the sons of disobedience; in the which ye also walked aforetime, when ye lived in these things. But now put ye also away all these; anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him.

We do not mean to indicate that the people of these churches were generally guilty of all the crimes enumerated, but simply the fact that such writing was necessary signifies, as was before stated, in some cases both a low moral conception and practice; far below, perhaps, the average Christian Church of to-day.

Indeed, to consider the thought from still another standpoint, suppose we should make the gospel standard of morality the test of our regeneration, how many of us, measured by it, could claim to be regenerate? Even the Andover professors lend us aid here. "Men usually," they say, "know better than they do. The best of men are the most penitent, for the elevation of their moral standard outstrips even their improvement in conduct.".

Why, then, determine the regenerate state, or the condition of sonship among the heathen, by the Christian standard of morality? Not only will not our state, but, as we have seen, not even that of the Old Testament patriarchs nor that of the early Christians, bear this test.*

The fact is, the morality of the life is to be determined by the measure of the light possessed. And yet, as shown, our regenerate life is not to be determined by even this; for if so we all, perhaps, would be found wanting. If living up to the moral light possessed cannot be the determinative sign of our sonship, why make it the infallible test of the sonship of the heathen?

Now, it is possible, as we conceive it, for the heathen to be justified, perhaps regenerate, sons of God, while the moral life is not only not up to Christian standards, but even not up to the standard of the light of nature. Who can say that the millions of devout though superstitious heathen who do not measure up to the possibilities of the moral life which we conceive to be possible under the illuminating influences of gospel light, are not acceptable with God?

*This may be dangerous teaching.-EDITOR.

This is contrary to an orthodox conception of the Scriptures.-EDITOR.

This position is so important, that a quotation from Crooks and Hurst's Theological Encyclopædia and Methodology, bearing directly upon it, and indirectly upon its application to the heathen, will here be in place:

While religion and morality coincide in their highest development, so that a true religion without morality and a true morality without religion are equally inconceivable, they are yet clearly distinguished in their details as well as in their general character. A genuine piety is found to exist in which the moral element leaves much to be desired, but which cannot be justly rated as hypocrisy; and there are many poorly behaved and ill-bred children of God who yet know that God is exercising discipline over them, and submit to his authority. This was true of David and other Old Testament characters. Without this presumption it becomes impossible to understand the Old Testament as a whole, and also the Middle Ages, with their profound apprehension of God and their boundless immorality.

The period of the Reformation and modern pietism might also furnish illustrations of this point. On the other hand, the piety of many is put to shame by the existence of a praiseworthy and correct morality, which has grown beyond a mere legality, and become moral self-respect and self-control, in a measure compelling approval and admiration, which yet lacks the sanctions and impulse of religion; that is, a definite relation toward God and eternity. This applies not only to the stoicism of the ancients, but also to the categorical imperative of Kant, and the morality of cultivated persons in our day. While, therefore, morality and religion belong together, and in their ultimate development must coincide, they may yet be logically distinguished, and bear a separate character in the lower stages of their development even in actual life.-Pages 30, 31.

Drummond, in his Natural Law in the Spiritual World, devotes a whole chapter, under the title of "Classification," to showing the difference between morality and religion, particularly with reference to the existence of a high standard of the former separate from the latter. His opening illustration is so beautiful that we give it here:

On one of the shelves of a certain museum lie two small boxes filled with earth. A low mountain in Arran has furnished the first; the contents of the second came from the Island of Barbadoes. When examined with a pocket lens, the Arran earth is found to be full of small objects, clear as crystal, fashioned by some mysterious geometry into forms of exquisite symmetry. The substance is silica, a natural glass; and the prevailing shape is a six-sided prism capped on either end by little pyramids modeled with consummate grace.

When the second specimen is examined, the revelation is, if possible, more surprising. Here, also, is a vast assemblage of small glassy or porcelaneous objects built up into curious forms. The material, chemically, remains the same, but the angles of pyramid and prism have given place to curved lines, so that the contour is entirely different. The appearance is that of a vast collection of microscopic urns, goblets, and vases, each richly ornamented with small sculptured discs or perforations which are disposed over the pure white surface in regular belts and rows. Each tiny urn is chiseled into the most faultless proportion, and the whole presents a vision of magic beauty.

Judged by the standard of their loveliness there is little to choose between these two sets of objects. Yet there is one cardinal difference between them. They belong to different worlds. The last belong to the living world, the former to the dead. The first are crystals, the last are shells.

