But why confine this argument to mankind? Man, notwithstanding the superiority of his powers, is no more truly a creature of God than is the meanest reptile that crawls on the ground; so that, were the argument sound, it stands as much against the final extinction of the life of any member of the animal tribes, as it does against the final destruction of wicked men.

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle,

And herb for the service of man.

The eyes of all wait upon Him,

And He gives them their meat in due season.
He giveth them-they gather:

He openeth His hand-they are filled with good:
He hideth His face-they are troubled:

He taketh away their breath-they die,

And return to their dust (Ps. civ., cxlv.).

Is God, therefore, cruel to the creatures of His care? If not, then how can it be cruel or unjust in God to withdraw from man the life imparted to him, should He see fit to do so; more especially if man by his conduct has forfeited all claim on the Divine favour?

But, confining the application of the argument to mankind, what becomes of its assumption in the light of facts and events constantly transpiring? What has it to say regarding those famines periodically occurring in the East, by which millions of men die of starvation? What man that is a father would allow his children to perish for want of food if he had it to give them? Yet the Almighty allows those famines and their consequences. What has the argument to say to the fact of those terrible earthquakes and volcanic eruptions by which thousands of the human race are sometimes destroyed in a few hours? The same question may be put regarding storms on land and sea, which annually bring death to thousands.

Then, think of those legalised murders, called wars, continually transpiring, where men butcher each other in open day, and answer the question-If the Creator sustains the same relation to mankind at large as we do to our children, why does He allow them thus, in His presence, to slaughter each other? What man among you that is a father would permit his children to kill each other, if he could prevent them? God does allow those things. Is He, therefore, cruel? None will shrink from the conclusion with greater horror than the Universalist. But what, then, becomes of his argument? It falls to the ground, and is utterly worthless.

The terrible and appalling facts referred to manifestly show that the relation which the Creator sustains to mankind at large is more that of a Ruler than of a Father. He has made man, and endowed him with extraordinary capabilities, and surrounded him with a world fitted to sustain him in happy existence; but himself, and the world around him are subject to law-inexorable law. Conformity with that law, in its physical and moral relations, brings life and happiness, but its violation insures misery and death.

Leaving what we term the world of nature, let us pass on to revelation, and try the argument in question by what we find there. What has this argument to say to the fact of our primogenitor, in the very

dawn of his existence, being placed under law, and threatened with DEATH should he violate it? What has it to say to the destruction of almost the entire population of the world by the flood; the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea? What has it to say to the fact of the entire destruction in the wilderness of all the grown-up persons that left Egypt under Moses, except two? Will it charge God with cruelty in these cases? If not, where is its force against the idea that "ALL THE WICKED WILL HE DESTROY?"

We will now appeal to the direct teaching of the Christ and His apostles. The beloved Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father -to whom the Father had shown all things that He will do-came forth from the Father to make known His will and purposes toward man, and, in the most emphatic language, He gave the strongest denial to the idea that God, the Creator of all, sustains toward all men the relation of a Father; and that He will not destroy any of them because they are His children. Here is His language regarding certain men who claimed God for their Father-"If God were your Father ye would love Me. Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." What did he say was the ultimate doom of the children of the devil? These are His words "The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one; as, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world (or age). The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. xiii. 38-42).

"Children

To the same effect is the doctrine of the holy apostles. of God," "sons of God," are terms occurring frequently in their epistles, yet never applied to mankind at large, but contrariwise to those who have been separated from the mass to be unto God a holy and peculiar people. Thus, Paul reminds the Christians in the churches of Galatia that "they are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). Previous to their having that faith they, like their brethren at Ephesus, were "the children of wrath even as others; "-yea, "by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. ii. 3). "Behold," says the apostle John, "what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not." "In this are the children of God made manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God" (verse 10), "The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil" (verse 8). The devil himself, and those of the human race who die in unbelief and impenitence, shall share his doom.

