COSMOLOGY

The study of Cosmology may embrace the entire universe in its scope, or as commonly treated it may be divided into (1) Cosmology, as applying to the kingdom of nature apart from man; and (2) Anthropology, as dealing with the science of man. Even though man from the physical standpoint belongs to the animal kingdom, the wide divergence between personality and the non-personal orders is sufficient to warrant this division. Within the science of Anthropology as treated in theological study, a further division is made, Anthropology being limited to man in his original state, and Hamartiology treating of man in his fallen or sinful state.

The Meaning of the Term "World."By the term "world" in the philosophic sense, we mean everything which is extrinsic to God, whether animate or inanimate, whether rational or nonrational. Ancient peoples had little conception of the world as such, and in the dawn of the reflective period, generally regarded it as existing by chance or by necessity. There was no single term which could be used to express the universe. With the development of the period of reflection men first turned their attention to the earth upon which they lived, and to the heavens which they saw above them. Thus "the heavens and the earth" became the earliest expression for the created universe (Cf. Gen. 1: 1, 2: 1, Psalm 115: 15). Those nations, however, which lived near the sea coast frequently spoke of "the heaven, earth and sea" (Cf. Psalm 146: 6, also Acts 17: 24 which is evidently a quotation and implies but does not mention the word sea). This was the dominant Greek conception also. Homer regarded the world as divided into three portions, heaven, earth and sea. In the process of time other words came into use. The Hebrews, the Chaldeans and the Syrians used a term which corresponded to the Greek aion (aiwn) which referred more especially to the duration or age of the world rather than to its creative aspect. The Greeks later spoke of the world as cosmos (kosmoV) because of its beauty and orderliness. The Latin equivalent of this term is mundus.

The Eternity of Matter.The ancient people found difficulty in explaining the origin of the first material. This was due largely to the fact that they insisted on the principle ex nihilo nihil fit, or from nothing, nothing comes. They could not, therefore, admit that the world was created out of nothing. Consequently, they accepted almost universally, the belief in two eternal principles, God and self-existent matter, neither being dependent upon the other. The principle may indeed be true as it applies to material causes, but it is not applicable to an efficient cause of which omnipotence is predicated. Before this truth, materialism, whether ancient or modern, must of necessity vanish. Plato taught that God voluntarily united Himself with matter, and thereby produced the world; and while both God and matter were regarded as eternal, the world which resulted from the conjoining of the two might be said to be created. Aristotle on the other hand taught, as did also Zeno the Stoic, that the union of God with matter was necessary and therefore the world must be regarded as eternal. Epicurus at the other extreme held that God was entirely separate and apart from the world. Generally the ancients believed that primordial matter was of the nature of thin air, or an ether, fluid and movable. The word chaos,is derived from either caw or cew because of this fluidity. The Latin word for that which is confused and unarranged is silva. Plato's conception of matter 'mgh' involved both silvaand materia. The Greeks supposed that from this fluid and fermenting mass the earth was formed. The Hebrews, however, with a different temper of mind, regarded the universe more after the pattern of a building, of which God was the creator of the materials as well as the structure.

THEORIES OF CREATION

The Church was very early forced to attempt an explanation of the universe, in order to bridge the chasm between the finite and the Infinite. With the advance of modern science, many of its discoveries apparently, came into conflict with the scriptural account of creation. However, this conflict was only apparent, for as scientific theory has become more exact there has been a closer approach to the biblical positions. The subject demands only brief attention.

The Mechanical Theory.This theory holds that the world was formed in a purely external and formal manner. It stresses the thought of transcendence and wholly disregards the divine immanence. This was never the theory of the early Church. It arose only in modern times, and came as a protest against the extreme rationalism of the critico-historical movement. Irenaeus speaks of creation in this manner. "But He himself after a fashion which we can never describe nor conceive predestinated all things and formed them as He pleased." "Thou createst heaven and earth," says Augustine, "things of two kinds; one near to Thee, the other near to nothing." Again he says, "Thou createst heaven and earth; not out of Thyself, for they should have been equal to Thine only begotten Son, and thereby equal to Thee also." Athanasius taught that creation was through the Logos or the Divine Word.

The Physical or Materialistic Theory of Creation.This theory is closely related to dualism in that it presupposes the eternity of matter. It rejects, however, the architectonic idea of a creator, in the sense of a demiurge or fashioner of this material into the created forms as we know them; and substitutes instead the theory of spontaneous generation. It holds that matter has in itself the power of taking on new functions, and under proper conditions of developing into organic forms. It therefore assumes that all things may be explained on the basis of material changes. The theory is merely an application of materialistic philosophy to the idea of creation, and arose out of the rationalism of the early nineteenth century. It was held by Feuerbach, Vogt, Moleschott, Buchner, Bastian and Owen. Closely related to this is the revival of ancient Greek hylozoism which acknowledges a formative principle in the world, but regards this principle as confined within matter itself and a characteristic of its true nature. Matter it regards as imbued with life as in a plant which unfolds from a seed, and intelligence pertains to it in at least some of its combinations. In so far as God is acknowledged, He is merely the universal life of nature. The theory must therefore end in either pantheism or materialistic atheism. "If the soul of the world is an unconscious one," says Van Oosterzee, "how is the order and design in creation to be explained? If it is a conscious one, wherefore not, at the same time a free Agent? and if a free Agent, how does it become and remain so inseparably bound to its gigantic material raiment?"

The Emanation or Pantheistic Theory.At the other extreme is the theory of emanation which holds that the world was neither created nor fashioned out of preexistent material, but is to be regarded as an extension of the divine substance. It flows from God as a stream from a fountain, or as rays of light from the sun. This was the theory held by the ancient Gnostics, and in modern times has been revived as a consequence of the renewed emphasis upon idealistic philosophy. Lotze distinguished between emanation and creation by saying that creation necessitates a Divine Will, while emanation flows by necessary consequences from the being or nature of God. On this theory the world would either become in nature like God, or the cleavage in the substance of God would destroy the divine unity. The objections to this theory were presented in our discussion of pantheism and need not be repeated here.

The Theory of Eternal Creation.This theory arose as an attempt to guard against dualism and yet preserve the emphasis upon the eternity of God. Origen held to creation by the will of God and yet taught the theory of eternal creation. According to him, this world was not the first world God created; there never was a first and there never will be a last. The schoolmen revived the theory on the ground that the thoughts of God were necessarily creative. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33: 9). But to say that God's word must of necessity issue in creation, would be to identify the purpose of God with the creative fiat. This would be but another form of pantheism. It did, in fact, take this form in the teachings of Scotus Erigina, but others of the medieval school-men avoided the pantheistic tendencies by maintaining that the world was in essence different from God, though eternally dependent upon Him. In so far as creation is independent of time, and the "birth of time" is regarded as taking place in the creative fiat, we may hold that creation took place in eternity. By this, however, it is not meant that the world had no beginning but that time began with creation. It rejects the idea that time was pre-existent, and that the creation of the world occupied merely a moment in that time scheme.

The Theory of Natural Evolution.This theory is similar if not identical with that of spontaneous generation, but has assumed a more philosophical form. When presented by Darwin and his school the evolutionary hypothesis was received with great applause. However, it could hardly be expected to hold its ground against the Christian belief in creation. It does not solve the problem. It merely pushes it back into time and therefore must rest ultimately in either creation or emanation. Naturalistic evolution breaks down at three vital points: (1) it has not been able to bridge the chasm between the inanimate and the animate; (2) it cannot pass from the diffused life of the vegetable realm, to the conscious somatic life of the animal kingdom; and (3) it cannot pass from the irrational life of animals to the rational self-conscious life of man. Only the creative activity of God could have originated vegetable, animal and personal life. The theory of the differentiation of species breaks down further in the case of the sterility of hybrids. The declaration in the Genesis account that each shall bring forth after its kind is an acknowledged fact, both in the realm of science and in the world of experience.

The Theory of Continuous Creation.In recent times, the idea of creation as an event, immediate and complete, has been challenged in favor of creation as a continuous process. The theory is the outgrowth of the renewed emphasis upon the divine immanence, and due to the influence of the evolutionary hypothesis, took the form of theistic evolution. While closely related to the theory of spontaneous generation, it regards the divine immanence as the basic reality in contradistinction to the eternity of matter. It insists that organic development is due, not to the spontaneity of the materialistic or hylozoistic principle, but to divine power working within the organism. The divine activity is sometimes identified with the entire process, and sometimes limited to merely the points of crisis in development.

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF CREATION

The scriptural doctrine of creation maintains that the universe had a beginning, that it is not eternal in either matter or form, that it is not self-originated, and that it owes its origin to the omnipotent power and the unconditioned will of God. This is the Christian conception. It involves, first, a belief in the Almighty God, whereby the world once began to be out of nothing, solely through the divine will; second, the concept of God in the Trinity of His essence; third, a display of the attributes of God-omnipotence, wisdom and love; and fourth, belief in creation through the Divine Word as a Mediator, the Logos forming the connection between the finite and the Infinite, between God and the world.

