natural evils therefore were included in the system which met the approval of Omniscience. Man was placed in a beautiful garden, containing trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, besides the tree of life, and of knowledge of good and evil. We may suppose the fruit of the tree of life was intended to prevent or heal sickness, sorrow, and to instill immortal vigor into the system, so as to counterbalance all possible natural evils; for, lest the race should have feasted upon it and lived forever, the first pair were expelled from Eden. The eating of the forbidden fruit gave man his knowledge of the distinction between holiness and sin, and was the occasion of moral evil and suffering to the race.

The serpent tempted man to sin. The inference that previous to the curse he walked erect, is warranted neither by scripture nor science, for in the Tertiary rocks are found the bones of serpents like those now living- boa-constrictors and vipers. Probably an evil spirit entered into the serpent, just as in other parts of scripture dumb beasts have been influenced by spirits, both good and bad; as Balaam's ass, the fish that swallowed Jonah, the fish with a coin in his mouth, and the Gadarene swine. Hence the curse may apply partly to the evil spirit, and partly to the animal. The curse upon the evil spirit is persecution and final destruction by the seed of the woman; that of the serpent seems to be the estimation placed upon him by mankind. He is avoided by them, he trails upon his belly in the dust, and is a symbol of the deceitful. The curse pronounced upon woman pertains to herself alone. That pronounced upon man renders his labor unproductive, and entails sickness, suffering, painful death, spiritual evils, and penalties. The ground is also cursed, yet entirely in its relations to man. In consequence of the transgression the human race receives the same curse as Adam.

It is an inference of theologians that the curse includes all physical evils, such as the sufferings and death of animals,

1 See the "Serpent in Eden," by Dr. John Duns, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxi. p. 163.

extremes of climate, existence of carnivorous animals, absence of beauty, earthquakes, etc. It can be no longer maintained that natural evils did not exist before the fall, as we have already proved, and the creative chapter implies the presence of some of them before man's introduction. Besides, herbivores could not be changed into carnivores except by a new creation.

The first theory denies that the pre-Adamic evils are included in the curse. They would have continued to exist if man had never sinned. Carnivores cannot subsist upon plants, therefore suffering and death must have prevailed among the animals. Even the herbivores would have devoured many insects and other minute forms unintentionally. In some regions there would have been deserts and extremes of climate. There would have been ugly characters, deformities, absence of perfection and beauty, eruptions from volcanoes, and earthquakes. Man would labor, as he was to dress and keep the garden, but his toil would not be accompanied with sorrow. As the population increased they would naturally spread to all parts of the earth, and would devise means to protect themselves from climatic extremes and miasmatic influences. There would have been no sickness nor sorrow; unavoidable injuries would have been either impossible or instantly remedied from the tree of life, and the mar of sin would have been wanting. What a beautiful world this would have been even with the evils, without the blot of sin!

The second theory includes post-Adamic and pre-Adamic evils in the same category. God knew that man would sin, and therefore fitted up the world to be in harmony with man's state. It was full of natural evils, because they are particularly appropriate to a fallen condition. The preAdamic evils are logically a consequence of the transgression, though chronologically previous. Had obedience been foreseen, the world would have been fitted up differently, without physical evils. As many of the simplest laws involve evil, the difference in nature would have been fundamental.

Such a view exalts our conceptions of the extent and grandeur of the work of redemption, because every event, from the first axial revolution of the world to the elevation of the last foot of land above the ocean, has had reference to man's character and wants as a sinful being in a probationary state. This theory then accounts for the existence of evil in the system. It was introduced, not because it could not have been prevented, but because man's disobedience made it necessary. Benevolence, which foresaw the evil, adapted the universe to man's fallen condition. Had man chosen obedience, the entire system would have been constructed without the presence of evil. This view explains why it was best for God to permit the existence of evil.

The first theory involves a different notion of the introduction of evil; it was necessary to the symmetry of the system. The very idea of law implies the existence of imperfection; and hence it may be that God could not prevent the presence of evil, and at the same time sustain a moral government.

