How else, indeed, can we attach any meaning to the attributes of omnipresence and omnipotence? The unity of action, the regularity of antecedence and consequence in outward events, which we commonly designate by the lame metaphor of _law_, then become the fitting expression of the consistent doings of an all-wise Being, in whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. The Creator, then, is no longer banished from his creation, nor is the latter an orphan, or a deserted child. It is not a great machine, that was wound up at the beginning, and has continued to run on ever since, without aid or direction from its artificer. As well might we conceive of the body of a man moving about, and performing all its appropriate functions, without the principle of life, or the indwelling of an immortal soul. The universe is not lifeless or soulless. It is informed by G.o.d's spirit, pervaded by his power, moved by his wisdom, directed by his beneficence, controlled by his justice.

"Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet."

The harmony of physical and moral laws is not a mere fancy, nor a forced a.n.a.logy; they are both expressions of the same will, manifestations of the same spirit.

The objection, that it is beneath the dignity of the Almighty--[Greek: autourgein hapanta]--to put his hand to every thing--is founded on a false a.n.a.logy, as is seen by the form in which Aristotle states it. "If it befit not the state and majesty of Xerxes, the great king of Persia, that he should stoop to do all the meanest offices himself, much less can this be thought suitable for G.o.d." The two cases do not correspond in the very feature essential to the argument. An earthly potentate, unable to execute with his own hand all the affairs of which he has control, is obliged to delegate the larger portion of them to his servants; selecting the lightest part for himself, he gratifies his pride by calling it also the n.o.blest, though the distinction is fact.i.tious, there being no real difference, in point of honor or dignity, between them. Omnipotence needs no minister, and is not exhausted or wearied by the cares of a universe. Power in action is more truly sublime than power in repose; and surely it is not derogatory to divine energy to sustain and continue that which it was certainly not beneath divine wisdom to create and appoint. Rightly considered, to guide the falling of a leaf from a tree is an office as worthy of omnipotence, as the creation of a world. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

Equally lame is the oft-repeated comparison of the universe to a machine of man's device, which is considered the more perfect the less mending or interposition it requires. A machine is a labor-saving contrivance, fitted to supply the weakness and deficiencies of him who uses it. Where the want does not exist, it is absurd to suppose the creation of the remedy. Human conceptions of the Deity are for ever at fault in imputing to him the errors and deficiencies which belong to our own limited faculties and dependent condition. Hence the idea of the Epicureans, that sublime indifference and unbroken repose are the only states of being worthy of the G.o.ds. Viewed in the light of true philosophy, no less than of Christianity, how base and grovelling does this conception appear! The sublime description of the pagan poet becomes the fitting expression and defence of the very theory it was designed to controvert:--

"Nam (proh sancta Deum tranquilla pectora pace, Quae placidum degunt aevum, vitamque serenam!) Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas?

Quis pariter coelos omneis convertere? et omneis Ignibus aetheriis terras suffire feraceis?

Omnibus inque locis esse omni tempore presto?

Nubibus ut tenebras faciat, coelique serena Concutiat sonitu? tum fulmina mittat, et aedeis Saepe suas disturbet?"

Returning to the theory of our author, may we not now characterize it as at once unfounded in its details, inconceivable in its operation, and vulgar and mechanical in its design? Considered in their proper aspect, and by the light of a sound philosophy, whatever well accredited facts or legitimate deductions he has gleaned from the whole field of modern science afford the most striking evidence and ill.u.s.tration of that view of creation which is directly at variance with his own hypothesis. He has, in fact, exposed the insufficiency of what are called organic or mechanical laws to supply the losses, and bridge over the interruptions, that have occurred in the world's history. Geology has rendered at least one signal service to the cause of natural religion, by effectually doing away with the old atheistic objection, that, for aught we know, the present const.i.tution of things never had a beginning, but has gone on for ever renewing itself in an endless series of generations. Science now tells us distinctly, that time was when "the earth was without form and void," no animated thing appearing "upon the face of the deep"; that afterwards, "the waters were gathered together unto one place, and the dry land appeared." Then "the earth brought forth gra.s.s, and herb yielding seed _after his kind_, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind." Next was fulfilled the command, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Then appeared "the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind." Last of all, "G.o.d created man in his own image, male and female created he them." We are not merely quoting Scripture; we are repeating the facts positively affirmed by the geologists, and incorporated by our author into his "history"--as authentic leaves taken from the "stone book"--_in the same order_ in which they are narrated in the first chapter of Genesis. The coincidence in the order of succession is certainly remarkable.