Creation and the Trinity.The very idea of Fatherhood which constitutes the Christian conception of God, suggests creatorship. It is, however, the love and not the creatorship which forms the essence of the Divine Fatherhood. In the act of creation God brings forth that which before had no existence, and which is different in essence from Himself. While creation originates in the love of God and is made effective by the divine will, the Scriptures specifically state that in this work both the Son and the Spirit are associated with the Father. Hence we read, that to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (ICor. 8: 6). The Scriptures record also, that in the dawn of creation, the Spirit moved upon the waters, that is, brooded over the waters in the sense of bringing order and beauty out of chaos (Gen. 1: 2) ; and the psalmist said, Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created (Psalm 104:30). The Trinity, therefore, is revealed in creation as it is revealed in redemption, is in fact, the ground of the whole redemptive process. Love as the originating cause of redemption has its source in the inner freedom of the Trinity, which, existing there in infinite perfection, is expressed by the term blessedness. The love existing between the Father and the Son is ad intra, expressed in the Holy Spirit as the "bond of perfectness"; while that same love ad extra, is the originating cause of both creation and redemption. The Son is the "exact" or "express" image of the Father, and therefore under one aspect, the pleromaor the infinite range of possibilities existing in the Father, the kosmoV nohtoV or world of ideas which form the archetypes of creation. St. Paul sums up the relation of the Trinity to the created universe in these words, For of him [as the originating cause], and through him [as the mediating or efficient cause], and to him [as the final cause or purpose], are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen (Rom. 11: 36). But Christ as the Logos is more than the spoken word or revelation of God, He is the speaking Word or the efficient cause of creation. To the Word or Logos as the mediating cause of creation we must later direct our attention.

Creation and the Attributes o f God.Creation as we have shown, has its origin in the love of God and not in mere metaphysical necessity. It is the consequence of the overflowing fullness of love which seeks new objects upon which to expend itself. If the fundamental principle of theology is the self-revelation of God as we have all along maintained that it is, then creation may be regarded primarily as designed to display the perfections of God. The world is what it is because God is what He is. It is the ground for the manifestation of those attributes which can arise only out of a relation existing between the Creator and the creature. By this means only can they be brought within the range o£ means comprehension. Here love manifests itself most prominently in omnipotence and omniscience as connected with primary creation; and in wisdom and goodness as associated with secondary creation. It is the divine omnipotence which furnishes the ground of causality and efficiency, and the divine omniscience which gives reason, order and purpose to the universe.

It is the wisdom and goodness of God which have adapted all things to the promotion of happiness and enjoyment on the part of His creatures. It has been aptly said that there are no devices in nature for the promotion of pain for its own sake, but the manifestations of design for the production of happiness are beyond computation. O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches (Psalm 104:24).

Creation and the Logos. By what means did God create all things? To this the Scriptures give answer, "By the word of his power." By the word of the Lord' were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (Psalm 33:6). He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly (Psalm 147:15). But this word must not be thought of as impersonal. It is rather, the Logos, the word and wisdom of the Father. It is an essential element in Christian belief, that Christ as the Logos or Word is the Mediator in creation, without which He could not have been the Mediator of Redemption. This is clearly taught by both St. John and St. Paul. In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..... All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made (John 1:1, 3). But to us there is but one God, the Father, o f whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (I Cor. 8:6). For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col. 1:16, 17). "That which many a philosopher dimly conjectures," says Van Oosterzee, "namely, that God did not produce the world in an absolutely immediate manner, but some way or other, mediately, here presents itself to us as invested with the luster of revelation, and exalts so much more, the claim of the Son of God to our deep and reverential homage."

It is just here that the thought of the Logos is so compelling. Without a mediating cause, the idea of creation must lead directly to dualism with its eternity of matter, or to pantheism as a mere extension of the divine essence. This would be an emanation rather than a creation. There must be, both for thought and for reality, an intermediate idea; and as the Christian doctrine of creation maintains an essential difference between God and the world, so also it maintains a distinction between the eternal idea of creation, and the creative Word or Logos. It is by the latter as the efficient Agent, that the idea of creation becomes a reality in actual existence. Otherwise, to maintain that the divine purpose and the execution of this purpose are necessarily simultaneous, resolves the absoluteness of God into physical necessity, and cannot therefore escape its logical issue in pantheism. God is not merely the Father of the idea of creation, but the Father of the Logos which is the vehicle of the idea. Jewish thought as represented in the Alexandrian school, regarded the Logos as merely a cosmos noetus (kosmoV nohtoV) or world of ideas, as we have previously indicated. St. John makes bold to affirm that the Logos is not an idea only, but a Person, and as such the vehicle of the idea by which the world is given reality. Thus the Logos becomes the sole link between the Infinite and the finite, between the realm of ideas and the realm of actual existences. Here, then, is the mystery hid from the ages but made manifest in the incarnation, namely, that the Logos or creative Word is Himself God. The Word veiled in the Old Testament in the expressions "God said," and "Let there be" is now seen to be not only the spoken Word but the speaking Word. It is through Him that God's word of wisdom passes into created reality. Creation, therefore, demands a Mediator, both for thought and reality. It was because the Logos was the Mediator of both purpose and efficiency in the work of creation, that the Logos incarnate as the Son, became the Mediator of both the revealing and the enabling grace of redemption.

THE HYMN OF CREATION

The Book of Genesis opens with an inspired Psalm, sometimes known as the "Hymn of Creation," and sometimes as the "Poem of the Dawn." By this it is not meant that the account is an allegory or fiction, but a true historical description, poetically expressed. It is fitting that the harmony of creation, at which the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy, should be revealed to us in the harmonies of poetical description. Dr. Miley denies the poetical form of the chapter, and quotes Dr. Terry as saying that "every thorough Hebrew scholar knows that in all the Old Testament there is not a more simple, straightforward prose narrative than this first chapter of Genesis" (MILEY, Syst. Th., I, 298). We may admit that it is not cast in poetical form, but the balanced rhythm, the stately movement, the recurrent refrains and the blend of beauty and power, all indicate that it is of the nature of poetry. "The rhythmical character of the passage," says Dr. Whedon, "its stately style, its parallelisms, its refrains, its unity within itself all combine to show that it is a poem." Dr. Cocker holds that it contains the same unity as the 104th Psalm, or the Lord's

prayer or the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.  Dr. Thomas C. Porter says that "to him who could grasp the mighty idea and take in the whole at one view, ;he entire creation would appear like a solemn hymn, like some grand oratorio which, starting on a few low, faint notes, gradually gains strength and fullness, and swelling louder and louder, rolls on from harmony to height of harmony until it reaches its loftiest outburst and expression, the diapason closing full in man." Dr. Pace maintains that the whole Book of Genesis has a typical metrical octad style which he calls the metric composition of the Holy Spirit.

Exordium

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I.

Now the earth had become waste and wild (or formless and empty)

And darkness was on the face of the abyss (or roaring deep)

But the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the deep (waters or vapors)

(I)        And God said,

            Light be (or Light exist) And light was.

            First Refrain: And God saw the light that it was good.

And God divided the light from the darkness,

And called the light, day

But the darkness, called he night.

            So there was evening and there was morning: one day.

II.

(II)       And God said,

            Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters,

            And let it be a division of waters from waters (or vapor)

And it was so.

And God made the expanse,

And it divided the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse.

So there was evening and there was morning: a second day.

III.

(III)      And God said,

            Let the waters under the heavens be gathered into one place,

            And let the dry ground appear.

And it was so.

And God called the dry ground, Land,

But the gathering together of the waters, called he, Seas.

            Second Refrain: And God saw that it was good.

(IV)      And God said,

            Let the land put forth vegetation (shoot forth shoots)

            Herb yield seed after its kind,

            And tree bearing fruit, after its kind,

            Wherein is the seed thereof, upon the land. And it was so.

And the earth brought forth vegetation (desche, tender grass)

Herb yielding seed after its kind,

And tree bearing fruit wherein is the seed thereof after its kind,

            Third Refrain: And God saw that it was good.

            So there was evening and there was morning: a third day.

IV.

(V)       And God said,

            Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens,

            To divide between the day and the night,

            And let them be for signs and for seasons,

            And for days and for years,

            And let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens

            To give light upon the earth.

And it was so.

And God made two great luminaries (places or instruments of light)

The greater luminary to rule the day,

The lesser luminary to rule the night.

(He made) also the stars.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven (or expanse)

To give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night,

And to divide the light from the darkness.

            Fourth Refrain: And God saw that it was good.

            So there was evening and there was morning: a fourth day.

V.

(VI)      And God said,

            Let the waters swarm forth swarming things, living souls

            And let birds fly over the earth,

            Over the face of the expanse of the heavens.

And it was so (Septuagint translation)

And God created the great leviathans (sea-monsters)

And every living soul that moveth,

Which the waters swarmed forth after their kind,

And every winged bird after its kind.

            Fifth Refrain: And God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying,

            Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,

            And let the birds multiply in the land.

So there was evening and there was morning: a fifth day.

VI.

(VII)    And God said,

            Let the land bring forth living soul after its kind,

            Cattle (dumb or tame beasts) and creeping things,

            And land-animals after their kind. (Wild as opposed to tame on account of vital energy.)

