dise was looking with joy upon Jesus engaged in the work of redemption. But when he speaks of his joy as a thing of the past, He must refer to a joy felt by Abraham when he lived upon earth many hundred years before, and saw by faith the day of Christ revealed to his view. Such is beyond question the view of men who may not be better Greek scholars than Alford, but who rank immeasurably above him as commentators upon the

Word of God.

Mr. Hobson's interpretations interpretations then of Acts xxiii. 8, 9, and John viii. 56, differing as they do from the views commonly held, cannot set aside the plain and oft-repeated declarations of Scripture that the "dead know not anything." I vastly prefer with the Bible that the dead are incapable of telling me anything, because they know nothing themselves, than to hold with Alford and the spiritualists that death has shed upon them a flood of light

and

knowledge compared with which the knowledge of the living is but a dim and flickering ray. I am happy that I am not called upon to believe that a dead Abraham lives in Paradise, and beholds its glories, and can extend his eagle gaze from thence to our earth. I am happy that I am not required to hold that dead men know as much as angels. I am satisfied to hold that they see nothing and know nothing. Thus I am kept to the apostolic hope-"looking for and hasting to the coming of the day of God." No glorified state of the dead hides it from my view.

HENRY CONSTABLE.

MAN GIVETH UP THE GHOST

AND WHERE IS HE?
DEAR SIR,-In the November

RAINBOW, p. 516, under the above heading, after referring to Mr. Hicks' letter in July, on Eccles. ix. 5, "Fidus" makes the following remarks:-"Perhaps Mr. Mill, when he wrote his article, 'Are the dead alive?' which appears in the September number, had not read Mr. Hicks' letter; let us hope he had not, because, if he had it was hardly candid-without any attempt on his part to answer Mr. Hicks-to quote those now discredited words, in this application at least, as an undoubted proof text on his side of the question."

The single fact that my paper was in your hands in March, or, at the very latest in April, will satisfy "Fidus" that I had not then read Mr. Hicks' letter in July. But even if I had read his letter before writing my paper, unless I had recognised a valid objection to the use I have made of the passage in question-preventing me from so using it-it would scarcely have been my province to have answered Mr. Hicks, seeing that two wellknown contributors to the RAINBOW had been distinctly referred to in his letter.

Understanding, however, that neither of these two gentlemen have answered it, nor intend now to answer it, like Elihu, "I will show you mine opinion."

In making the statement in Eccles. ix. 5, that "the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything," I am well aware that the preacher gives the living credit for knowing more, and the dead less, than many are disposed to allow. Many will not admit that the living shall die; and many affirm that the dead know much more than the living. And some content themselves by merely saying that it is only the things of this life of which the preacher

says that the dead know not anything. Who will be the first to write an article for the RAINBOW on the nature and extent of a dead man's knowledge, so that we may really know what is meant?

I have never regarded Eccles. ix. 5 as a main prop on the general question, but simply as a statement agreeing with the general teaching of Scripture: nor would I be inclined to build much upon it by itself. At the same time, after reading carefully the letters of Mr. Hicks and Fidus," I do not see that either of them shows the passage to mean either more or less than what its words seem plainly to state, that, "the dead know not anything." We are asked to "look at the concluding portion of the sentence, neither have they any more a reward,' &c., and say candidly what we think then." I have looked at it,-not for the first time, however, and must candidly say that, to me, it seems only confirmatory of the preceding portion, being persuaded that the dead are alike incapable of knowing anything, or of receiving reward for labour done during life. Their incapacity to know anything equally excludes the thought of capacity to receive reward. And following out the context seems only to add proof upon proof: for in verse 6, we read, "Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun;" and in ver. 10, "For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest." We are thus told, in this passage, that the dead neither know, nor feel, can neither devise nor act; and yet those who quote the words, "the dead know not anything," are said to "dis

connect the words of the preacher to serve their cause," and it is "hoped" that "we have seen the last of such a misuse of the words of Scripture." If such be a misuse of the words of Scripture, will any one tell us what their use is? What can they mean if they do not mean what they plainly express? If we could discover in either the preceding or succeeding context, anything to modify in any shape, or in the slightest degree, the meaning of the words, we could see some reason for such allegations, and for such hopes being expressed; but we can see none. And I hope Mr. Hicks does not claim that an ordinary sense of right and love of honesty" attaches only to those on his side of the question. I trust, moreover, that as much of the context has now been taken into account as could be desired,-and without any disjointing process,yet there is no misuse of the words to complain of, and does not the passage teach all that it was quoted for?

