Evolution has gone beyond this statement of Huxley, and affirms that not merely certain organisms are the result of these laws of development, but that the totality of phenomena in the universe, is the result of a "primordial molecular arrangement from which these phenomena are evolved."

This primordial molecular arrangement containing within it the possibilities of the cosmos, the potentiality of all life, demands a mind more comprehensive and wonderful than anything ever conceived of, in the mere orderly adjustment of means to end in any single product of nature's workshop, and so far from the mechanist hypothesis having displaced the doctrine of design, we are indebted to it for a higher Teleology, that finds its chief support in this boasted reign of law.

(5) It is evident, however, that the question has only been pushed back a step further. When we asked, What is the cause of the phenomena of nature? it was answered, The Laws of Evolution; when it is further asked, What is the cause of this historical process, Evolution? it is answered, Primordial molecular arrangement. The mind, however, cannot rest here, it presses the query, What is the cause of this "primordial molecular arrangement?" Mr. Spencer answers, 1 "The Persistence of Force"-this is the "unconditioned reality, without beginning or end. To this an ultimate analysis brings us down, and on this a rational synthesis must build up."

That is, given the doctrine of the persistence of force, and the cosmos can be accounted for. "Uniformity of law," says he, “inevitably follows from the persistence of force," and as this uniformity of law is the very thing we have supposed explicable only on the assumption of Intelligence, we have here an hypothesis that, if proven, would drive Teleology from the field. Mr. Spencer's theory has been shown to be "unsatisfactory to mathematicians, physicists "First Principles," Chapter vi.

and logicians," but assuming it established, that it explains fully the phenomena of causation, it does not explain what is critical and most demands explanation, how it is that force and matter alone have produced a cosmos and not a chaos.

It utterly fails to explain the "determination of this force into the particular channel through which it flows."

As Romanes, who was at one time a supporter of this position of Mr. Spencer, says, "Physical causation cannot be made to supply its own explanation and the mere persistence of force even if it were conceded to accouut for particular cases of physical sequence, can give no account of the ubiquitous and eternal direction of force in the construction and maintainance of universal order."1

We thus affirm a directing Mind-Intelligence as the true unconditioned reality without beginning or end.

Reviewing briefly the discussion, we find that Teleology, far from being weakened by Evolution's assault, is greatly indebted to it.

(1) To the controversy growing out of Evolution is largely due the clearer and more scientific statement of the doctrine of Final Causes, and the elimination of extraneous matter from the argument.

(2) The establishing of the fact of the universal reign of law, growing out of the hypothesis of Evolution and forming a corner stone of the theory, has forever eliminated Chance as an explanation of the Universe.

(3) Evolution, however, has not merely demonstrated the Reign of Law, by which the Teleologist is enabled to affirm that the universe is a cosmos and therefore the product of Intelligence, but it has gone further and demonstrated the existence of a Law of Progress, in which it is seen that this cosmic order is developing according to a plan that holds us and all things in a vast and yet vaster sweep.

"Thoughts on Religion," p. 72.

And with the aid now of this prophet of Science-for even the Saul of Evolution is among the prophets-the devout teleologist proclaims "One God, one law, one element, and one far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves."

It is surely significant, that Evolution itself finds the climax of development, where the Teleologist has always affirmed it, in Man-the evolution of society, humanity, of the religious consciousness in the individual, are assumed to be the goal of the process-"The earnest expectation of creation, waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God."

(4) In pushing the hypothesis of Agnostic Evolution to its extreme but logical conclusion, in the assumption of the mere "persistence of force as the true, unconditioned reality," explaining all the phenomena of the universe, Mr. Spencer has unconsciously done the cause of Teleology great service. Reduced to its "ultimate analysis," the "peristence of force," without the intervention of Mind to give direction to that force, does not, and in the very nature of the case cannot explain the phenomena of nature; and routed in the future here, it is evident that however startling may be the assumption of Evolution, it can never eliminate the proof of regulated intelligence at work through these forces.

(5) And lastly, to Evolution is indirectly due the explication of the doctrine of Causation-involving the proof of the immanence of Intelligence. This, indeed, is no new teaching, even the heathen poets declared of the great First Cause, "In him we live and move and have our being," and Christianity has long ago developed the doctrine fully; but the attack on special creation has driven many theists to Deism in philosophy, and with a multitude, the God of nature had come to be conceived as a sort of deus ex machina, sitting since the seventh day of creation "on the circle of the universe and watching it go." The new impetus given to scientific investigation has led to the

acceptance by a large body of philosophers of the dynamic theory of will-that all causation is in its last analysis of the nature of will-energy. Thus is explained how the immutability and uniformity of natural law are not inconsistent with a free intelligence, but are due to the self-consistency of that will-the immutability of nature is thus the faithfulness of the directing Mind to its plan founded in unerring wisdom. These laws are the systematic exercise of the volition of a Divine Being, whose supreme will is "not only the source of all law, but the working force of nature herself."

"God is law, say the wise; O Soul, and let us rejoice,

For if he thunder by law, the thunder is yet his voice."

In this doctrine (of the immanence) of the Intelligent Cause of the universe, we have the union of what have frequently been considered rival doctrines-personality and immanence—and again we exclaim with Tennyson,

"Then speak to him, thou, for he hears, and spirit with spirit can meetCloser is he than breathing, and nearer than hands or feet.” NEAL L. ANDERSON.

Montgomery, Ala.

VII. AN OLD ENEMY WITH TWO NEW FACES.

The resemblance between the teachings of Mrs. Eddy and those of Madame Blavatsky, not only in substance, but even in identity of terms and expression having been exhibited in a former paper,1 is now proposed to push the inquiry a step further back, and exhibit the common origin of these two new religious systems.

Glimpses of heresy appear in the New Testament. Irenæus informs us that the gospel of John was written to refute the heresy of Cerinthus, who denied the proper Divinity and Christhood of Jesus. This statement is borne out by the beloved disciple's own declaration: "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing ye might have life through his name." Paul found himself compelled to defend the faith against Judaizing teachers everywhere, and especially in the churches of Corinth and Galatia; but his epistles abound in reference to other forms of error. He speaks of "endless genealogies," referring, doubtless, both to the Jewish teachings as to the propagation of angels, and also, as Alford insists, to "doctrines of emanations;" and warns the churches against "philosophy and vain deceit," "strife of words," and more particularly, "oppositions of science, falsely so-called." His word for science is yvwσis, which was the term chosen to designate their philosophy by certain would-be philosophers who were seeking to improve uppon the teachings of the Bible and of Christ. The sects which claimed to possess this superior wisdom or yvwols, were termed Gnostics. As many of them professed the Christian faith, and all of them professed to believe in God, they were the Christian Gnostics, or Christian Scientists, and Theosophists of their day. The so-called "science" or "wisdom" of these ancient heretics

'PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY, October, 1898.