ANDOVER ERRATA.

The normal state of error is controversy, a tempest, a battle, a possible defeat; the normal state of truth is repose, quiet progress, a working and misunderstood patience, a lofty and ingratiating reserve, and final and indestructible achievement. The Andover sect exhibits the normalcy of an error-begotten and an error-directed movement. Breaking the tether that bound its members to the repulsive dogma of Calvinism, instead of embracing the wholesome theology of the American successors of James Arminius they adopted a creed, or shibboleth dogma, as self-refuting, unscriptural, and soporific as that they justifiably abandoned. The doctrine of second probation, in essence a species of Universalism, is one of the many radical and not unexpected reactions from the doctrine of limited or ineffectual atonement of the predestinarians. It is not, however, the panacea its original physicians declared it to be, for it is the breeder of trouble, of moral disease, and of a general theologic disquiet that augurs disruption and dissolution. As the ark was a terror among the Philistines, so this dogma is an enemy of peace among the freethinkers and heretics. It injures most those who coquet with it, and rather inflames than heals the wounds that sin hath made. It blisters the hands, scorches the feet, leprously infects the body, disorganizes the thinking faculties, poisons the moral affections, alienates intellectual fellowships, and is a pragmatic element of discontent in ecclesiastical legislation and social life. It broods as a pestilential vapor over Church councils when a trustee, visitor, or professor of a college is to be elected, when a pastor is to be installed, when a missionary is to be ordained, when a church is to be dedicated, or home evangelization is proposed as an immediate duty of Christian people. It confuses the American Board, exercises dominion over the faculty of Andover Seminary, and precipitates conflicts when even minor changes in church rules are contemplated. It compelled the trial of its chief advocates without, however, determining the question at issue, and promoted a snarl when the creed was undergoing revision.

The influence of the doctrine of a second probation for man was appreciably manifest some months since, when candidates for the visitorship of Andover Theological Seminary were under discussion; and even after the election of Dr. G. L. Walker, of Hartford, it ceased not to provoke dispute, the visitor-elect being the subject of criticism and suspicion by foes and friends of the doctrine. As to his fitness for the office, because of his eminent abilities and permanent reputation as a Christian gentleman, no question was raised; but his relation to the new theology was then, as it is now, a puzzle. The doctrine has deceived him, or he has deceived the doctrinaires. Understood to be antagonistic to the strange hypothesis of Andover, he was warmly supported for the visitorship, but since his election he has averred that he occupies a middle ground. He is Jesuitical without any justification, and loses in honor

among those who believe in integrity of character. The most recent agitation in Andover circles relates to the employment of the Rev. William H. Noyes, a somewhat evasive espouser of the dogma of another chance, as a missionary to Japan. After a consistent examination of the candidate the American Board declined to approve him, but a council of Congregational churches in Boston and vicinity indorsed the independent minister, who wherever he will go will be at liberty to proclaim the pernicious teachings of his tutors. In our view the decision of the council was seditious and rebellious, and the promise of the Berkeley Street church to support Mr. Noyes in the foreign field is the expression of an anti-orthodox instinct that should be suppressed. The Andover sect, with its dogmas, diseases, and rebellions, should take the back door and disappear from the temple of the Lord. Voluntary or enforced withdrawal is the remedy for this religious irreligion. We thus write because nearly every step taken by this new sect has been a blunder, or an indication of a purpose to antagonize the Christian Church in its properly organized and regulated movements for the evangelization of the world. Its doctrines are paralyzing in effect; its missionary position will be disastrous to the cause of missions; and its recent lawsuits, ill-timed and pernicious, cannot result in the vindication of any right, but must entail further disgrace upon religion and the Church. Ichabod is already written upon the dome of its temple, to be read by all readers.

