race now existing. But according to the Duke of Argyll, one of the oldest human skeletons yet discovered in Northern Europe, has a skull of such dimensions that it might have contained the brains of a philosopher. Now, it must have been the very opposite of that if the development doctrine were true. We have also to ask how life was preserved at all when it was so much lower than the very lowest type at present existing. It is well-known that in the present day the savage races find it extremely difficult to support life, even where their territories are not encroached upon by civilization; and hence, we do not see how it could be supported at all if they were sunk much lower in the scale of being. For in that case the power of self-preservation would be proportionately less. And how is this question met by those who maintain that the savage state is the primeval state of man? It is said that savage life has always found means to preserve itself. But such a statement, instead of meeting the difficulty, only avoids it, and avoids it, as seems to us, because it cannot be successfully met. When Newton, in former times, put forth his theory of gravitation, he did not call on philosophers to believe it, or else to show that it was wrong, but felt it incumbent on himself to show that it was right. What, however, is the course pursued by the advocates of the Evolution Theory? At every turn we are met by what has been termed "the may-be philosophy." And yet they not only ask us to believe their doctrine without offering any real evidence in its favour, but knowing, as they must, that the evidence is so direct and strong against it.

For on all the important points to which we have adverted the theory altogether fails. It has not the slightest foundation either in the past or the present. It fails, too, on the ground of transmutation. The immutability of species is stamped on the very face of nature. It is a law of nature, and therefore a law of God, that hybrids should be sterile. In the words of Dr. Duns, " All geology, all botany, and all zoology testify that species have a real and permanent existence in nature; that they have continued thus under every variety of influence; and that in each case, they have been ushered into being by the creative act of an all-wise and all-powerful God."

Before dismissing the subject it may not be amiss to point out the real nature of the development theory. Dr. Hodge describes it as decidedly atheistic in its character. He thus writes: "In saying that this system is atheistic it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. He expressly acknowledges the existence of God, and seems to feel the necessity of His existence to account for the origin of life. Nor is it meant that everyone who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense. There is no doubt an atheistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory. It is said by some that natural laws are to God what the chisel and the brush are to the artist. Now let us suppose," he continues, "with the Duke of Argyll, that the reign of law is carried into everything; then God is as much the author of species as the sculptor or painter is the author of the product of his skill." Now that is a theistic doctrine. But he remarks further: "That is not Mr. Darwin's doctrine. His theory is, that hundreds or thousands of millions of years ago God called a living germ or living germs into existence, and that since that time God has had no more

to do with the universe than if He did not exist. This," says he, "is Atheism to all intents and purposes, because it leaves the soul as entirely without God, without a Father, Helper, or Ruler, as the doctrine of Epicurus or Comte."

It is thus seen that the bearings of this theory upon our most cherished beliefs, as Christians, is of a most destructive character. According to Professor Huxley, it gives the death-blow to the Design Argument. Paley, therefore, is extinguished by this new teacher. We are now told that what we have been accustomed to call "design" in nature is simply the result of blind unintelligent law. If so, we must have been deceiving ourselves, and deceiving others, in supposing that God had anything to do with it. All that God has done, it is said, has been to create a germ, and nature has done all the rest in the way of development. Then according to this doctrine, we have been giving more glory to God than is His due. We have been saying, in the words of inspiration, that God made and fashioned us, and all other living things; but no! according to this new luminary, nature has done all that and not God. We have been believing that God was in all history, guiding and controlling all things by the counsel of His own will; but no! we are now told that He left everything to take care of itself as soon as He had created the germ. Can anyone believe that such a theory can be universally accepted? As we have seen, it has not the slightest foundation in the known facts of science, and has, therefore, no reasonable claim to our assent. Were there any facts to present in support of the doctrine it would be our duty to examine them, and allow them their just weight in influencing our judgment. But until such facts can be brought forward, we are not prepared to set aside the clear declarations of Revelation, and also the well-attested facts of science, for a system that has been, not inaptly, described as a rotten fabric of guesses and irreligion."

