1st. Even admitting the eternity of matter, we are required to believe what to us is a fundamental statement requiring proof-viz., that from such matter must spring that which is totally different from its nature; from protoplasm or monad is evolved what will lead to an infinite series of beings; that therein is contained the essence of all forms of being animate and inanimate, all species of all genera that come within the range of our knowledgeyea, and beyond the range of our knowledge; that we ourselves having come from it are but a link in the chain, and that chain stretches forward as well as backward to a gradation of being that we, in our limited capacity, are not able to conceive or know, even as those lower forms of existence are not able to conceive what is our being; and over and above what is to us the climax of incredibility that from that inert matter should come forth through this upward succession of being the great all-pervading Spirit. In short, the infinite is evolved from the finite. And we say that this is a complete reversal of all our natural conceptions, and diametrically opposed to our most simple and radical beliefs? Is not this truly a flat contradiction of the principal laws of causation? and is it not also outside the rules of logical consistency? As Hamilton has stated, We cannot be logically competent to reason from finite existence to infinite-from restricted existence to that which is self-sufficient,' and as Kant has also shown that whether starting from the most general conceptions such as being or extension, or starting from the facts of experience-either a priori or a posterori in form, they are equally unsuccessful, however great the ability they discover. Either the whole question is assumed in starting, or the Infinite is not reached in concluding.' 2. Another practical deduction from such a theory is that it shuts out all idea of a sovereign ruler. It gives us law, such as it is, but it is at variance with the general view of the law of cause and effect. But granted it does give us law, we then have law without a governor or sovereign who is above law, which is an anomaly, for law is the exponent of the Sovereign. Every being thus becomes a law to itself, leaving us as rational beings without any responsibility, amenable to no authority, but simply like all other kinds of being, regulated only by the law of development, obliterating all distinction, making us no better than the very lowest order of beings, but just as all else, kept under the law of our own nature, according to the teaching we find in Comte's Hierarchy of the Sciences, specifying biology vegetable and animal, and leaving out the psychological and metaphysical, a theory reducing all to these two forms of existence, and degrading to the dignity of our nature. 3. This theory contains a most serious defect also in ignoring the highest element in man's nature-that is, the moral with all its relations, its duties, responsibities, and requirements; its attainments, perfections, and honour. 'Any theory of existence lower than the Theistic leaves the essential features of our moral nature unexplained.' The requirement of moral law, a moral governor, and our responsibility as moral beings, all which have to do with the very highest endowments of our being, and our most momentous interests is not provided for in the development theory. It thus robs man of the chief glory of his nature, raising him no higher than a being of physical and intellectual powers. 4. The development theory does violence to the innate and universal belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. It is ascertained, on reliable authority, that there are no races or tribes of men destitute of such belief. We endorse the statement that 'the strength of belief in the divine existence is greater the longer it is tried by ascertained facts.' 'Wherever thought concerns itself with the origin of existence, or the occurrence of events transcending human power, a belief in Deity, as a self-existent source of unlimited power, is an accompaniment.' So deeply is the truth of a divine existence laid in the very consciousness of rational beings that, as it has been said, 'we may fairly claim that belief in such existence is natural.' Accordingly, all attempt at proof is but a work of supererogation. All men know even as they know their own existence, and if they incline to scepticism, it is the result of intellectual obliquity or moral turpitude. God has made man to know him, and has also made himself known to man. How, then, are we to account for such a natural conviction possessed without any process of reasoning, if no such being exists, and the teachings of Materialism be correct? We are brought to this dilemma-either there is that in our consciousness which is erroneous and misleading, and the united testimony of human consciousness must be rejected, and that all men, whether they will or not, are under a great delusion; or else that the materialistic teaching is erroneous and untenable. Weighing these two alternatives, it requires no hesitation in concluding that the balance is most decidedly in favour of the universal theistic conviction, and entirely condemnatory of the verdict of Materialism. Materialism then amounts to an alienation of the entire universe from the intelligent and all-sufficient source of being. It reaches no further than a succession of secondary causes, producing given effects, and totally ignoring the first Great Cause. It aims no higher than at a perpetual regression of facts or changes, thus ruthlessly wrenching off the cosmogomy from all connection with, or relation to, an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Eternal Being, leaving the entire universe without any recognised owner and governor-in a state of orphanage. Not only does such an Atheistic theory, because negative, fail to prove anything contradictory to that of Theism, as has been well remarked, but it is utterly helpless in accounting for what such a theory intelligently accepts and teaches. It leaves the mind in woeful darkness, a prey to all kinds of conjecture and error, severed from that which is its rightful centre, and without which there is no settled peace, no abiding confidence. All the cravings of the immortal nature remain unsatisfied; a deep aching void unfilled. In a thorough belief and acknowledgment of the Divine existence, we see law, order, harmony, and purpose throughout, and nothing less than this harmonises with the requirements of our nature. We cannot do better than conclude with the famous