taught that all material men go into condemnation, and all spiritual men will be saved, whether they do good or evil; it is only those born in the animal plane who have any control over their destiny, and these share the fate of the material, or are saved, according to their course of life. The condemnation is in this wise, the material and the evil among the animal portion of mankind will be consumed in the great fire that is to signalize the end of the world and of all material existences; the spiritual men shall ascend into the Pleroma and marry the angels who are with the Saviour; and those animal men who have done good in their lives shall dwell for ever with the Demiurgos. Valentinus in general terms regarded Christians as spiritual, Jews as animal, and Heathens as material. He recognised a distinction between the letter and the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ, regarding the letter as given for the merely animal among men, and the spirit (which could only be revealed by the Saviour Himself) as the exclusive right of the spiritual. Bardesanes, the most able of the followers of Valentinus, was an eloquent speaker and writer, who appears to have written very strongly against the heresies of the Marcionites and others. He also wrote in deprecation of the persecution of the Christians then taking place, and composed a large number of elegant hymns in Syriac. Bardesanes endeavoured to improve upon the Valentinian and other Gnostic theories concerning the Origin of Evil, attributing its authorship (in first principles) to Satan, man being subject to evil because a material body has been joined to the pure soul. The peculiar views of Valentinus were described and combated by Irenæus in the first and second books of his "Refutation of Knowledge," taking occasion not only to contrast the teachings of Valentianism with those of Scripture, but also calling attention to the absence of miraculous power on the part of Valentinus and his followers. The very fact that Irenæus should have given prominence to this argument against Valentinus shows one of two things, either that the primitive Church had begun to decay, or that she had only partially grasped the real genius of Christianity. Truth is its own justifier, and needs no miracle to establish its authority; for John did no miracle, yet all things that he spake of the Lord were true. Error carries its condemnation within itself, for though false Christs and false prophets may perform signs and wonders, they are condemned because they deny the Lord and reject His Word. It is interesting to note that the Valentinian theory of the destruction of the wicked is almost identical with the theory propounded by the Christadelphians of our day upon that subject, except that the latter do not anticipate the destruction of the world at the time of the general extinguishment of the wicked dwellers upon earth. The predestination theory of Valentinus was far preferable to that of Calvin, since he did allow a portion of the human race to have some kind of control over their eternal destiny. We may also notice in Valentinianism, as in most other heresies ancient and modern, the determination to throw the responsibility of sin and evil upon anything or anybody except man himself. It is the same old story-an effort to blame either God or Satan for the misdeeds of SELF. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, (Translated from the German.) Or every Christian heaven is the goal; The earliest step is when the Christian sighs— Take from me, Lord, this grievous weight of care! If God so wills, the burden yet to feel: Thus from a grudging faith to joyful will, From clouds to sunshine-pinions 'stead of chains— C. C. Correspondence. (To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.) 97 KING HENRY'S ROAD, LONDON, N. W., 14th May 1879. DEAR SIR,-As an article in the Intellectual Repository for May refers to a supposed admission of mine as to the use of fermented wine by the Saviour, will you permit me to say that I have no recollection of having made such an admission, though I have contended that it might be made without substantially weakening the claims resting on Christians to practise abstinence from intoxicating liquors? I send you by this post a copy of my work entitled "Christendom and the Drink Curse," and in the notes to chapter iii. you will see this question of the example of Christ discussed. More than ten years ago, Dr. Lees and I published the "Temperance Bible Commentary," which has passed through four English editions; and we flatter ourselves that the critical refutation therein given of above six hundred passages of Scripture is sufficient, in the case of unbiassed students of the Bible, to deprive of every vestige of favour the theory which sets up Holy Writ as a defence of intoxicating drink. As to tirosh, a most important term in this discussion, it may be interesting to your readers to know that Professor Douglas has, at the request of the Old Testament Revision Company of Translators, drawn up a paper printed for circulation among the scholars engaged in that work; and that the view he advocates is that which we have derived from a comparison of the original texts, viz. that tirosh does not designate the expressed juice of the grape, but the fruit of the vine in its natural and vintage state. -I am, dear Sir, sincerely yours, DAWSON BURNS. [The passage which we had in view when mentioning what we believed to be admitted by the Rev. Dawson Burns is the following: "That He [Jesus] came eating and drinking is but another form of saying that He was social in His conduct; and if He was called a glutton and a wine-bibber (phagos kai oinopotees, literally an eater and wine-drinker'), the accusation implied excessive use of meat and drink, and not intoxication arising from alcoholic wines. To suppose that the Saviour used any wine because it was alcoholic, and therefore sanctioned its use as such, is an assertion without a vestige of proof, nor does the Gospel history supply a fraction of evidence in support of the theory that He used the wine forbidden to the priests in their temple service the wine forbidden to kings and judges-the wine employed by prophets to symbolize the wrath of the Almighty."