will and power. Nor does God simply create the world and then leave it to itself. He is set before us in the narrative as taking a deep and holy interest in the work which he had made, as regarding it with satisfaction and delight, and as pronouncing over it his blessing. Again we are taught to regard man as the noblest work of God, as made in his image, after his likeness, and so superior to all the other creatures of his hand. If the thought that God is our Creator, appeals to us to love and to adore him, how much more does the thought that we are made in the image of God, inspire us in the effort to be indeed like him. Finally, we are taught that God in his wisdom, and according to his own example, in order that man should keep him more steadfastly in remembrance and thus be guarded against error, sin, and consequent suffering, estrangement and deterioration, consecrated one day in seven to be a holy sabbath to himself; that he ordained it for the race, not for the Jews alone; and thus ordained, that it has come down to us from the beginning, and is binding upon us, so long, at least, as the objects for which it was originally given are not perfectly secured. Such are the lessons which we are authorized to draw from this ancient narrative; and these lie on the very face of it, so that no clear mind, who is willing to understand its meaning, can fail to see them. These lessons being unmistakably conveyed, and in the best manner possible under the circumstances in which the record was made, the object of the record is attained, and according to the universal laws of language, the truthfulness and authority of the record are put beyond objection. We do not propose, however, to dismiss the subject in this way. We have justified the language of Genesis in conforming to the primitive conceptions of things, and in departing from scientific accuracy, so far as the then limitations of language required. But, if we have here the true account of a revelation from God, we should expect it to conform to the reality of things so far as the limitations of popular language might permit. In a revealed account of the creation, although each object might be called by its popular name, and although the more difficult features of the creative work might be represented in forms adapted to popular comprehension, we should still expect that, apart from such limitations of thought and language, its statements would be scientifically correct: and if it should be found that positive science contradicted it in any particular, which could not be reconciled by referring it to these limitations, then we should be justified in rejecting the idea that the record was a true account of a revelation from God. Having now the record before us, the inquiry arises :what has science done to confirm or to invalidate that record? What is the cosmogony of science at the present day; and how does it compare with that of Genesis? 1. The indications of modern science affirm as explic. itly as the Bible, that the present order of things had a beginning. Take, for example, the so-called "development theory," which Infidelity at the present day is so eager to establish; and which is merely a perverted and unscientific statement of the simple principle that, as the world has been made ready for successive new and higher forms of life, God has successively created them. State this theory in any way: it points to a beginning. Start with the lowest condition of the primordial elements of matter-conceive of the whole material universe, according to Laplace's theory, existing as a nebulous mass; take æon after æon for the slow formation of systems, constellations and individual stars-the theory still points to a beginning and to a development in time, which, long as it may be, is as nothing to eternity. 2. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The development theory points to a lowest condition, from which in time the present was developed. In this lowest condition the elements of matter must either have been motionless-that is, without molecular action or they must have just begun to exist; for, if we suppose molecular action, we necessitate a time-development and therefore a beginning in time. But if the elements of matter were eternally existing, but not acting on each other, whence then came motion? Inert mat ter cannot move itself. An independent and superior power is necessary: that is, God. Or if the mind objects, as most minds will, to conceive of the elements of matter existing together without molecular action, to conceive of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen, for example, existing together without combining according to their atomic weights, then we are driven to the other conclusion, that matter is not eternal, but had a beginning in time. Whence, then, came matter? Did it evolve itself? That is absurd. Did it come into being through "Nature," or "Law"? That is mere jugglery of words. There is no denying the necessity of a personal God, distinct from the material universe, creating Nature and ordaining Law. Science confirms the Bible upon this point. 3. Concerning the primordial condition of matter science has nothing positive to say. It has its theory, however, based on facts, and sustained by analogies and coincidences so remarkable as to give it almost the character of absolute knowledge. We allude to the so-called "nebular hypothesis" of Laplace.