The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-01-14
FUTURE PROBATION.

A certain Rev. DR.. Adams, of Fall
River, Massive are not informed as
to his mination-recently read a
paper on the question of Future Pro-
baton by the request of the ministers
of that city. He contributes the fol-
lowing as his personal explanation of
the Andover theory on the much dis
cussed topic:
''Those only who have had no oppor-
tunity of hearing of Christ in this life
will have a probation after death. :"
Continuing, he said, Americans and
Europeans having heard in this life,
have no chance in the next-only the
purely benighted are to be favored.
This for substance is the Andover her.
esq.,
1t would be very convenient for the
Orthodox people if the matter could be
safely compressed into this nutshell,
and the benefit of future probation
confined to those in heather lands who
have not heard of Christ or his gospel.
The matter would not then be sur
rounded with SO many practical diff
culties for the orthodox theories. But
the philosophy of the Andover move
ment occupies very much broader
range than the foregoing. 1t suggests
this question: "What constitutes fair
opportunity of hearing Christi" Is it
to merely live in so-called Christian
country and to be nominally numbered
among Christian people? There are
multitudes of men and women in
all Christian lands who have never had
this opportunity in any degree COM
mensurate with their needs, or as full
filling the requirements of strict justice
in their case. There are myriads of
heather here at home to whom Christ
has never been offered in any such
sense that we would be justified in
calling it "a fair opportunity" or
holding them responsible for rejecting
him-myriads of those to whom he
has never been revealed, and who are
as far from him in the sense of ortho-
doxy, as any of the natives of positively
heather lands. Any theory of a future
probation which is not sufficiently
broad to cover the heather at home as
well as those in foreign lands, will not
answer the logical demands of advanced
orthodoxy, asrepresented in the Andover
movement. This requires fair chance
and future opportunity for repent
ence for those who, without respect to
land or cline, have not had an equit-
able and sufficient opportunity in this
life.
If Americans and Europeans" en-
nadSSe could be excluded from the pro-
positions of the Audover school, and
living in a nominal Christian land be
regarded as all that was necessary in
the line of opportunity, the matter
would be largely simplifed, and or
thodoxy would not struggle so hard in
regard to the heather. But it is recog-
nized chat when once the door is OPP
ened for the heather to be saved with
out Christ, the proposition logically
carries with it a large margin of hope
for the heather at home. And when
once the concession is made that an
other probation may be granted, it is
recognized that it will assuredly have
wide-reaching consequences. 1t is
hence that orthodoxy struggles with
the new movement, and is resolved not
to concede even the salvation of the
heather without Christ. 1t wisely
fears the logical results of such prop
ositiOn.
A writer in the Herald of Gospel Lib
erty, dayton, o., puts forth very
comprehensive statement of faith in
regard to probation in another life.
He says that he believes in future