love to engage in this service. Each applicant for copies will please to say how many he or she can use, that is to say, of course, wisely and without waste, and they will be forwarded.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT YEAR.-We are glad to announce that papers may be expected from able writers during the year, among whom we may mention the Revs. Henry Constable, M.A.; J. B. Heard, M.A.; W. T. Hobson; George Lloyd; S. Minton, M.A.; and Edward White; General Goodwyn, and Messrs. Cameron, Deacon, Laing, Maude, Strang, Rotherham, and Waylen. We shall also have papers from gentlemen whose initials are familiar to our readers.

The following subjects, and many others, will engage attention :—

Undesigned Admissions. The Light thrown on the two Sacraments by the Doctrine of Life in Christ. The Connexion between Orthodoxy and the Profane Cursing of some of the people. The Imprecatory Psalms. The Resurrection-the rationale of the doctrine. The Angels of God. The Contrast between the Orthodox Millennium and that of Scripture. Incidental Testimony to the Divinity of Christ. The Holy Spirit as a Witness. Conditional Immortality. Apocalyptic Light. The Times of Restoration of All Things. The Transfer of Authority from Gentile Monarchs to the Son of Man. There will likewise be interesting Correspondence, including a series of letters on Christian Creed and Christian Conduct, with Book Notices, Poetry, and Critical Notes under the general title of "The Berean Casket."

"L. D." writes: "The RAINBOW is rendering incalculable service to pure doctrine, not only in exposing orthodox heresies with learning and eloquence, but in generously allowing discussion both in articles and correspondence, so that its readers have the advantage of seeing how great questions present themselves to thoughtful and serious men."

"G. B."-The Eastern question will be settled with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, not before.

“J. T. M.”—Thanks for words of sympathy. They are valued. But our faith in God is without limit. We trust him absolutely, not merely in relation to our little affairs, but in relation to the entire universe. He will do all things well.

.

A CLERGYMAN Wwrites: "I am delighted with your article in this month's RAINBOW, The Joyful Doctrine of Immortality only in Christ.' Cannot you have it published separately for circulation? . . . How wonderful it is that when the nation is crying out very loudly against cruelty to men and the lower animals, they should boldly impute to the God whom they profess to worship and adore an intention to torment, not for one or a few days, but for a never ending eternity, millions upon millions of the creatures he has created!"

"J. H."-Letter received. We have given our testimony on that subject and hold to it, but do not feel called upon to give it prominence at present. We anticipate light upon it soon, from a very unexpected quarter.

THE RAINBOW:

3 Magazine of Christian Literature, with Special Reference to the Revealed Future of the Church and the World.

DECEMBER, 1876.

CLEARING THE GROUND.

A PAPER appeared in the July number of this Magazine, under

the signature of "Lex," which has not received the attention that it deserves. The writer mentions, in a friendly spirit, the various criticisms that he heard from thoughtful persons, on the addresses delivered at the Cannon Street Hotel last May; and draws from them the conclusion that "much ground remains to be cleared (the italics are his own) before the path in which they wish men to travel is likely to be accounted a part of the king's highway."

Now this may mean two entirely different things; either that the path itself requires to be cleared from certain obstacles which prevent people walking along it, or that the ground on each side of it must be cleared before people will consent to do so. The former we have been endeavouring to accomplish for some time, and as we think, with considerable success; to the necessity for the latter we entirely demur. If the path itself is clear, we can confidently invite our brethren to join us on it, however tangled may be the brushwood on the right hand or on the left. At the same time, to enlarge our views, and render the path more pleasant to walk upon, we are glad of any light that can be thrown on collateral questions. The criticisms quoted by "Lex" are of both kinds: positive objections to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality, and difficult questions on subjects connected with it, though not with it exclusively. The objections to it are :

1. That it is inconsistent with Christ having died for the sins of the world, and with the declaration that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. No doubt, these words, if understood in the fullest sense of which they are capable would bar the possibility of any human being suffering for his sins either in this world or the next; for obviously, if he does, his trespasses are imputed to him, and het and Christ both die for the same sins. But that they are not in

MM

tended to be taken in that extreme sense, the apostles themselves teach us as plainly as words could do it. For St. Peter describes certain persons in his own days as "denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction;" so that a man may be bought by Christ, and yet be destroyed after all. And St. Paul, immediately after proclaiming the "the word of reconciliation," says, "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain :" manifestly, the grace of which he had been speaking. In other words, he beseeches them not to suppose that he had been teaching Universalism, as it was quite possible for a man to receive in vain the reconciliation effected on the cross, and die in his sins notwithstanding it. It is unnecessary here to attempt any definition of what the Gospel does involve: it is enough for our present purpose to have such distinct apostolic authority for denying that it ensures the salvation of every man.