66

P. BAKER.

CHURCH-LIFE.

III.-MANNERS IN THE CHURCH.

Sunday morning, August €, 1871.

Text: 1 Timothy iii. 15.

For two successive weeks we have kept the dedication of this house of God, and kept it, I trust, with appropriate feelings and satisfying results. We cannot but have been cheered with the liberal pecuniary offerings presented, and surely, also, our hearts have been drawn towards God with greater confidence and joy, for He has not withheld from us the tokens of His presence and favour. As we have blended our voices in song, or joined our spirits in prayer, or unitedly listened to the proclamation and exposition of the Divine Word, we have found it good to be here, while our feelings have often prompted to

the utterance, "How solemn, and yet how delightful, is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven!"

But the dedication kept with such devout joy and spiritual profit is now complete, and the edifice is fully consecrated to the great and solemn purpose for which it has been built. On this day exceptional and introductory services pass into the usual and common, the regular routine of ordinances and ministrations. We are like a household taking possession of a new habitation, and of one that has been built specially for its occupation and residence. The entrance into the new home is not taken as an ordinary occurrence, to be passed over with as much haste and as little inconvenience as possible there is the house-warming ceremony to be observed, friends and relatives are brought together for participation in appropriate festivities, and host and guest think it meet that they should make merry and be glad on the occasion. But these festivities last only for a time, and when over the ordinary family life is commenced with all the greater zest for the temporary and pleasant interruption it has received.

Thus it is with us as a Church, and as we enter into full possession of our new home, henceforth to be found in this holy and beautiful house, I wish to say a few things to you, that you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.

I presume many of you will have read Archbishop Trench's little book on the "Study of Words"; if so, you will have learnt that the meaning of words is not fixed and unalterable. Sometimes the meaning of a word enlarges, and sometimes it diminishes, by use and the lapse of time. There are many words in ordinary use among us which mean much less than they did a hundred years ago, and there are others that mean a great deal more. This is the case, too, with many words in the Bible, and that is one reason why a revised version of the Scriptures is called for, that all words in it may be understanded of the common people. To attentive readers of the Sacred Book the words " "" seem, "prevent," "conversation," and others beside, will readily occur as illustrations of our statement. This word "behave " belongs to the same class of mutable words, having changed in use by diminution, and not accretion, of meaning. It is now restricted to what may be called manners—that is, outward demeanour or deportment, considered as decorous or indecorous. Behaviour and decorum are equivalents. In this sense, it is not inappropriate to the subject of my address. If anywhere bad or improper behaviour is out of place, it is in the house of God; while there, of all places, the maintenance of good behaviour partakes of importance. Solomon did not think it beneath him to give counsel respecting it: "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God." And if our Lord gave instruction as to how guests should behave at a wedding feast, surely He would not deem unimportant our behaviour in God's house. Indeed, we find He began His ministry by reforming the Jewish observance of Divine worship, and reproving both priest and people for their desecration of the sanctuary. He drove out the buyers and sellers from the Temple, enunciating a truth as He did so which we should ever remember: "6 My Father's

house is a house of prayer"; and from this we may infer, not only that we should not make it "a place of merchandise," but that at all times we should behave in it in a way which comports with its character and the purpose of its existence.

EARLY ATTENDANCE.

Considered in relation to this view of the question, we should say a proper behaviour would require us to enter the house of God punctually at the time of service, or rather before that service is commenced. If an earthly sovereign had promised us an audience at a specified hour, and expressed his willingness to hear then any request we might present to him, and give us some substantial proof of his favour and regard, should we be found going to the royal presence in a straggling or dilatory manner? Should we not rather be careful to be there at the appointed time, that by our punctuality we might honour him who had been so condescending to us, and show we had a true appreciation of his kindness? Let the same consideration be applied to our coming to the house of God, where He has promised to manifest Himself to those who assemble as He does not to the world, or even to His own people when not associated in His house for worship. If there was a proper feeling on this subject, our congregations would be so prompt in their attendance that ere worship commenced all would be in their seats, waiting with one voice to call upon God in prayer or offer to Him praise, and not, as is now too often to be seen, only be fully collected some ten or fifteen minutes after the service has begun.

