on our watch. Blessed be the Lord, by the glorification of His humanity which he assumed for our redemption, he can ever be present, even in the lowest faculties of our nature, and by the power of His Holy Spirit can and will restore them to order, whenever we sincerely repent and turn to him for that purpose. Although, therefore, the hereditary evil originating in the fall is still operative, and renders our restoration difficult, yet by faith and obedience, self-examination, and a praying spirit, directed to the only Lord, such restoration is always attainable during our probationary day. But we cannot reasonably expect to attain the end, unless we use the appointed means; let us, then, ever be careful neither to substitute the means for the end, nor to expect the end without using the appointed means. As we are in continual danger of having our understandings darkened by evil affections, and of being led to call evil good, and good evil, it is necessary to keep constantly in view the end of our creation, the end of our redemption, the end of all the commandments of God, the end of all the dispensations of his Providence, even our eternal salvation! In thus regarding spiritual ends in natural means, we shall be looking from ourselves up to God, and thus, through all intermediate causes to the Great First Cause. Thus only shall we avoid the danger of laying aside by our own tradition the commandment of God spiritually to honour our father and mother; for by father, in the internal sense, is meant our Heavenly Father, even the Lord himself, and by mother, his kingdom,—his church, or that from him which constitutes the church. We cannot, therefore, keep this, or any other divine commandment, without having regard primarily to the Lord himself; for so far as his commandments are separated from himself in thought, intention, or affection, they are deprived of life, and are of no spiritual use, value, or saving efficacy. Our morality must be spiritualized by our faith, that is, a faith in the Lord, as the one and only Fountain of Good.

We see, then, the spiritual reason of this commandment in particular having been specified by the Lord as transgressed by the Jews, by their tradition; it was adverted to, no doubt, because, by spiritually fulfilling it, by honouring the Lord and His church,-we shall be enabled to fulfil all the other spiritual commandments; for as this command in the Decalogue connects the commandments relating to our duty to God with those relating to our duty to men, so the fulfilment of them connects man with God. This commandment, as the apostle observes, is the first commandment with promise, namely, "that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." In all our religious duties, then, public and private, social and civil, we should have regard to this commandment to honour our father and mother, by having regard

to the Lord, and the things of His kingdom, or by "seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." Then shall we experience a spiritual fulfilment of the promise adverted to by the apostle, by becoming members of a truly spiritual church, with the blessed hope of finally attaining everlasting life, denoted by our days being long in the land which the Lord our God giveth us. Then may we say with the Psalmist, "I have set the Lord alway before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved:" and at the close of our probationary state, instead of being dismayed by the searching question, "Why have ye also transgressed the commandment of God by your tradition?" we shall be greeted with the delightful words, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

[In the introduction of a sermon occasionally into the Repository, we are desirous of consulting the wishes of our readers; any suggestion, therefore, on the subject which we have reason to believe is generally concurred in, will meet with due attention.-EDITOR.]

ARE ALL THINGS CREATED OUT OF NOTHING?

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR,-Some time ago I met with a gentleman who was a student at St. John's College, Cambridge, and to whom, after an interesting conversation, I lent a volume of Lectures by the late Rev. J. Proud, wishing him to give them his serious attention, and to write to me on the result. After a short time, I received a letter commenting on the two first lectures only. As, however, the only subject on which he enters upon any argument is the statement of the lecturer, "that all things being created out of nothing is an absurd assertion," I think it might be useful to send the extract upon this point, that the statements of my friend at St. John's College may be placed in their true light, and the subject properly discussed either by yourself or by some of your correspondents.

I am, &c.

Z.

"St. John's College, Cambridge.

MY DEAR SIR,-Receive my best thanks for your kindness in lending me your book: I return it to you after careful perusal, and since you may, perhaps, ask what my opinion of it is, anticipating the inquiry, I shall give it, and I must request your indulgence and candour while I give it.

"From your description of the book, I felt great interest in it. It. is on a subject I am anxious to look into. Of course, every work on subjects where each person may have a different opinion must be read coolly, and entirely without prejudice. Such I determined should be my rule throughout; where the subject was a metaphysical inquiry, I would read the book as any other work on the subject, and, of course, (as in duty bound) where there was a matter of faith' in question, merely take the Bible. In a word, every hypothesis must stand the test of Scripture. All this is fair enough.

In the first lecture I was much startled by his method of argument. I will quote a particular passage, and subjoin my comment upon it.

"Page 9:- And then let the little mind, the minute philosopher, say, All these vast orbs, and suns, and worlds, and beings, once were not so much as a grain of sand; they once were nothing, yea, nothing at all! And out of nothing were they all produced! What an idea! What an absurd assertion! Whereas nothing ever was nothing, and nothing will it ever remain.'

"He proceeds,' And, although we have but little said in the sacred page concerning the creation, it is never there said that worlds were formed out of nothing.'

"He then quotes Hebrews xi. 3, and St. John i. 1, 2, 3.