We call attention to the Andover movement, with its peculiarities of doctrines and irregularities of proselytism and propagandism, to say some things that need emphasis: First, it may be inferred from the agitation it has produced and the general interest it has awakened that the new theology is making disciples and gaining in its hold upon the religious sentiment of the times. This is not the fact. Neither the quasi accession of Dr. Walker to their ranks nor the temporary but irregular triumph of Mr. Noyes has led anywhere to any general defection from the orthodox teaching respecting the time-limit of probation. Except in New England the dogma has not disturbed the quietude of Christian faith in America, or introduced an uncertain quantity into the American pulpit. Possibly the Andover sect may cherish the belief that it has effected a revolution in the theology of to-day in its renunciation of Calvinism; but it is folly to presume that it has substituted the doctrine of a future chance for the orthodox probation in the thought of Christendom. If the liberal wing of New England Congregationalism is expanding, it should not hope for any broad influence in the country; Unitarianism triumphed in New England, but the nation has loathed it, and it is well-nigh defunct.

Second, abjuring the doctrine because of its unscripturalness, the Christian thinker is bound to examine its teachings and understand the arguments by which they are supported. In this age of reason no doctrine purporting to be scriptural or of an intelligent persuasion should be sneered into silence, or refuted by empty rhetoric, or condemned by the jargon of ignorant criticism. Whatever the teaching, it is entitled to a hearing. Whatever the speculation, it has a right, not to the pulpit,

but to the forum, where it may confess itself. If any one has received any light on the dark subject of the future; if Professor E. G. Smyth has discovered the truth respecting the possibilities of the heathen in another life; if the whole Andover movement is of God, it should receive an honest examination, for if of God it will abide, but if of man it will come to naught. Let Gamaliel be our teacher at this point, for we can afford it. This suggestion is in behalf of the old doctrine, and, carried out, will operate as a defense against the new sentiment. The more intense and liberal the discussion, the more certain truth will be reached.

Third, as Methodists we are impressed that an election of any man to any position in our particular body would not precipitate a discussion of his doctrinal standing, especially of his views on future probabilities; nor would it threaten a disruption of the Church or prepare the way for a revolution. To others this may not seem a virtue; in fact, it may strike them as the sign of stagnation in doctrinal inquiry, or of bigoted adherence to a dominant catalogue, or of a spirit of intolerance of any thing beyond the regulation beliefs of the Church. From our standpoint our theology, if weak at all, is weak in minor elements; in essentials it needs no revision, and loyalty to it is the proof of a stable mind. Fluctuations in theological beliefs are proofs, not of larger research nor of greater light, but of unsettled convictions that impair the moral sense and make absolute religion an uncertainty, if not an impossibility. An election of a college president may raise the question of his attitude toward classic electives; the elevation of an elder to the episcopacy may suggest an inquiry as to his high-churchism; the appointment of a missionary may lead to investigation as to his tact if he go as a teacher, or as to his moral character and experience if he go as a preacher; but unless he appears as an accused candidate, in which case he would not be accepted, the question of his doctrinal soundness would not be broached.

Andover may imagine that it is doing pioneer work in the department of eschatology, but it would not be less valuable if it were done in an orthodox way and by orthodox minds. Andover may pose as a teacher of a benevolent idea, but error often displays a philanthropic badge and wins adherents through sympathy rather than by argument. Andover may be courageous; so were Theodore Parker, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Hume. Courage is not the sign of righteousness. Andover may aspire to be a theological reformer. If so, let it devote its energies to reforming and saving the world now, and not postpone the task until the race is engulfed in hades.

JOHN MILTON PHILLIPS.

The January-February number of the Review contained, with portrait, a biographical notice of Mr. Phillips, the senior Agent of the Book Concern of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We are obliged in this issue to record his death, which occurred in Brooklyn, N. Y., on January 15, after an immediate illness of two weeks. The appearance of his portrait and the

publication of the article were not in view of his probable departure, though he himself interpreted our request for the same as a presentiment of the end. It is clear that the final event was not a surprise to him, for, since the death of his wife, last September, he had given himself to solemn thinking of eternal things, and business preparations were made that were in perfect harmony with one who soon expected to go. Among his friends also, who understood him, there was that uneasy feeling before specific disease manifested itself that was prophetic of the great change. It came, therefore, to us all as the translation of Elijah to the prophets at Bethel and Jericho.

Of his qualifications as the first lay Book Agent in our history; of his efficiency in the management of the vast business interests committed to his keeping; and of the confidence the Church reposed in him, as was evilenced by five successive elections to the Agency, we need not write, but refer the reader to the article in the preceding number. While serving the Church as Book Agent, he was also the Treasurer of the Missionary Society, and filled several minor though useful official positions in the St. John's Church, Brooklyn, of which he was a member.

