springing from the nature and disposition of the molecules, which power we cannot see, the nature of which we know nothing of, and the mode of whose operation we cannot explain? The electric spark, which performs so important a part in the formation of water from the elements oxygen and hydrogen, leaves its results behind it and is not discovered by the most accurate tests or the strongest lens. The argument against the vital power is as valid against the material power or against electrical power or against the power of the breeze on the corn-field. We have said that one fallacy of this argument, we may now say this guessing, is in the use of the word "properties." This word, in its proper sense, signifies that which is peculiar to some power or object. It tells nothing of the essential nature of that to which it is applied. In this sense it is right to use it with reference to any thing which is the subject of remark, but when we go beyond this simple, natural meaning, and assign to this word a meaning which professes to interpret the nature of the object to which it is applied, we are liable to fall into error. But Professor Huxley, in many instances, perhaps always, uses this word "property" to signify the power which inheres in the nature, the material composition of the object, and on this use of the word he bases his argument. Throughout his essay he makes no difference between the living and the lifeless, using the spiritual terminology on material subjects. Thus, he says, the elements of water have power to become water; the water has power to change its character; cooked mutton has power to resume its old functions. He speaks of water as having both active and passive powers, and the same can with the same propriety be predicted of all matter. But what is a passive power? There can be no such thing. It is a contradiction in terms. Power is in its essence active, efficient, not passive or inert. If his meaning is simply that a substance may be acted on, the only result obtained by using the word "power," to express that idea is to mislead and confuse. We have however perhaps said enough to show that the main propositions of this noted essay are not established, that the theory which underlies it is not supported by the facts in the case, but is a sheer assumption.

A little more than two hundred years ago Harvey demonstrated the circulation of the blood, and since that time many

new facts concerning this circulation have been discovered. Professor Huxley is the latest laborer in this field, and has carried his investigations further than any who have preceded him, even so far as to ascertain the movements of the infinitesimal portions of the blood to the twenty thousandth part of an inch; but he is as far as Harvey was from understanding the secret spring of these movements. Harvey could demonstrate that the blood was driven by the heart through the arteries and returned through the veins, but he could not tell what causes the heart to pulsate or by what means its activity is continued. Huxley demonstrates that the blood contains corpuscles of extreme minuteness which are in ceaseless motion, but he cannot explain to us what hidden power gives to these corpuscles their original movement or why the movement, when once begun, continues. All that Huxley knows, all that can be known by observation is, that when life is present, activity in the corpuscles is present; when life ceases, the activity also ceases. Physical science is not competent to explain whether the life is the cause of the activity, or the activity is the cause of the life. The ultimate fact, and one that must always remain such to the observer is, that they exist together. Although Professor Huxley should increase the magnifying power of his lenses a hundred fold, he could not throw a ray of light on the origin of life. We gladly accept him as our teacher in respect to all the facts pertaining to the living organism, which he has observed or may observe, but when he forms a "conception " or expresses a "belief," he steps outside of what he calls "the limits of philosophical inquiry," and we decline to follow him. Unless his conceptions and beliefs are deducible from his facts, they are no better than the vagaries of a dream.

We cannot but think that the world would have been the gainer if Professor Huxley had devoted less time to the microscope and more to the study of logic. We are surprised that so many physicists should have received the arguments and conclusions of this essay without objection. One desirous of depreciating the study of physical science, would want no better argument than is afforded by the assumptions and fallacies of one of its most eminent professors, and the readiness with which these are accepted by others.

ARTICLE III-IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE FINAL RESTORATION OF ALL MEN SCRIPTURAL?

DOES the Bible furnish ground for the belief that all men will finally be restored to holiness and happiness? There need be no apology for discussing a subject so close to human feeling, and which attracts increased attention daily, in the theological world. As we naturally desire salvation for ourselves and for others, so we sensitively shrink from the idea that any should be eternally lost. The thought is also attrac tive to our reason, that the universe will finally be in complete harmony with itself; that God will use methods, in the lapse of ages, by which sin and misery shall be terminated, and holiness and happiness characterize all his rational creatures. We can hardly conceive that a good man should be without sympathy with such longings and hopes. They are the views of those called "Liberal Christians." They were entertained by John Frederick Oberlin and John Foster, after an examination of the subject in the light of reason and of the Word of God. Not a few Christians decidedly lean towards this belief, while the contrary view is accepted by yet others only with painful doubt, and a sense of conflict. Learned and orthodox German commentators, such as Tholuck, Neander, Olshausen, and Lange, also intimate that the Bible gives an occasional hint, in some large-hearted and far-reaching Pauline expression, of such a restoration. Let us approach the subject, then, in a spirit of candor and charity, endeavoring to gather up all the facts which can shed light upon it; let us come to it gradually, patiently, thoughtfully, asking divine guidance in exploring the divine counsels.