And it was so.

            And God made the beast of the land after its kind,

            And the cattle after their kind.

            And everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind.

            Sixth Refrain: And God saw that it was good.

(VIII)   And God said,

            Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,

            And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,

            And over the fowl (or birds) of the air,

            And over all the land (W. Syriac, wild beasts of the land)

            And over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land.

And God created man in his own image,

In the image of God created he them.

Male and female created he them.

And God blessed them.

(IX)      And God said unto them,

            Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,

            And have dominion over the fish of the sea,

            And over the fowl of the air,

            And over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(X)       And God said,

            Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,

            And every tree wherein is seed-inclosed fruit.

            To you it shall be for food

            And to every living thing of the land,

            And to every bird of the heavens,

            And to every thing that moveth upon the land, wherein is a living soul,

            (I have given) every green herb for food.

And it was so.

            Seventh Refrain: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.

So there was evening and there was morning: a sixth day.

Epode

Thus were finished the heavens and the earth,

And all the hosts of them.

And on the seventh day, God finished (put period to) his work which he had made,

And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made;

And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it:

Because that therein he rested from all his work,

Which God by creating had made.

It will be noticed that at the beginning of each work of creation there the formula "And God said." If we include the two providential formulas  found in verses 28, 29, the expression occurs ten times, giving rise to the Jewish dictum, "By ten sayings, the world was created" (ABOTH, v. 1). The three terms used to express the idea of vegetation cover the broad divisions. (1) The term desche is rendered tender grass (II Sam. 23:4) and tender herb (Job 38:27) (2) "Herbs" refer to the larger plants (Gen. 3:18) and (3) fruit trees with seed-enclosed fruit, this expression intending to convey the idea of self-propagation. The words "And it was so" found in Verse 7 are misplaced and should be placed at the end of Verse 6 as in the Septuagint translation. We have so placed them in the above Hymn of Creation. There are seven refrains in the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint translation has an additional refrain, "And God saw that it was good" at the end of verse 8. The refrains found in the Hebrew text are in verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. Those in vs. 28, 29 are usually regarded as providential rather than creative refrains. The writer states the threefold purpose of the luminaries as follows: (1) to divide day from night, or the light from the darkness (v. 18). (2) For signs and for seasons, and for days and years. Signs refer to the cardinal points of the compass and the help which the stars give in finding these points. Seasons refer to the fixed times for migration of the birds (Jer. 8:7), seedtime, flowering and harvest-practically what we mean by the four seasons. It refers also to fixed religious festivals. The "days and years" are fixed as to their length by the heavenly bodies. (3) To give light upon the earth, the expression doubtless having reference to the furnishing of the necessary conditions for the existence and progress of the race. Living souls is an expression which has reference to individualized somatic life. The term soul (nephesh) in Hebrew psychology is not peculiar to man, but represents the principle of life and sensibility in any animal organism. It is therefore, frequently transferred to the sentient organism itself (Cf. Ezek. 47:9, Lev. 24:18). The expression "Let the earth bring forth" is not intended to convey the idea of spontaneous generation, but represents merely the adaptation necessary to the next stage of development. It emphasizes the fact that all life originated at the command of God, whether immediate or mediate.

THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY

The Hymn of Creation which furnishes the basis of the Mosaic cosmogony has been interpreted in various ways. (1) The Mythological Interpretation. Modern critics regard the first chapter of Genesis as a mythological account written by a highly cultured Israelite who gives his reflections concerning the origin of all things. But neither the tone nor the contents warrant this construction. Both Jesus and the apostles treat the chapter as sacred history (Cf. Matt. 19:4). (2) The Allegorical Interpretation. Due to the influence of the Alexandrian School, many of the earlier Christian writers adopted the allegorical method of interpretation. To modern thought, however, with its scientific background, this method is scarcely less objectionable than the mythological interpretation. As late as the nineteenth century, Herder defended the method, regarding the creation account as an optical representation of the beginning of all things which reappears every morning at sunrise. (3) The Vision Hypothesis. This theory was advocated by Kurtz, Keerl and others, who regarded the account as being made known in a series of retrospective visions, given in such a manner that the objective truth of revelation blended with the subjective conception of the seer. While this form of revelation is of course possible, it finds no support by other instances of retrospective vision, and has never been an accepted theory in the Church. (4) The Historical Interpretation. This account was a portion of the Scriptures which existed in the time of our Lord, which He pronounced holy and appealed to as divine. It is therefore authoritative. Interpretations may vary, but for us, this account is the truth concerning the origin of the world.

The Days of Creation.The Genesis account of creation is primarily a religious document. It cannot be considered a scientific statement, and yet it must not be regarded as contradictory to science. It is rather, a supreme illustration of the manner in which revealed truth indirectly sheds light upon scientific fields. The Hebrew word yom which is translated "day" occurs no less than 1,480 times in the Old Testament, and is translated by something over fifty different words, including such terms as time, life, today, age, forever, continually and perpetually. With such a flexible use of the original term, it is impossible to either dogmatize or to demand unswerving restriction to one only of those meanings. It is frequently assumed that originally orthodox belief held to a solar day of twenty-four hours, and that the church altered her exegesis under the pressure of modern geological discoveries. This as Dr. Shedd points out is one of the "errors of ignorance." The best Hebrew exegesis has never regarded the days of Genesis as solar days, but as day-periods of indefinite duration. The doctrine of an immense time prior to the six days of creation was a common view among the earlier fathers and the schoolmen. Only with the scholastics of the middle ages and the evangelical writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was this idea current. Previous to this a profounder view was taught by the acknowledged leaders of the Church. Thus Augustine says, "Our seven days resemble the seven days of the Genesis account in being a series, and in having the vicissitudes of morning and evening, but they are multum in pares. He calls them naturae(natures or birth), and morae(delays or solemn pauses). Hence they are God-divided days in contradistinction to sun-divided days; they are ineffable days (dies ineffabiles) as in their true nature transcendent, while the sun-divided days (vicissitudines coeli) are due merely to changes in planetary movements. He affirms, therefore, that the word day does not apply to the duration of time, but to the boundaries of great periods. Nor is this a metaphorical meaning of the word, but the original, which signifies "to put period to" or to denote a self-completed time. Origen, Irenams, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen taught the same doctrine during the patristic period, as did also many of the learned Jewish doctors outside the 'Christian Church. Later writers holding this view are Hahn, Hensler, Knapp, Lee, Henry More, Burnett and others. Of the more recent writers we may mention Hodge, Pope, Miley, Cocker, and Stearns. Some writers, recognizing that the word for "day" as found in the Hebrew text may mean either a definite or indefinite period of time, leave the question open. Dr. Wakefield holds to the theory of solar days, while a number of theologians regard the subject of creation as belonging to the field of science rather than theology, and mention it but briefly or omit it altogether.

Creation and Cosmogony.The Genesis account of creation establishes a distinction between the first production of matter in the sense of origination, and secondary creation, or the formation of that matter by subsequent elaboration into a cosmos. These distinctions are usually known as primary and secondary, or as immediate and mediate creation. While primary creation is a direct origination, secondary creation is always indirect, that is it is accomplished by means of a Law behind other laws. The term mediate creation better expresses the thought, and conveys the idea that God creates through creation itself. Bishop Martensen points out that it is involved in creation that God brings forth not something dead, but something alive, and consequently able to reproduce itself. There is therefore a certain autonomy in the created universe, derived and dependent, indeed, but nevertheless an autonomy, with the capacity of being set up in opposition to God himself. St. Paul recognizes this limited creaturehood when he says, that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Rom. 8:21, 22). When, therefore, God created the vegetation He did not say, "Let there be vegetation" but "Let the earth put forth vegetation"; when He created somatic life He said, "Let the waters swarm forth swarming things," and again, "Let the land bring forth living soul after its kind." This is mediate creation. As previously pointed out in a note on the Hymn of Creation, these expressions are not intended to convey the idea of spontaneous generation, but to emphasize a truth that all things either immediately or mediately were created at the command of God. Each of the new days was ushered in solely by virtue of the omnipotent word spoken by the Creator, and was therefore creatura; but each new day dawned only when the time was full and the conditions perfect, and was therefore, natura. There is here, also, a suggestion that the progress of the entire creation depends upon the progress made by the creatures in their natural development. The idea of creation dominant among the Hebrews was that of creatura; that among the Greeks, natura. The former was a direct creative act, an origination; the latter an unfolding or development in time. It is evident that the tendency of the former is toward Deism, while that of the latter is toward Pantheism. It is the glory of Christianity that it presents both the transcendent and the immanent aspects of creation in their balanced harmony. Thus St. John in his teaching concerning the Logos, regards the world (1) as a production through the Word, an origination of that which before had no being; and (2) as a transition from not-being to being through the Logos. Through it everything was done [gegonen]; and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done (John 1: 3, Emphatic Diaglot). The word ginomai(ginomai) occurs in the New Testament more than seven hundred times, and fifty-three times in this Gospel; and as the Emphatic Diaglot points out, is never translated create, but signifies to be, to become, to come to pass; also to be done or transacted. It is translated "made" in the sense of "to be born" in Romans 1: 3 and Galatians 4: 4 which gives the true import of the word as a birth or a becoming. The word for create is ktizo(ktizw). It is clear then that according to the teachings of the Scriptures there has been both a creative and a cosmogonic beginning-the one supernatural and infinite, the other relative and finite, both being comprehended in any true Christian concept of the origin of the world.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

In considering the order of creation as given in the Genesis account, three things demand attention, first, Primary Creation or Origination; second, Secondary Creation or Formation; and third, Gradual and Cumulative Creation.