These two theories are presented without comment. Either of them explains all the facts, although resting upon very different foundations. Neither of them has atheistic or heterodox tendencies.

NOTE. Since the preparation of this Article many additional facts respecting the association of flints and human bones with the remains of extinct animals have been published, and more precise subdivisions of the stone age have been suggested. These facts are similar in kind to those described above, and all interested in the details may consult the scientific journals. The writer has also visited the valley of the Somme and other localities of interest, and has seen nothing that will conflict with the conclusions stated above. It would not be strange, however, if in the future we should find it desirable to revise our chronology.

ARTICLE III.

FREE COMMUNION.1

BY REV. SERENO D. CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE CONGREGATIONAL BOARD

OF PUBLICATION.

PART II.-THE SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES AND CANONS OF SCRIPTURE PRESCRIBING AND REGULATING CHURCH FELLOWSHIP.

As intimated in the previous part of this discussion, it is not our object to break down denominational distinctions, or to consolidate all visible saints into one church organization. It is the farthest possible from our design to obscure the cardinal doctrines of revelation. We have no sympathy with efforts towards Christian union which undervalue these, or descry zeal in their honest defence. Such endeavors indicate rather a feeble grasp of gospel realities than that calm, rational charity which "worketh no ill to his neighbor." There is nobler ground. It is the public recognition of the unity in Christ of all who have publicly entered into covenant with him. It is a unity of Christians and churches perfectly compatible with denominational distinctions, notwithstanding even the earnest defence of such distinctions; a unity which ought to be visibly recognized, and which we believe Christ intended should be specially recognized in the memorial supper, the family feast of the household of faith. While, therefore, the several denominational organizations may be retained in all their fixedness of outline, we affirm that the sacramental table of each should be free to all other denominations receiving Christ as their atoning Saviour.. No bar

1 In the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xix. pp. 133 sq., was inserted an Article by Rev. Alvah Hovey, D.D., entitled Close Communion. In the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxi. pp. 449, sq., was inserted the first part of the Article by Mr. Secretary Clark, entitled Free Communion. Both of these Articles belong to the series of Essays on the Distinctive Peculiarities of the various Evangelical Denominations. The second part of Mr. Clark's Article is not injured by its separation from the first part, as both parts form independent Essays.-EDS.

riers should be thrown around the sacramental board, save such as the nature of the ordinance demands.

In this discussion, therefore, we admit: 1. That believers alone may partake of the Lord's supper.1 2. That to commune with a church one must give the body credible evidence that he communes with Christ, and that the proper way of doing this is the profession of his faith by entering into covenant with God and with the brethren.2 3. That the church of Christ is purely a spiritual body; the scriptural practice of infant baptism not being incompatible with the idea of a church thus constituted. We are willing in argument even to admit that infant baptism is unscriptural, and that it tends to paralize the church by introducing into it unsanctified elements; in a word, that the Baptist views regarding the rites and spirituality of the gospel church are correct. Our position lies below such supposed errors and their developments. It is, that actual life in Christ, under the conditions above stated, is the ground of eucharistic communion, not prospective life; nor is prospective paralysis or death the ground of disfellowship. All sin and error have the latter tendency. If the tendency of sin and error is to be adjudged a justifiable cause of withholding sacramental fellowship, we shall never enjoy it with any one.

We may illustrate our position by its application to the Puritan Congregational churches of New England. These, it is affirmed, have been brought to the very gates of death by infant baptism, and errors superinduced by it. But they have now utterly discarded these errors, are fully restored from their ill effects, and as strenuously maintain that none but true believers have a right to the Lord's supper as do our Baptist brethren. True, they still practise infant baptism, but it is in a manner not discernibly injuring the life of the churches, or chilling their zeal in the work of the Lord. Now, we argue that, while this spirituality, this zeal, selfdenial, and heroic enterprise in the cause of Christ remains, 1 See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxi. p. 450. 2 Ibid. p. 451.

8 Ibid. pp. 453, 454.

* Ibid. pp. 457, 459.