live. And as no one would think of accounting for the one of these things, without an intelligent author; so no one can suppose this of the other. Not so with unorganized matter. It shows no design. It indicates no previous intelligence. It has no mechanical structure; no systematic organization. That it may have existed forever, therefore, is not an unwarrantable supposition,

232. When we look upon a beautiful temple, we know it has been made by human hands and human genius; for such structures are never produced in any other way. No one doubts the correctness of our conclusion. When we look upon the trees of the forest, or the stones in the quarry, of which temples are constructed, we do not come to any such conclusion. We know that human hands and human skill are not necessary for the production of these things. We might not at first conclude that they had any maker at all. On a closer examination, however, we discover that the trees and stones, too, show evidence of design. They are composed of parts, nicely arranged, and must therefore have been made. Could we, however, go back to that condition of matter where no arrangement, or order, or system, could be perceived, the necessity of admitting a Creator would then cease. All organization must have an intelligent author; but back of all organization, no intelligent author need be supposed.

233. Again; another question, leading to the same result with the one we have just discussed, is the following: Since, after admitting the creation of the world, we are compelled to admit an eternal Creator, does not this involve the same difficulty as to admit the world itself eternal and if it does involve the same difficulty, why not as well adopt the one theory as the other? We answer that the two theories do not involve the same difficulties. That the world was made, we know from its mechanical arrangements and wise adaptations. It is strictly a machine, and must have been made by a mere mechanic. Not so, God. He does not consist of "body or parts." We cannot examine his structure, as we can that of the human body, or the solar system, or any other of his works; and we cannot of course detect in him the

same indications of design, as we see in the system of nature. The two things are quite unlike. Our conclusions must correspond; - the world was made; God was not made.

SECTION III.-CREATION BY NATURAL CAUSES.

234. Some Philosophers admit the fact of a creation, but they seek to account for it on natural principles, without the agency of a God. The solar system, for example, came into its present form, and assumed all of the beauty and harmony that belong to it, by the operation of natural laws that are inherent in matter itself.

According to one theory, advocated by these men, the solar bodies the sun and all the planets were originally but one body in a highly heated state. This immense mass of heated matter, was subject, as it naturally would be, to violent explosions, of which earthquakes on our globe are but miniature representations. By this explosive power, the planets were thrown off from the central mass, to the positions they now occupy; and some of these planets, in imitation of their illustrious parent, ejected smaller bodies that now constitute their moons. Thus all the great masses of the solar system were located. Add to this, that these bodies, turning on their axes, would naturally become round, or as nearly so as they are found to be. This was the commencement of the system; and as this was affected by natural laws, so all else that occurred then, or has occurred since, is, in like manner, brought about by principles inherent in nature.

235. There are some things that are favorable to this theory; and, associated with the doctrine of an allpervading Deity, it may be admitted as the true interpretation of the origin of the world; but of itself, it does not account for all the facts of creation, and never can account for them. The sun is apparently, perhaps really, a highly heated body. As such it may have been, and may now be, explosive in its tendency. The other planets may have been the same. There are many geological facts which prove that the earth was originally so; and analogy would lead us to infer this of the other planets.

The idea, therefore, that the planets may have been ejected from the sun, and that the secondary planets may, in like manner, and by the same cause, have been thrown out from the primaries, is not unphilosophical.

236. Another thing may be urged in favor of the theory. The sun is known to turn upon its centre. If, therefore, the planets were thrown from it, the tendency would be, to throw them all in one general direction, that is, in the direction of its central motion. Hence, when all the planets are found to occupy the position here indicated, the fact affords confirmation to the theory.

Again; that the planets should be of different sizes, and be thrown to different distances, is what we might expect, and is what we all know to be true.

So far the work seems natural. It could all be done by forces now in existence. Farther than this. The sun and other bodies, turning as we know they do, on their axes, would, by a natural law, become round; not indeed exactly round, but as nearly so as they really are. This part of the work, too, is a natural process.