Primary Creation or Origination.The word "created" is used three times in the Genesis account, and is a translation of the word bars, which signifies origination, or creation de novo. This word occurs in the three following verses: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). And God created great whales (leviathans or sea monsters) (Gen. 1: 21). So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him (Gen. 1:27). Dr. Cocker makes the statement that a careful study of this and the following chapter led him to the conclusion that there was something fundamental and distinctive in the word barawhich did not attach to the words yetsarand aysah. "It is in reality," he says, "the distinction between origination de novo, and formation out of pre-existing materials. There are three instances in which baraoccurs in Genesis 1. We are fully convinced that in each case it denotes the origination of a new entity-a real addition to the sum of existence (COCKER, Theistic Conception of the World, p. 157). Dr. Miley questions this position and cites Isaiah 43: 7 where all three words occur and are applied to the same divine act. It is not that he denies that the primitive act of creation was the origination of matter itself, but insists that there is no conclusive proof of it on purely philological grounds (Cf. MILEY, Systematic Theology, I, p. 283). Dr. Adam Clarke throws the weight of his authority on the side of the former position. He interprets the word baraas causing that to exist which, previous to this moment, had no being. He says, "The rabbins, who are the legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism of their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the word baraexpresses commencement of the existence of a thing: or its egression from nonentity to entity. It does not in its primary meaning, denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed, as some imagine: but creation, in the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations in other places (CLARKE, Commentary, Gen. 1:1) . If then we examine the three instances where this word occurs, we shall find each of them an origination of a new entity.

The first origination was that of material substance, or the prima materia of all physical existences. Dr. Adam Clarke's rendering of this verse is, God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens, and the substance of the earth, i.e., the prima materia, or first element out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed. He substantiates his position by referring to the Hebrew word eth which is usually regarded as a particle denoting that the word following is in the accusative or oblique case, but which the rabbinical literature uses in a more extensive sense. "The particle eth," says Eben Ezra, "signifies the substance of a thing." Kimchi, in his Book of Roots, gives a like definition. It is used by the Cabbalists to signify the beginning and the end as the words alpha and omega are used in the Apocalypse. Dr. Clarke states further that "it argues a wonderful philosophic accuracy in the statement of Moses, which brings before us, not a finished heavens and earth as every other translation appears to do, though afterward the process of their formation is given in detail, but merely the materials out of which God built the whole system in the six following days" (ADAM CLARKE, Commentary, Gen. 1:1) . The first origination therefore, was that of matter in its chaotic or unformed state.

The second origination was that of somatic or soul life. And God created the great leviathans [or sea monsters], and every living soul [nepheshor soul of life] that moveth (Gen. 1: 21). Here is the appearance of a new entity. The diffused life found in the vegetable realm is individualized and separated from the universal life of nature. It is called somatic life (from soma, a body), in that the individualized life is given a body separate and distinct from diffused life; and it is a nepheshor soul of life, in that the soul is the individualized center of force and the body is immediate field of activity. This soul is an immaterial entity, having sensation, feeling and will. It is therefore properly expressed by the word tiara, in that a new power or principle was infused into the then existing nature.

The third origination was that of spirit or personal being. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Gen. 1: 27). As the second origination was that of individualized life characterized by consciousness, so the third origination is a further individualization which may be characterized as self-consciousness. If then we understand by the soul, that principle which individualizes life, the soul must take on the character of the life thus individualized. We may regard the soul of an animal, therefore, as consciousness dominating a field of instinct; while the soul of man, is a self dominating a field of consciousness. Man not only knows, but he knows that he knows, and thus becomes responsible for his actions. It is this quality which constitutes man a free moral agent and thus makes him Godlike. This is the image of God in man.

We may say, then, that the three created entities expressed by the word tiara are matter, soul and spirit, or matter, life and mind. They may be equally well expressed by the words matter, consciousness and self.

Secondary Creation or Formation.Deep as is the mystery of creation in the primary sense, it is no less so in the secondary sense of formation. God does not originate the material of creation, and then in an external manner form it into individual objects with no relation to each other, except that of a common fashioner or architect. He creates through creation itself. He creates that which has life in itself and consequently the power of self-propagation. Thus the world has both a supernatural and a natural beginning. It is a cosmos in which all the parts which compose one whole are arranged in order and beauty. They are not disconnected, but one emerges out of the other at the command of God so that all things are related both in nature and as a consequence of their supernatural origin. There is no place in the account for the theory of spontaneous generation. This is the fallacy of the evolutionary hypothesis. If now we note the various stages which are introduced by the creative fiat, Let there be, and concluded with the refrain, And God saw that it was good, we shall have before us the seven formative acts of God as found in Genesis account. These will constitute the sevenfold series of natural beginnings or births out of pre-existent and prepared material which through the Divine Word or Logos transformed the world from chaos to cosmos and united the universe in a true cosmogony.

(1) Let there be light (Gen. 1: 3). This is the formation of cosmic light, sometimes regarded as radiant heat and light. The Hebrew word is our and is translated "fire" in Isaiah 31:9 and Ezekiel 5:2; it is translated "sun" in Job 31:23 and "lightning" in Job 37:3. (2) Let there be an expanse (or firmament) (Gen. 1:6), and Let the waters under the heaven be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear (Gen. 1:9). It will be noted that here there are two fiats included in the one refrain. In the Septuagint a refrain follows verse 6, but the best Hebrew exegesis holds that this formative period was not completed on the second day, and therefore the refrain was added only after the creation of the seas and land which began with the formation of the firmament. Dr. Cocker holds that the firmament represents a mechanical combination of chemical elements, while the sea and land represent chemical compounds and their molar aggregation. (3) Let the land put forth vegetation (Gen. 1:11). Here there is an introduction of a new force within matter, a vital element giving rise to vitalized germinal matter, and making possible the organic realm. (4) Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens (Gen. 1:14). It is a significant fact that the organic realms as well as the inorganic begin with the introduction of light. Here the light is an adjustment of the cosmical relations, furnishing the conditions for the further development of the organic realm. (5) Let the waters swarm forth swarming things, living souls, and let birds fly over the earth (Gen. 1: 20). This fifth formative act or birth out of the waters and the atmosphere can refer only to the material organisms which embody the living souls, for conjoined with this formative act there is the use of the word tiara as the origination of living soul which forms the second entity. (6) Let the land bring forth living soul after its kind (Gen. 1: 24). The sixth formation is the emergence out of the earth of the material organisms of the animal, by the fiat of God. This appears to be the last of the purely emergent acts of God's mediate creation, for the next following combines with it the introduction of a new formative as well as a new creative element. (7) Let us make man (Gen. 1: 26). Of the creative statement, this portion only refers to the formation of the material organism of man. But the formative act is not entirely mediate as in the former instances, for the word is not "Let the earth bring forth man," but Let us make man. Hence in the word "made," we find the formative act which relates man's body to the cosmos, while in the word "create" (tiara) as previously indicated, we find the origination of man's spiritual being in the image and likeness of God. Thus each stage of development is the condition for each succeeding stage in orderly arrangement, until all are gathered up in a final refrain, And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Gen. 1: 31).

The Creative Periods.Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the Mosaic cosmogony is the orderly arrangement in stages and periods known as creative days. In the sense of origination, creation is instantaneous; but as formation it is gradual and cumulative. There is a progressive revelation in an ascending scale of creative acts. Each stage is preparatory to that which succeeds it, as well as a prophecy of that which shall follow. The study of the Genesis account reveals certain facts which take on added significance with each new scientific discovery. First, there are two great eras mentioned, each with three creative days-the Inorganic and the Organic. Second, each of these great eras begins with the appearance of light-the one with the creation of cosmic light, the other with light emanating from created luminaries. Third, each of these eras ends with a day in which a twofold work is accomplished, the first the completing or perfecting act of that which precedes it, and the second a prophecy of that which is to be. This arrangement may be set forth in schematic form as follows:

The Inorganic Era

1st Day-Cosmical Light

2nd Day-The Firmament water and atmosphere

3rd Day-Dry Land (or the outlining of land and seas) Creation of Vegetation (transitional and prophetic)

The Organic Era

4th Day-The Luminaries

5th Day-The lower animals-fishes and birds

6th Day-Land animals

            Creation of Man (transitional and prophetic)

The creation of vegetation, which for physical reasons belongs to the third day, is the culmination of the Inorganic Era and the prophecy of the Organic Era which immediately follows. We may say also that man, the culmination of the work of the sixth day, is likewise prophetic of another aeon, the new age in which the will of God shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.

