this world will pale, as do the most brilliant stars before the rising sun. Unless our spiritual intercourse hereafter shall be that of shadows obscured in darkness, we may expect such a manifestation. And let it be remembered, such knowledge, and no other, is the source of eternal life. 21 Any capacity, however small, may receive it and be attuned by it to perfect love.

But this matter of capacity demands more minute attention. We have thus far conceded the common assumptions respecting it, and our remarks have been based thereon. But what do we know absolutely of the capacity of the human soul? Clearly, what is manifested through its present physical instrumentalities. So much and no more. In infancy, in idiocy, and oftentimes in extreme age, there is manifested almost no capacity. Shall we therefore conclude that there is none? In the midst of the highest human attainments, it is modified by a variety of circumstances, such as climate, seasons of the year, and states of the physical system. It varies before and after dinner even. Who is prepared to say that we gain at any moment a full manifestation of the soul's capacity? I submit whether the declaration that the manifestations of mind by means of our present organization is an absolute measure of its capacity, does not imply the baldest materialism. The insufficiency of such a criterion of measurement may be shown by an illustration. Turn to a large manufactory on the banks of a powerful river. Survey its frame work, its machinery, and its powerwheel, answering to our physical frame work, our instruments of labor, and the brain through which the mind moves all. When the power-wheel is yet unformed, or when it is decayed and broken, the machinery stands still; but we cannot infer therefrom that there is no water power. So when the wheel is perfect and the machinery in full operation, though we behold a certain degree of manifestation, we are far from being able to affirm that it is a measure of the capacity of the power itself. That power may, or may not, be wholly appropriated. We must find a position from which we can measure the power itself, and compare it with the manifestation. In the case supposed, this is easy; but in the case illustrated

21 John xvii. 3.

thereby, it is difficult, if not impossible. Hence, we lack data from which to form a judgement. I am aware that this illustration is incomplete. Our present physical organization, unlike the manufactory referred to, is developed by the power which manifests itself through it; and, therefore the one may be claimed to be a measure of the other. But this is not certain. That developement is qualified by various other forces. Every law, whether operative before or after birth, modifies the result of our spiritual forces; and the numerous external influences vary in every given case. Marked changes in the mode and degree of physical developement at various periods of life, which could not else be accounted for, are produced by these influences, and overturn at one period the conclusions touching our spiritual forces formed at another. Without denying the hypothesis of differing capacities, therefore, we claim that it should first be established as a truth, before being made the basis of remoter deductions.

Into

Conceding, however, this particular, we proceed to the claim that the larger capacity, where every measure is full, is happier in proportion to its measure; that differing capacities cannot be equally blest. This is the key stone in the arch of our modern Christian philosophy. this receptacle are all its tributaries made to flow. Differing capacities cannot be equally blest! But cannot differing measures be equally full? and if a soul be filled with good, is it not perfectly blest? Are not the moral like all the other powers of man in this regard? Do they not all find their highest good in their appropriate exercise and full play? Does the magnitude of their grasp bear at all upon this point? In the simple exercise of his physical powers, does a giant find more delight than an ordinary man? Are his nerves, muscles, bones, heart, lungs-any of his organs-necessarily more perfect? On account of its littleness, must the health of a humming bird be less complete than that of an elephant or an allegator? Cannot a grain of gold be as pure as an ingot? -a drop of water as pure as an ocean?-a ray of light as perfect as the effulgence of noon-day? What means the declaration, the greater one's capacity the more he will enjoy? Let us transpose it and say, the greater his capacity the more he must possess to enjoy any thing? This

places magnitude of capacity at a disadvantage. Is either proposition sound philosophy? If a stalworth man and a little child sit down at the same table, equally hungry, and entirely supply their need, has the man who has eaten five times more than the child, five times more satisfaction? It would be bad philosophy that should say so.

Nor would its practical tendency be good. It makes blessedness hang, not exclusively on duty, but on study -on knowledge and the power to know. Had this been the method of the Divine philosophy, instead of the command, "dress the garden and keep it," 22 or that of John the Baptist, "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," 23 the injunction would have been, study and grow. In spite of our philosophy, we somehow feel that the tiller of the soil, and the mother who cares for her babe, though not in the pathway of greatest growth, may be in the pathway of highest duty and of greatest blessing.

