as well as the arguments of Scripture, when they limit the direct effect of Christ's satisfaction to the remission of original sin, and of such transgressions as are committed previous to baptism, and maintain, as they do, the existence of an intermediate state of penance in the life to come.

The Bible view of justification is equally inconsistent with the theory in question. Here, as in the former case, it is the object of Romanists to secure a prominent place for the good works of the Christian, and hence they identify the doctrine to some extent with sanctification. They represent it as consisting in the forgiveness of sins and the implanting of a gracious principle; the development of which principle, until perfection has been attained, is to be the work of the Christian himself. An intermediate state thus seems necessary where that grace may be brought to perfection, which is in many cases undoubtedly but imperfectly developed on the soul's departure from the present life. The whole of this argument, however, falls to the ground when the fact is stated, that good works have no place in the justification of the sinner. The latter expresses a simple forensic act, in which God, by virtue of the spotless character and mediatorial work of His Son, declares that, in regard to the believing sinner, the demands of His law have been fully. satisfied. He has been graciously pleased to accept the righteousness wrought out, and the penalty suffered, by Christ. The former He imputes to every child of faith who appears before Him, and hence declares at the same time that the law has nothing to lay to their charge. He pronounces the verdict "innocent," and dismisses the criminal from His bar, unaffected in character, for the better or for the worse, by the judicial process. For the proof of these statements it will be sufficient to refer the reader to such passages as Rom. iii. 28, iv. 16, iii. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 2; Rom. iv. 5; John iii. 18; 2 Cor. v. 19. Acceptance with God is thus secured independently of any meritorious act on the part of the sinner. Nay, good works are positively excluded from consideration in the case, alike by the nature of the doctrines just discussed and by the express statements of Scripture, e.g., Rom. iii. 20-28; Gal. ii. 16. There is only one passage which seems to countenance the Romanist view of the efficacy of good works, and to give plausible support, therefore, to their theory of the intermediate state. It is the second chapter of the Epistle of James. In this passage there occur statements which seem to contradict those set forth in other parts of Scripture, more especially in the Epistles of Paul. In the Romans, e.g., prominence is given to the doctrine of justification by faith without works; while James seems to urge the necessity of good works, without which faith is dead. Conceding for a moment that the Romanist interpretation of the latter passage is the right one, we hold them bound to explain, in accordance with it, the other texts in which a directly opposite doctrine appears to be laid down. This, however, they cannot do. The statements in the Pauline epistles are incapable of a different interpretation from that which they obviously bear. If, on the other hand, we look at the passage

in James in the light of this fact, we find it capable of an easy solution, but one which is fatal to the Romish belief. James speaks, indeed, of the necessity of good works, not, however, as a meritorious ground of acceptance, but as an evidence that a man speaks truly when he professes to have faith in Christ: of the genuineness of a man's faith, and the reality of his justification, the Justifier of the ungodly alone certainly knows. But if that man would demonstrate to the world that he has believed, he must show his faith by his works. Genuine faith worketh by love. It necessarily results in good works, and without the latter the most vehement profession is but an utterance of the lips.

The Scripture doctrine of sin furnishes a third argument against the theory we are now combating. In order to give plausibility to their view of the intermediate state, Romanists are compelled to distinguish two kinds of sin-mortal and venial sins. But this distinction receives no countenance from the Word of God, which, on the contrary, declares that he who offends the law in one point is guilty of all (James ii. 10), and pronounces condemnation upon all who continue not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal. iii. 10). In addition to these principles of Revelation which seem distinctly to controvert the Romanist error, there are several passages bearing directly on the state of the soul after death, the full discussion of which we reserve till we come to examine the last of the three theories under review.

The question will now naturally occur to many, as to the ground on which the Church of Rome bases her doctrine of purgatory. Is there nothing in Scripture, it will be asked, which can by any means be construed in favour of her position? Popish controversialists, of course, allege that there is; and in particular, they lay down three principles, founded, as they think, upon the teaching of the Sacred Writings, while they also adduce certain passages which contain, in their opinion, express testimony to the reality of a future state.