With the rapidly increasing discoveries of science, the Genesis account was soon called in question by men who appeared to be authorities in their fields of investigation. But Christian men, eminent in science also, after prolonged study and research declared that not only is there no conflict between Genesis and modern science but that there is a remarkable parallel between them. Hugh Miller, eminent in geology, found no misplacement of facts in the Genesis account. Professors Winchell, Dana, Guyot and Dawson, among the earlier men of science, maintained that the order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with the discoveries of modern science. One of the earlier parallels between Genesis and geology is that of Professor Dana who gives the following geological order (Cf. DANA, Manual of Geology, HODGE, Syst. Th., I, p. 571):

1. Light.

2. The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth.

3. The dividing of the land and water on the earth.

4. Vegetation, which Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristics of the new creation, distinguishes from previous inorganic substances, and defines as that which has seed in itself.

5. The sun, moon and stars.

6. The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters and the creeping and flying species of the land.

7. Beasts of prey.

8. Man.

Later discoveries in science demand new statements of these parallels, but we may believe, with James Ward, that there is not and never can be any opposition between science and religion, any more than there can be between grammar and religion. Sir William Ramsey once said, "Between the essential truth of Christianity and the established facts of science there is no real antagonism." We are indebted to Dr. L. A. Reed for the following parallels between the Genesis account of creation, and the more recent discoveries of modern science.

"When the Nebular Hypothesis was advocated in the early part of the nineteenth century by Pierre Simon

Laplace, French mathematician and astronomer, it was quite universally received by the scientific world. Almost any one of Laplace's original researches is alone sufficient to stamp him as one of the greatest of mathematicians. Some of his accomplishments are the discovery of the invariability of the major axes of the planetary orbits; the explanation of the great inequality in the motions of Jupiter and Saturn; the solution of the problem of the acceleration of the mean motion of the moon; the theory of Jupiter's satellites and many other important laws including this Nebular Theory, which was an attempt to explain the development of the solar system. `This theory supposes that the bodies composing the solar system once existed in the form of nebulae; that these had a revolution on their own axis from west to east; that the temperature gradually diminishing, and the nebulae contracting by refrigeration, the rotation increased in rapidity, and zones of nebulosity were successively thrown off in consequence of the centrifugal force overpowering the central attraction. These zones being condensed, and partaking of the primary rotation, constituted the planets, some of which in turn threw off zones which now form their satellites. The main body being condensed toward the center, formed the sun. The theory afterward was extended so as to include a cosmogony of the whole universe' (Cf. WINSTON, Encyl., Vol. VII, Neb. Hypoth.).

"Many objections were raised to this hypothesis, because it did not satisfy the demands of the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. With the discovery of the spectroscope, much in the above hypothesis was proved fact, for now nebulous matter is recognized to be in existence all through the universe. It was also discovered that much of the nebulae is black and dark, and it was further discovered that the spiral nebulae have a planetesimal organization. This brought forth the theory that the solar system was formed from nebulae consisting of planetesimals. These formations still may be found in the universe. Hence, quite a change is noted from the old Nebular Hypothesis and instead of the blazing nebulous mass of 'Laplace,' we have the dark nubulae building up a universe of planets, planetoids, asteroids* and meteors. As formally stated, this building process may still be discovered going on in the universe. Thousands of meteors fall on the earth each year and the magnetism of the various spheres builds them up by attracting the planetesimals to them. All this fits in beautifully with the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis, which says, And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face o f the deep. And so the planets were formed from these shapeless masses. The smaller the nebulae the quicker the contraction, hence this would explain why the earth is mentioned as being created before the sun, for it would not have begun to function until the earth was fairly well formed as a sphere. The earth also preceded the moon, for satellites were supposed to have come into existence through centrifugal force and it was mentioned in relation with the sun as being a `lighter of the earth.' Thus in the first day this nebulous light was the universal illumination. The character of this light is somewhat of a mystery, but astronomers think it was electrical and phosphorescent. Suffice it to say that in the treatment of the planetesimal explanation (or hypothesis), the account of light being given before the mention of the sun and the moon, substantiates scientifically the claim of the creation story."

*About six hundred asteroids have their orbits between Mars and Jupiter, the largest of them, Ceres, having a diameter of not more than 500 miles.

When one orients himself as to the first day of creation, then the other days follow in exact scientific order. These periods of time have never been arranged by scientists in any other manner than the first chapter of Genesis arranges them. Paleontological evidence substantiates the order and arrangement of life as laid down in Genesis. The creative fiat, in its triple expression in the first chapter of Genesis, is sufficient explanation for being, both inanimate and animate, and with the increasing discoveries of science is being verified each day by earth's greatest minds.

The Restoration Theory.In order to account for the great geological periods, it has been held more or less extensively in the church, that the first verse of the creative account is an introductory statement without reference to a time order; and that between this and the following verses an immense interval of time elapsed. Thus Dr. Shedd makes the assertion that between the single comprehensive act of the creation of the angels and of the chaotic matter mentioned in Genesis 1:1 an interval of time elapsed; and he further declares that this was a common view among the fathers and the schoolmen. In this way the long creative periods which geology demands are accounted for without regarding the days of Genesis as other than solar days of twenty-four hours each. Modern writers such as John W. McGarvey and G. Campbell Morgan take this position, setting aside the two introductory verses as expressive of an immeasurably long period of time. This was followed by a great catastrophe in which everything upon the earth was destroyed. After this God recreated the earth and revivified it in a week of six solar days. In substantiation of this the words of Isaiah are cited, God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [i.e., He created it not a waste], he formed it to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). Dr. Coggins calls attention to the Hebrew words tohu wabohu as implying such a catastrophe, the former meaning "wasteness" and the latter "voidness" or "emptiness."

Whether St. Paul meant only to summarize the various orders of the animal creation, or whether he meant to teach distinctions in kind, the following verse is worthy of study. All flesh, he says, is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds (ICor. 15:39).

THE PURPOSE OF CREATION

We have considered the world as cosmos, it remains now to direct our attention to the world as aeon. By this we mean that succession of epochs and periods running throughout the course of the ages, and involving both the physical and ethical aspects of the world. One such aeon is past, the second eon is the present age, and we have the promise of an age to come. What is beyond this we cannot know, although St. Paul refers to the ages to come (Eph. 2:7). The first aeon on the physical plane is that indefinite formative age which antedates the present heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1). The second aeon is the present economy. As the prehistoric aeon was superseded by the action of persistent forces, which at the command of God issued in the current aeon, so both the observations of naturalists and the words of divine revelation teach, that there are now mighty agencies held in check, which anticipate tremendous convulsions, and which when the fullness of time shall have come, will break forth into a new heavens and a new earth. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned-up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved[luqhsontai], what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved [luqhsontai], and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (IIPeter 3:10-13). In one sense therefore the present world will come to an end and pass away to make room for a different organization; but in another sense it will not come to an end, for at the command of God, all that hinders its progress, all that links it with the curse of man, will be melted away or dissolved, and it will then emerge into the heavens and the earth which are to be. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind (Isa. 65:17). And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away (Rev. 21:1).

But the aeons cannot be understood on the physical plane alone. There are ethical and spiritual realms which closely parallel them, and reveal in clearer light the purpose of God in creation. (1) The first aeon on this plane is the prehuman realm of created spirits which is given only brief mention in the sacred Scriptures. A part of this world of spirits apostasized, thus bringing moral disorder and spiritual confusion into the universe. What the chaos of the geological ages was to the present material universe, that the prehistoric spiritual disorder is to the present moral and spiritual economy. The one answers to the other. (2) The second aeon opens with the creation of man as an ethical and spiritual being and will extend to the final consummation of the present world order. Two decisive epochs may be observed. First, the fall of man into sin, which the Scriptures seem to indicate was the direct consequence of the defection of angels; and second, the incarnation or advent of the Second Man as the Lord from heaven. The first man was of the earth, earthy, by which we are to understand that he was the full complement of all the subhuman kingdoms. The Second Man was a quickening spirit which marked a new beginning in the human race-a beginning which can come to its perfection only with the return of the Son of man in His glory. While conditioned by the first Adam, the last Adam will be the full spiritual complement of all the essential demands implicit in the original constitution of the Adamic race, and of all the accidental demands due to man's depravity and sin. We may say, then, that the physical universe came to its triumph in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and its ethical and spiritual triumph in the return of the Holy Spirit. Thus the physical universe finds its meaning in the ethical, the ethical in the spiritual, and the spiritual in the glory of God. (3) The third aeon will open with the advent of Christ and usher in the new age which is to be. Then the world-idea which had been struggling through the ages will come to its perfection. This is the mystery, which according to St. Paul has been hidden from the ages and generations, but which is now made manifest. Christ is both the mystery and the manifestation. The new aeon from the physical aspect will find its expression in a new heaven and a new earth; on the ethical and moral plane, it will be an age in which righteousness dwells--an age free from sin and all moral disorder.

