condemned, but he that believes not." The reader is invited to substitute hear for believe, and see if it makes any difference to this text, when read in its context. Compare Luke x. 16. Dr. Dorner himself says (p. 167), "The call coming to all does not come apart from the objective means of grace." He cannot consistently say that the means of grace are enjoyed by the impenitent in Hades, for in order to prove that these cannot tempt the righteous dead he alludes to the "great gulf fixed," Luke xvi. 26 (see p. 411). But this text proves nothing, unless it works both ways. The case of the youth at Nain, which is cited on page 409, no more indicates a future probation for others than an earthly resurrection. When the author asks, in this connection, "How can the place alone decide as to moral worth or capacity for redemption?" he is best answered in the words of the Autocrat of the Breakfast-table, "Imagine all the infants in Boston and Timbuctoo to change places."

1 Pet. iii. 19, 20 (in connection with iv. 6), is dwelt upon. at length, as it has always been the chief prop of the theory we are considering. The best scholars are still divided over the question whether this preaching took place in the days. of Noah or after the death of Christ. Dr. Dorner (p. 128) mentions three who favor the latter view, and three others, at least equally well known, who oppose it. But many who admit that Christ went and preached to departed spirits deny altogether the inference that any rule can be drawn from this obscure exception. For instance, Dr. Frank, one of the three whom our author adduces on his side, calls it "foolish to suppose that the preaching of Christ in the under-world included the intention of redeeming those spirits, and the eventual realization of that intention." To infer from this text a further probation for the dead of our time is to reason from a supposed analogy, not (as Dr. Dorner claims, p. 405) from express scriptural statement. Elsewhere he remarks (p. 130)," The ceasing of this preaching is neither recorded, nor reasonably to be supposed." But this quite mistakes the onus probandi. It is not yet agreed that Christ ever

preached in Hades. If he did, the fact stands absolutely alone in Scripture, and its repetition is neither recorded nor reasonably to be supposed.

My own opinion is that this formidable bulwark of future probation, 1 Pet. iii. 19, etc., can be most easily taken by occupying a position in the rear which commands it. In 2 Pet. ii. 9 we find an important statement which forms the conclusion of an important argument. The statement is, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment." The plain implication is that the unrighteous, as a whole, are kept under punishment throughout the intermediate state. It cannot be said that only great sinners are intended, for these are mentioned immediately after, as a part of the whole. But equally to our purpose is the argument of which verse 9 forms the conclusion. How do we know that God will keep the wicked under punishment? Because he has done it. We know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. Three historical instances are cited the fallen angels, the antediluvians, the Sodomites. Let us confine our attention to one of these, for the sake of clearness. "If God spared not the old world, in the days of Noah, the Lord knoweth how to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment." Yet these are the same characters whose repentance and salvation this same Peter is thought to have revealed. What kind of argument would the following be? "If God brought a flood upon the ungodly (although, as I said in my first Epistle, they afterwards hearkened to Christ and were saved), the Lord knoweth how to keep the ungodly under punishment unto the day of judgment."

So far as I am aware, the advocates of future probation allege no stronger biblical proofs than those which have just been examined; the reader may judge, then, upon how sandy a basis the whole structure is built. It is true, Dr. Dorner refrains from disturbing the pious shade of Onesiphorus, doubtless thinking it conceivable that the good man was

absent in the wars, or elsewhere, instead of deceased, at the time when Paul sent greetings to his family.

But when we inquire how our author replies to passages of Scripture which seem to oppose a future probation, we are surprised to find a silence all but complete. A system of Christian doctrine should be an orderly grouping of parts into a whole; but on the present topic an entire side is missing. 2 Cor. v. 10 is dismissed with a bare allusion, as though it were wholly irrelevant. Heb. ix. 27 is treated as indicating (by the absence of the article) some other than the final judgment, in face of the context, which points plainly to the second advent, and thus refers to a judgment then according to the character at death. And this is absolutely all! Such a course is conspicuously unfair. We are better able, in consequence, to answer the question raised at the outset, whether the word of God is to be our final arbiter in this matter. It seems probable now that Dr. Dorner would not abandon his theory, even were the Bible proved to be against him.