We propose to inquire whether among men, clothed apparently with a common beauty of character, there may not yet be distinctions as radical as between the crystal and the shell; and, further, whether the current classification of men, based upon moral beauty, is wholly satisfactory either from the stand-point of science or of Christianity. Here, for example, are two characters, pure and elevated, adorned with conspicuous virtues, stirred by lofty impulses, and commanding a spontaneous admiration from all who look on them-may not this similarity of outward form be accomplished by a total dissimilarity of inward nature? Is the external appearance the truest criterion of the ultimate nature? Or, as in the crystal and the shell, may there not exist distinctions more profound and basal? The distinctions drawn between men, in short, are commonly based on the outward appearance of goodness or badness, on the ground of moral beauty or moral deformity is this classification scientific? Or is there a deeper distinction between the Christian and the not-a-Christian as fundamental as that between the organic and the inorganic?

Now, without pronouncing either for or against the funda mental law of this book, we yet have here a fine illustration of a fundamental fact. This, moreover, will help to account for the "exceptional cases" of morality, where there is no relig ion with which the Andover professors find it difficult to deal. Their cardinal mistake, in their whole argument, is in apparently identifying religion and morality, or, at least, in making them perfectly coincide.

Now, let it not be charged that we are in any sense advocating Antinomianism. Antinomianism teaches that because Christ is our righteousness, therefore we are exempt from the

obligations of moral law. Our position is simply that a moral standard of life is not the unfailing criterion of an acceptable religious life. Nor is it the proof of it. We do not claim that a religious life is consistent with a failure to strive to measure up to the standard of light possessed, or with a condition of non-penitence in each case of failure: this is Antinomianism, and, as is apparent, we by no means advocate it. Justification and regeneration are dependent upon the unceasing effort to measure up to the standard of light possessed. This, no more, no less: neither for Christian nor pagan.

Clearly, then, if this distinction be correct, millions of the heathen, with their "unbounded immorality," may come under all the conditions of regenerate sonship, and hence of present and final salvation. Willful disobedience under the light possessed seems the only bar to these atonement privileges.

But if, after all that has been said, it be thought by some that this position is untenable, we are still, by our doctrine of atonement, not forced to the Andover conclusion about a future probation. What is there inconsistent or inconceivable in the idea that the heathen, for the present, who meet the condition according to their opportunity, are justified without being regenerate? If it be so that regeneration, as the New Theology holds, can only be wrought by the Holy Ghost through the agency of Christian knowledge-which, as we have shown, is, seemingly, certainly, improbable-still there could be, conceivably, justification, leading those who fulfill its conditions, as they know them, on to the needful regeneration at some future time, when the necessary light can be given. This is no new second or future probation, for upon the supposition the ultimate destiny is determined in this life; only the work of regeneration is deferred until the Holy Ghost may operate through its necessary Christian light. We do not advance this as a belief, but simply as a conceivable and speculative position, which demands not the unscriptural doctrine of a future probation. This is a possible outlet from the difficulty, even granting the non-proved assertion that the regenerating work of the Holy Ghost is dependent upon the light of the personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.

There is still one other thought that is needed to be considered. The rectoral doctrine of the atonement does not nec

essarily imply that saving faith is not possible without the knowledge of the historic Christ. It would seem, moreover, that this is the exact state of things with regard to the justification of the heathen. When it can be shown that none have ever been justified without faith in the historic Christ, then this position will have to be abandoned. Until then it need not, it cannot be. If reference be made to the Old Testament saints for proof at this point, it will be found that their justification was not dependent upon such a faith. The "New Theology" recognizes this fact, and places them among exceptional cases under peculiar conditions. This they maintain with reference to their moral and regenerate condition, together with, by implication at least, their justification. As matter of fact, Abraham and the other Old Testament saints did not believe in the historic Christ in any sense in which the Andover teachers claim faith to be necessary. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews reveals a dim faith in a promised Christ.

It is evident, further, that the Andover teachers are consistent with themselves, according to their view of atonement, in demanding a faith in the historic Christ. No other view is sufficient for them, nor for any, as before explained in general, who hold to their moral influence doctrine of the atonement. But the rectoral theory is free from this necessity, since saving faith, which manifestly existed among the patriarchs, may be possible under it without the moral influence of the atonement.

Now, may it not be that the principle of religious faith is the same every-where, no matter what the object, if it is coupled with sincerity and earnest striving to the degree of the light possessed? And on this condition may not God extend the benefits of the atonement in justification to millions of the heathen, if not for the present in regeneration? If God asks of no man the exercise of any faculty, religious or other, beyond the degree of his knowledge; and if the heathen, no more than we, can be justified by works, and are justified at all, why may we not-indeed, why must we not-believe it is granted to them upon the exercise of faith according to their knowledge!

To recapitulate, briefly, the position of this article is as follows: The Andover atonement, with all like it, demands in logical consistency a future probation for all who do not enjoy