this, or attribute a wider or a more exalted blessednesss to any agency, our critic himself may be challenged to show. In view of this language we must maintain that Wesley extended the blessed results of the fall not only to this lower sphere, but to the highest sphere of which we have any knowledge or any imagination. The highest joy of Heaven were impossible without the previous sin of the fall; the wickedness of the apostasy is fundamental to all that is noblest in the celestial glory. Heaven would be forever comparatively poor and barren, even to angel and archangel, without those manifestations of God, of which sin is the indispensable antecedent and occasion. Had Adam obeyed his Maker's law, the chief attraction of the Divine character would have been forever unknown: and the universe is under essential obligation for its noblest theme to the tempter, and to the transgression, of Eden.

Now, we beg our readers to mark the character of these expressions, and estimate their weight. If the highest order of beings find their best means of moral discipline, and their highest grounds of rejoicing, in the Divine proceedings toward our lost race, and if the Divine character is here displayed with a sweetness and fullness of love which could not otherwise have been known-is it not, then, true, that the ultimate results of sin, under God's dispensations, operate upon the grandest scale of which we can conceive or speak? What higher reach can any principles of holiness have than to affect and mold the highest orders of created beings? What nobler or mightier elements of discipline can holiness itself introduce into the universe than to make clear disclosures of the infinite depths of the Divine holiness and love? And if the Divine dispensations toward sinners here, become known to the whole universe, and afford to all orders of beings the noblest and most attractive aspect which they can anywhere find of that grandest element of moral instruction, the Divine character, is it not true that these results of sin are of the highest value to the universe at large? And if sin is indispensable to that display of the divine character in which the highest orders of beings-"even angels and archangels and ALL the company of heaven"-acquire their noblest knowledge of it, is not

the sin of man an indispensable requisite to the highest moral development even of Heaven itself?

In view of language thus broad and unrestricted, applied by Wesley himself to all the heavenly beings of whom we have any knowledge; in view, too, of results which give to them their "noblest theme " of praise, is it not a mere arbitrary limitation to confine his view to "our little sphere"? Can anything be more wantonly intrusive than this attempt to reduce all Wesley's exultant praises of the heavenly hosts over their supremest blessedness to "a particular highest good"? Can there be any well grounded doubt that he extended the beneficial results of sin beyond all minor and lower spheres, and made the highest praise and glory of the angelic hosts consequent upon the occurrence of the apostasy?

3. Yet another limitation remains to be considered; for our critic, having no limit but the power of his fancy in framing such restrictions, is fertile in the suggestion of them. He maintains that Wesley was comparing the results of the present system not generally with all the possibilities which might exist, but only with one other scheme. His idea seems to be that Wesley had in view only one other alternative, viz: a condition of things in which all would have been sinners without any provision for redemption; and that it is only in comparison with this, that the benefits of the present system are so magnified.

The critic says in his statement of this point, "Had not Adam sinned, every man placed on his individual probation would have, perhaps, sinned and been damned. Adam's sin and its results are, therefore, better because the amount of sin and damnation are less." He speaks of the present system as desirable in comparison with a "fearful Christless system of works;" but maintains that beyond these two possible systems there are endless varieties of arrangement supposable, none of which Wesley takes into account.

Here, again, the critic is very careful not to quote the language on which so great a limitation depends. He gives us his assurance that such was the limit of Wesley's thought; but

this restriction is as baseless as the preceding. Wesley did indeed, in the conclusion of the discourse, annex an additional consideration of this kind, but he was far from limiting thereby his former statements. He argues that besides the infinite advantages which accrue from the permission of the fall, any alteration of the scheme in the important point of our connection with Adam might have involved a universal sin without the benefit of the redemptive economy. But this is only a supplementary view thrown in to give completeness to an argument which has a far different foundation. Says Wesley, in introducing this topic, "There is one advantage more which we reap from Adam's fall."

