Ποιήσουσιν. Ποιέν is not to be understood here in its primary sense, but in its secondary meaning of " To do, rather with the notion of a continued than of a completed action, and so. like прáσσε.”—Liddell and Scott. The intransitive signification of "ρáσσɛ is, "To be in a certain state or condition, to face so and so." Eph. vi, 21. The idea of the apostle is not what those being baptized shall do (make, accomplish, produce, or act), but what mental or spiritual condition will they find themselves in in relation to Christian baptism, and as involved therein, to Christian truth, if there is no resurrection of the dead. If the dead rise not, baptism has no significance; faith in Christ is worthless. How can you extricate yourselves from the terrible dilemma which inevitably results from a denial of the resurrection?

Ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν. The force of the preposition here is one of the disputed points, since upon its signification the whole question may be said to turn. We have shown that it does not have the sense of over, and also that it cannot be taken for dvrí. The usual signification of vnèp with the genitive is, "In behalf of, with reference to, for the sake of," Rom. xv, 8; 2 Cor. xii, 19; Acts v, 41; 1 Cor. xv, 3; 2 Cor. viii, 23; 2 Thess. ii, 1; vπÈρ τñç пaрovσías Tov Kvpiov, with respect to the coming of the Lord. And the meaning of vrèp here is, we think, " concerning," "with reference to," "with respect to." who are being baptized with reference to, or respect to, the dead? that is, to the hope or the fact of their resurrection, as in nearly all the above references. For instance, Rom. xv, 8, νпèр ảλη¤εíαç Оεоv, in behalf of, or for the sake of, the truth of God, that is, to confirm his promises; Acts v, 41, vпÈρ тоν ¿vóμatos, on account of the Name, or in behalf of the Name, that is, "to glorify it;" and so of the rest of the passages.

What shall they do

Tāv vεkpv. There is no reason why this should be taken in a figurative sense. It is used literally throughout the chapter, and should be so understood here. In this Greek plural with the article we have strong proof of the correctness of our view. The article is generic, so that veкpov is not of particular individuals, but of all the dead, and that includes the Lord Jesus, since if the dead rise not, and that is assumed, he is not risen. Paul will not admit an exception in the case of Jesus, whether his opposers have been willing to do so or not.

They have affirmed that the dead rise not, and to that postulate with inexorable rigor the keen logician holds them; nor will he by any concession make a way for them to escape from its consequences. Meyer says: "Christ cannot be designated as VEKρÓC. But the fact that he is a dead Christ if the dead rise not is the very core of the apostle's argument, and it is to that crushing conclusion that he unrelentingly holds his opponents.

El öλws, K.T.λ. "If in one word," "if, to sum up ;" Meyer renders, "if universally." The Vulgate reads "si omnino," etc., which is much better than either of our versions, the Authorized or the Revised. The adverb öλws is not displaced, and it has an exact equivalent in omnino. The sense of the passage is, "If, in a word," or, "If, to sum up all that has been said, the dead rise not, then," etc.

In our examination of this difficult passage of Holy Scripture we have shown: 1. That ẞarтiouevo is to be taken in a literal and not in a metaphorical sense. 2. That rèp is not to be taken for árrí, but in its usual signification, with the genitive of "in behalf of," "with reference or respect to." 3. That Twv Vεkpwv is to be understood literally and not figuratively, and that it includes the Lord Jesus according to the logical deductions of the apostle from the major premise of his opponents. Our understanding, then, of the whole matter is this: The converts of the apostles were baptized into the belief in Christ Jesus and the resurrection. For them afterward to deny the fundamental fact of the resurrection was to deny all that they had professed in baptism, and to destroy all hopes of redemption in Christ Jesus. Hence the apostle appeals to the meaning of Christian baptism, which is being administered, and closes the controversy by showing that the baptism which they received and which others were receiving is in no sense a baptism for the dead, but a baptism for the LIVING, since Christ is not dead but is risen, and hath sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high: "and as by Adam all die, so by Christ will all be restored to life, each one in his own rank, Christ a first-fruit, afterward those who are Christ's at his APPEARING."

EDITORIAL NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

OPINION.

WHILE the Old Testament is plethoric in Messianic hints, which Rabbi Hillel declared to be fulfilled in Hezekiah, but whom Rav Joseph contradicted by a quotation from Zechariah, it is unwise to claim that every historical event recorded in its pages is of typical significance, and that every statement or truth that can be interpreted in favor of the Christian view should be so construed, though it may be evident that such use of it was not in the mind of the author, and not even remotely in the mind of God. In their eagerness to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah by establishing his Davidic lineage, commentators have urged an exegetical construction of many passages and chapters that is contrary to the historical spirit, the geographical setting, the inductive meaning, and the prophetical sense of the same. As the transparent references to the divine Comer are numerous enough for the purpose, the resort to forced interpretations and many-sided inferences excite a suspicion of the direct evidences offered, and alienate those whom it is proposed to reclaim to the truth. The Levitical system of sacrifices, the Christological elements in the Psalms, the pure Messiahism in Isaiah, Daniel, Haggai, Joel, Micah, and Malachi, and the whole outlook of the Old Testament period, unite in affirming an unanswerable fulfillment in the Son of Mary. To go outside of these in search of absolute foreshadowings is to travel into uncertainty, and to assert that other writers are equally Messianic is to mislead the inquirer after truth and jeopardize the faith already secured. Neither Zephaniah, Nahum, Amos, Hosea, Esther, nor Ezra should be tortured into teachers of New Testament Messiahism, tracings of which in their writings are exceedingly obscure, if they are to be found at all; and to base the Christian doctrine upon them is to invite attack, if not defeat. The inferences that the shrewd exegete draws from the dark sayings and obscure teachings in behalf of the doctrine can only be conjectural, which in a matter of such transcendent import is more of a mockery than an assurance. Confine the Messianic prophecies to those that are clearly outspoken, that chagrined the Talmudists and startle the Jews of to-day when they study them, that Christ and the apostles quoted as bearing upon the subject, and that the average mind will detect equally with the scholar, and faith in them will be established, and Israel will be won to the worship of Him whom, unknown as the Prince of Glory, they with ruthless hands destroyed.