DEVOUT SERIOUSNESS.

Becoming behaviour also requires us to enter the house of God with a serious carriage and countenance. The unseemliness of congregating in the porch to talk over the topics of the day before entering the church will be avoided, and after it is entered, during the whole time, and in the various exercises of the service, no levity or listlessness will be manifested. First of all there will be a recognition of the character of the place and the object of the attendance by the bent head and the silent prayer. When the hymn is announced there will be a simultaneous rising to sing it-not part sitting and part standing. This action, also, should be taken before the tune is commenced, or before even the words are read by the minister. Then all should sing; for it is congregational worship in which we are engaged; and all should sing heartily, and not treat the exercise as if it were mere pastime. When we pass from the hymn to the prayer, if practicable the kneeling posture should be taken; if that posture be not practicable, let the person bend forward on his seat, and with closed eyes listen to the petitions presented or the thanksgiving offered. To maintain an erect position in the pew, and still more to loll in it, and let the eye wander over the building or congregation, or to whisper to those next you, or read some book, even should it be the Bible, is not to behave as we ought in the house of God. At the close of the prayer let all the people say, Amen. This was the primitive custom, and it is the only proper custom, as the utterance of that

word on the part of the congregation is its audible consent to or adoption of the act performed by the minister. The same decorum will be observed in all the hymns sung and prayers offered.

ATTENTION TO THE SERMON.

When the sermon is preached there will be attention to its enunciations—that is, you will listen to them, and consider their import. But how many there are who do not know how they should behave during the sermon time! They are indifferent to it, and they do not hesitate to show their indifference. Their wandering eye, their restless person, or their occupation with some book at their command, tell that they do not care for what the preacher is saying; or probably, if you rightly interpreted their conduct, it would say, "O what a weariness! When will the sermon come to an end?” Others, again, make the time of preaching what, as an utterance of pleasantry, is sometimes called, "a refreshing season," and it is no breach of charity to say they purposely do this. As soon as the minister rises to announce his text they put themselves into a comfortable position in their pew, and do all they can to induce slumber to visit them. No one, not even those who practise this laziness, will say it is right behaviour in the house of God.

REVERENT DEMEANOUR AT THE CLOSE.

Another infringement of good behaviour in the house of God demands notice. I allude to the hasty and irreverent way in which some congregations rise from their seats, and leave them when the benediction is pronounced. Propriety suggests that silence and quietude should be preserved some moments after that act is done, and that the house of God should be left with the sedate demeanour it was entered.

SOCIABLENESS.

But the house of God is the place of intercourse with our fellowmen as well as communion with God, and a right behaviour to each other there is obligatory upon us. A haughty, disdainful, or even cold bearing of man towards his fellow-man is not appropriate in the place where rich and poor meet together to worship unitedly the same God, and seek preparation for the inheritance of the same heaven. The brother of high degree and the brother of low degree may surely fraternise so far as to recognise each other's presence, and show by looks and words that in Christ they are joined together by a bond of true and living sympathy. We have heard of occupants of adjoining pews coming to the house of God for months without an interchange of recognition of any kind, but behaving towards each other in a way hardly justifiable had they been the greatest strangers in the world. Judge in yourselves whether such demeanour is becoming in the house of God. It may be consistent with the pride of life, or the cold etiquette of what is called "good society," but it is altogether at variance with true Christian courtesy. I do not say that social distinctions should be wholly ignored in a Christian congregation, but certainly they should be subordinated to the higher laws of our religious brotherhood.

L