modern, which may be opposed to the Gospel of Christ, or hazardous to the souls of men.”

The italics are yours, but I adopt them with concurrent emphasis as the ample explanation of the creed, the absolute justification of the professors. The concluding summary shows the principle on which the exclusions were made. The specifications show what doctrines the founders considered to be heresy. The principle which they enunciated holds good to this day. It is as fresh, as vital now, as it was on the day in which the Seminary was founded with prayer and praise. But neither do the professors antagonize the principle which the fathers of Andover formulated, nor do they teach the heretical doctrines named. There is, therefore, now no condemnation for their subscription oath.

The gist of your argument is in your italics and small capitals, but it may be divided into two branches. In so many words you hold that the professor is not to be endowed with unlimited liberty to teach whatsoever the Scriptures studied according to the best light God shall give him, may suggest. You maintain that nothing can discharge him from the prior and greater obligation of hiding, even if extinguishing, the candle of the Lord under the bushel measure of old-school Calvinism. And further than this, you imply that his study of the Scripture has led him into heresy and

error.

For the first, I so far differ from you, that I look upon the words you have cited, as furnishing a marvelous example of the way in which the Creator of men seems to overrule their wishes and designs to his own purpose; to guard those who faithfully seek and serve Him against the mistakes of their own limitations. These Andover founders were the wise and liberal Christians of their day, and God so framed their words that their liberality overlapped their narrower consciousness and came down to this present moment to enfold and protect their intellectual heirs and assigns. They rejected Atheism and Universalism and all the isms included between the two. Yet so loyal were they to the truth that their words permitted, nay enjoined truth to be sought and taught even into the very heart of what they deemed to be wildernesses of error. They abhorred heresy, yet God gave them to decree that the flower of truth should be plucked from the nettle of the most deadly heresy. To interpret them otherwise, is to make the light of God and the word of the founders of none effect. To suppose

otherwise is to suppose that the founders meant to say to the professors "You may think and teach whatever God tells you, so long as it does not conflict with what we tell you." We know them too well to assume for a moment that they set themselves above the Most High. That would be absurd. It is not absurd to assume that they exhorted implicit obedience to the Divine light, naming the things which they believed to darken the Divine light; but naming them with a qualifying clause, which left even them to the redeeming influence of further light. They fervently believed Jews, Papists, Universalists, to be the Servants of Sin. They had a definite end in view, and they took no account of the real and heavenly mission of the Jews; of the splendid and enduring ecclesiastical organization which has indeed enforced error with an iron hand, but which has also conserved truth through deadly perils; of that substantial and benevolent quality in Universalism which may have defied reason and disregarded facts, yet which sought to glorify God, and force, as it were, all men to enjoy Him forever. But God giveth to his beloved sleeping. These noble and faithful men consecrating their property to His service, might have fastened their partial truths upon the future, but that God himself, is it too much to believe, inspired them with principles and words ample to hold the more rounded truths which their own beloved Institution should help to evolve. Instead of binding their professors to give up the study of Scripture if it should lead them into Papacy, they so framed their words, shall we not say taught of God?—as to rule out of Papacy and the other doctrines only that quality and portion which is opposed to the Gospel of Christ and hazardous to the souls of men. What they deemed heresy, is temporary. To modern society Antinomians and Socinians are but words, are but ancient history. The spirit of the rule drawn up by the Andover Fathers is eternal. Before the foundations of Andover were laid, and when of her walls not one stone shall be left upon another, still was it, and still will it be, human duty to teach and to preach according to the best light God shall give, and against all heresies and errors which may be opposed to the gospel of Christ or hazardous to the souls of men.

But even if the founders did not intend this large liberty to open and teach the Scriptures, the professors are not less justified; for with the net spread wide open to Atheists and all heretics, the professors are not caught. Even you do not maintain that they are