Perhaps, however, most or all may agree that there is no knowledge, no wisdom, even no consciousness in the grave; but with many there will be a sort of reserve claim. With them, that which goeth to the grave is not that which retains life and consciousness. This prerogative one claims for the soul, and another for the spirit; but the fact should not be overlooked that in the above passage the preacher ignores both claims, and recognises the once living, as only dead and in the grave. There is not even the most remote hint that there is any other place recognised where either they, or any part of them, have an existence in living consciousness. It is granted that resurrection life is not taught in the passage, but surely it is too much to affirm that the context,

thus viewed, "forbids all hope of a resurrection." If he who is "criticising another contributor should be doubly careful," he who criticises the criticiser should be equally so. The preacher is speaking of the dead; but when they attain to resurrection they are no longer the dead but the living, and hence what is said of the dead, then ceases to be applicable to them.

Mr. Hicks thinks the passage in question, or what he terms "the fragment of a passage," is used in a mutilated state to give "a colour of support" to the dead being unconscious. In fairness, a passage can only be thus designated when wrested from its proper meaning in the context. We cannot see this to be the case here. But I must confess that this continual effort to make the question of death a question of consciousness or unconsciousness seems to me a divergence from the real question. No one, writing of the dead, and with merely the question

of life and death before his mind -unless biassed with existing theories-would ever think of adding, that they are unconscious. And hence, if the question of consciousness or unconsciousness can only be settled by such a statement, it must, I fear, remain an unsettled question. The real question, it seems to me, is, Are they dead? In however deep distress a man may be, so long as he is in life, the question is often asked, "Is he conscious?" But from the moment he is declared to be dead, the question about consciousness is never more repeated. And were it not our familiarity with the question, how strange it would appear to ask if the dead are unconscious!

We will be candid, however, and allow every qualifying circumstance that we know of to have its full

effect. And, taking a wider range of survey than merely the immediate textual connection of this contested passage, it must be admitted, we think, that there is a difference between the stand-point from which the preacher of Ecclesiastes looks at this controverted question and the stand-point from which it is generally viewed in these theological theological controversies. Exalted to great estate, having great experience and understanding, and possessed of wisdom excelling all that had been in Jerusalem before him, the preacher "applied his heart to know and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, concerning all things that are done under heaven, that he might teach what is good for man in life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow." (Chap. i. 13; vii. 25; vi. 12.) A most important work, and he has taught some very important lessons; and among the many vanities which he had seen, one is noted in chap. iv. 8: "There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour, neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good?" Yet "In all points as he came, so shall he go, and shall take nothing of his labour which he may carry away in his hand." (Chap. v. 15, 16.) In the light of these, and many similar statements, the whole drift of chap. ix. 5 is apparent. Notwithstanding all this ceaseless labour to acquire riches; yet "the living know that they shall die " and leave all their riches behind them, "neither have they any more a reward;" and whether a wise man or a fool may reap the fruit of their labour they know not.

