of it. He is not all, and in all, nor can ever be, in the presence of a kingdom of hostile spirits. Moral evil is a shadow cast over this world, hell and damnation are an "eternal flaw," in the world to come.

But when we look upon moral evil as an incident to the existence of an imperfect, undeveloped being like man, something which, by the grace of God, he can and will conquer, rendering his spiritual nature stronger and purer by the conflict, the difficulty is reduced to a minimum. Yea, it must finally disappear in the right use of that freedom, through whose abuse it came into the world.

When we think of Omnipotence, it is idle to speculate as to why he began the physical and moral creation at zero, and by law evolved, through long, slow processes, the perfect results. We conceive that He might just as easily have had the spiritual fruit without the intervening time, and process of growth, and development. But following His own course, permitting us to see something of His method, and by faith in His word, perceive the final perfection, the presence of sin and error, as growing out of the ignorance and inexperience of man, is accounted for as an incident in his career of but small importance in comparison with the eternal life and fulness of joy at the end. We cannot charge God with the evil, and if we have any complaint to make, it is, not that He created evil, but man, as a moral being. He might have created a world where sin never would have entered. But He did not do so, and we have instead a world of human beings, and the pressure of the evils of transgression.

But on the basis of final restitution man is the gainer, notwithstanding his fall and sufferings. In the language of the author before quoted, "The solution of the confusions, troubles and vices of time lies in the relation of time to eternity, and in the settled faith that the great Creator and Father is ever doing that which is possible for each and for all, ever the Almighty Redeemer and Restorer of all souls. If He who knew that sin was inevitable, endured it because He also knew that it was universally and eternally remediable, then

the dark mystery of Providence would be forever and gloriously solved." He does not write the above as a theologian, but as a philosopher, and as such confesses his inability to deal with the problem of moral evil in its relation to the creation and destiny of man, without recourse to the above distinctive recognition of Universalism. And we may claim with truth that the most eminent theistic savants of the present age recognize the same necessity. The secret of the conflict between science and religion is a conflict between the truths of God in nature and the misconceptions of revealed truth found in the current theology. No discovery of truth in physics or metaphysics is at variance with the correct interpretation of God's revealed word and law. The two orders of truth are in perfect harmony, although they do not touch each other. Why then has the traditional church always been in antagonism to the announcements of science and philosophy? Huxley, with a triumphant air, says, "Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered, and their good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated." This seems somewhat boastful, but is nevertheless true of what has been recognized as "orthodoxy." But it is not true of the genuine orthodoxy of the Scriptures. When Mr. Huxley went so far in his philosophy as to attempt to find in matter the origin and potency of all life, and James Martineau, D.D., reviewed his materialistic argument, saying, "If it takes mind to construe the world, how can the negation of mind suffice to constitute it"? the champion of materialism made no boast of his slain adversary. He had met a different kind of orthodoxy, and an advocate of a religion so broad and divine as to include the truths of science, and stand unaffected by its errors.

In conclusion, then, we affirm the world's need of Universalism to solve the difficulties of theology and philosophy. A just interpretation of religion leads us to see in "all seeming evil universal good." All believe in the omnipotence and goodness of the Supreme Being. All confess to the presence and mischief of moral evil. All believe that God abhors sin. And while He could not prevent it in a moral being, no one will be bold enough, on reflection, to contend that He cannot control, and finally destroy it in a moral way. There are but three theories possible for the solution of the problem of evil.

1. The first is by the exercise of omnipotent power in the annihilation of the sinner. But annihilation is not Godlike. It is the confession of a mistake. It does not meet the difficulty at all so far as this life is involved in evil. It cuts off the element of eternity in its relation to time, which gives the main factor in clearing up the question, why man should have been created at all. Annihilation may be less shocking than endless suffering in hell, but no more satisfactory to the conditions of the question. It is materialism under another name. And the most we can make of it is a miserable expedient to save from a still more obnoxious theory.