But we wholly deny the correctness of the limitation which would confine his language to so narrow a comparison, and we proceed, as before, to show from Wesley's own words the fallacy of it. It would be sufficient for this purpose to refer to the language which we have already quoted from him, and point out the contrast between it and the language of the critic. Wesley declares that the peculiar glory of the present scheme consists-not as the critic alledges, in the fact that a less amount of sin exists under it--but in the very different fact that there is connected with the fall a possibility of manifesting the divine character which would not exist without sin; and that this manifestation of divine mercy is the grandest theme of heaven. Instead of comparing the present with a system in which there would have been more "sin and damnation," he compares it with a system in which there would have been no sin, and so no possibility of the display of redeeming grace. He distinctly affirms, as we have seen, that if there had been no apostasy, the "company of heaven" would have lacked their noblest theme of praise.

But still further, to make this point clear, observe how distinctly Wesley refers to a very different supposition from that which the critic has suggested. The other scheme with which he compares the present is thus described by Wesley himself:

"We might," he says, "have loved the Author of our being, the Father of Angels and men, as our Creator and Preserver; we might have said, O Lord, our Governor, how

excellent is thy name in all the earth; but we could not have loved him under the nearest and dearest relation."

And again:

"We might have loved God the Creator, God the Preserver, God the Governor, but there could have been no place for love to God the Redeemer. This could have had no being. The highest glory and joy of saints on earth and saints in heaven, Christ crucified, had been wanting," &c.

It is indisputable that Wesley here compares the present scheme, not with one in which there would have been increased "sin and damnation," but with one in which there would have been every form of holy love except that of gratitude to a redeemer from sin. Under other divine economies than that of sin and Redemption, all forms of holy devotion might have existed save that; and as that is the highest delight of saints, and the noblest theme of angels and archangels, the results of any such scheme of holiness would have been inferior in comparison with the results of the present system. Nor is Wesley here speaking of any one system alone. He declares that there could not have been any possibility of another system reaching so high as the present-there would have been "no place" for this supremest form of holiness in God, this noblest form of blessedness in men, without the occurrence of sin. Comparing it with "a fearful, Christless system of works" that involved more of sin and damnation! No, indeed! He compares it, on the contrary, with the best conceivable condition of unfallen and virtuous humanity; and pronounces such holiness and obedience to be of an inferior quality compared with that love to a Redeemer which the dark apostasy of Adam has made the peculiar type of holiness in our world.

We appeal now to every candid reader, and ask whether these specific citations from Wesley do not establish, beyond dispute, the correctness of our representation of his views, and show how utterly groundless are the bold attempts of this critic to limit and restrain his author's language. Be it remembered that for these several limitations the critic does not adduce a single sentence of Wesley's. They rest on his assertion alone, and how utterly he has misconceived his master

must be apparent to every one who has followed our examination of his positions. In view, then, of this ample reëxamination of Wesley and of all that the critic can alledge in his defense, we reaffirm our original statements. We maintain that Wesley extends the benefits resulting from man's sin to all celestial beings of whom we have any knowledge; and places the highest glory of heaven in those manifestations of God's character which are impossible without sin. The fall is essential to the noblest manifestations of God, to the highest happiness of the redeemed, and to the supremest blessedness of all the company of heaven; and any system into which sin did not enter, and which did not admit of that peculiar form of divine love which is involved in redemption, would be inferior to the present, and destitute of the highest elements of divine glory, and of created holiness and joy.

II. Our critic next proceeds to an examination of the claims of originality for Dr. Taylor's view of the reasons for the divine permission of evil. He evidently regards his effort, in this particular, as quite a successful one. He alledges against us the accusation, in the opening paragraph of his Article, that we have set up an unfounded claim of such originality, spends considerable space in disproving it by means of an extract from Fletcher, and places it in the conclusion among the "gravamina, important enough to attract our notice and correction." We freely admit that the critic has shown that the essential points of the theory are by no means original with Dr. Taylor; and that he has presented from Fletcher, as he might have done from several other sources, proof that the same view had been long before announced to the world.

But we confess we are somewhat surprised to find ourselves charged with maintaining any such claim. It never entered our mind to assert that this view was original with Dr. Taylor: nay, we spent a considerable portion of our Article in showing that it had been adopted in some passages by Leibnitz-occasionally admitted by Edwards, justly conceived by Dr. West, and, in short, recognized with more or less of distinctness and consistency, by various schools of theology.

The claim which we made in behalf of Dr. Taylor we can