-The Basis of Temperance Reform, p. 96, edition 1872. Although we venture to differ from the author as to the accusation implied in the Lord being falsely called a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber; and to think that the only conclusion to be drawn from the Lord's social habits is, that when He was guest, or went in to dine, He, nothing being ever said to the contrary, partook of the wine which the host supplied; there is no room for doubt that the ន statement in our remarks, of which Mr. Burns complains, was entirely incorrect. It is no palliation of our fault to say, as the form of our remarks implied, that we quoted from memory, not having access to the volume at the time, although the impression on our mind was strengthened by the author's remark on the subject, "that the merely external and physical acts of Christ as to eating, drinking, clothing, lodging, and the like, are never proposed as examples to us for literal imitation." The passage we have quoted is sufficiently full and explicit to have prevented any misunderstanding of its meaning; and we express our sincere and unqualified regret that such a statement should have appeared in the Repository.-ED.] TEMPERANCE AND TEETOTALISM. PERMIT me, Sir, to offer one or two explanations in reference to your article on Fermentation in the last number of the Repository. The "teetotal friends" do not "complain" of the recommendation of "pure fermented wine for the Lord's Supper, instead of the artificially alcoholized and doubtful stuff that is generally used." We are thankful for the admission that the "STUFF" generally used is doubtful," and artificially alcoholized; but we demur to the idea that even the most correct views upon the correspondence of wine "ought to establish in the minds of New Churchmen the entire question of alcoholic use and abuse." 66 Teetotallers have no objection to helping the practical efforts to lessen intemperance put forth by non-abstainers. But we think ours the best plan. We know that our plan has been very useful, and that, as you admit, "there can be no doubt that for purposes of reformation total abstinence is the only cure." We also, as you say, "desire prevention as well as cure." Therefore we urge that while other people may try their plans, they ought not to be permitted to attack our system without our being allowed the right of reply. The paragraph in your article on Swedenborg and Temperance is marred by an omission of the little word "not" in the eleventh line of the paragraph, which we presume would, but for a printer's error, read "We do NOT say," etc. I agree with you in thinking that Swedenborg's example does not furnish a ground for New Churchmen insisting on teetotalism as a principle. Neither does it furnish a ground for insisting on the use of alcoholic drinks, unless we are prepared to "go in " for SNUFF as well. "Would he have gone in for teetotalism?" I am very much inclined to think that if the temperance movement had been begun in his time, whatever his theoretical principles might have been, he would have surrendered his "sparing use when in company" for the sake of a good practical example. The teetotallers can have no better motto than that golden sentence, "The life of religion is to do good." I think you are in error as to the alleged admission of the Rev. Dawson Burns. He says (The Temperance Bible Commentary, fourth edition, p. 268): "Men who drink strong drink because they like it”— from the animal excitement or "comfort" it occasions-"and who refuse to deny themselves its use, in spite of all the good they might thereby effect, cannot be permitted to shield themselves by their appeal to the spotless Saviour. Whatever food or drink the Lord may have partaken of was not for the mere purpose of gratifying any mere fleshly desire, nor is any one warranted in affirming that the kind of food or drink He consumed was calculated, like the alcoholic liquors now in use, to engender an intemperate appetite, and rob man of his priceless dower of reason and spiritual affection." The remarks made in the Intellectual Repository on the correspondence of fermentation are, in my opinion, outside the real question. "So gigantic and brutalizing an evil as our national drunkenness" cries for a remedy. Teetotalism CAN cure drunkenness, and prevent it. It is therefore a remedy. The question is, IS IT THE BEST REMEDY? The ventilation of such a subject in the Conference Magazine cannot fail to be of use. In the interest of the Church and the nation we raise the banner of Total Abstinence and ask, Who will come to the help of the Lord against the Mighty? JOSEPH DEANS. [We had intended our remarks to close the discussion on the subject of total abstinence, but have admitted Mr. Deans' letter in order to let him have a last word. Besides his communication we have received two on the other side, from friends who have not previously spoken on the subject, one of them, like Mr. Deans, a minister of the Church. These writers might be equally entitled to be heard; but we have thought it desirable not to insert contributions which might reopen a discussion which has gone far enough, at least for the present. With a few remarks on Mr. Deans' letter we intend to close the matter. Our friend says, 66 We urge that while other people try their plans, they ought not to be permitted to attack our system without our being allowed the right of reply." Any reader unacquainted with the facts would conclude that while the system our friend advocates had been attacked, the right of reply had been denied. The attack, so far as we know, consisted in the following, in an article by "R. R. R.:" "When we are truly wise, the dangers associated with these subjects [matters scientific, social, and religious] will not make us Puritans, anti-ritualists, teetotallers, anti-travellers, anti-socialists, or anti-anything else, they will only make us prudent and careful." This appeared in the September number of last year. No remarks on it were offered, and consequently none refused. In thẻ January number a brief article appeared urging that pure fermented natural wine ought alone to be used in the Holy Supper. This suggestion was indeed accompanied with the remark that "the whole correspondence of the process of fermentation ought not only to establish the propriety of using fermented wine in the Lord's Supper, but to establish in the minds of New Churchmen the entire question of alcoholic use and abuse." The writer concluded by saying, "We |