Under the heading “Open Letters” the Advance publishes the following kindly criticism of one of its own editorial articles. The point is well taken, and the editor did well in frankly publishing it without comment:— May I venture a kindly criticism on your editorial “The Coming of Christ”? It strikes me as so at variance with the generally excellent character of the articles found in the editorial columns of the Advance, that I can only account for it on the assumption that the writer reached his conclusions, not from an independent study of the word of God, but rather through a theological “system.” What, for example, could bring one to conclude that death,—which is everywhere spoken of in the Scriptures as “the wages of sin,” “the king of terrors,” and “the last enemy,” which Christ came to destroy,—is the coming of the Lord, whose appearing believers are commanded to love? We are nowhere commanded to love death. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14); but Christ is everywhere set forth as the Prince of Life. Surely no two future events could stand out in more striking contrast. This editorial teaches that death is “the coming of Christ.” The Scriptures teach two separate and distinct comings of Christ (Heb. 9:28): First, “to bear the sins of many,” and again a second time unto them that look for him, “without sin [a sin offering] unto salvation.” How unworthy, then, as well as unscriptural and misleading, are these other various alleged “comings” of our Lord! I am fully aware of the general teaching of our Congregational pulpits, as of the religious press, for the most part. My observation is that to hold the ancient hope of the pre-millennial coming of our Lord is vastly more unpopular and unwelcome in most of our churches than any theory of higher criticism, however destructive of faith in the word of God, or even to question the divinity of Jesus Christ, or hold a theory of evolution that denies the Lord that bought us. D. C. S.