for perfect union with the eternal Father Spirit. 5. Though prayer is thus essentially secret, thus private in its nature and character, occasion sometimes calls for its open, and even public. expression; so that men may be Divinely benefitted in a collective and social capacity, as well as individually and in private.

Let us therefore pray "always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints," and for all men, as well as for ourselves, committing ourselves to God and seeking the grace of the spirit in ever enlarging measure.

Rev. J. Merrifield.

GENERAL

REVIEW.

Probation Extended Beyond the Grave.

A REMARKABLE paper from the pen of Thomas P. Field, D.D., entitled "The Andover Theory' of Future Probation," is published in The Andover Review for May. Remarkable for the clear and concise manner in which the so-called "New Departure" views are presented; the proofs given of the positions taken by historic Orthodoxy as based on the fundamentals of the Andover theory of salvation; the concessions in regard to the absence of Scriptural warrant for limiting the possibility of salvation to this mortal existence; and for the acknowledged pressure of what are called liberal views of Christianity and humanitarian influences in making it impossible for the Christian world to endorse the theories once so commonly held in regard to future punishment, and necessitating an irrepressible effort for relief in other and more Christian theories.

In discussing these several topics Dr. Field's paper is characterized by vigor of thought and expression, and an ingenious array of the facts on which his argument and that of the "Andover School" is based. The charge of heresy made against Andover teachings by those who oppose them, seems to be fairly turned back on these accu sers by Dr, Field's array of the statements of Orthodox creeds and criticisms. We do not know that we can do better service to our NEW SERIES. VOL. XXIV 23

Things like these may corrupt our devotions and render them comparatively unprofitable, if not even altogether useless and vain. Doubtless much of the weakness and inefficiency of prayer often observed, and of which complaint is frequently made, are mostly, if not wholly owing to the externality of the exercise as affected by motives like these now suggested, as well as others that are equally of the earth and of self.

Notwithstanding all this, oral and even public prayer is not to be utterly disregarded, or altogether omitted. Nor did Jesus himself, though he indeed uttered the precept that we have quoted concerning the strict privacy of prayer, totally disregard them; for though as a rule his devotions were in secret, yet there were times according to the record when he prayed openly and vocally in the hearing of others. And with us now, as well as with him then, occasion often calls for and justifies the voicing openly of our sense of thankfulness, of praise, of confession, of supplication, and of trust. this is the case, if the exercise for the occasion is conducted and maintained in strict purity of heart and simplicity of mind, the worship then and there is profitable and edifying. Comfort is felt, peace prevails, strength is gained, and the life of the worshippers is renewed.

When

The merits of the case the sum of the whole matter of prayer, so far as it is regarded in this treatment of the topic, is this: 1. We naturally, instinctively, and without any consciousness of voluntary action, pray; pray for both material and spiritual good. 2. We have power also to engage voluntarily in prayer, and by means of this to enlarge and improve our natural temper of devotion, to increase our capacity for receiving and appropriating what God in His great love, His eternal and unchanging beneficence, is forever giving forth for us; and hence to advance in the attainment and in the ministry of good forever. 3. Therefore habitual voluntary prayer is not only our high privilege, but also out sacred duty. 4. Prayer is essentially secret, being th

the spirit, or inmost of our being e

readers than by giving a somewhat full synopsis of what we have en. titled the remarkable things dealt with in this leading paper in the Andover Review, originally read, so we are told, "at a meeting of the Massachusetts Hampshire East Ministerial Association," as a reply to this question which was given to be discussed: "Is the view that those who have never heard of Christ in this life may have a probation after death, a fundamental departure from the truth long taught in our churches?"

I. Dr. Field discriminates, and with great clearness and fairness, between some views of salvation and of "probation after death," and the Andover doctrine on that subject. The Andover theory is that faith in Christ is absolutely essential to salvation. It accepts the statement of Dr. Hodge in his " Systematic Theology," that "the knowledge of Christ and faith in him are declared in the Scripture to be essential to salvation." This theory, they contend, is acknowledged Orthodoxy, as stated in the received creeds. Other theories of salvation, here or hereafter, are departures from Orthodoxy. One such theory is that taught in "The Philosophy of Religion," by President Bascom, who holds that "the opportunity for repentance cannot be taken from the sinner," either here or hereafter, "without subverting the moral conditions of his guilt, without removing holiness from him as a duty;" and so he regards the Day of Judgment as only a figurative representation of a permanent fact, that when one sins he is judged, and suffers a necessary penalty. This, says Dr. Field, is not the Andover theory. Salvation, according to President Bascom's theory, is conditioned on man's inward state as apprehended by himself, and changed by the action of his free-will. Dr. Field calls it "a theory of future probation;" but it is very doubtful if this is an accurate statement unless we are to take the same liberty with the word "probation which Dr. Bushnell once took with the word "vicarious," that of putting into it an entirely different sense from the commonly received meaning. The idea conveyed by the word probation, whether it is employed by those who limit the possibility of salvation to this life, or by the "New Orthodox," who extend that possibility into the life beyond the grave, is that of limited trial, beyond which there is no opportunity for moral change. There is no such thing possible, therefore, as more than one probation, and so the New Orthodoxy fixes the limit of that at the Day of Judgment, while the old Orthodoxy has it terminated at death. But President Bascom's theory of opportunity for repentance is based not on an arbitrarily

a

Of

fixed time-limit, but on the fact of moral being, which must extend the possibility of repentance to a period equal in duration to the duration of man's moral nature. From this position Dr. Field dissents, on the ground that his interpretation or Scripture necessitates that probation shall at some period terminate and leave man in “ fixed state of good or evil." In this he is consistent with his own and the accepted definition of the word probation; but he is not consistent with that definition when he calls President Bascom's unlimited "opportunity of repentance" even "a theory of probation." President Bascom's views, Dr. Field says: "It must be acknowledged that there are elements of truth in this free-agency theory of future probation. It must be acknowledged that the doctrine that character attains, for every one who has lived upon the earth, a fixed and permanent state at the moment of death has appalling difficulties for the reason. It seems to make character dependent on the body, and contradicts all we know of the laws and workings of our rational and moral nature. But the idea that man never, in all the future, comes to a fixed state of good or evil, it does not seem possible to reconcile with the teachings of Scripture on the final judgment and the issues thereof."

Others who hold a theory of probation which extends beyond the grave, are, as Dr. Field represents the matter, those who say that "they believe a person may be brought to a definite moral and spiritual decision, either in this life or in the life to come, from the light of reason or conscience, without any specific reference to Christ and his gospel." Some of these antagonized the Andover brethren at the last meeting of the American Board at Des Moines. They left a wrong impression, he thinks, when they said they did not believe in the "Andover theory." 'They did believe, as I suppose, in a theory of future probation, but not in the form advocated at Andover." And then he adds this significant sentence: "On the 'Andover theory,' if you please to call it so, the probation of a sinner turns ultimately on his relations to Christ, and not simply on the freedom of the will, or his relations to conscience and reason and moral law." Until within fifty years probation, it was held, terminated at death and all who did not in mortal life hear of Christ would be forever debarred from that privilege. In proof of this a sentence is quoted from Dr. Emmons' sermon on the text, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God: " "The text contains this solemn truth, that all the heathen will finally perish." "And