The Kingdom of God.We may say then, that theology finds the purpose of creation in the kingdom of God. This kingdom is at once a present possession and a future hope. Jesus was Himself the Perfect embodiment of the principles upon which the kingdom rests. Through His redemptive work men may now be delivered from sin; with the full fruition of this work, His people will be delivered from the consequences of sin. The complete realization of this ideal requires other conditions than those which obtain during the present aeon. Here there is an inner redemptive experience of righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17) ; then at the appearance of the Lord in glory, the kingdom shall be ushered in as the full realization of man's highest ethical and spiritual ideals, and the perfect medium for the realization of all his aspirations and hopes.

There are three historical interpretations of the kingdom of God, each of which contains some truth which should be conserved. These concepts of the kingdom are, first, the Millennial; second, the Ecclesiastical; and third, the Individualistic. They demand only brief mention at this time.

The Millennial Concept of the Kingdom.This is a term used to describe that class of theories which look for the kingdom to be ushered in by a sudden trans formation of the present order, at the coming of Christ. Since according to this theory the advent precedes the millennium, believers in this theory are commonly known as pre-millennialists. The term used in the early Church to express this concept was "Chiliasm." The Latin equivalent of the Greek ciliaV is mille, or a thousand, from which our word millennium is derived. The beginnings of this doctrine lie far back in the eschatological ideal of later Judaism, and were revived and strengthened in the early Church through a study of the Jewish apocalyptical literature. While this teaching was not universal in the early Church, it was nevertheless the dominant theory, as may be confirmed by a study of the ante-Nicene Fathers.

The Ecclesiastical Concept of the Kingdom.With Augustine thought was diverted into different channels. The dying out of the expectation of the immediate re turn of Christ led to a reinterpretation of the teachings of our Lord. Augustine interpreted the millennium to mean the spiritual reign of the Church, and therefore, in large measure identified the kingdom with the visible Church. The extension of the Church meant the extension of the kingdom. The term, therefore, is applied to those theories which seek by social and ecclesiastical organization to mold the social structure after a Christian pattern. The theory finds its clearest expression, for the Roman Catholic Church at least, in Augustine's City of God.

The Individualistic Concept of the Kingdom.Against the social organization of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism reacted, and consequently developed the individualistic conception of the kingdom. According to this theory, the kingdom is an inner spiritual kingdom-the rule of Christ over His people through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. It has taken different forms, as for instance, the elective grace of Calvinism and the individual probation of Arminianism. Luther stressed the idea of justification by faith, and John Wesley pressed the matter still further, insisting that as we are justified by faith, so also we are sanctified by faith. But whether Lutheran, Reformed or Arminian all agreed in denying the mediatorial offices of the Church, and insisted upon a direct relation of man to God through the Spirit.

The element to be conserved in the first theory is the necessity of a new order as a ground for the full expression of the Christian ideal. In the second theory, we must insist that the inner spiritual principles have their counterpart in an outward social structure; while the necessity of grace in the transformed lives of individual persons must ever give character and quality to the ideals of the kingdom.

ANGELS AND SPIRITS

The Scriptures clearly teach that there is an order of intelligences higher than that of men; and further asserts that these intelligences are connected with man both in providence and in the redemptive economy. These intelligences are called Spirits to denote their specific nature; they are called Angels to denote their mission. Nothing can be known of them other than that which is revealed in the Scriptures. They are created spirits but the time of their creation is not indicated. Dr. Miley holds that such creation must have been included in the statement found in Genesis 1:1, and therefore preceding the six days' formative period. Dr. Stump, on the other hand, states that this creative act must have followed the formative period, for at its close God pronounced everything that He had made as "very good."

The Nature and Attributes of Angels.Angels are frequently described as pure spirits, i.e., incorporeal and immaterial beings. The Scriptures do not attribute bodies to them; but on the assumption that a world of spirits could not function in the material realm apart from the media of bodies, a council held at Nicea (A.D. 784) decided that angels had ethereal bodies, composed of either light or ether. In substantiation of this they quoted such verses as Matthew 28:3 and Luke 2:9, as well as other passages which spoke of their luminous presence. The Lateran Council (A.D. 1215) reversed the former decision and declared that angels were incorporeal. This has been the general opinion of the Church since that time. Dr. Pope, however, takes a different position. He holds that the angels, while less closely connected with the material universe than man, must not be regarded as pure spirits. "God alone," he says, "is pure, essential Spirit; these created spirits are clothed with ethereal vestures, such as Paul describes when he says, There is a spiritual body (I Cor. 15:44). Thus our Lord tells us that the children of the resurrection are [isaggeloi], equal unto the angels (Luke 20:36). Having a more subtle organization than man, they are at present higher in their range of faculties; greater in power and might (II Peter 2:11), and angels that excel in strength (Psalm 103:20). But what their faculties are, what organs they use, and what is the bond between their psychology and our own, we know not" (POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., I, p. 409). That angels have assumed human bodies, either in appearance or reality, in order to converse with men is evident from the Scriptures. (Cf. Gen. 18: 2 the appearance to Abraham, and Gen. 19:1, 10 the appearance to Lot.)

Bishop Martensen maintains that the angels or spirits represent general rather than specific powers, and therefore bear the same relation to man that the universal bears to the microcosmical. While the angel is the more powerful spirit, man's spirit is nevertheless the richer and more comprehensive. "For the angel in all his power," he says, "is only the expression of a single one of all those phases which man in the inward nature of his soul, and the richness of his own individuality, is intended to combine into a complete and perfect microcosm." He further asserts that "it is precisely because the angels are only spirits, but not souls, that they cannot possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the point of union in which spirit and nature meet. The high privilege, which man enjoys above the angels, finds expression in the Scriptures, where it is said that the Son of God was made not an angel, but a man (Heb. 2:16). "He was willing to unite Himself with nature alone, which is the central point of creation. As man is that point in which the spiritual and corporeal worlds are united, and as humanity is the particular form in which the Incarnation has taken place, it follows that men are capable of entering into the fullest and most perfect union with God, while angels, on account of their pure spirituality, can be made only partakers of the majesty of God, but cannot, in the same immediate manner as man, be made partakers of His revelation of love, the mystery of the Incarnation, and the sacramental union connected with it" (Cf. MARTENSEN, Chr. Dogm., p. 132ff). It is for this reason that St. Peter speaks of those that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into (I Peter 1:12) ; while St. Paul speaks of the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom o f God (Eph. 3:9, 10). Here it is expressly stated that the angels and spirits in heavenly places are merely witnesses to the redemptive glory of man, but that they themselves cannot partake of Christ in the same real manner. Hence St. John in the Apocalypse hears redeemed men singing a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou vast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. The-angels, however, say with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing; while the created universe was heard to say, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever (Rev. 5: 9, 12, 13).

The attributes ascribed to angels usually include indivisibility, immutability, illocality and agility. Being indivisible and immutable, angels may be described as invisible, incorruptible and immortal. Their relation to space is that of illocalitas, i.e., they are not omnipresent, but always somewhere present. The attribute of agility refers more especially to the power of angels to move with the greatest celerity. Angels must also be regarded as individuals and not as composing a race. It is expressly stated that they are not male and female and do not propagate their kind (Matt. 22: 30). However there appear to be grades or ranks among the angels, such as cherubim (Gen. 3:24) seraphim (Isaiah 6:2), thrones, dominions, principalities, powers (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:10, Rom. 8:38), and archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude 9). It is interesting to note that in the lower orders of creation, the species predominates and the individual is nothing, in man the species and the individual are blended, while in the upper world the species is lost and the individual is alone before God. Whether in church or state, the social structure is divinely intended to care for and preserve the individual, but ultimately the individual must himself appear before God to answer for the deeds done in the body.

The Ministry of Angels.The highest exercise of angels is to wait upon God. The expression, "Lord of hosts," refers to the Lord attended by His angels. When it is said that all the sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38: 7) the reference is to the angels as sons. Their chief duty is to minister to the heirs of salvation. They were present at creation, at the giving of the law, at the birth of Christ, after the temptation in the wilderness, in Gethsemane, at the resurrection and the ascension. Hence the author of Hebrews inquires, Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Heb. 1:14). For this free service they were prepared by a probationary period. Both Dr. Adam Clarke and Dr. Pope regard the cherubim as symbolical rather than descriptive forms, and signify the forces of the created universe as attendant upon God. The seraphim likewise represent the creature before God and are the watchers, burning with divine love. The schoolmen divided the angels into three hierarchies; (1) Thrones, cherubim and seraphim which attended immediately upon God; (2) Dominions, virtues and powers, which operated in nature and in warfare; and (3) Principalities, archangels and angels, which fulfilled special missions and ministered to the heirs of salvation.