"He seems to neglect the first quotation entirely; with regard to St. John i. 1, 2, 3, he observes, that he thinks from this testimony we shall receive very considerable light upon the subject.

“N.B. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.' And then the Rev. J. Proud makes what appears to me a most extraordinary leap- SEEING, then, it must be positively denied that the worlds were made out of nothing;-since to make anything out of nothing is contradictory,' &c. That is,-He does not draw any inference either from what St. Paul or St. John has said on the subject; but because it is 'contradictory' to make something out of nothing. You observe he assumes it, and then his whole proof rests upon his repeating what, in fact, he ought to prove. This is most unquestionably begging the question.' Most assuredly there is nothing at all in the quotations to support him, even if (for the sake of argument) it were granted that St. John says nothing against his hypothesis.

"But now the hypothesis itself- That it is contradictory to make anything out of nothing.' It requires no great stretch of philosophy to perceive that 0+0+0+0+0=0. Also that (0+0+0+0) multiplied into itself to all eternity=0, yea, nothing at all!! The first result is

found from simple addition; the second from simple multiplication. And we all admit it at once. So, at least, we find it.

66

In our hands, most assuredly, nothing ever was nothing, and nothing will it ever remain.' But this is not the question; the world has not been produced by us. The question becomes this :-Can anything exist without having been first caused to exist? If you found a piece of wood you immediately presuppose the existence of a tree. Well. Then granting that the world was formed from particles of matter. These particles were then in existence before the work of creation began. But how came those particles? Were not those particles of matter first made TO BE? Must there not have been first issued the 'fiat' over them? If you grant this, you in fact grant that the world was made out of nothing, since the world was first formed of particles which were NOTHING. Then the mystery is solved. But the question becomesWhether forming the world out of nothing is or is not contradictory? We call God Father Almighty:' consider this! Is it, then, absurd' to suppose to conceive the idea—that He whose attribute is 'Almighty,' should call forth from pure space a star-say this earth? Is this in contradiction with his attribute?

"The author's hypothesis is, that that which is made something must have parts. We go further and ask who supplied the parts? He 'from whom ALL things proceed.' Well, then, since all things proceed from God, the materials out of which God framed the world proceeded FIRST from God, and, therefore, not only it is not absurd, but it is evident, both from this last and from the whole context, that God CREATED the world out of nothing-yea, nothing at all!

66

I will now shew you where I detect the fallacy. First, he makes an appeal to the reason- -that it is absurd. Now, it by no means follows that everything which is inexplicable, or seemingly contradictory, is, therefore, absurd.' How many things are there in nature that are beyond our comprehension? How many facts are there in science which seem very contradictory, until we look into them more deeply? You must know this! And if you admit this, you will also admit that the author's appeal is unfair. Secondly, as I have already shewn, he begs the question; and I have shewn just now that the question itself is unfair; therefore the whole proof is unfair, or rather it is worth nothing.

"Now, he does not at all shew us that the world was made out of something. But he gives us a very pretty ramble, the fruit of a very fruitful and abounding imagination. His moral is very good. Generally he is very pleasing; but, alas! he gives way too much to his imagination. He frames hypotheses, and endeavours to make it appear that

Scripture supports them; but this frequently leads us into error, and we must on this account be continually on our guard.

I leave the first lecture, having conducted (as I trust) an unbroken chain of reasoning throughout, and I entreat you to bestow upon it your very serious attention. I have drawn up the argument as connectedly and carefully as possible, and (after due consideration) I believe I have treated the author with all fairness.-I am, &c.

"D."

The statement that all things have been created "out of nothing" is contrary alike to Scripture and to reason; and therefore wherever assumed as a principle of thought, must needs stand in the way of genuine intelligence, and prevent the mind from entering into the light of truth. That the statement is utterly opposed to reason is admitted by the above writer, but only in its relation to man, and not to God; and that ex nihilo nihil fit,—that is, from nothing, nothing comes, is a maxim, or an axiom in all rational thinking and philosophy. The ground, therefore, which this statement is supposed to rest upon, is Scripture, and on this ground the writer of the above letter would be supposed to rest the assertion, "that all things have been created out of nothing," coupled, at the same time, with the Almighty power of God; for in relation to man, creation is of course an impossibility, and creation out of nothing is an absurdity; but not, it is alleged, in relation to God, who is Almighty. This, we think, is a fair statement of the argument as propounded by our correspondent at St. John's College.

Now, in considering the argument, the writer does not think that the lecturer, Mr. Proud, does justice to the text from Hebrews xi. 3, which, according to the common version, reads thus::14 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." This passage by no means teaches that all things were created out of nothing, but that "the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear; that is, that the things which are obvious to our senses, (Bλeñoμeva,) were not made of things which are thus obvious, but of things which do not appear to our senses, (pavoμevov,) that is, of things which are above our senses, or of things in the spiritual world. Thus this passage teaches, what has been the belief of the wise in all ages, that all visible things in creation have proceeded from the invisible things of God, and that they are the exponents, or outward types, of things in the spiritual world, not obvious to our external senses, and supremely of the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator, from whom they came.