Though eminent and efficient as a Church officer, his religious character is equally worthy of study, because of its sincerity and conformity to the Christian standards of life. He was not a demonstrative Christian. Of reticent disposition, he was not fluent in profession, or exact and minute in the description of his experiences; but if measured by the plumb-line of righteousness he would have appeared firm and erect before the Lord. He was a solidly-built Christian, giving strength to religion by the strength of his character and the blamelessness of his life, as the mountain stays the planet in its revolutions. His was a religion not of words, but of deeds, by which he drove away doubts from his own thoughts and won others to the Master as a Saviour. In local Church affairs his counsel was eagerly sought and usually followed, because his judgment was serious and mature, and his presence in all the social meetings was regarded as a benediction. Unostentatious in manner, he often governed without the seeming exercise of authority, and, sure of self-possession, he enforced his measures without creating friction or dividing supporters. He was thus useful as a local church officer, and will be greatly missed in those circles hereafter.

Let not the Church, however, dwell too long or too sadly upon the demise of John M. Phillips. He will never again appear in his usual place in the Book Concern; he will never again co-operate with the Board of Managers of the Missionary Society; and the Church at large will never again reap results from one whose administration was so safe and effective. But he was willing to go; he accepted the high decree of death as the proof that he had fulfilled the task of life; he mourned not. The Church is greater than its greatest man; it will survive the generations. When Moses was taken, Joshua was given; when the Master departed, the Spirit came. Life means death; death means life. Let us not repine, but move on, and keep moving until we, too, emigrate to the land that is better than the earth, and see its King in his eternal beauty.

THE ARENA.

A THEORY OF MIRACLES.

THANKS for the kind criticism just received in the January number of the Methodist Review on my article on the "Divine Immanency," in Bibliotheca Sacra of October; and also for calling my attention to a deficiency in the explanation of the mode in which "any force either in water or in a dead body which by intensification could cause the former to become wine, or in the latter could cause its reanimation."

In the first place, my definition of a miracle does not limit "the divine action in nature" to a special force already existing in any particular object. Force, in its action, is always transmitted from one atom, particle, or thing to another. As in the case of life, the life of the bioplasm is transmitted from particle to particle. Dead matter is converted by the bioplasm into living matter, and this into formed matter. But, further, in water itself is the force of chemical affinity by which water is always converted into wine whenever it is so transformed. Water is a protoxide of hydrogen. HO, hydrogen one atom, oxygen one atom, combined by chemical affinity, the product is water; or, as some chemists insist, the proper symbolism is H2, O2, two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen combined; doubtless the true symbolism. The composition of the spirits of wine is H6, O2, C4, hydrogen six atoms, oxygen two atoms, carbon four atoms, so that in the transformation of the water into wine all that was necessary was that, by the action of chemical affinity in the water, and forming the water, a certain proportion of carbon should be taken up and a certain proportion of oxygen released. Such action of chemical affinity in taking up carbon from the carbonic acid gas floating in the atmosphere is a constant process in all vegetable growth.

In regard to the next point, whether there was any force in the dead body of Lazarus that by "intensification" "could cause its reanimation," we answer, Unquestionably. Lazarus was raised on the fourth day from his decease. He had not been embalmed, but merely "wrapped in linen clothes with spices, as the manner of the Jews is, to bury." John xix, 40; also xi, 44. The vault was not built up, but merely defended by a stone being rolled before the entrance. Now, it is a well-known fact that the growth of hair may continue for weeks after death. All growth is a function of life. This fact shows that vitality does not at once leave the entire body. This is an admitted fact. In four days there was still a remainder of vitality. The "intensification" or reenforcement of vitality is itself "reanimation." But, still more, scientific writers have confidently asserted that there is nothing in the circumstances in the case either of Lazarus or the widow's son inconsistent with the possibility of their being merely instances of suspended animation.*

So in reply to your question of "force" in the water and in the body. which in one case "could cause it to become wine," in the other "could *This view destroys the miracle. The miracle presupposes death.-EDITOR