2. The next objection is of a more subtle kind; and is constantly pressed against us both from the right hand and from the left. Why, we are asked, should any one be raised from the dead, except for the purpose of renewed probation, or that he may live for ever, whether in happiness or in misery? If his doom is fixed before resurrection, whether at or after the death of the body, and if that doom is a more or less terrible destruction, why should he not suffer it in the spirit, without reappearing in the flesh, and undergoing a formal judgment? Now, the answer given to this question will partly depend upon the respondent's views as to the condition of human spirits after death: some Christians holding that those of both the righteous and the wicked retain their consciousness, others holding that only those of the righteous do so, and others denying that either do. The two latter will of course reply that if there is to be any retribution at all after this life, it must necessarily be postponed until the resurrection. The former can only say, that inasmuch as the sins were committed openly, in the body, and on earth, it would seem more likely, even without any revelation on the subject, that the retribution should take place openly, in the body, and on the scene of their commission. But supposing that neither of these answers is deemed satisfactory, do our opponents really mean to contend that there can be no sufficient reason for the wicked being restored to bodily life before they are finally judged, sentenced, and executed? Do they regard it as so utterly incredible, that some non-natural interpretation must be forced upon the statements which appear to assert it in the plainest possible terms? If they do not, their objection falls to the ground; if they do, they must be just left to their opinion; for there is no arguing with a subjective position of that kind.

3. The third objection is pressed still more strongly, and is capable of being sustained with apparently very effective rhetoric. "I cannot consider any form of retribution to be God-like, which

does not either at once destroy the criminal, or open to him the possibility of a return to righteousness. Why do not we, in this nineteenth century, first torture and then execute great and atrocious offenders? Only, I believe, because we are satisfied that such a course would be offensive to our Heavenly Father. But right and wrong are not arbitrary terms. Nothing, so far as I can see, can be right in God, which would be wrong in man." Now this argument, if valid, would of course justify those who object to capital punishment in pronouncing it incredible that God will ever destroy any sinner, however incorrigible, with a destruction however instantaneous and painless. A short and easy method, no doubt, of dealing with the doctrine that the wages of sin is death. It is wrong for man to inflict such a punishment; therefore it must be wrong for God to do so. What should we reply to that? Why, that, even admitting the premiss, the conclusion by no means follows. The main grounds, on which it is supposed to be wrong for man to take away life, are-1st, that it is too great a power to be entrusted to a fallible judge; 2nd, that it endangers the criminal's eternal salvation by cutting short his time of repentance. But neither of these can apply to the second death, of body and soul, inflicted by God upon the finally impenitent. He cannot err, and must know when their case has become absolutely hopeless. In the only sense in which the words have any application to the present argument, a thing "can be right in God, which would be wrong in man."

Just so, on the supposition that man has a right for heinous offences to "kill the body," but that the growing feeling against the more terrible methods of doing it arises from a sound and true humanity, does it necessarily involve any imputation upon the Divine character, to believe that it may be a very much more fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, than into the hands of man? On what grounds should we object to impale or crucify a monster of cruelty? Because the punishment would be more severe than he deserved ? Certainly not, if there be any justice in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: for he may have done the same to hundreds of innocent persons. We should be influenced partly by the injurious moral effect of such exhibitions upon the public mind, and partly by the consciousness of our own fallibility in judgment. As the case will be tried again before a tribunal that cannot err, and that will render unto every man according to his deeds, we think it better to keep on the safe side, and exercise the least degree of severity that the well-being of society will allow. Neither of these considerations will apply to the tribulation and anguish which will undoubtedly accompany a sinner's final destruction in Gehenna. For God cannot err as to the degree of it that may righteously be inflicted, or that the general good, present and prospective, requires to be inflicted in each particular case; and he will take care, we may be well assured, that there is nothing in the

mode and manner of it to shock the feelings of his intelligent creatures, but that it is so arranged as to be exclusively beneficial in its moral effect. As we know nothing whatever of the process by which the judgment of the wicked, with all its consequences, will be carried out, what can be more arbitrary or perverse than to insist that if their "end is destruction" it must be an absolutely rainless one, or the universe will cry shame?

In short, what does the writer mean by "at once ?" Does he mean instantaneously and painlessly? If not, his objection has no bearing whatever on the main doctrine of conditional immortality; for he only insists that the death which is the wages of sin shall not be inflicted in a more terrible form, or by a more gradual process than he would approve of: and we have no doubt that when the time arrives, he will be perfectly satisfied with God's method of carrying out his own sentence. If he does mean that the final destruction of an irreclaimable transgressor, to be "God-like,” must be unaccompanied by any suffering whatever, we can only reply for ourselves, that such an idea violates all our conceptions of righteous retribution, and appears to us in the last degree improbable. We believe that in a sinner's "end," even more than in any previous part of his whole life, he will find it an evil and a bitter thing to have departed from the Lord.

Having thus endeavoured to clear the pathway itself of the difficulties which were thought to obstruct it, we shall consider in anther article one or two of those side questions, which some persons -very unreasonably as it seems to us-insist upon having answered before they will allow it to have been proved from Scripture, that the wages of sin is death, and the gift of God in Christ is eternal life. SAMUEL MINTON.

IT

THE PARABOLIC TRINITY.

LUKE XV.

T is a fact worthy of more attention perhaps than it would seem generally to have received, that in every case in the Gospels in which our blessed Lord is recorded to have spoken several parables at one and the same time, these parables will be found, on examination, to have at once a mutual relation one with another, and to be of a cumulative character in setting forth the great lesson or lessons they were designed to teach; and that consequently, if we isolate any one in such a series of parables, and consider it apart from the rest, we must necessarily fail to catch all the fulness and beauty of its divine meaning. It will be as if we should cover over some noble picture leaving only one of the most prominent figures in it visible. That figure might no doubt be a very striking and admirable one in itself, nevertheless, not only would the meaning of the