, the possibility of a gracious opportunity for them prior to the last judgment seems a hypothesis not forbidden by Scripture, and in favor of which some reasons may be given." (Italics ours.) This is not the language of one who "does not find any ground," etc. We commend this extract from the correspondence on the basis of which Mr. Hume was returned, to those who are pressing the following argument. Referring to men who accept the hypothesis of future probation, it is said: "The appointment of one such candidate would commit the Board to the approval of the objectionable hypothesis." Has the action of the Prudential Committee, in returning Mr. Hume, committed it to his position that the hypothesis of the possibility of a future probation for the unevangelized heathen "seems not forbidden by Scripture, and in favor of it [which] some reasons may be given"? If it has, how can the Board, if it sustains the Committee, escape the same committal ? And how can it avoid Dr. Fairbanks's censure? In the "Independent," September 15, a member of the Prudential Committee, the Rev. E. B. Webb, D. D., makes some extraordinary statements. After quoting a newspaper introductory sentence as though it were a part of a note from Mr. Hume, Dr. Webb affirms that the Prudential Committee never saw the memorandum which we printed in the REVIEW for March, 1887, page 314, until after it had voted its author permission to return to India! This, at least, is the only meaning of Dr. Webb's language, unless we suspect him of a mere verbal subterfuge by substituting "supplement" for "memorandum," a suspicion we cannot entertain for a moment. ... If, before hastily attacking our statement, Dr. Webb had looked at this "supplement," which contains the "memorandum," he would have read these words: "In compliance with a request from the rooms of the American Board that I should give the Prudential Committee a brief and general statement of my theological position . . . on February 3 I sent a letter with the desired memorandum." The action of the Committee was taken February 11. If he will also take the pains to read the correspondence which led up to this memorandum he will understand why we referred to it "as the memorandum which defined his position to the Committee, and was the basis of its action permitting his return." He will also discover that his use of the letter of the mission and his general representation of doctrinal pledges on Mr. Hume's part do Mr. Hume great injustice. If such misstatements are to continue we think that this entire correspondence should be given to the public. In an article in "The Inter-Ocean" (Chicago), August 1, 1887, Dr. Washington Gladden thus exposes the very common, but altogether unwarrantable, use made in theology of the analogy of human government. The article is in reply to a correspondent of the paper who had referred to this analogy as determinative in the decision of questions in theology now under discussion: "The assumption of it all is that the divine dealing with men can be explained by analogies drawn from human government. He (my correspondent) says that the teaching that there can be no condemnation until there has been an offer of forgiveness, would overturn every court of justice in the land, and its ethics would make government impossible.' It is about time, I should think, that the masters in our Israel began to comprehend the fact that the expediencies of human administration are very inadequate to explain God's dealings with men. The object of human government in dealing with offenders is not 'forgiveness' or 'salvation.' Its object is to find out who is guilty; to clear the innocent and to punish the guilty. Forgiveness, reclamation of the erring, is only an incidental and secondary function. Pardon issues only in rare and exceptional cases; it is justified mainly on the score of the fallibility of our administration; there is a question whether the prerogative might not better be withheld altogether. The main object of God's government is the salvation of men. His judgment is never at fault, nor are his laws ever evaded; but the end of all his dealings with men is to save them from sin and ruin. The methods of his government are, therefore, radically different from those of human governments, and the attempt to illustrate his dealings with men by the methods of human government is utterly misleading. It is the attempt to force the great truths of redemption into these forensic formularies that has stricken the old theology with dry rot, and keeps it harping on phrases which have no meaning." A PROPOSED ISSUE AT SPRINGFIELD. A SEMI-DENOMINATIONAL paper which sustains the present management of the American Board has recently defined as follows "the real and exact" issue at Springfield: "As we said above. . . the real and vital issue before the American Board is just this Ought the Board to revolutionize its doctrinal basis, and send forth men who hold the belief in the extra-Biblical dogma of Future Probation as taught at Andover?" There are several important objections to this statement of the issue at Springfield apart from the one to which we desire to call special attention. 66 It implies that the American Board is to be asked to sit in judgment on the doctrinal teaching of a Congregational theological seminary. The dogma which is to be prescribed is defined as the one taught at Andover." How is the American Board to determine what this teaching is? If its members depend on representations of it given by the jour nals which support the present policy at the Rooms they will be seriously misled. Will it undertake an investigation of its own? An elaborate and judicial examination of this teaching has recently been concluded. Of the three Visitors before whom in part it was conducted, President Seelyeas we happen to know beyond question-voted for the acquittal of all the accused professors, including Professor Smyth. By the vote of two other Visitors Professor Smyth was pronounced guilty of holding three opinions which he has distinctly and unwaveringly repudiated. Is the opinion respecting Future Probation which he disclaims holding, to be accepted as the Andover teaching? His opinions were further investigated judicially by twelve other gentlemen, who unanimously reached the same conclusion with President Seelye. Is the opinion which they acquitted him of holding to be now designated " the extraBiblical dogma of Future Probation as taught at Andover"? Moreover, the only other professors at Andover charged with heterodox teaching have all been formally acquitted by the Visitors as well as by the Trustees. What, we would respectfully inquire, is the Andover teaching which is revolutionary of the doctrinal basis of the Board? And, more especially, what is the method in which the American Board is to determine what this teaching is? Is the Board to sit as an Ecclesiastical Synod or Council? Or is it to proceed by commission, the Commissioners originally chartered to send the gospel to the heathen now assuming to act by delegation as commissioners on heresy? The teaching at Andover is conducted by gentlemen of unimpeached standing in the churches which form the constituency of the Board. There has been a question at issue concluded as we have just stated -as to the conformity of their teaching to a theological creed drawn up in the year 1808. But no question has been raised as to their standing in the ministry of the Congregational denomination. Is the American |