Good and Evil Angels. The angels in their original estate were holy beings, endowed with freedom of will and subjected to a period of probation. They were meant to choose voluntarily the service of God, and thus be prepared for the free service of ministering to the heirs of salvation. They did not all keep their first estate, but some fell into sin and rebellion against God. Hence we read of the condemnation of the devil (ITim. 3:6) who we gather from the Scriptures was at the head of that portion of the angels which fell away. Satan for this reason is called the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2: 2), and his hosts are referred to as spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12). We may believe also that following their probationary period, the good angels were confirmed in holiness and admitted to a state of glory - a state of indefectibility wherein they always behold the face of God (Matt. 18:10). The wicked likewise were confirmed in their state of misery. Their fall was not due to any necessity from within, or any compulsion from without, but may be regarded as voluntary apostasy. It is surmised that their sin was pride (I Tim. 3:6). As a consequence of their sin they have been brought under the condemnation of God (II Peter 2:4), and shall be punished eternally (Matt. 25: 41). Since God is a God of love, we may infer that the angels were not salvable, or He would have made provision for their salvation. Their disposition toward God is one of enmity, this malignant purpose being centered in Satan who stands at their head.

Satan. Satan is a personal being, the head of the kingdom of evil spirits. He is the essential anti-Christ. Two names chiefly, are applied to him, both of which ex press his character. He is Satan, or adversary, and devil (diabolus) or calumniator. Our Lord describes him as sowing the seeds of error and doubt in the Church (Matt. 13:39), and as being both a liar and a murderer (John 8: 44). He is able also to transform himself into an angel of light. The rationalists have always denied a personal devil, regarding Satan as a personification of the principles of evil. Even Schleiermacher combatted the idea of a personal Satan. The later mediating theologians, however, such as Martensen, Dorner, Nitsch and Twesten held firmly to the view of Satan as a personal being. This subject must be given further attention in connection with the origin of evil.

Four archangels are named in the Scripture: Michael (Dan. 10:13, 12:1; Jude 9, Rev. 12:7) ; Gabriel (Dan. 8:16, 9:21, Luke 1:19, 26) ; Raphiel (Apocrypha, Tobit 3:17, 12:15) and Uriel (2 Esdras 4:1). Three others are named in Jewish tradition: Chamuel, Jophiel and Zadkiel.

PROVIDENCE

The God of creation is also the God of providence. He sustains and cares for the world which He has made, and His tender mercies are over all His works. Providence involves the attributes of God, His goodness, wisdom and power being the most prominent. It involves the Trinity with its various missions and economies. Providence is ascribed to the Father (John 5:17), to the Son (John 5:17, Col. 1:17, Heb. 1:3), and to the Holy Spirit (Psalm 104:30). As Father, God rested from His work of creation but continues it in providence. The Divine Sabbath is therefore a perfect rest filled with perfect activity-not in a new creative work, not even in continuous creation, but in the preservation and upholding of all things by the word of His power. There is also a special economy of providence which belongs to the Son in the administration of redemption-that of the kingly office of the mediatorial economy (Matt. 28:18, Eph. 1: 22, Heb. 1: 2, 3). There is a further economy of the Holy Spirit as the Lord and Giver of life. He is especially the God of Christian providence in the administration of redemption. Providence, however, is conventionally ascribed to the Father. Since God as Creator is both transcendent and immanent in His relation to the world, we are under the necessity of guarding against the errors of Deism and Pantheism in any discussion of the subject. These positions have been previously discussed and need only brief mention here.

Providence may be defined as that activity of the Triune God by which He conserves, cares for and governs the world which He has made. The subject may be broadly divided into General Providence by which is meant God's care for the world as a whole and everything in it; and Special Providence which refers more particularly to His care for the human race. In the strictest sense of the term, providence can be revealed only in history, and is concerned with the exigencies arising from the freedom of man's will. Since the subject of creation in the sense of the aeon necessitated a discussion of God's purpose in creation, we need now to direct our attention only to a consideration of the administrative phases of this subject. Here we find another classification, that of Ordinary Providence, by which is meant the general exercise of God's care through established principles and laws; and Extraordinary Providence, or God's miraculous intervention in the ordinary course of nature or history. It is with the former that we are now specially concerned. Providence further involves the twofold idea of a conserving and a ruling Agency, but in its application to the objects of providence, the threefold division is more comprehensive and appropriate. We shall, therefore, treat the subject of Providence under the following main divisions, first, Conservation as referring to inanimate nature; second, Preservation as referring to animate nature and the creaturely wants of the subhuman kingdoms; and third, Government in its application to man in his probationary state.

Conservation.Conservation is God's preserving providence in the realm of the physical universe. It is concerned with the relation of God to the world. The question immediately arises, Is there no further relation of God to the world than the primary fact of creative causality? Have the laws of God as found in nature a real efficiency, so that His immediate presence and agency are no longer required? Or, is God still immanent in nature, upholding all things with the word of His power? (Heb. 1: 3). The Scriptures are explicit in their statements: He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:25) ; For in him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28); And he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col. 1:17); For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things (Rom. 11: 36). Mr. Wesley sums up the evangelical belief concerning conservation in the following clear and concise statement. He says, "God is also the supporter of all the things which He has made. He beareth, upholdeth, sustaineth all created things by the word of His power; by the same powerful word which brought them out of nothing. As this was absolutely necessary for the beginning of their existence, it is equally so for the continuance of it; were His almighty influence withdrawn, they could not subsist a moment longer" (Sermon on Providence).

As to the mode of this relation existing between God and the world, three theories have been advanced. (1) "Continuous Creation. Admitting that creation is by the power of God, and that continued existence is due to the unceasing conservation of His Power, the notion of constant dependence easily passes over into the error of continuous creation. If conservation requires momentarily the same divine energizing as was required for its original existence, the transition is easy. In this form the doctrine appeared early in the Church. Augustine taught that the created universe is ceaselessly and absolutely dependent upon the omnipotent power of God, and were He to withdraw from the world His creative power, it would straightway lapse into nothingness (Cf. De Civitate Dei, xii, 25). So also, Thomas Aquinas held that preservation is an ever-renewed creation, and that all creaturely causes derive their efficiency directly and continually from the First Cause (AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, pt. 1, P 104, art. i; pt. 1, P 105, art. 5). This theory of continuous creation, however, as it relates to conservation, is essentially different from the theory of continuous creation as a theory of origination. The former insists upon a creative act and a continuation of these creative acts in conservation; the latter, as previously discussed would supersede any creative act and substitute in its place an emergence or continuous becoming. Among modern theologians, Jonathan Edwards is the best representative of this position.

Another theory is (2) Concurrence. By this is meant that activity of God which concurs in second causes, and co-operates with living creatures. The term came into prominence with the Lutheran theologian Quentedt (1617-1680), and was used by the earlier theologians to express what, in more recent theology, is known as divine immanence. The theory, however, must be understood to mean, not merely that God conserves certain powers in nature as second causes, but that there is an immediate co-operation of God with the action and effects of these second causes. Dr. Pope rejects the theory, stating that it disguises "under the term concursus the idea of such co-operation between the First Cause and second causes as makes the resultant action equally that of God and that of the immediate agent." He admits,

however, that outside the sphere of moral action, we may adopt Quentedt's position. Dr. Stump admits also that the doctrine of concurrence raises some difficulties in connection with the sinful acts of men, but points out that the older dogmaticians solved this problem by declaring that God concurs in the effect but not in the defect of a sinful act. Dr. Strong holds that God concurs with the evil acts of His creatures, but only in so far as they are natural acts and not evil (Cf. STUMP, Christian Faith, p. 80, STRONG, Syst. Th., II, p. 418). The theory of concurrence appears to be closely related to what is known in philosophy as the Occasionalism of the Cartesians, and is so treated by Dr. Miley.

There is still another theory, that of (3) Absolute Dependence,which makes all things depend upon the immediate agency of God to the exclusion of second causes. This theory shows the influence of an idealistic philosophy of the Berkeleyan type, and tends directly towards pantheism in theology. In the moral realm it has had the same effect as the Fatalism of the ancient Stoics, and by Dr. Pope is considered the ground of rigid predestinarianism in modern theology (Cf. POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., I, p. 447).

In the scientific realm, certain theories have also been advanced as solutions of this perplexing problem. Here may be mentioned: (1) The Hypothesis o f Natural Law, which holds the inseparability of matter and force, from which spring all forms of energy in nature, whether inorganic or organic. The theory denies the necessity of the Divine Will and is atheistic in its tendencies. Its chief representative was Tyndall. (2) The Theory of a Supramaterial Physis or Nature. Another school of scientists of which Owen and Huxley were representatives denied likewise the distinction between matter and force but held that both were phenomenal manifestations of an underlying substratum. This Divine Substance was in some sense identical with the natura naturans of Spinoza. The whole theory tended toward pantheism of the Spinozan type, but was in another sense the ground of the modern Evolutionary Hypothesis. (3) The Theory of a Plastic Nature. This theory holds that there is an intermediate nature between God and the world, as does the former, but instead of regarding this as an unknown substratum, it regards it as an unconscious organizing intelligence. This appears to differ in name only, from the world-soul or anima-mundi of Platonic physics. All these theories are attempts to explain the world by means of secondary causes and to dispense with the immediate agency of God. Attempts have been made by later theologians to Christianize at least one of these theories under the name of Theistic Evolution. The scientific discoveries of the present are becoming more and more an apologetic for the biblical teaching concerning creation and conservation.