237. We will look now at some of the objections to the theory objections to it, as disconnected from the idea of a Creator.

First, How did the planets, when thrown to the position in which we find them, happen to remain there? If a law of nature ejected them, why did not another law of nature bring them back again? We know there is such a law. When any body is thrown up from the earth, it comes back to the earth again; and philosophers tell us that this law is universal. How then did the law come to be evaded, when the planets were thrown off from the central body? This matter has not been explained. The theory recognizes one law of nature, and makes use of it to eject the planets, and send them off to their proper places; but, to keep them there, it is obliged to ignore another law, whose existence is no less certain.

238. Again; when the planets were thrown out into space, they not only did not return as we should expect them to do; but they commenced a motion that we should not expect. They began a revolution round

the sun.

What was the cause of this! What natural

law originated the annual revolution of the planets?

239. Philosophers tell us that the planets move round the sun by the action of two forces; one of which draws them toward the sun, and is therefore called the centripetal force; the other acts in a different direction, and tends to carry them away from the sun, and is therefore named the centrifugal force. Acted upon by these forces, they neither go to the sun, nor from it, but round it. One of these forces may be called natural —it is the power of attraction the centripetal force; but nature does not supply the other; and we cannot account for its existence on any known principle. But suppose we could. How did these forces happen to be so exactly balanced, that the planets, vast as they are, and immense as are the distances they travel, do not vary a hair's breadth from the same track, year after year, and age after age? Nor this only; they come round, with each revolution, to the place of setting out, at precisely the same moment of time!

240. To appreciate the force of this reasoning, let us look at the subject a little more closely. The power with which the sun attracts the earth, (also the other planets,) is said to depend on two conditions. One is, the amount of matter in the attracting bodies; and the other is, the distance between them. This increases the difficulty of accounting for the revolution of the planets upon the natural theory. The earth for instance, is moved along in space by a certain force. Acted upon by this force alone, it would go forward in a straight line, till it passed entirely out of the system and disappeared in the far off regions of space. This not being the thing required, another force is instituted, that draws the earth toward the sun. Obeying neither force alone, it yields partly to both, and turns into a circular or eliptical path around the central body. The question then presents itself; - How did the sun happen to possess precisely that amount of matter, no more nor less, that would exert upon the earth the requisite attraction? If the sun had been larger than it is, its attraction upon the earth would have been too great; and the earth, yielding to it, would have been

drawn into the central body. On the other hand, had the sun been smaller than it is, the attraction, being less, would have been too little; and the earth would have passed away, and been lost from the system. The same unhappy consequence would have followed, if the earth had been larger or smaller than it is.

241. Nor this only. The distance of these bodies from each other, is an important consideration. The amount of their attraction is determined as much by this, as by their size. How then did they happen to be just so far apart, as to ensure the requisite power, no more nor less? If they were farther separated, their attraction would be less, and would of course be too small-if they were not so far apart, the attraction would be greater, and of course would be too great. Now we say, it was a marvellous chance that adjusted their sizes and distances, with such exact precision, and did that, not only with reference to one planet, but with reference to a large number of bodies.

242. The wonder is increased by one other circumstance. Not only must the size and distances of the planets, be accurately determined, as they stand related to the sun; but a no less important adjustment is necessary as they stand related to each other; for they all attract each other, and in accordance with the same law of size and distance. What adds to the difficulty still more, is, that their relative distances are perpetually changing, as they move in different orbits, and with various velocities, around the central sun.

243. Another thing may be added that possesses some importance. It is the motion of the planets on their axes. Every planet turns on its centre, and presents its sides alternately to the central luminary. To throw the planet out from the sun, may be the action of a natural law; but to set it rolling on its centre, so as to warm and enlighten its several sides, required another power, and one that nature does not seem to supply. The theory of creation, without a Deity, fails to explain this difficulty.

244. The formation of the solar system has been explained differently by another class of theorists, alike disposed to shut out the agency of the divine spirit.