"lost." They "lose themselves and are cast away." The agency of this destruction is that consuming fire of God which must burn up all that is evil in man, even to the destruction of the evil personality in which he is known to himself. But this cannot include the indestructible spirit of man, nor exclude the divine process for his recovery through the investment of his spirit with another personality. The death of the souls judged is here called "the second death." The personalty of man is not completely gone until that death is inflicted. Hence re-incarnation, or whatever be the mode of recovery, takes place after this destruction in "the lake of fire." The personality is gone, but the spirit is again personalized through another incarnation, which is resurrection indeed, but only one "of judgment."

From this point of view it is seen that the only gospel which can reach "spirits in prison" is a hope of resurrection, and that this "gospel was preached even to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (I Pet. iii, 19; iv, 6), and that in this way our Lord is

Judge both of the quick and the dead." The meaning of this title becomes apparent. He judges the living through the discipline and trials of this earthly state; He judges the dead as to the time, the order, the character of their recovery to life through resurrection. The "saints" He adjudges to everlasting life. The "just" come forth to "the resurrection of life," while the unjust undergo a more complete destruction in death, and in their resurrection are held under bondage to the flesh for further judgment. And if a principle of re-incarnation be admitted as

explaining the method of this kind of resurrection, it will be seen that the judgment of the living and the dead are but two sides of one divine process. For the dead are repeated in the living and the living are inclusive of the dead. They are united in the one organism of the race. The living are suffering for the sins of the dead, and the dead are finding their way back to life and liberty through the living who overcome in this life-conflict. And so the Old Testament promises of blessing to past generations through the generations that are to come, are verified. And the representation of all Scripture, that "men in the flesh are the special subjects of judgment in that divine economy under which the human race is being trained for sonship to God and for immortality, is explained, and harmonized with the facts both of science and of human experience.

THE INMOST SELF.

In confirmation of the use we have made of the word "person as distinct from "individual," which represents the inmost self of man, and which is indestructible, while that which pertains to person is not essential, and may, therefore, be destroyed, we quote the following from Max Muller's recent course of lectures before the University of Glasgow on Physical Religion (page 4):

That self of which man became conscious, as different from his merely phenomenal or even his personal being, has been called by many names in the languages of the world. It was called breath, spirit, ghost, soul, mind, genius, and many more names which constitute a sort of psychological mythology, full of interest to the student of

religion as well as to the student of language and thought. It was afterward called the Ego or the person, but even these names did not satisfy man, as he became more and more conscious of his higher self. The person was discovered to be a persona only—that is, a mask; and even the Ego was but a pronoun, not yet the true noun, the true word which self-conscious man was in search of. At last the consciousness of self arose from out the clouds of psychological mythology, and became the consciousness of the Infinite or the Divine within us. The individual self found itself again in the Divine Self, not absorbed in it, but hidden in it and united with it by a half-human and half-divine relationship. We find the earliest name for the Infinite, as discovered by man within himself, in the ancient Upanishads. There it is called Atman, the Self, or Pratyag-âtman, the Self that lies behind, looking and longing for the Paramâtman, the Highest Self-and yet it is not far from any one of us. Socrates knew the same Self, but he called it Daimonion, the indwelling God. The early Christian philosophers called it the Holy Ghost, a name which has received many interpretations and misinterpretations in different schools of theology, but which ought to become again, what it was meant for in the beginning, the spirit which unites all that is holy within man with the Holy of Holies, or the Infinite behind the veil of the Ego, or of the merely personal and phenomenal self. . .

Among most nations whose historical antecedents are known to us, we can see that the idea of something divine is elaborated, first, from elements supplied by nature, and that afterward the spirits of the departed are raised to a fellowship with the gods of nature, while the recognition of a universal Self, underlying the gods of nature and the spirits of the departed, and recognized as the immortal element within ourselves, comes last, nay, belongs even to the future rather than to the past.

MINISTERIAL OBLIGATIONS.

The letter of Dr. J. H. Ecob, from which we give copious extracts in the "Notes," brings again to mind the serious question forced upon us when we withdrew from the Presbyterian Church. The relation of a minister in that body is not precisely what it was before the issue of Revision was raised. By tolerating this discussion and actually taking steps to introduce important changes in the Confession, the whole question of subscription to the Standards assumes a different aspect. The Church itself has loosened the bonds. We are free to say that we have serious doubts whether the course we took then would be the one to take now. We recognize as strongly as does Dr. Ecob that the vow a Presbyterian minister takes to promote the peace and purity of the Church binds him to seek its purity in doctrine, to testify against any error that may have crept into it, and to build it up, with "all saints" into the unity of the faith. In our own case, we maintained that it was this motive which led us to expose the errors in the Church's eschatology, and to propose action toward their removal. And we threw upon the Presbytery the whole responsibility of deciding whether we could continue to prosecute such a work within the limits of the denomination or whether we should withdraw. If any mistake was then made, the responsibility rests with the body that advised us to withdraw unless we could consent to refrain from publishing these views.

Under present circumstances Dr. Ecob is probably right in maintaining his right to hold on and to fight his battle out within the limits of his Church. Had the circum

stances been the same at the time of our action, we should probably have done the same thing.

And yet we made no mistake at the time. For then no such relief to one's conscience in subscription had been afforded, and no such liberty of speech had been tolerated as now prevails. Even yet, on the questions we have raised in eschatology, few in the Church have dared to raise a voice. The Church still is cramped and dwarfed under bondage to the harsh and inhuman formulas of its Standards upon the question of eternal punishment, which is described as inflicted after resurrection, and as being an endless torment of body and soul without intermission in hell-fire with the devil and his angels forever. It seemed to us then that freedom to discuss that question for the good of the Church, and especially for the good of the Presbyterian Church, required that some one should take an absolutely unfettered position, and assert for himself a freedom which was then, and is even still, impossible within it.

We have seen no reason since to doubt the truth and propriety of that opinion.

EVOLUTION does not dethrone God, but enthrones Him more securely than ever. For the universe, from the grandest star down through dust grain to the unimaginable minuteness of the dreamed-of "atom," is only the manifestation of the eternal and tireless energy and working of the Infinite God. God, then, was never so near and never so accessible. Materialism as a universe-theory has been slain by science itself. Already we are on the eve of such physical discoveries as seem to bring us face to face with