This inference is strengthened by a comparison of his statements with those of another eminent theologian. I have ventured to put a few literal quotations from each in the form of a conversation (or Symposium, to accommodate still further the phrase of the period).

The fairness of the closing extract from Dorner may be questioned, as he supposes himself to be arguing there against Universalism. But he opposes only the doctrinal certainty of this faith; the sole escape he finds from the same conclusion is that one must deliberately reject Christ, in order to be condemned. He regards it as doubtful whether any do this. He asks just before," Is conservation for eternal torment conceivable ?" and attempts no answer. Universalism will smile at this attack, and Orthodoxy will exclaim, "Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.”

A SYMPOSIUM.

Dorner. "It is not said, He who hears not shall be condemned, but he who believes not." - Paul. "How shall they

believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

Dorner. "The ancient church supposed Christ's preaching in the intermediate state to be continued by the apostles." Paul. "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law."

Dorner. "This would imply, what is altogether objectionable, that a real eternal dualism pertains to the Christian goal of the world." - Paul. "What saith the scripture?"

Dorner. "The exegetical grounds for the statement that some will be forever lost are indeed preponderant; but we have therewith no doctrinal proposition, because the latter must also be derived from the principle of faith.” — Paul. "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for doctrine."

Dorner. "Modern theology has eagerly welcomed that article of the Creed which asserts the descent into Hades, and that because it testifies that even those not laid hold of by Christ's historic manifestation in their earthly life, still must and may be brought into relation to him, in order to be able to accept or reject him.”—Paul. "They are without excuse; because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God. And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind."

Dorner. "It might indeed be said, If the condemnation of some is God's holy and righteous will, a resignation is fitting, in which no other wish is felt than one in harmony with God's will. But this answer is insufficient, because mere resignation would not comport with the perfecting of personality." -Paul. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"

It is not the design of this Article to enlarge upon the direct proofs that probation is limited to this life; in fact, a discussion of them in a review of this "System" would be open to the charge of irrelevance. But it may be well for the reader, and also for Dr. Dorner in a future edition, to examine thoroughly such passages of Scripture as the following:

Matt. xi. 21-24 (see p. 768); 2 Pet. ii. 9 (see p. 770); Luke xvi. 19-31 (observe especially that Dives' brethren are shut up to their earthly probation); Mark viii. 38; Prov. xiv. 32; Matt. xx. 1-16 (if each has a real probation, he should not complain that others have more); Matt. xxiv. 50 (probation may close suddenly); John viii. 21; 2 Cor. vi. 2; cf. John ix. 4 (the night is death, see vs. 5; the great work we are sent here to do is to prepare for eternity; no man can work when the night comes); Heb. ix. 27 (cf. vs. 28); Rom. i. and ii., especially ii. 12, 16; Matt. xxv. 33-45; cf. 2 Cor. v. 10. According to the last text cited, we are judged for deeds done in the body; according to the previous one, the deeds judged are those which could be done only in the body. The King's language of welcome would therefore be inappropriate, if any had repented in the intermediate state; and equally so his language of condemnation, if any were sentenced for sins committed during thousands of years after their life in the body. Particular texts like these confirm, and are confirmed by, the general principle derived from all the precepts, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture, which take it for granted that our mortal life is the time of probation, and drop no hint of any other. The popular consciousness has no difficulty in interpreting the earnest message of God's word, Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

A still further confirmation, at which we can only glance, in closing, is gained from an analysis of the elements which constitute our present probation. Many of these elements are wholly wanting beyond the grave; for example, the innocent state of infancy; the restraints of parental authority, whereby even the wicked act out an unconscious providence toward their children; the effects of right and wrong conduct upon the body; the inspiring lessons of nature; and the mingled light and shade of our earthly condition. Hence, to infer the fruitlessness of an added probation in the spirit world for those who leave this world in obduracy is simply to reason from the greater to the less.