The first of the three principles in question is to the effect, that even after sin has been forgiven there remain certain pains due for it, which must be undergone either in the present life or in the future state; and as it cannot but happen that many die before these have all been inflicted, there must necessarily be some intermediate state in which all such unpaid penalties may be cleared off, before the soul is admitted to a participation in the joys of the eternal paradise.

The alleged foundation for this principle is the circumstance that infants die even after baptism, and the recorded instances of temporal punishments being inflicted for sin, e.g., upon the Israelites, when they were denied an entrance into Palestine, on account of their murmuring at the report of the spies.

Now, we humbly think that these instances do not at all support the theory in proof of which they are advanced. If we view them in the light in which the Church of Rome would have us do, we give our sanction to a principle which is in irreconcilable opposition to other doctrines of Scripture, as well as to its positive statements on

the subject of works. In the Protestant view of these passages no such inconsistency is manifest. The act of justification, as we have proved, places the sinner in a new relation both to the law and the lawgiver. The former being no longer the standard by which he ist to be judged, ceases to be an object of terror to him, and he sees the frown of an offended God exchanged for the smile of a reconciled parent. Trials and afflictions may still be his lot in life, and death at length may overtake him; but all such dispensations are no longer the punishments of an angry judge but the chastisements of a loving father. It is, indeed, appointed unto all men once to die, and this as a memorial, while the world lasts, of the exceeding evil of sin, of the holiness of God, and the perfection of His moral government. Punishments to the believer these mysterious visitations certainly are not. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth," is the testimony of Revelation. The vicissitudes of life, moreover, subserve many high ends. They are calculated to humble the pride of the human heart, to lead the soul nearer to God, and to withdraw the affections from things seen and temporal to things unseen and eternal.

The second principle of the Romanists is in regard to the distinction of sins into mortal and venial sins, above discussed. They cite, indeed, one or two instances to establish this distinction, such as the cases of Rahab and of the Hebrew nurses. But all that we know of either of these is, that their conduct was approved of by God; and however mysterious the circumstance, we are bound to admit the conclusion from this latter fact, that in neither case was sin committed. The few and many stripes spoken of in Matt. v. 22 are also adduced; but these refer to degrees, not to kinds of punishment, and therefore indicate only degrees of the same sin.

The third principle which the Bible is construed to teach in favour of purgatory is to the effect, that prayer should be made for the dead. The premises of this conclusion are based on 1 Cor. xv. 29. Whatever the passage may mean, it does not necessarily require the interpretation alluded to. In truth, if this view were adopted, it would render Paul's argument quite inconclusive. It is not the dead to whom attention is chiefly directed, but those who are baptised, and the question is asked as to what these are to do. phrase, "for the dead," is capable of being translated, "over the dead," and may possibly refer to one or other of two practices, that of receiving baptism at funerals, or of delaying this sacrament till the approach of death.

The

The express Scripture testimony which Romanists allege in favour of their doctrine rests chiefly on three passages of the New Testament, Matt. xii. 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii. 13, and 1 Pet. iii. 19. A cursory examination will show the irrelevancy of these texts to the question at issue. We cannot at present state all the arguments that may be advanced against the Romish explanation. In regard to the first, it will be sufficient to remark, that while sins are represented as being punished in purgatory, here it is the forgiveness of sins that is spoken of. The second text-we would ask the Roman

B

ists to note-tells of a trial of works, not a scourging of souls. Every man's work, moreover, is to undergo the ordeal. The passage in Peter is a very obscure one, and therefore quite unfitted to establish any doctrine whatever. The Church of Rome quotes it in proof of the existence of purgatory. With greater plausibility it may be interpreted to mean that the Spirit of Christ in Noah preached to disobedient men whose spirits were not then, but are now, in prison, and that not the prison of purgatory, but that terrible place uniformly indicated in the New Testament by the term, viz., hell itself, the prison out of which no debtor can ever hope to escape until he "hath paid the uttermost farthing."

