had been common, and the penalty of the gallows frequently inflicted, there should come about such a condition that murders should entirely cease, and the death penalty be a thing of the past, it would be proper to say that, in that state, there was no more murder, and that the gallows was abolished.* So, if a perfect antidote to the cholera were discovered, we might say that that disease was destroyed, although its former victims should not be restored. If we could conceive of the victims of the second death as still in existence, and therefore as possible subjects of some further operation of divine power, we might view them as still under death's dominion. And therefore the word could not be spoken, "There shall be no more death," But if the second death be final, and there be no more victims for death to prey upon, and no more captives in his domain, then this last enemy is truly "abolished."

FROM a letter received from a clerical brother we subjoin some extracts as illustrating the spirit in which many ministers of the Presbyterian Church regard any attempts to revise its creed.

"I do not find that I can make any practical use of your discussion. I admire its tone and style, and sympathize with your effort to have our Confession of Faith remodeled upon a more Scriptural basis, but I have no heart to try to overcome the dead weight that settles against such a movement. It will come, I doubt not, but not in our day. The first article in the July number gives me a little more light on your views, but I have no interest in the discussion. I no longer go to the Confession for statement of doctrine, and confine myself as to future retribution and reward to the general statement of Scripture, supported by reason, that sin must produce suffering hereafter as well as here, and that righteousness must work out its reward. Beyond death I know nothing definite, except that it is horror of darkness to unrepentant sinners, and blessedness and light to the redeemed in Christ. How long suffering lasts I don't know. I hope it stops some time. I can trust the Heavenly Father to do all that love requires, while I can press upon all men the warnings and threatenings of His Word. My whole time and strength are taken up in trying to keep a church alive to good works and save my neighbors from present sin and misery."

*This is the word of the R. V. in I Cor., xv. 26.

Over against this discouraging estimate of the work we have undertaken we venture to place that given by anc.ner correspondent, whose name stands among the highest of those in whom our Church confides, and who writes:

"I have been delighted with your work and bid you Godspeed."

Indeed all the justification our work needs may be drawn from the admissions contained in the above extracts. Our friend admits that the Confession is not now perfectly based upon Scripture. He no longer goes to it for statements of doctrine concerning future rewards and punishments. He admits that revision must come, but not in our time. And why not, pray? If it is a right thing to do, why have not we as great responsibility about it as the men of some future day? And is not our responsibility rather increased than set aside by the fact of the Church's indifference? If "the dead weight that settles against such a movement be a sufficient excuse, where is there any room left in the Church for heroic faith and self-sacrifice ? Is not the Church put in the world to witness from God to men? And is she not under the highest obligations to be honest in her testimony? and, especially, upon the inconceivably important matters of human destiny? Here, if anywhere, her authorized statements should be most carefully and truthfully framed.

Our correspondent evidently believes that our present formulas either misstate or over-state the truth, Otherwise, he would feel free to use them. How is it possible, therefore, for him to relieve himself of responsibility in the matter? As an ordained minister and ruler in the Church, he is under solemn obligation to see, so far as in him lies, that the Chnrch shall bear an upright testimony before God and man. The fact that he is too much occupied in doing good is not the least excuse. ture to remind him that his efforts "to keep the Church alive to good works," and to save his neighbors from sin will be frustrated by just so much as he gives them occasion to suspect that either he, or the Church he represents, is not perfectly candid and truthful in dealing with matters which bear with such tremendous weight upon their present and everlasting interests.

We ven

VOL. II.]

SEPTEMBER, 1886.

[No. 9.

CORRESPONDENCE AND CRITICISM.