2. The second method of disposing of evil is to banish the sinner to a secure place known as hell, where he will continue to sin and suffer everlastingly, But this theory neither destroys the evil, nor satisfies those who put it forth. "It is an eternal flaw in the sum of things." They cannot see why sin came into the world, nor why God, who can save all, will save only a part, or why He should make such a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers, and not save all, and thereby put an end to sin and woe forever. The more devout and deeply sincere believers in this unsatisfying theory fairly wail over the horrors which it involves. They pronounce it awful, horrible, and almost accuse God of injustice in making man subject to such conditions and such an end. They see that the evil of sin is the same, whether intensified and shut up in hell, or suffered to lie around loose outside. And not only are great and good men not satisfied, but they are repu

diating the belief in it, and feeling their way towards a more rational and consistent theory. Such men as Dean Stanley of the Episcopal church, Dr. Macrea of the Presbyterian, and President Porter of Yale, represent a faith far in advance of their respective churches, and as near Universalism as can be, without an open avowal of the name. The best thinkers of all denominations are moving onward out of the ruts of traditionalism. It is undoubtedly true, as Rev. Phillips Brooks in substance has said, that there are many clergymen who dare not openly relieve their minds upon the question of man's destiny, but whose honest utterance would be a relief to the minds of their hearers. The malevolent theory fails because it involves a greater evil than sin. The sway of a weak or vindictive God is the worst calamity we can conceive of.

3. We turn, then, to the third method of dealing with sin, which is its destruction, by converting the sinner and saving him from its commission. And in the accomplishment of this, no fatalism or coercion is implied or allowed, no justice or retribution is omitted, but by means of truth, love and discipline, every soul is led to the choice of holiness and happiness. As evil enters the world through the door of free will, so it goes out through the same, the soul victorious over it by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. What serious objection can be made to the conversion and raising of all men out of sin, instead of only a part, especially if the same moral and spiritual agencies are employed? Any interpretation of Scripture to the contrary conflicts with the integrity of the divine character. We by no means come to the above conclusion without the sanction of Scripture, but the fact that universal salvation, as here predicated, solves nearly every cosmic and theological difficulty, vindicating most clearly the ways of God to man, is very strong evidence of its truth. If it isn't in the Bible, it ought to be. But we do not, however, admit the if; it is there spoken of by all the prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles. The Bible rightly read teaches the same truths we find in natural religion. Go back to the ages when it was written, weigh the meaning of language as it was un

derstood and used by the inspired writers, eliminate all false interpretations, and mistranslations, separate sober statements of doctrine from hyperbole and oriental rhetoric, giving us the exact word of God, and in my judgment, it would be impossible to find the doctrine of annihilation or of endless penishment in the Bible. But you would find the promise and the hope of final reconciliation of all souls to God, and rest in His love. We ask the new revisers to take nothing from the letter of the original, and to insert no word or opinion of their Let them give the Christian world, the honest, scholarly, unbiased sense of the genuine text, and we will not complain, although no representative of the liberal branch of the Church was invited to sit with the conference. Universalism is needed, not alone for the light it throws upon the dark problems of theology and philosophy, but likewise for its stimulus to duty and moral rectitude. It restrains men from sin, by convincing them of the all pervading presence of love and of law.

own.

ARTICLE XVI.

A Study of American Archæology.

PART ONE.

INTERESTING REMAINS AND THEIR LOCATION.

THERE is a weird fascination attending a lost race that has left behind certain memorials which do not fully declare their hidden mysteries; and around or over these is an enchantment which affords delight to the antiquary who attempts to unravel the unknown or to gather up the broken threads and weave them into a new shape or else restore them to their original form. The interest afforded in the wide domain of science cannot be appreciated only by those who have trav ersed her fields. The world contains food for every mind. To the thinking reflective portion science opens her doors and bids them enter. Archæology, as a branch, is very unlike