We turn now to the second, or Materialistic theory, according to which the souls of men, between death and the resurrection, lie in a state of unconsciousness. The arguments adduced in favour of this hypothesis are mainly two in number. The former of these is based on the general consideration that we know nothing of the subject by experience, and hence cannot conceive of the soul existing apart from the body in conscious intelligent activity. This, however, is a mere speculation, and if found to be opposed to the plain teaching of Scripture-which we shall afterwards examine-it falls to the ground. Materialists have, it is true, endeavoured to deduce a second consideration in their favour from Revelation itself, but, as we think, unsuccessfully. They point, e.g., to those passages which represent death as a sleep, and maintain that unconsciousness must be implied in such language. We answer-not necessarily. Unconsciousness is not the only respect in which an analogy subsists between these two states; and in what sense the dead are represented as sleeping, must be determined by the prevailing sentiments of the inspired writers, as these may be learned from the use of synonymous expressions. Accordingly, we find that the prominent idea held in connection with death, more especially among New Testament believers, is that of peaceful and happy repose. Nor is the same sentiment awanting in the Old Testament; and even there, passages which seem to point in the other direction may be quite easily understood, if we limit the reference in them to man's physical life and his relation to the present world. In truth, this latter consideration would be a sufficient reply to the argument we are now combating, even conceding the assumption that sleep always implies a state of unconsciousness.

That perfect oblivion is the state of the dead is an Old Testament doctrine, we cannot admit, since its writings contain clear indication of the opposite view being held by the ancient Israelites. Their inspired lawgiver, in his prophetic song, warned them that the wrath of God was a fire kindled which would burn to the lowest Sheol. The people themselves, moreover, very early manifested a tendency to necromancy, against which Moses was divinely commanded to warn them (Deut. xviii. 11, 12). Further, the account of the raising of Samuel, and the vision of the King of Babylon recorded in Isaiah, would be unintelligible without the admission that the ancient Jews believed in a state of being after death. The

latter passage, indeed, implies even more, for if we were to suppose that death is really a dissolution of our being, and that the notion of a spirit moving in another world apart from its earthly tabernacle is a pure fiction, we should have the gross absurdity of Scripture countenancing what, on the hypothesis, is but a superstitious fable. The description in Isaiah is, we admit, highly figurative, but without doubt also it must have a basis in real fact.

LETTER FROM REV. JOHN INGLIS.

ALL WELL-LOCATION OF REV. MR GORDON AND REV. J. M'NAIR ON

ERROMANGO-TANNA-ENCOURAGING PROSPECTS, ETC.

Rev. JOHN KAY, Sec. Reformed Presbyterian Synod's For. Mission.

ANEITYUM, NEW HEBRIDES, July 30th, 1868. MY DEAR SIR,-I returned home last night, after an absence of more than six weeks in connection with the "Dayspring." During my absence two mails had arrived, bringing us letters and papers for four months, viz., for February, March, April, and May; and among others yours of March 24th and May 14th, and one from our treasurer, Mr Finlay, dated May 20th. This letter of Mr Finlay's was on Aneityum on the 26th inst., two months and six days after it was posted in Glasgow. On its arrival in Sydney it was immediately put on board H.M.S. "Charybdis." Thereafter that noble vessel was at once despatched for the New Hebrides, and, as fast as winds and steam would propel her, she made her way for Aneityum, and our worthy treasurer's letter was safely and promptly delivered. It is generally understood that Captain Lyons brought Government despatches for Commodore Lambert, who is expected daily from Fiji, in H.M.S. "Challenger," on a general cruise among the islands; but of this we are not officially informed. We are certain only about our own letters.

As I have to send off my letters this afternoon, a brief note is all that I shall be able to write you at present. I am happy to say that my wife and I are both well, and that all the other mission families on the group were well also when we left them. As we had no expectation of a man-of-war being here this year, we brought no letters from any of them, except Mr Cosh, to go by this opportunity. We did not proceed to Santo. Before our arrival on Erromango, Mr Gordon had gone round in his boat to Portinia Bay, to ascertain the feelings of the natives in that quarter. He found their feelings towards himself and Christianity so favourable, that he felt it to be his duty, if we should approve of it, to defer the mission to Santo, and settle for the present on Erromango. We accordingly held a meeting, and after hearing a full statement of the matter, we agreed that, in all the circumstances of the case, Mr Gordon should be located at Portinia Bay, and that Mr M'Nair should occupy Dillon's Bay. Portinia Bay is on the eastern part of the island, and Dillon's Bay on the western, perhaps about thirty miles apart.

We next proceeded to Fatè, to land the Coshes and the Neilsons;