We may then, summarize the theological position concerning Conservation as follows, (1) Divine Cooperation (concursus Dei generalis) which is a concursus amounting almost if not entirely to continuous creation. This theory was held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and in an accommodated sense by Hopkins and Emmons. (2) The Divine Intermediate Impulse (impulsus non cogens) as advanced by Luther; (3) The Divine Sustentation (sustentatio Dei) as held by the Arminians; and (4) The Theory of Divine Superintendence and Control-a theory which Dr. Cocker approved in a measure, as approximating the ever-present and pervading energy which he advocated (Cf. COCKER, Theistic Conception of the World, p. 176). It is evident that the truth of conservation lies somewhere between the extremes of thought, which on the one hand would eliminate all second causes, and on the other deny the necessity of a First Cause. Not only the theological writers, but the religious life of the Church generally, has ever maintained a belief in the immediate presence of God in the conservation of the material universe, and has likewise regarded the laws of nature as the observed principles of the divine activity. Dr. Miley admits that this is the position commonly held in the Church, but questions the application of Conservation to anything but mediate or secondary creation. It does not, he thinks, apply to original or primary creation. The doctrine, however, was held by John Wesley who declares that "all matter of whatever kind is absolutely and totally inert. It does not, cannot in any case, move itself. Neither the sun, moon, nor stars move themselves. They are moved every moment by the Almighty hand that made them" (Cf. WESLEY, Sermons, II, pp. 178, 179). Other writers which have defended this view are Dr. Samuel Clarke, Dugald Stewart, Nitzsch, Mueller, Chalmers, Harris, Young, Whedon, Channing, Martineau, Hedge, Whewell, Bascom, Tullock, Herschel, Wallace, Proctor and Cocker (Cf. CROOKS and HURST, Cyclopaedia, Art. Providence). However, all of these recognized laws, principles, and secondary causes in the conservation of the world, but they did not hypostasize them into active agencies which would supersede God and banish Him from the universe.

Preservation.As we use the term preservation, we do not identify it with conservation, but employ it in an accommodated sense to designate the work of providence in the animate realm. Its scope includes all animate nature, whether impersonal or personal. It may be difficult to tell when the line between the inorganic and organic realm is passed, such is the mystery of life; but we may be sure that down to the lowest cell structure, there is need for providential care if the organism is to expand into its predetermined forms. Plant life has many ingenious ways of providing for its propagation or seeking its nourishment from the soil. God governs the lower orders of the animal kingdom principally by appetites and instincts. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer (Prov. 30:25); The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time o f their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord (Jer. 8:7). The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givett them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing (Psalm 145:15, 16). He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry (Psalm 147:9). This providential care extends to man also as a creature of God, although as a free moral agent man must be considered as under the providential government of God. In this broader division of providential care, we have the words of our Lord who declared that the Father maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. 5:45).

Government.When we pass to the realm of responsible, voluntary action, there is a new relation which subsists between the purpose of God and the manner in which this purpose is realized. Here God's relation is not properly causative as in Conservation and Preservation, but moral, that is, it must be exerted in the form of a motive, and not in the sense of compulsion. The finite will is interposed between the will of God and the consequences of that will in free activity, so that the resulting action is not properly the work of God, but that of the creature to whom the act belongs. Hence while God has given the power of freedom to the creature and permitted its exercise, a sinful action on the part of the creature cannot be said to be God's act. The older theologians distinguished four different modes of the divine government. (1) Permissioor Permissive. "When we say that God permits any event," says Wakefield, "we are not to understand the term to indicate that He allows it, or consents to it; but rather that He does not exert His power to prevent it. God permits sin but he does not approve of it; for as He is infinitely holy, sin must always be the object of His abhorrence. Accordingly, He testifies against the very sins into which He permits men to fall, denouncing His threatenings against them, and actually punishing them for their crimes" (WAKEFIELD, Chr. Th., p. 266). (Cf. II Chron. 32:31, Psalm 81:12, 13, Hosea 4:17, Acts 14:16, and Rom. 1:24, 28.) (2) Impeditio, or Preventive. This is the restraining act of God by which He prevents men from committing sin. There are many instances of this grace in the Scriptures: Behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths (Hos. 2: 6). The thorns and the wall evidently refer to the restraining grace of God (Cf. Gen. 20:6, Gen. 31:24, Psalm 19:13). (3) Directio, or Directive. God overrules the evil acts of man, and brings out of them consequences which were unintended by the evil agencies. This is sometimes referred to as an overruling providence. As for you, said Joseph to his brethren, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive (Gen. 50:20). (Cf. also Psalm 76: 10, Isaiah 10: 5, John 13: 27, Acts 4: 27, 28, Rom. 9:17, 18.) (4) Determinatio, or Determinative. By this is meant the control which God exercises over the bounds of sin and wickedness. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand (Job 1:12) . (Cf. also Job 2:6, Psalm 124:2, 11 Thess. 2:7.) One of the best known and most frequently quoted passages of Scripture comes under this general head. God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it (I Cor. 10:13) .

The root idea of the Christian doctrine of Divine Providence in this sphere is, that God rules over all in love. This reaches its triumphant expression in St. Paul who declares that we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). As to the mode of Providence, its events are as supernatural as the miracles but have no open manifestation. Miracles have a distinct office in attesting the authority of prophets or apostles, but as Dr. Miley points out, providential events have no such office and therefore need no such manifestation. It is evident that the question of Divine Providence is far-reaching in its scope, involving as it does, not only the government of the world generally, but also such questions as the existence of evil in the world, the place and importance of miracles, the efficacy of prayer, and the whole problem of theodicy. These subjects will be considered in their proper place.

One of the best summaries of this subject of Divine Providence is that found in Dr. Pope's Compendium of Christian Theology (Vol. I, p. 456). He says, "A few general observations are still necessary to complete this view of Providence. It is obviously the most comprehensive term in the language of theology; the background, mysterious in its brightness or darkness, of all the several departments of religious truth. Rather, it penetrates and fills the whole compass of the relations of man with his Maker. It connects the Unseen God with the visible creation, and the visible creation with the work of redemption, and redemption with personal salvation, and personal salvation with the end of all things. There is no topic which has already been discussed, none which awaits discussion, that does not pay its tribute to the all-embracing, all-surrounding doctrine of Providence. The word itself - let it be once more impressed - in one aspect of it carries our thoughts up to that supreme purpose which was in the beginning with God, and in another carries our thoughts down to the foreseen end or consummation of all things; while it includes between these the whole infinite variety of the dealings of God with man. It silently accompanies theology, therefore, into all its regions of study and meditation; touches it literally at every point, and sheds its glory, oppressive to reason but invigorating to faith, over all the branches of its investigation. It ought to be the grand reconciler of the contending advocates of predestination and conditional election. The former claim must have all the legitimate rights of the prothesis(proqesiV); the latter should not be defrauded of the rights of the prognosis (prognwsiV) ; while both must rejoice in the pronoia(pronia) that comes between.

All theological truths are rounded out by this unfathomable word. But for the very reason that it is, in its widest compass, so literally boundless and universal, we find it necessary to give it only a scanty treatment as one distinct department."

You say, you allow a general providence, but deny a particular one. And what is a general, of whatever kind it be, that includes no particulars? Is not every general necessarily made up of its several particulars? Can you instance me any general that is not? Tell me any genus, if you can, that contains no species? What is it that constitutes a genus, but so many species added together? What, I pray, is a whole that contains no parts? Mere nonsense and contradiction. Every whole must, in the nature of things, be made up of its several parts; insomuch that if there be no parts, there can be no whole.-JOHN WESLEY, Sermon on Providence. A general and a special providence cannot be two different modes of divine operation. The same providential administration is necessarily at the same time general and special, for the same reason, because it reaches without exception equally to every event and creation in the world. A general providence is special because it secures general results by the control of every event, great and small leading to that result. A special providence is general because it specially controls all individual beings and actions. All events are so related together as a concatenated system of causes and effects and conditions, that a general providence that is not at the same time special is as inconceivable as a whole which has no parts or a chain which has no links - A. A. HODGE, Outlines of Theology, p. 266. "It follows from what has been observed," says Edwards, "that God's upholding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment; because its existence at this moment is not merely in part from God, but wholly from Him, and not in any part or degree from its antecedent existence. For the supposing that its antecedent existence concurs with God in efficiency, to produce some part of the effect, is attended with all the very same absurdities which have been shown to attend the supposition of its producing it wholly. Therefore the antecedent existence is nothing, as to any proper influence or assistance in the affairs; and consequently God produces the effect as much from nothing as if there had been nothing before. So that this effect differs not at all from the first creation, but only circumstantially; as in first creation there had been no such act and effect of God's power before; whereas, His giving existence afterward follows preceding acts and effects of the same kind in an established order.-EDWARDS, Works, II, p. 489. Dr. Miley states that it is the sense of Scripture that life was to be perpetuated through a law of propagation, but it does not mean that life itself as thus initiated should be sufficient for all the future of this realm. We should rather find in the facts the proof of a divine agency than the intrinsic sufficiency of life itself for such a marvelous outcome.-MII.EY, Syst. Th., I, p. 326.