"Fidus" classes this passage with Job xiv. 7-12, which he thinks of "great importance from the insight it gives us into the eschatology of the Old Testament." The drift of this beautiful passage in Job, however, I think he wholly mistakes. The faith and hope of the once great man of Uz are not the vanishing shadowy things to be "quenched, as in a moment, with every drifting cloud and rising mist," as depicted by "Fidus," p. 517. The clouds had drifted in fury, and mists had risen around him in dense darkness, yet his faith and hope stood firm as the unshaken rock in ocean's tempest, and he wished a memorial of their steadfastness to be " "graven with an iron pen in the rock for ever." Listen to that piteous wail of woe," Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me;" and then to those words of confidence that immediately follow, showing that, in the midst of desolation and distress, and the stinging reproaches of his friends, the faith and hope of the afflicted man shine out with undimmed lustre; "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." (Chap. xix. 21-27.) Is this the language of "midnight despondency and "quenched hope?" Or a "carefulness to exclude all hope of a future life ?" God grant that our faith and hope may be equally steadfast. But even the very context of the passage quoted by "Fidus" (chap. xiv. 7-12) should have saved him from his conclusions. (See verses 13, 15.) "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that

thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember

me.

If a man die shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." Will Fidus" give the same latitude to the expression, "until thy wrath be past," that he does to the words, "till the heavens be no more, and gravely tell us that Job's desire was to be hid in the grave for ever? To have a night with no dawn? Hid in secret, never more to see light? A sleep with no waking? To lie down, never more to rise ? This would indeed effectually be to "quench all hope, and exclude all thought of a future life." But how then could Job contemplate a time when God would have a desire to the work of his hands and remember him? Call, and Job would answer?" Do not Job's "heavens being no more" synchronise with Peter's "heavens passing away with a great noise?" And, knowing that his "Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth," did not Job expect to be one of those who "shall hear his voice and come forth" to be a sharer in the new heavens and new earth which we also look for, and "wherein dwelleth righteousness?" (2 Pet. iii.)

It is, we think, much to be regretted that "Fidus" should so far undervalue the faith and hope of God's ancient people as to speak of Job xiv. 7, 12, and Eccles. ix. 5, 6, as expressing a "two-fold despair;" and to regard "even the holiest and most enlightened Jewif he had any hope of immortality at all-as being only a hope dark, uncertain, and oftentimes hopeless."

Such convictions must of necessity obscure many noble Scripture testimonies; and effectually prevent anything like a clear apprehension of the main features of the books of Job and Ecclesiastes. "Search the Scriptures," said Jesus to the Jews, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life." (John v. 39.) "I know," said Martha, "that my brother shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." (John xi. 24.) "So worship I the God of my fathers," says Paul, "believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets; and have hope toward God, which they-the Jews-themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." (Acts xxiv. 14, 15.) And when before King Agrippa, he says,"Now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come." And that this promise made unto the fathers, embraced resurrection, is manifest from Paul's question to Agrippa: "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you?"-You! King Agrippa, who, I know, "believest the prophets." "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" (Acts xxvi. 6, 8, 27.)

But above all, let that unanswerable protest of Paul, against all who would lightly esteem Jewish faith and hope, speak for itself in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. xi.). "The fathers, to whom the promises were made," says he, "all died in faith not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "Others

had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, slain with the sword, they wandered in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth, they were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." Surely the faith and hope that could thus suffer, endure, and triumph in the hope of a "better resurrection," cannot be despised as a light that merely shone into the soul like the faint, fitful flickering of a "star, even when the heavens are clear and calm," with no intervening clouds; but as a beam of celestial glory piercing the gloom, and lighting up the soul with hope and trust, when all else was shrouded in darkness, even dense darkness, as Egyptian darkness itself. J. MILL.

Cupar.

"SERVILE INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE."

DEAR SIR,-I have read the article under the foregoing heading with considerable interest, and found in it some important statements, worthy of serious consideration, to which I may on some future occasion refer. Its closing sentence, however, impressed me most, as being very much in need of confirmation. Here it is: "It was, in fact, through giving too literal a meaning to the words of the prophets that the Jews looked for a merely earthly deliverer." (RAINBOW for Nov., p. 501.) What the writer means by a "merely earthly deliverer," I am not exactly certain; being afraid of giving them a giving them a "servile" interpretation on the one hand, or a too "liberal" interpretation on the other, as he has not given any illustrations of the sense intended. This much,