Geology farther informs us, that, at different times, all the animated tribes which had peopled the earth's surface pa.s.sed away, or became extinct, and were replaced by new species of different organization and characteristics; and probably at many other periods, as well as on occasions of some great catastrophe in the earth's crust, races wholly unlike any that had preceded them were introduced, from time to time, as new inhabitants of the globe. Here, then, was an absolute necessity for the continuous operation of an intelligent creative power, apart from the blind mechanical laws, which, at the utmost, could only allow each species, once introduced, to continue its kind. The marvellous adaptations of these new races to the altered conditions of the earth's surface when they appeared, then, become additional proofs of the wisdom and constant oversight of a designing Creator. They came not till all things were ready; they appeared when the extinction of former tribes had left a gap for them in the scale of being. The gradual development of what are called the powers of nature,--or, to speak more intelligibly, the successive improvements in the habitations intended for higher and higher races of animated life,--and the similarity of plan on which these races were organized, the scheme being preserved in all its essential features through countless generations, show unity of design, and prove that the works of creation, however separated in time, must be attributed to _one_ intelligent author. The same conclusion follows almost irresistibly from the gradations at present observable both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, so that all the races may be arranged, not indeed in a linear series, but in families or groups, bearing a.n.a.logous relations to each other, and showing a general progress from the more simple to the more complex forms. Surely, these facts, so clearly explained by our author, instead of sustaining the corpuscular philosophy, directly militate with it, and afford the most satisfactory proof of the doctrine of the theist, and the theory of continuous divine agency. We have hardly ever met with a book that furnished more complete materials for its own refutation.

After all, the question is a very simple one. We have only to decide whether it is more likely, that the complex system of things in the midst of which we live,--the beautiful harmonies between the organic and inorganic world, the nice arrangements and curious adaptations that obtain in each, the simplicity and uniformity of the general plan to which the vast mult.i.tude of details may be reduced,--was built up, and is now sustained, by one all-wise and all-powerful Being, or by particles of brute matter, acting of themselves, without direction, interference, or control. We cannot now say, that possibly the system never had a beginning, but has always existed under the form in which it now appears to us; geology has disproved _that_ supposition most effectually. Choose ye, then, between mind and matter, between an intelligent being and a stone, for the parentage and support of this wonderful system. For our own part, we will adopt the conclusion of one of the most eloquent of those old pagan philosophers, on whose eyes the light of immediate revelation never dawned:--"_Hic ego non mirer esse quemquam, qui sibi persuadeat, corpora quaedam solida atque individua vi et gravitate ferri, mundumque effici ornatissimum et pulcherrimum ex corum corporum concursione fortuita? Qud si mundum efficere potest concursus atomorum, cur portic.u.m, cur templum, cur domum, cur urbem non potest, quae sunt minus operosa, et mult quidem faciliora? Certe ita temere de mundo effutiunt, ut mihi quidem nunquam hunc admirabilem coeli ornatum, qui locus est proximus, suspexisse videantur._"

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _N. A. Review_, Vol. LVI., pp. 339-351.]

[Footnote 2: "It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it.

And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a _vacuum_, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws."--_Newton's letter in Bentley's Works_, Vol. III., pp. 211, 212.]

[Footnote 3: And yet, so strong is the propensity to metaphor, that scientific men talk of the _vis inertiae_ as a true force, though the ideas expressed by the two Latin words are certainly incongruous. The mistake here arises from confounding inertness, or resistance to force,--a merely negative idea,--with the true force which is necessary to overcome it; or rather, since force can only be measured by its results, and must always be adequate to the effect produced, inquirers have adopted the convenient hypothesis of two antagonistic forces, not always recollecting that one of them is merely pa.s.sive.]