1;

subjecting one portion to infinite suffering for the greater enjoyment of the other portion, he claims as the Orthodox God; and we concede him to them; though it is with sorrow we do it. We know it does not conduce to their happiness to worship such an ideal in their God. We know that a great many of them are benevolent people, and that they would cheerfully agree to forego all the additional enjoy. ment which they might derive from the infinite protraction of the misery of their neighbor, for the sake of having him come in too, and love and enjoy their Father and his Father, and their God and his God. But leaving that part of the argument which relates to those beings of fable, whom our friend classifies under the head of fallen angels, we will close this chapter with a remark on fallen men. That men have fallen into error and sin, is a fact of universal observation and experience, and of course, of Scripture recognition. But to argue hence the eternity of evil, is to sweep away every vestige of hope and confidence in God. To say that, if a present evil is consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God, an eternity of evil must be alike consistent with his infinite wisdom and goodness, is to ignore every principle of argument by which to "vindicate the ways of God to men." It annihilates all ground of consolation in trouble, and of Christian trust in the government of the Infinite. And while it puts an end to reasoning by confounding reason, it ignores the whole Christian scheme of revelation. St. Paul says, (Rom. viii. 20, 21,) "For the creature (creation) was made subject

to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; because the creature (creation) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God." And now we put the question, and we would sound it, if we could, to the uttermost borders of Christendom, IS the fact, that the creation was made subject to vanity by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, an argument that the same creation shall NOT be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God?"

We leave this significant question to our learned friend, and to all our readers, while we pass on to his next proposition.

CHAPTER III.

Argument from the Resurrection.

We have passed over a few rather noteworthy expressions of Dr. A., thrown into the preceding division of his Argument, but not particularly related to his main subject, which we shall recur to for remark when we take up other points of his Argument which shall call them in. In this chapter we shall give due attention to his fourth Proposition, as fol lows:

IV. THE TERMS USED WITH REGARD TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, ARE PROOFS OF ENDLESS RETRİBUTION.

The argument under this head is opened by quotations from the Child's Catechism," by Rev. O. A. Skinner. Mr. Skinner explains to the inquiring child the condition of the future or resurrection state of man kind, by the quotation of Luke xx. 36. "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

On this Dr. A. remarks as follows :—

Here, it will be seen, it is assumed that Christ refers to all the dead, and that all when they are raised will be the Children of

God. This, it is understood, is the prevailing belief of Universalists. We read that "no Scripture is of any private interpretation;" in other words, that the meaning must be ascertained by comparing the Scriptures one with another. The whole passage

in Luke (xx. 35, 36) reads, "But they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God being the children of the resurrection." Our esteemed friend, Mr. Skinner, it seems to me, is led into a mistake by regarding the expression, "Children of the resurrection," as meaning all who have part in the resurrection; and since Jesus declares “the children of the resurrection" to be synonymous with "children of God," Mr. S. naturally concludes that all who rise from the dead will be the children of God.

The Doctor proceeds to say,

Now, allowing me, for the sake of the argument, that the wicked are raised from the dead in their sins, they are not, in the Scripural sense, "the children of the resurrection."

Ah, but we don't allow you any such thing. That those who were accounted the wicked on earth, will be raised from the dead in their sins, our friend has not shown, nor can it be shown by any argument, Scriptural or philosophical. The contrary will appear before we close this chapter. But what is the argument? It is this;- that "rising from the dead does not make us children of the resurrection." The phrase, children of the resurrection, he assumes, denotes those who died righteous, and not all who shall have part in the resurrection. And further down he argues,

This meaning of the phrase is also illustrated by the expression, "children of this world." Good people are, in one sense, “chil

dren of this world," equally with the bad; that is, they are natives of this world; and yet we read,-"the_children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light." Thus, the good only are "children of the resurrection," though all are raised, as the wicked only are "children of this world," though bad and good live here together.

In this argument we think the Doctor misapprehends the meaning of the phrase "children of this world; and the restriction he places on the application of the phrase, "children of the resurrection," is singularly arbitrary, and compels him to a vacillating course, while it forces harmonious passages of Scripture into jarring discord.

With regard to the phrase, "children of this world," it does not imply viciousness or criminality in the persons it describes. It does not describe moral character at all. We have before had occasion to recognize the fact, that those who are noted for any quality or trait, are called the children of that quality or trait. The occasion on which Jesus introduced the comparison between the children of this world and the children of light, was not a discoursé on the wickedness of the former, but on their vigilance and forecast in their business. The saying, "The children of this world are wiser in their generetion than the children of light," obviously means that men devoted to worldly or secular business, are usually more attentive and earnest in their pursuit of those interests, than his disciples were in regard to the interests of religion. And if men in that regard in which they are involved in worldly