So I am not really much the wiser, except that the reply tends to
confirm my opinion as to the ambiguous way in which the phrase is
often used.

In my view, such ambiguity is unfortunate in any case, but more
especially so when it is used with regard to our eternal future; and
even more so when it is used in an article, as in this case, avowedly
for children. Does it not lead directly to scepticism? And even if it
did not, is it not rather a cruel thing to put upon children the onus of
deciding a question of such tremendous importance? Would it not be
better to say candidly that we do not know?

To be sure, it may be said that the church is in a state of transition
on this question, and that it is better to wait for the church's final
decision. But in the meantime, and we do not know for how long, we are
sowing the seeds of scepticism. Besides; this avowed waiting for the
church's final decision may be only a pious pretense, because of want of
courage to declare honest conviction. I say so because I have spoken
with many ministers whose convictions are most decidedly contrary to the
orthodox doctrines; but there is a marked hesitation in publicly avowing
them. Is this expediency or cowardice? What we want is more charity to
treat this as an open question, so that men might explore the whole
realm of truth, and express their honest convictions without fear.

I see that the Chairman of the London Congregational Union deplores this
general lack of warning. He quotes the late Dr. Dale as saying, "No one
fears God now."

I have just heard an impassioned address, pleading for men and money to