The same apostle describing his Master's mission and its result says— "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, but to as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sous of God, even to them that believe in His name; who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

These testimonies plainly contradict the idea that to be a man is to be a child of God. As the work of His hands, men are the "offspring" of

God; but, as formerly remarked, that is true of "all in whose nostrils is the breath of life" (Gen. vii. 22). God, speaking by His Son, and the apostles and prophets, calls only those His children who are His by adoption-who have been born again by faith in His incorruptible word. Not every man, but "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God" (1 John v. 1).

Here is the grand secret of the Divine sonship: a being born againborn from above. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John iii. 5). Such is the Divine fiat. All born of woman, in order to becoming sons of God, must be born again-born from above.

Am I addressing one who has never reflected on the truth, that unless we are born twice we must die twice-that unless we are born of God we must die the second death?

These are serious words. Some may think them hard sayings, yet they are the true sayings of God, who loves you more than tongue can tell. He delights in mercy, waits to be gracious, entreats you to be His child; yet, as sure as He has spoken, "the day of salvation" shall have an end; and "there remaineth a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversaries." But why will you die, since God has sent His only begotten Son into into the world that you might live through Him?

W. LAING.

CORRESPONDENCE.

RESURRECTION.

DEAR SIR,-My friend "G. J. S.," whom I much respect and esteem, thinks I have fallen into an error in "overlooking the different periods of the first resurrection." He says also that the first resurrection is manifestly "not a single event, carried out in one moment, but a continuous one, terminating at a set time." I confess all this appears to me very extraordinary and very confusing. It may be my stupidity, but it seems to me that the expression, "First Resurrection" (Rev. xx. 5, 6), and "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection," conveys the notion that the resurrection spoken of was the first. Whereas it appears (upon what authority I

know not, unless it be the dogmatic assertion of my worthy friend), that the resurrection of the Church of the present dispensation takes place some time before; and consequently, the resurrection of the Apocalypse is not the first, but the second, or probably the third of a series. Would "G. J. v S." kindly oblige me with some scriptural authority for the following assumptions, or as he confesses dogmatic assertions ?

1. That the second advent of our Lord "is not a single event, but includes several distinct manifestations." That is to say, that there are two or three advents?

2. That the martyrs who rise from the dead as described by John (Rev. xx.), "are slain after the

229

LITERATURE.

St. Paul's Man of Sin and Mystery

of Lawlessness. A New Exposition of 2 Thess. ii. 1-12. By DIONYSIUS. London: A. Southey, Fenchurch Street.

THE writer of this pamphlet has keen insight into the workings and tendencies of that very unsteady thing called "public opinion." He thinks the rule of the lawless one will establish itself upon the democracy of the nations. Very likely; we have long thought so. Universal suffrage bearing the last

of the world's Cæsars to his fatal throne, is no doubt part of the drama. But surely "Dionysius " cannot mean to teach-although his words suggest it-that nations should always recognise the principle of Divine authority in their kings, though those kings may be bloodthirsty tyrants and, morally, the vilest of mankind. Why, where I would this lead us? What would be the position of England to-day if our ancestors had acted thus? A land of wretched slaves, instead of an imperial race!

NOTICES.

"A. B."-Yes, the "RAINBOW Tracts,"-a series of seven, by the Editor-may all be had now. We have gone to considerable expense in printing large editions, in the belief that they teach TRUTH, and in the hope that our friends will circulate them largely. The following are the titles and prices :

1. The Ministry of Evil.

2. The Life the Light.

8. Life Everlasting.

4. Responsibility of Christian Teachers.

5. The Rich Man and Lazarus.

6. Scripture Doctrine of a Future Life.
7. The Dispensation of the Mystery.

Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7, post free, at 1s. per dozen.

2 and 3

Friends wishing any of these tracts-they are, in fact, little booksfor circulation, will please order them either of F. Southwell, 19, Paternoster Row, London; or Cyrus E. Brooks, The Link, Malvern.

"S." We clip the following from the "Christian World":"The sixteenth anniversary of Dr. Leask's pastorate in Maberly Chapel, Islington, was celebrated last Thursday. The reports of the various institutions connected with the church were all excellent. The only drawback was the want of room for the greatly-increased Sunday-school. The first report of the building fund was highly encouraging. The people are deeply in earnest in their desire to have a place of worship