some far-off period. Neither of these things is denoted by the term resurrection, in the Scriptures.

IV. We cannot well close this discussion without calling the reader's attention to the perfect agreement of the passage discussed with the doctrine of a continuous resurrection; and its unfitness to a resurrection that is simultaneous and far in the future. The old version has the rendering, "They that shall be accounted worthy," throwing the resurrection into the future. Then this future tense is immediately contradicted by the use of the present. They neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Strictly this means the resurrection is in the future; but those who shall be worthy of it do not now marry, nor are they given in marriage; but they are as the angels and can die no more! With this view the worthy ones are scarce. The revisers have substituted the present tense for the future, which is better. 'They that are accounted worthy." But the original is better rendered in the past; Having been honored they neither marry, etc. Not marrying being in the present; and being honored, coming before this and being preparatory to it, must be in the past tense. When men and women have been honored with a future life and the resurrection; and as fast as they are so honored, they no longer marry nor are given in marriage. Such is the doctrine of this passage. The resurrection is consecutive and continuous; but as we are passing into the future life every moment of time, with many it may be considered simultaneous.

66

V. One or two objections may be noticed. First, the expression, "The resurrection from the dead," seems to imply the resurrection of a part only; and such was its meaning with the Pharisees; for in their view, while some came back from hades, others were left behind for another occasion, or perhaps forever. But the New Testament writers, as well as Jesus himself, meant by this language the same as by another form used interchangeably with it, namely, the resurrection of the dead. The first of these forms may have been used in conformity to the common practice, but without attaching to it the common ideas. When Jesus spoke of the resurrection,

he did not mean transmigration, as did the Pharisees; and he differed from them quite as much when he used the expression, "resurrection from the dead," that is, from a state of death.

Second, it may be said that our construction of this passage makes that world or state, and the resurrection, to be identical. We reply, not exactly. The reference to that state was dedesigned to show a contrast between the two states, the one physical and the other spiritual; and so far there is no allusion to the resurrection process. No doubt, if God so willed, men could exist as pure spirits. But the resurrection, as taught by Paul, and probably by Jesus, is the taking on of a spiritual body. This had no connection with the matter of marriage. It is therefore evident that a pure spiritual entity is one thing, and the soul clothed with a spiritual body is another and a different thing. This of itself sets aside the theory that a future life is a resurrection; for here they are plainly distinguished.

Third, some may think that the passage contains a reference to two separate classes, whose conditions respectively are contrasted. One class is described as the children of this world; the other as those who are honored with that world and the resurrection. Such seems to have been the opinion of the translators, both of the Old Version and of the Revision. But who are the second class? Not the inhabitants of this world, nor any portion of them; for all these are the first class. The truth is, that the second class is nowhere to be found.

There are no two classes, but one class, under different circumstances or in different conditions. This is evident, not only from the use of the article hoi, which connects the second class with the first, but also from the assertion that they do not marry as they had done before. "As they had done before," is not said but is clearly implied. That they are now the children of God is no proof that another class is intended. We know that all mankind are the children of God, in one sense; and there is no sense in which they may not become so. This relation to God seems to be mentioned as a reason why they are the subjects of the resurrection. Still, there is no ob

jection to understanding the expression as denoting a moral semblance. The same is implied in being like the angels.

The following may be taken as a translation of the more difficult part of this passage; The subjects of this state [of existence] marry and are given in marriage; but these, having been honored with that [spiritual] state, and the resurrection of the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. W. E. Manley.

ARTICLE XX.

The New Thirty Years' War.

