THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE.

"THE Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all."-PSALM 103: 19.

MY BRETHREN: The Christian idea of Providence has its ground in the Christian idea of God as an infinite, self-existent, spiritual Being-personal, intelligent, and free-distinct from Nature, before Nature, and above Nature.

There are three distinct conceptions of the Divine Activity which rest in this ground-namely, God as Creator, God as Upholder, and God as Orderer.

These three conceptions hold inwardly together; but the latter is the special conception of Divine Providence-God as Orderer.

The Christian idea is that the same power which created and which upholds the universe is the ultimate cause of all the changes, all the events that come to pass in the universe; that His supreme will is eternally active in the ordering of every thing; that nothing comes by chance, nothing by

any fatality or necessity outside of God; that the history of the universe is one great eternal drama, of which God is at once the Poet and the Manager, and which is for ever unfolding itself under His allseeing eye, His ever-watchful superintendence, and His supreme control.

This is the Christian idea of God's Providence. Atheism subverts this idea by denying its ground in the being of God. If there be no God, there can, of course, be no Providence. This every one

sees at once. But the converse of this—that if there be no Providence, there can be no God in any proper sense of the word-is not at once so clearly seen. Yet it is equally true.

II. I do not propose to go into a confutation of atheism. For the special purpose of this discourse, it would be a needless taking up of time. I speak now only to such as, along with myself, believe that there is a Living Personal God, the Creator of the universe. I assume the existence of such a God as the rational basis for the Christian doctrine of Providence.

And I say at the outset, that the notions of those who admit the existence of such a God, and yet deny the Christian representation of God's everactive superintendence, direction, and control of the

whole course of events in the universe, seem to me quite as incompatible with any satisfactory rational explanation of the universe as the naked atheism which says there is no God at all, or the pantheistic materialism which identifies God with the universe -making Him an impersonal, dead God-no-God. In effect, what sort of a God is one that creates a universe over which He does not exert a constant, all-ordering control? Is the idea of such a God really any better than the old Stoic idea of Fate? Is the contemplation of such a God at all satisfactory to the demands of the human reason, or to the wants of the human heart? This I am sure no one can maintain. And I am equally sure that the conception of a universe perpetually watched over, cared for, and controlled by the infinite power, intelligence, wisdom, and love of a Living Personal God, is the only one that completely satisfies the needs of the human reason and of the human heart.

III. But it is objected that it is difficult and even impossible to harmonize such a conception with what is taken to be a pre-established course of things, and particularly with what are called the Laws of Nature.

But laws can not establish themselves, can not execute themselves.

What is Law? Is it any thing that exists by itself-any thing that has its ground in itself alone? No. Law is a purely relative term. It relates to the idea of Force. In its highest generic conception, Law is an established Rule for the working of a Force. The laws of the universe are the rules according to which the forces of the universe produce the phenomena of the universe. The primary relation of the laws is not to the phenomena, but to the forces which produce the phenomena.

It is quite noticeable, by the way, how the physical science of our day runs out into the assumption of forces. I do not object to this; far otherwise. It is a perfectly legitimate assumption, only it is not the product of the Scientific Method

-as that is commonly understood among scientific men-but of Philosophic Thought. It is the assumption of something that lies outside the sphere of Science, in the ordinary acceptation of the term among scientific men. But, as I hold that there is a sphere of truth beyond the reach of physical science, I can have no quarrel with those physical scientists for assuming the existence of something which their science can not scientifically demonstrate, only I confess myself amused when I see it done by some scientific men, who at the same time dismiss with a sneer or a jeer every thing which they

call "metaphysical," as having no title to recognition among respectable thinkers! Why! the very idea of force, which they assume and talk about, is precisely one of the most purely metaphysical of all possible conceptions! What is force per se-force in itself? Is it any thing phenomenal, any thing that manifests itself by itself to our senses, any thing demonstrable by scientific analysis? No; it is purely ideal; it is something, the recognition of which is necessitated by the laws of thought. It does not alter the case to call the forces they assume mechanical, chemical, electrical, magnetic, vital, or the like. Those epithets denote only certain phenomenal ingredients in a concrete conception, and abstracted from those epithets, the force itself remains a purely ideal conception.

I myself also assume that there are forces in the universe-forces physical and forces spiritual. But these forces did not create themselves, nor establish the laws of their action. Back of the phenomena, of which the laws are the generalized expression, lie the forces that produce the phenomena, and back of these forces lies the great First Cause -the supreme Intelligence and Will which created the forces, and prescribed their laws of action. There is no other rational hypothesis to account either for what science calls the "Laws of Nature,"

་