which our formulas on this subject are made up, do not primarily relate to a post-resurrection judgment at all. The sinner, in the Bible view, enters upon the just punishment of his sins long before his resurrection.

As to the charge that we believe resurrection to be "eclectic and progressive," we have only to say that some of the best men in the Presbyterian Church hold to the doctrine of a "first resurrection." The last two Modera'tors of the General Assembly are among the number.* And a wiser man even than they has told us Every man in his own order," and "to every seed his own body."

Many of our brethren agree also with us in believing that our Lord began to judge the world in righteousness, according to his words, before that generation passed away. Because, however, we deny that the purpose of God in raising the unjust dead is to punish them for the deeds done in the body, but hold that they * See note on the First Resurrection," by Dr. E. R. Craven, in Lange's Commentary on the Apocalypse, p. 354. What will the Occident say, too, to this extract from the Presbyterian, which has just come to hand, with a leading editorial on Easter," in which occur the words, "Furthermore, the risen Lord is to us the pledge and type of our own rising from the grave. The fact is set forth to us as the prelude of successive resurrections, through which the passing generations of the sons of God shall enter upon Christ's glory."

"

We ask attention here to the fact that the much-quoted passage, 2d Cor. V. Io, which reads literally: "For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things in (or through) the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad," is addressed to Christians. The trial referred to is not to determine their salvation, but their place and reward as stewards and servants of Christ. It is not improbable, too, that the phrase, dià Tôv σúμaros, refers to the fact that the resurrection body must gather up and express the fruitage of the present life. At all events, a study of this passage in its connection ought to greatly modify the decisive tone with which it is constantly quoted, as shutting out all hope from the resurrection of the unjust.

enter upon their punishment long before, it is unjust to infer that we do not believe that the wicked dead receive their just deserts. No one can hold to this, as required by both the law of Nature and the law of God, more strongly than do we.

The gist, however, of this critic's charge lies in his italicised assertion that we "teach, contrary to the standards, the future final recovery and salvation of all If by men by resurrection." 66 salvation" he means that good gift of God, which we all designate by that term, then we do not believe what is here attributed to us, and we certainly have not taught it. The leading article in one of our earlier numbers, (March, 1855,) is entitled, "Our doctrine, not Universalism." We have been careful in every number to discriminate between the gift of a recovered life to the race through the Second Man, and the gift of eternal life, which only those receive who believe on His Name unto life everlasting. We have constantly emphasized the fact that the restored. life of the unjust is one according to character and fitness, and which leaves them still under trial and judgment, and bondage to corruption, and liable to the second death. We have said that it was plainly taught that some get back to life so loaded with the burden of evil character as to be incapable of forgiveness, and "guilty of eternal sin" (Mark iii. 29, R. V.), and that, after resurrection, there will be those who fall again into the pit of the second death, out of which no resurrection is promised. We deny, therefore, this accusation, and, for proof, refer to any or all the issues of this magazine.

It is impossible, however, for us, in these limits, to

make anything but a brief reply to the various counts in this charge of heretical teaching, or to make anything but meagre allusions to the broad basis the Scriptures furnish for our views. We can only wish that all the readers of this apology, who have not seen the previous volumes of this magazine, would take the trouble to peruse them.

MINISTERIAL HONOR.

On this point our assailant is very vehement. But he is still more mistaken. He says of us:

"He addresses himself to 'leading Presbyterian ministers and others' with a view to arouse them to the importance of honest dealing by our church,' etc. Why does he not set them an example of 'honest dealing' by withdrawing from a church whose doctrines he has ceased to believe? Is it the way to commend 'honest dealing' to publish the opinions, but conceal the names of men who are masquerading as Presbyterian ministers, enjoying the honors and emoluments of the church, and at the same time covertly repudiating doctrines which they once solemnly professed to receive? In the interest of common honesty, and of open, square dealing, we demand the names of these men. Let us know who they are. And if either they, or Mr. Baker himself, should longer stand on the order of their going, we demand that, as a matter of 'honest dealing by our church,' their Presbyteries facilitate their departure in the constitutional way."

Here is a double charge of dishonesty : I. In regard to the anonymous extracts. 2. In regard to our course in remaining the church.

As to the first, we can say that the letters were written, the sympathetic remarks made. They were not marked "private," but knowing the obloquy and sacrifice which one must encounter in our position, we have

regarded it as a matter of gentlemanly honor, to say nothing of Christian courtesy, not to force upon any brother a public declaration, but to leave it entirely with his own conscience. We have spoken out our convictions in obedience to our own sense of duty to God and to the church. They must act as they believe to be right in their situations, as we have done in ours. Every man must stand or fall to his own Master. And One is our Master, even Christ, and we are all brethren.

2. The charge which most pains us here is that of personal dishonesty in remaining in the church. If the miserably low ground is to hold in the Presbyterian church, that it is not a church, a true body of Christ, in which He has set us as members for mutual edification, but only a Christian society, formed to conserve a certain system of doctrine, then we are in a false position. If that be the true bond of union in the body, then we have no place in it. Whenever that shall be affirmed as the ruling idea upon which our church is constituted, we shall at once go out, or submit to be cast out, and lay down this burden of labor and reproach and sacrifice which we have taken up in obedience to our highest convictions of what we owe to the church and to her divine Head. We have believed that our ordination vows bind us to seek the purity and strength of the church by seeking to reform her authorized testimony at a point where we believe she was misled, and at which we have all drifted more or less away from her teaching. We have held that a church's first business was to be perfectly honest and sincere as the appointed witness from God to men, and hat our church is now in a false position, in that she no

We have

longer fairly preaches that "God will raise the wicked dead out of the hell to which they have been doomed, to adjudge them again in body and soul to be punished with unspeakable torments, without intermission, with the devil and his angels in hell-fire forever." been told even by theological Professors that such kind of preaching would empty our churches.* And we know that it has largely died out among us, because we have all ceased to believe that these formulas express the fullest truth about the purposes and dealings of God toward sinful men. Moreover, in the face of the teaching of the standards that men "who have not heard the gospel, and do not know Jesus Christ, and believe in Him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess, neither is their salvation in any other but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of His body, the church," a large proportion of our very best ministers, among whom was Dr. A. A. Hodge, do not hesitate to admit the salvability of some devout heathen. We have thought that the highest view of ministerial honor and of "honest dealing by the church" required that some one should go forward and seek to compel the church to correct this incongruity. Most gladly would we have shrunk from the burden, but it was put upon us in such a way that we dare not avoid it. We would ask, if every minister who holds views divergent from the Confession is bound in honor to step down and out, how can any mistakes

* See October number, Presbyterian Review, 1883, p. 738.