EVOLUTION is no new theme. The old philosopher of Samos taught it to his disciples in Magna Græcia six hundred years before the Christian Era, and of his teaching Ovid has left us a few details in his Metamorphoses. But the seed fell into stony ground. Knowledge was scarce and wise men scareer. The soldier was greater than the philosopher and the world was too much absorbed in the present to care much about the distant past. Here and there, however, along the course of time we see the centuries dotted with the name of one and another who speculated on the "whence of all things." Aristotle and Thales in Greece and Lucretius in Rome have left us their musings on the beginning and course of Nature, and in almost every religious system that the world has seen we find the views of the Author on Cosmogony, or the birth and growth of the universe, strangely and inextricably mingled with his moral teachings. The priests of Egypt enwove the story of Creation, Destruction and Renovation into their awful and gloomy mysteries. The prophets of the Hindoos sang Creation and the Creator, Deluge and Fire, and the three avatars or descents of Brahma in their vedas or sacred hymns. The Greeks incorporated into their theology the story of the beginning as they imagined it. The Hebrew poets tell sub

stantially the same tale in different modes, and Mahomet in his Koran has borrowed their version with little alteration.

All these systems embody more or less the principle of Evolution-the principle of becoming. But they embody it only as a germ. Their seers saw but dimly. Their ideas were narrow and their words were as narrow as their ideas. For later days were reserved the task and the honor of developing the germ and of showing to what a magnificent tree it could grow. Verily here, as was said of old, "the Kingdom of Heaven was as a grain of mustard seed," The smallest of all seeds has now become a mighty tree, overshadowing the whole earth, and not the earth only, but also the heavens.

The first writer who gave clear utterance to modern evolutionary views regarding the earth was the German philosopher Leibnitz, the contemporary and rival of Newton in the discovery of the Fluxional Calculus. In his "Protogæa," published in 1680 he maintained that this planet was originally a burning, luminous mass, which ever since its creation has been undergoing refrigeration. When the outer crust had cooled down sufficiently to allow the vapours to be condensed, they fell and formed a universal ocean, covering the loftiest mountains and investing the whole globe.

Crude as these views were, they were far in advance of previous opinion and mark an epoch in the history of Evolution. But Leibnitz confined his vision to the earth. Laplace, a century later, cast his eye over the whole planetary system and seizing in his grasp what the older mathematician had not dared to touch, he announced his comprehensive Nebular Theory, according to which all the bodies in that system were developed from one original, fiery, vaporous mass by virtue of properties inherent in it from the beginning. This was a grand step in Evolution, for it made the sun, planets, satellites and all the other bodies of the group one in origin and therefore one in nature.

But these vast and far-reaching speculations were nothing more. They rested on no foundation. They had little evidence in their favor. As the essay of a schoolboy or a fresh

man they dealt with great subjects, but they added nothing to our knowledge. They might be true or false. They proved nothing. Their immediate effect was to raise a howl of indignation from the authorities of the Church, and to bring down on their authors the charges of irreligion, infidelity and atheism, the first growls of the long and desperate coming fight. But the battle of Evolution was not fought upon this ground. The arena was too large. It dissipated the forces. In the state of science at that day, speculation on the origin and history of the Cosmos, of which almost nothing was known, was utterly useless. The fight, to be decisive, must be narrowed. The forces must be concentrated. In other words the arguments must be facts and not fancies.

So from the inorganic the contest was transferred to the organic world, and close study of the living creation within reach of our senses took the place of wild speculation concerning distant and intangible worlds. In proportion to its nearness became its intensity. Instead of beating the air, as formerly, the combatants struck each other. Each party felt that the principle for which he was fighting was at stake, and that the old doctrine of Special Creation must drive that of Evolution from the field, or acknowledge itself vanquished. For it was on behalf of these two principles that the fight was waged. The believers in Special Creation based their belief on a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. In fact it was an inevitable inference from the doctrine of the verbal inspiration and literal accuracy of the Hebrew scriptures. According to this doctrine all the animals and plants now living on the earth came on the third, fifth and sixth days of creation, direct from the hand of their Maker, and have continued without change ever since. The "tawny lion pawing to get free his hinder parts,""the swift stag bearing up his branching head from underground," as Milton writes, unwittingly parodying the story in Genesis, were the same then as they are The earth "brought forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit." The waters brought forth every living creature and every winged fowl and every beast of the

now.