* This hypothesis was suggested by the remarkable coincidences in the orbital and rotary motions of the planets and their satellites, which could not be accounted for by the law of gravitation. At the time of its adoption the discoveries of numerous nebulae by Sir William Herschel were regarded as strongly confirmatory of the hypothesis; but the resolution of all known nebulæ into stars would in no wise affect the argument.t The fact that this hypothesis alone is adequate to account for the singular coincidences in the motions of the heavenly bodies, is the true ground on which it rests. The physi Exposition du Système du Monde, Note vii. See an interesting summing up of the argument for this hypothesis in the American Journal of Science and Arts, September, 1860, Art. xv. Professor Guyot has applied this hypothesis to the interpretation of the Mosaic narrative of the creation; but, as we have not his views convenient for reference we do not wish to be considered responsible for stating them correctly. Sir John Herschel, who doubts "whether there be really any physical distinc tion between nebulæ and clusters of stars," yet admits that" the nebular hypothe sis, as it has been termed, and the theory of siderial aggregation, stand in fact quite independent of each other." Outlines of Astronomy, § 872. cal constitution of comets, and the rings about the planet Saturn, are striking confirmations of it. In accordance with this theory, it is supposed that the material universe at first existed as a fluid, vaporous mass, all that is now solid being then melted and volatilized. The matter of the solar system in this form would be so diffused as to occupy the entire space from the center to or beyond the orbit of the most distant planet: and here it would mingle with that of other worlds and systems, so that the whole universe may be conceived as thus diffused through space. On this chaotic mass the spirit of God was to exercise its power, in bringing order and beautiful adjustment out of its complicated elements. Such, according to science, was the chaos of waters, or the fluid deep, on which the spirit of Elohim was moving. The harmony here with the account in Genesis is remarkable. The heaven and the earth-that is, the whole material universe-are created; but neither the heavenly bodies, nor the earth itself, are formed: the elements of all exist together as a watery deep. Notice, however, the concrete forms of expression. The Hebrew mind could not conceive of formlessness, except under the figure of a completed work gone to ruin: "the earth was desolation and emptiness." Compare Jeremiah iv, 23. The English translation brings out the abstract thought more perfectly: "without form," that is, not yet formed. The fluid or nebulous condition of the universe is pictured as a deep of waters. The action of the spirit of God upon it is represented by simple motion. 4. Concerning the nature of light we know but little. The recent results of scientific inquiry teach us, however, that light is not a substance existing independently, but a phenomenon resulting from molecular change or action. Without mutual action among the minute particles or molecules of which bodies are composed, there could be neither heat nor light. So long, then, as the elements of the material universe remained in a state of perfect rest, there would be darkness upon the face of the deep. But let motion be imparted to them, and light and heat would be emitted-not light as from the sun, but light electric, cosmical, pervading the vast expanse and depth of vapor, and rendering it luminous. Should any mind object that it is impossible to conceive of the elements of matter existing together without molecular action and consequent motion, heat, and light, we should then be shut down to the other hypothesis, namely, that matter was originally created by God; and then light would be the first phenomenon attending its appearance. Thus science, as explicitly as the Bible, declares that light was the first result of the divine agency on matter. 5. Of course, the emission of light and heat from the vaporous mass now set in motion would, in connection with the action of gravity, produce a condensation toward the center. consider this fact in its application to the solar system. Let us The matter composing the solar system, as has already been said, would have been originally diffused in the form of a spherical or spheroidal nebula, whose circumference would have been equal to, or greater than, the orbit of the most distant planet. Now, as this sphere of vapor became condensed, the velocity of its rotation would be increased, and the tendency of the parts about the equator of the sphere to fly away -in other words, the centrifugal force of these parts-would be proportionately increased, until, at last, a point would be reached, where the centrifugal force of the equatorial parts would be equal to the central attraction. Now notice what would be the result. The centrifugal force of these parts being equal to that of gravitation, the latter would no longer so operate upon them as to make them fall toward the center. They would, therefore, remain constituting a zone or belt revolving around the central mass, while the condensation of the interior going on would detach it entirely from the surrounding ring and constantly increase the distance between them. Here, then, we have a fluid ring revolving around the Sun, like the rings around the planet Saturn.* If this ring were perfectly uniform and subject to no disturbance, it might continue unbroken; but, if in the process of condensation and * American Journal of Science. Second series, Vol. xii. 1861. |