A few weeks ago we addressed to the editor of The Rainbow, a well-known London periodical, the letter given below, to which he makes reply in the July number of that magazine. From what we knew of Mr. Rotherham, and his contributions to the right understanding of Scripture, we were sure that his reply would be both able and courteous. And, inasmuch as it contains the first published criticism that we have yet seen, from a competent source, of certain features of our doctrine, we deem it proper to reprint the correspondence, as it appears in The Rainbow, in these pages, in order that our readers may understand what we have to say in review.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE " RAINBOW."-After reading your "Editorial on Hades" in the April number, I am prompted to send you a few words of commendation. The spirit of the article is truly admirable, and its frankness and freedom are refreshing. It seems to me to be marked by the essential qualities of truth-seeking, which are, first of all, a reverent desire to ascertain the mind of the Spirit in the Word; second, a candid examination of the views of others who have been seeking the truth under the guidance of the same Spirit; and, lastly, an unwillingness to surrender your own judgment to the domination of partizan views. We are always in danger of being biased in judgment through our relations to some denomination or some theory, to the advocacy of which we stand committed. Your evident desire, therefore, to "buy the truth" in any quarter where it may be

found, and to make room in your theories for all the aspects in which it may discover itself, is certainly to be commended.

I venture, however, to suggest that there are certain aspects, other than those presented in your article, in which this great subject of the future destiny of unjust men must be viewed before we shall arrive at the whole truth about it.

We agree in believing (1) that the soul of man is not immortal in its own nature. (2) It survives the death of the gross material body. (3) It is, however, destructible. After the body perishes, it also, after a period of suffering more or less prolonged, may be destroyed in hell.

The further points I would ask you now to consider are: I. Is not this "soul," as distinct from "spirit," a constituent element in man's embodiment? God is pure Spirit. We do not therefore speak of Him as having a soul. The devil has no soul. Only embodied creatures have souls. Is not the soul of man an intermediate, subtle embodiment of his spirit?

2. Is not the threatened punishment of sin the destruction of the sinner's embodied being, which includes the soul, in hell, leaving the spirit naked and outcast, and, perhaps, with loss of personal self-consciousness? The righteous man never loses his soul, and is therefore never completely disembodied.

3. Is not the period between death and resurrection definitely the period of punishment? It is the Sheol state. By what authority do we transfer the words of Jesus (Mark ix. etc.) which speak of an immediately impending loss of man's present body and soul in Gehenna, to a future destruction of a resurrection body after a distant judgment-day? I am persuaded that the Church has made a great mistake in projecting our Lord's teaching about coming judgment to a far distant assize, thus overlooking the fact that men are now walking on the verge of hell, and that they enter immediately upon its punishment. The period of retribution for the sins of this life lies this side of resurrection.

4. If the definite punishment for sin is thus inflicted in Sheol before man is raised out of it, is not the sinner's resurrection a redemptive act, due to the grace that has provided that in Christ all shall be made alive?

5. Is the resurrection of judgment a resurrection unto judgment? Has not the sinner been already judged and doomed? May not the genitive "of judgment," therefore, describe the fact that, while resurrection introduces the righteous to unfettered "life," it introduces the unjust to life still "under judgment," as is man's present life, and to that judicial control and discipline, in the bonds of which imperfect and degraded life must necessarily be held?

6. While, therefore, the suffering of the soul in Hades may be corrective, is there any room for the salvation of any class of sinners after death, otherwise than through and after a resurrection? The period of imprisonment may be disciplinary, but it is throughout punitive. Was our Lord's preaching to the "spirits in prison" anything more than the announcement to them of His triumph over death, with the consequent hope of their ultimate deliverance through resurrection? Must not the question of their salvation to eternal life be determined after that? We believe that, whatever hope may lie in the future for unconverted heathen or any class of sinners, it can only find room after the just judgment of God has been visited upon them for their sins in Hades (as witness the case of Dives). and they have been brought out of its misery and gloom through resurrection.

No principle is more important to the understanding of this whole subject than this of rightly locating the period of man's punishment. If it be before resurrection, then this event is a ransom, and opens out a new chapter in the Divine dealings toward the children of men; and if it be not a deliverance, why then should God raise the unjust dead? To damn them in body? This is the very damnation they have already suffered in the destruction of body and soul (their whole embodied being) in hell.

7. Does not the term "second death" imply that those who suffer it have been raised out of the first death to a new trial and opportunity of life?

8. Is not the resurrection of all mankind to such a new gift of life, after punishment in death and hell, an essential element in the Gospel? Can anything less than this hope make it " 'glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people?"