in the net. Even you only accuse them of flying toward the net. All that you can say is that if the founders were alive now the professors would be caught. They maintain that future probation is not Universalism or any heresy. Where is the tribunal that shall authoritatively decide that it is? If it is not, there is no case against them. Until it is proven authoritatively to be heresy, there is no case against them. Your indictment is not supported with that strength which marks your warfare against false doctrine, real heresy and schism. You claim that the professors should not follow any study of Scripture that leads them "toward Universalism." But you do not assume to say where the larger desire that all men should be redeemed to the love of God must stop in order not to infringe upon, not even to lead toward Universalism. You say that the Andover professor "must in like manner be held to promise not to follow it in the direction of future probation, provided that can fairly be classed with any of these banned faiths." Who is to decide whether it can fairly be classed with the banned faiths or not? You yourself do not venture categorically to ban it, though you do give it a tentative and qualified push in that direction. I certainly do not class it with the banned faiths, unless my own church has utterly misled me as to what the banned faiths are. The banned faiths themselves look askance at it, and only put up cautionary signals. The suspects loudly and everywhere proclaim that it is no heresy, no error, no form of the banned faiths, that it is not opposed to the Gospel of Christ, but is in strictest accordance with it, is indeed deducible from it; that it is not hazardous, but indispensable to the souls of men; absolutely necessary to the harmony of the gospels with the understanding which is given by the inspiration of the Almighty. And to meet this, your only resort is to bring the dead out of their graves, and present as evidence the horror which they would feel for this doctrine, were they alive! But it is nearly two hundred years since spiritual testimony was ruled out of court, and the bloody assizes of witchcraft closed forever. The written word remains. Until some established and recognized tribunal pronounces them heretics, there is no reason in their oath why the Andover professors should not stand in their lot to the end of the days. And when they are thus condemned, Professor Park and Professor Phelps must stand side by side with them in the same stocks and under the same condemnation.

I am speaking not in the interests of the Andover professors, nor of modern heresies. Not one of the objectionable professors have I ever met. Their faces I do not know. Their voices I have never heard. Their names I cannot wholly recall. Until the reading of your paper I was entirely though passively opposed to their position. All the classes of belief stigmatized by the Andover creed as heresy and error I believe to be heresy and error. Orthodox Congregationalism is the creed to which I was born, and to which, with every new light and every added experience, I the more devoutly, and, I believe, the more intelligently adhere. To my view, probation has neither past nor future, but is an eternal now. Now is the only accepted time. Now is the only day of salvation. Neither the to-morrow of this world, nor the to-morrow of any other world is the time to turn from wickedness, to conform to law, to be reconciled to God. This is the day which the Lord hath made, in which we are to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk softly before Him to whom one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

I can hardly hope that my knowledge-but lately derived from you-can change your opinion to whom this knowledge has been long familiar. Yet it may perhaps comfort you concerning your friends, to know that one who has at least the advantage of looking at them from an entirely impartial point of view sees, in the light which your own intelligence affords, that they are true men and no spies; that they are not only opening the Gospel according to the best light which God giveth them, but that they are also walking in the ordinances of the fathers and founders of Andover Seminary, blameless.

I am, with great respect,

ARTHUR RICHMOND.

CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

FOR centuries European communication with "far Cathay" was checked by the length and difficulty of the way. Embassies from the Roman emperors and the medieval popes occasionally reached this distant land. Subsequently, trade concessions were grudgingly granted to certain European nations, and Christian missionaries allowed entrance. Their aggressive teachings, won martyrdom. The missions vanished in blood, and China, with a bang, shut fast her door against Western "barbarians."

Meanwhile, her dealings had been with rude peoples, to whom she was vastly superior. For fifteen centuries she was a teacher; all other nations having real intercourse with her were pupils ; and, indeed, during the period of medieval Europe, China unquestionably was the most civilized country on earth, Under these circumstances was developed an intense national pride-a further source of exclusiveness. It finds expression in all of China's popular names, which represent her as being at the center, while around and far beyond her borders lie the "barbarian" countries-such as "Central Flower," "Central Flowery Land," "Middle Kingdom."

But Europe advanced splendidly, and the present century found the Asiatic possessions of three of its most powerful nations encircling the empire, save on its coast line-Russia, on the north and west; England, on the south-west; and France, on the south. Complications arose, and China felt forced to alter her foreign policy. Diplomatic intercourse with the states of Christendom, and commercial relations upon a treaty basis, were the outcome of the opium war with England (1839-42). China suddenly threw open to the trade of the world five of her most important ports; a migratory spirit has been aroused, and a tide is pouring through the gates of this colossal empire. To other peoples, indeed, China remains practically an unknown land. Some missionaries and a