It has been assumed as an axiom in reasoning upon this subject, that "spiritual growth is a measure of spiritual enjoyment." 24 This language is too indefinite to be easily judged. If it is meant that the capacity of our spiritual natures is a measure of our spiritual enjoyment, the proposition is not true. It would prove Saul of Tarsus to have been as happy as Paul the apostle; and Nero, burning the Christians, happier even than a dutiful and obedient child. Or if it be meant that spiritual capacity is the limit of one's possible measure of happiness, there is no propriety in the proposition. Happiness does not depend on magnitude, but on quality. The soul perfectly attuned to love, is perfectly blessed in God.

If it is still alleged that knowledge is necessary to duty, and therefore to our highest good, I reply, some knowledge, undoubtedly, is thus necessary, but not all. To affirm the latter, is to affirm that Deity alone can be perfectly blessed. Angels and men, falling infinitely short of him in knowledge and capacity, must fall infinitely short of perfect blessedness-a condition whch cannot differ much from perfect wretchedness. How much more beauty as well as simplicity, there is in Scripture philosophy on this point. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul." "He that loveth is born of

22 Gen. ii. 15. 23 Matt. iii. 2. 24 Univ. Quar., Vol,, ii p. 255.

God." "Love is the fulfiling of the law." Hence men may fulfil it as well as angels, and be as perfectly blest. Equality of blessedness does not require equal capacity of soul. Had not the position we are examining, entered somewhat largely into the reasoning of men whose judgement we most highly respect, we should have deemed its fallacy too transparent to merit refutation.

But suppose every link in the chain of reasoning that holds together the philosophy we are examining to be sound, let me ask, what then is the value of the motives to virtue it affords ? Differences of capacity on which they are based, may arise from the different circumstances of birth, different periods of birth, and different grades of being, such as men and angels, as well as from different degrees of faithfulness in the use of powers. Resting on` the simple lack of capacity, then, you may as well affirm future retribution on account of the former particulars, as the latter. Indeed, since the capacity of all men will fall below that of Jesus Christ, of angels, and of God, if this circumstance makes the ground of retribution, of punishment, or of damnation, as taught in the Scriptures, it is plain there can no longer be a question as to the number who will be damned. It must be all mankind. Nor can we stop here. If Jesus Christ and the angels fall short of Deity in capacity, they, too, will fall under a like condemnation. Surely a philosophy which gives so wide a scope to the doctrine of condemnation, should itself be condemned.

If it be said that the deficiency thus common to all, becomes retributive only by the consciousness of opportunities neglected, I answer, that changes the ground entirely, and transfers the retribution from simple want of capacity to the presence of condemnation in the soul. It yields the point that limitation of capapacity is retributive in itself. This philosophy, however, does not relieve itself by this shift. To make sure of this retributive hereafter, it will be necessary to make sure of the condemnation hereafter. This it may do by denying the Christian doctrine of forgiveness altogether, or by showing the existence of present laws which make forgiveness impossible until the soul shall reach a given point in the future. The problem is thus thrown back upon ground which we have already

examined. Besides, if this lack of capacity is not so felt as to become a motive to effort to-day, how can the expectation of its continuance to any given time in the future, become a motive to-day? On the whole, then, does such a philosophy present any peculiar motives to duty, from which we may expect much good.

Thus we have endeavored to show that character pertains to our moral natures; that it does not ingrain itself into the very body of our powers, but belongs to their direction, aim, and style of action; and that we must distinguish between ultimate grasp of soul and present quality. We have seen that character is susceptible of emendation, and even of sudden revolution, while the contour of personal qualities, not strictly moral, remains the same. We have seen that there are no laws of character, looking at its inmost quality, which can absolutely secure its permanence for a single hour. Finding expression in the will, it is liable to be controlled by truth, as is the will in regard to secular affairs; and, at our entrance upon the next world, we have reason to expect so refulgent a manifestation of Divine glory as will win all hearts to God. Without miracle, this may transpire in perfect harmony with present law; while it does not appear that the soul, by its release from the body, will not pass under the dominion of vastly higher law. We have seen that character is not a measure of capacity, nor capacity of happiness; while character is a measure of happiness; that eternal deficiency in enjoyment cannot be predicated upon present moral debasement, nor upon present or future limitation of capacity; indeed, that happiness depends not on magnitude, but on quality; that motives to present effort drawn from the assumed limitation of capacity in the future, can have no special value; and, finally, that the hypothesis of different capacities in human souls apart from their connexion with the body, is an assumption which even if true must yet find its data to rest upon.

A. A. M.