64 



of a child is entirely in the decision of the parents. 

 One might think this arbitrary ; it is however an 

 .arbitrary fact. The immeasurable distances be- 

 tween the destinies of two children, even of the 

 .same parentage, is remarkable. And there 

 seems to be nothing but an arbitrary reason for the 

 fact that one man's children are successful and 

 respectable in the world and another man's child- 

 ren are far from it. 



The thought that is frequently advanced that 

 an earthly father would not do thus and so, and 

 -especially, would not consign his children to end- 

 less torment, is not pertinent nor relevant, for it 

 is not an earthly parent's prerogative. 



Nor does he understand the relative or intrin- 

 sic heinousness of sin or disobedience. It is also 

 a fact that the analogy of an earthly parent is not 

 traceable in every point up to the heavenly 

 father. As long as there is an analogy in the re- 

 lations of the earthly and heavenly parent, it is 

 safe to reason from one to the other. But in try- 

 ing to make what an earthly parent does in some 

 oases, the rule by which the heavenly father is 

 to act in air instances is extremely illogical and 

 absurd. The fact that a father weakens in a 

 given crisis, and is unable to extend his punish- 

 ments may be both wise and salutary. But to 

 call his weakness goodness is a misnomer. 



James Freeman Clark, in using the "fatherhood 