passage of Foster's in his celebrated Essays when dwelling on this point:'The wonder turns on the great process by which man could grow to the immense intelligence that can know there is no God. What ages, and what lights are requisite for this attainment! This intelligence involves the very attributes of divinity, while a God is denied. For unless this man is omnipresent, unless he is at this moment in every place in the universe, he cannot know but there may be in some place manifestations of a Deity by which even he would be overpowered. If he does not absolutely know every agent in the universe, the one that he does not know may be God. If he is not himself the chief agent in the universe, and does not know what is so, that which is so may be God. If he is not in absolute possession of all the propositions that constitute universal truth, the one which he wants may be that there is a God. If he cannot with certainty assign the cause of all that he perceives to exist, that cause may be God. If he does not know everything that has been done in the immeasurable ages that are past, some things may have been done by a God. Thus, unless he knows all things, that is precludes another Deity by being one himself, he cannot know that the Being whose existence he rejects does not exist. L. F. ARMITAGE. 342 ART. V.-NO CONDEMNATION IN CHRIST JESUS. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.'-Rom. viii. 1. TEXTUAL 6 EXTUAL criticism inclines very strongly against the latter part of this verse, and would cut it off either partly or entirely. Some who are skilled in the value of ancient manuscripts say that the verse should end at the words 'Christ Jesus.' They think the additional words who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' have been copied from the fourth verse, which is their natural and proper place. Another opinion of the learned is that the verse should include the words 'who walk not after the flesh,' and end with them. Others, who argue for the present text, allow the author of the epistle the privilege of repeating himself, and say that if there be any copying it was as likely to take place in the fourth verse as in the first. About this matter we presume nothing, but accept the translation. As all agree that the words are genuine, either in the one place or the other, we see no danger in following the text as it stands. Had there been This presumed, the main idea before us is that believers are delivered from sin, both from its penalty and its power. This double freedom is the glory of the gospel, and constitutes it a system of real benefit to those who embrace it. Thus understood, it is a scheme we are not ashamed to advocate. nothing more than remission of sin offered to men in the gospel, or the simple setting aside of the penalty, we would have blushed to proclaim it. It would have been subversive of morality and social order, unworthy of God to contrive, and a disgrace to publish. Besides, it could have brought no peace or benefit to its recipients, not being able to satisfy the uneasy conscience, or to furnish motive to withstand the force of lawless passion. Since it touches personal character to improve it, and supplies regenerative power and motive force to moral goodness, we hail it as a boon to humanity, and proclaim it as glad tidings. "There is therefore now no condemnation.' This monosyllable 'now,' being a word of shifting import, sometimes employed in the service of logic as a particle of connection, and at other times signifying the present time, requires a passing notice. Its proper use is doubtless to distinguish a present time from a past or future. Some expositors give it this sense here. 'There is therefore now [since the promulgation of the gospel] no condemnation.”* There is now, under the gospel dispensation, no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.'t Another, whose name is of great weight in exegetical theology,‡ says it denotes 'present time,' and supports † Doddridge. * Barbee. + Bengal. his dictum by reference to the sixth verse of the seventh chapter, 'But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.' If we understand it thus, we must qualify it so as not to shut up in hopelessness those who groped after mercy before the incarnation. Much of lenity and grace was interwoven with pre-existent dispensations. Although our golden age of grace was forerun by a 'ministration of condemnation,' in that very time there were persons, not a few, who gloried in assurance of the divine favour. And this was the case, not only near the expiration of that old economy when it was ready to yield up its last breath, but long, very long, before Messiah's advent. A system of grace began to operate close after the Fall without the loss of a single day. A mercy-seat was established, to which the guilty could repair for sanctuary. The way of salvation by grace was intimated to the first man and woman even before they had any offspring. Their posterity, though doomed to birth-guilt and corruption, had an antidote provided, if not to foreclose, at least to counteract, the consequences of the Fall. Of that provision numbers availed True it is that there is now no condemnation to believers. It is equally true that before the gospel age peace of mind was realised by successive generations of men who lived and died under shelter of mercy. themselves. This small word 'now' may be understood, as indeed it is by some, in a loose inferential sense, as a 'now of inference.' It is freely employed by writers who pursue consecutive reasoning at certain turns and points in their course of argument. So we may take it to mean, the matter standing thus, that interposition has been made by sacrifice in our favour. It follows that there is no condemnation, the conditions of grace being accepted. The Wesley-poet makes a good appropriation of the word in a hymn descriptive of the mental anguish arising from conviction of sin, and the peace and joy that follow on believing. Brought out of prison, the rejoicing soul waxes into strong confidence 'No condemnation now I dread; And claim the crown through Christ my own.' Though we prefer the inferential sense as probably the real meaning, the idea which the poet suggests is the happiest for us as individuals. Let every man press his claim till he can say assuredly in relation to himself' There is now no condemnation.' 'There is therefore now no condemnation '—no penal sentence or liability. Condemnation considered as exposure to punishment is the condition of all mankind in their relation to God as their |