1 such illustrious Scientists as a Galen, who regarded his professional life as "a religious hymn in honor of the Creator;" a Copernicus, on whose tombstone, in St. John's of Frauenburg, is the following epitaph: "Not the grace bestowed on Paul do I ask, not the favor shown to Peter do I crave; but that which Thou didst grant the robber on the cross do I implore;" a Kepler, who concludes his treatise entitled "Harmony of the Worlds" thus: "I thank Thee, my Creator and Lord, that Thou hast given me this joy in Thy creation, this delight in the works of Thy hands; I have shown the excellency of Thy works unto men, so far as my finite mind was able to comprehend Thine infinity: if I have said aught unworthy of Thee, or aught in which I may have sought my own glory, graciously forgive it;" a Newton, who never mentioned the name of Deity without uncovering his head; a Faraday, who amid his profound researches never forgot his little obscure Sandemanian chapel; a Dana, who concludes his "Observations on Geological History" with the august words, "DEUS FECIT." Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. 1 Non parem Pauli gratiam requiro, Sedulus oro. LECTURE II. GENESIS OF THE UNIVERSE. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I. A Fundamental Question. GENESIS i. 1. WHAT is the Origin of the Universe? Whence came those far-off planets and stars? Whence came this earth, these mountains, and oceans, and rocks, and molecules, and atoms? What is the Origin of Things? It is, perhaps, the sublimest question mortal man can ask. According as it is answered, you have unspeakable consequences: either a God, and the possibility of a blissful immortality, or no God at all, and the annihilation of Religion itself. Do not imagine, then, that this question of the Origin of the Universe is only a secular or scientific question. It is a profoundly religious question, going down to the very roots of Truth, and Science, and Theology, and Character, and Worship. Moreover: it is a question which thoughtful men are everywhere asking, and this, too, with an unprecedented intensity. It is the stupendous problem before the thinking world of to-day. Neither imagine that it is being asked only in yonder scientific cloisters; it is being asked in your marts, and by your very firesides. And the dreadful answer, which you, O Christian, are fondly dreaming is confined to a few philosophers and avowed atheists, is, as a matter of fact, being openly in Re stalled in many of your scientific institutions, and is subtly gliding into your universities and academies, your clubs and workshops, ay, your very churches themselves. membering, then, the sublime gravity of the problem, the tremendous moral consequences it involves, the profound stir it is making among the thoughtful of the community, I cannot but think that the discussion of the problem from this platform is particularly opportune. May the Spirit of all Truth then especially aid us as we ponder the following theme: The Genesis of the Universe. Problem. At the very outset, then, let us conII. The Precise ceive precisely the problem before us. Clearness of conception at this point is of utmost consequence. For, strange to say, there is here much dimness of idea, and vagueness of talk, even among the educated and scientific. Let me, then, carefully illustrate the precise nature of the problem before us. Suppose I had before me here a bar of iron, weighing one pound. Out of this pound of iron I can make a variety of things: e. g., watch springs, needles, nails, scissors, razors, tuning-forks, and so on. But note very particularly that in order to make these various articles I must have the pound of iron, as material, to start with. This pound of iron I cannot make. The question then is this: Where did the iron ore itself come from? Who made that? How shall I account for this pound of matter that is in this iron bar? Take a more complex case. Suppose I had here a gallon of water weighing eight pounds. I can alter the condition and character of this water in various ways. I can solidify it into ice. I can evaporate it into steam. can mix it with other substances, and form a new compound. I can even decompose it into its constituent elements, having as my result, in measures of weight, eight parts of oxygen and one part of hydrogen; and then I can again recombine them, having as my result this same gallon or eight pounds of water. Observe here, too, very particularly, just what it is I do. All I do, or can do, is to change the condition and character of the water, putting it to new and various uses. I did not, and cannot, make the oxygen and hydrogen which compose the water. Where did these elements come from? How shall I account for these eight pounds of oxygen and hydrogen? Take a case still more complex. Suppose I had before me a block of wood weighing one pound. Out of it I might make a great variety of figures: e. g., a cube, a globe, a square, a prism, a hexagon, and so on. But observe here, too, very particularly, just what it is I do. All I make is the figures. I did not, and I cannot, make the wood or matter out of which I construct the figures. Where, then, did this wood, this matter itself, come from? Suppose you tell me that the wood is composed of a certain amount of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, arranged in a certain definite proportion. Still you do not answer my question. Where did these elements themselves come from? If I cannot make the wood, much less can I make the elements which compose the wood. What is the origin of this pound of carbon and oxygen and hydrogen? You see, then, the precise nature of the problem before us; it is not touching the shaping of matter already existing; it is touching the origination of matter itself. of the Problem. And now let us try to form some III.-Immensity idea of the Immensity of the problem; in other words, let us try to form some idea of the extent of the universe: that is to say, the amount of matter actually existing. And, in doing this, let us not use measures of superficial extent, trying to con ceive the vastness of the earth, or the number, distances, and magnitudes of the stars. Let us take weight, rather than bulk, as our standard of measurement. For the quantity of matter in a given body—say, in an ingot of gold— is not measured by the space it occupies when beaten out, but by the weight it has when put in the scales. Taking weight, then, rather than bulk, as the measure of the amount of matter in the universe, let us approach the aggregate, so to speak, by degrees. Weight of the Uni verse. Take, e. g., air, as the representative of matter in its gaseous or lightest state. Light as air" is a common simile. Yet light as air is, its quantity is so vast that it presser earth's surface with the weight of fifteen pounds to every square inch. Think, then, of the weight-that is to say, quantity of atmospheric material-resting on a globe 25,000 miles in circumference. Again: take water as the representative of matter in its liquid state. A cubic inch of water weighs 773 times as much as a cubic inch of air-i. e., contains 773 times as much matter. The Mississippi alone annually discharges on the average into the Gulf of Mexico 19,500,000,000,000 cubic feet of water, equal to 145.6 cubic miles. Think, now, of the quantity of matter stored up in earth's rivers, lakes, vapors, clouds, rains, snows, glaciers, dews, subterranean reservoirs, oceans miles in depth and thousands of miles in breadth. Again take iron as the representative of matter in its solid state. Think of all the iron that is made use of and wrought into this world's fabrics and implements; its countless structures, and engines, and railways, and wheels, and utensils, and machinery of every kind, to say nothing of earth's numerous and colossal ore-beds. |