Exegesis: Hebrews xii, 16, 17: "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing

[from Isaac], he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance [not in himself, for Esau did repent, but in Isaac], though he sought it carefully with tears." Esau's tearful repentance did not change the decree of rejection of the unchangeable Isaac, and he therefore lost both birthright and primal blessing. So in the great day to come the sinner's plea for a reversal of divine judgment will not avail, the woe of eternal perdition abiding with him forever. This is the death-stroke of the doctrine of postmortem probation. Bishop J. N. FitzGerald has discovered in this vein the argument that silences the Andover speculatists.

The amenability of heathen converts to the rules and refinements of Christian civilization cannot be strongly urged in communities where such civilization does not exist. Time must be allowed for the cultivation and observance of the minor morals; and then we must subtract from our demand of conformity to our standards all social habits and customs that, harmless in themselves and different from ours, are the outgrowth of climate, religion, family laws, and that native spirit which is ineradicable. When, however, a distinctive ethical habit or condition, or a religious belief or truth, is in the scale, the balance of weight must be given in favor of a true ethics and of the true religion. Hence a polygamist in pagan lands should be required to forsake his polygamous relations before he should enter into full fellowship with the Church. If the heathen is a criminal, or a violator of divine law in any form, or to any degree, though upheld in such violation by native feeling or legislation, the prerequisite to honorable standing in the Church should be a removal of the impediment and a disavowal of all sin. This is necessary to the moral discipline of the people, and to an exhibition of what the Gospel teaches, and what it can do in hearts defiled by sin. The conditions of salvation are the same every-where, and while it may be difficult to enforce them in some pagan countries it should be done, or the Gospel will be of none effect. The recommendation of the Lambeth encyclical letter, that heathen polygamists espousing the religion of Christ should not be admitted to baptism until they will accept the law of Christ, is timely and wise. The enforcement of it means a strike at the foundations of polygamous heathendom; and if the Gospel is to have free course throughout the world it must strike down all abominations and lift up the ensign of purity before the nations.

That the theater flourishes in America is no proof that the dramatic art is improving, or that there is any demand for its purification. The claim that the modern actor is above impeachment, and that the moral tone of the stage is superior to what it was one hundred years ago, is not sustained by the testimony of theatrical critics or observers of the influence of the drama. Mr. Clement Scott, for twenty-five years a London dramatic editor, pronounces the stage as unsafe for pure women and as the source of ruinous temptations to actors, managers, and people, as much now as ever. On the other hand, Mr. Irving, too enthusiastic to be reliable, exonerates

the stage from corruption and pronounces the drama the greatest moral reformer of the age. The combined influence of poetry, music, and painting does not, in his biased judgment, equal the educational and reformatory work of the theater; but to such a wide-sweeping statement even the conservative English press dissents. That the age needs a vitalizer goes without sending; but that the drama is the remedy for its barbarism is an item of news. It may be that the school and the Church are not as aggressive against the immoralities as their commission requires; but we are not ready to believe that Edwin Booth, E. H. Sothern, Lawrence Barrett, Miss Fanny Davenport, Miss Rose Coghlan, and Mme. Modjeska, or Mr. Irving, with all his better adjuncts, can refine society and eliminate its evil tendency. It is not by comedy or tragedy, by such plays as “Fritz in a Mad-House," "A Brass Monkey," "A Sad Coquette," "Under the Gaslight," "A Legal Wreck," or "La Dame aux Camellias," that either players or audience will be advanced in self-respect or be nourished with an aspiration for the good and the true. The sensuous and sensual are in combination in nearly every play, and but deepen the intensity of the physical life, the intellectual and the moral being unaffected except as they are silenced into insensibility of noble passion and high achieve. ment. Mr. Irving is an idealist, and the drama is a phantom of idealism.

In suggesting a new, or revised, Methodist Catechism, we echo the sentiment of many who are familiar with the defects and the working value of the old and unused book of questions and answers relating to the his tory, doctrines, and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is not enough to say that, like the Westminster Catechism, ours should stand as a monument of unchangeable Wesleyan theology, to be handed down to the generations; for whatever excellence or demerit the Calvinistic book may have, we cannot claim an approach to perfection for ours, either in the questions or answers; and a revision is imperative if it shall exert any well-defined educational influence on the youthful mind of the Church. Such questions as "Who made you?" "Was the body of man created mortal?" "Was 'man created good?" and such statements as the Holy Ghost "framed the human nature of Christ," and "All mankind being born in sin are by nature under the wrath of God," are misleading in meaning, or too metaphysical in form, or too inelegantly couched, or too theologically inaccurate and harmful. No revision has occurred since 1852. Practically, the Catechism has fallen into "innocuous desuetude," a state somewhat alarming if catechetical instruction be considered a desideratum. In some churches and schools the Light to the Path, by Dr. Joseph Longking, a compend of Bible teaching concerning God and the creation, fall, and restoration, and in others, Studies in Christian Doctrine, by the Rev. George A. Hubbell, have superseded the almost functionless Catechism. A few extracts from it in the Sunday-School Journal will not save it from final oblivion. It is true that only by an act of the General Conference can a revision be authorized; but in the meantime certain