First of all, then, we confess that the doctrine of the final restoration of all fallen souls comes to us with this suspicious mark upon its front, that it has never been the faith of the church of Christ. Doubtless individuals, like Clemens, Alexandrinus, and Origen, were found in the early church (and, at

a later period, now and then, a heretical or mystical sect or school) who favored this doctrine. But nothing is more clear than that the church, as a body, has ever maintained the opposite view, and made it a prominent part of the Christian faith. Now it is to be conceded, that no opinion can be settled in any age merely by being put to vote. The majority on a given point has often been wrong; the minority may be the wiser and better party. But the fact before us has to do with something beside mere numbers. It can support the verdict of the church by a threefold consideration of great power.

(1). The majority in this case can abide any comparative test of learning or piety which may be applied to ascertain quality as well as numbers. It is not an ignorant, superstitious, and morally debased majority against a learned, liberal, and pure minority. Certainly the current doctrine of the Christian church on this subject has been supported by the overwhelming weight of scholarship and piety among those who accept the teachings of Scripture as inspired. From age to age, in the light as well as in the darkness, before, during, and since the prevalence of Romish usurpation and corruption, by bodies of Christians who differ widely in other respects, and who embrace the Oriental churches, the Latin church, and all but one or two small sects of Protestantism, has the doctrine of restoration been rejected, as utterly inconsistent with Scripture.

(2). The value of this rejection is increased by the fact that it is contrary to the natural tendency. Here the very claim which, in one aspect. favors the doctrine, is seen to operate against it. The question must be answered, How comes it, that the church has been thus agreed in interpreting the Bible contrary to man's natural desire, and to plausible demands of the reason? Every man, thinking of his personal danger as a sinner, would incline to the less terrible view of the penalty of sin, and to the larger view of the results of redemption. The same inclination would arise in the minds of parents, children, and friends, as they contemplated the final destiny of those they loved. The longing for universal happiness and holiness must always have been strong in pious souls, and must have predisposed them to regard with favor an interpretation

of Scripture which would warrant the addition of faith to such a hope. Yet the doctrine of restoration, although supported by natural feeling, and by many desires and sympathies in regenerate souls, has utterly failed to command the faith of the Christian church.

(3). But more significant still is the relation of such a unity and permanence of church belief to the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. We may properly reject the idea of Papal Infallibility: we may doubt such a quality even in an Ecumenical Council that should be truly representative of the universal Christian church; but we cannot explain away the promised illumination of the abiding Comforter, so that it shall mean nothing practical or valuable. Rejecting any enthu siastic and mystical appropriations of it by individuals, in a sense that would render them inspired authorities, and avoiding the other extreme of applying it to an outward organism or corporation, we are warranted in understanding it to mean, at least, that the body of true believers, the succession of those regenerated by the Holy Spirit, shall be taught the truth as revealed in Scripture concerning the grand facts which constitute the working power of the gospel on earth. And this would seem necessarily to include the truth respecting the final destiny of men, which stands so closely related to the whole doctrine of sin and redemption. Can it then be, that the Holy Ghost has allowed almost the entire church to abide in serious error on this solemn subject? But while deeply impressed with this opening suspicion, this ear-mark of error, we will not regard it as conclusive against all argument. Perhaps too much light could not be allowed to flood the church at first; perhaps the lapse of eighteen centuries has so elevated its character and increased its intelligence, that now it is prepared to be taught by the Holy Spirit, that its past anxiety for the fate of the wicked has been unwarranted and excessive, and its confident interpretation of Scripture quite mistaken! This does not seem very probable; let us admit it to be possible. We observe, then,

Secondly, That we regard it as another unfavorable circumstance, that the argument for a final restoration is so largely based on mere sentiment, or else on abstract, philosophical