echo. If the magnificent Nebular Hypothesis of the astronomers first propounded by Swedenborg, adopted by Kant, elaborated by Laplace and Herschel, and maintained with modifications by such scientists as Cuvier, Humboldt, Arago, Dana, and Guyot-be true, there has been a time when the Earth, and indeed the whole Universe, was in a state of nebula, or chaotic gaseous fluid. As such, the Earth was indeed without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. Being in a gaseous state, it was "without form and void;" being as yet in an inactive state, it was "dark;" being in a state of indefinite expansion, it was a "deep." Thus wonderfully does the hoariest specimen of human literature keep pace with the mightiest generalization of the latest science. Not that Moses knew anything about the Nebular Hypothesis; though he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 32), he probably knew nothing of gravitation or chemical atoms. He was inspired indeed. But inspiration is not omniscience. And yet, as wonderful time rolls on, and Almighty God, through the agency of human discoveries, keeps unfolding the truths hidden in His holy Word from the beginning, inspiration does practically take on more and more the giant outlines of Omniscience. The stoutest defender of the Nebular Hypothesis could hardly find more telling words for his theory than these: "Without form, void, dark, deep." Here, then, is the skeptic's harassing trilemma. He must either admit, first, that Moses was inspired, and therefore, whether consciously to himself or not it matters not, spoke the truth, and therefore ought to be acknowledged as one of God's authoritative spokesmen; or, secondly, he must admit that Moses has made an exceedingly happy hit—a circumstance which will grow more and more wonderful when we note,

as we shall see ere we are through, how many such remarkably "happy hits" he makes in this Creation Narrative; or, thirdly, he must admit that Moses, though living in that far-off, unscientific antiquity, was as profound a scientist as himself, and therefore is entitled to be enrolled with the Newtons and Cuviers, the Humboldts and Tyndalls, of the modern Academy. Whichever horn of the trilemma our friend takes, he, so long as he is a skeptic, impales himself. No, gentlemen, the God Who reigned over Nature when it was without form, and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, is the same God Who dictated the First Two Chapters of Genesis.

And now we pass to ponder, second2. The Organiz- ly, the Organizing Energy: "And the ing Energy. Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

a.-The Breath of God.

"The Spirit of God." It is the first time that this remarkable expression occurs in Holy Writ. Let us dwell on it a moment. The word here rendered "Spirit" primarily means "breath, wind," etc., and, as a matter of fact, is often thus translated. Take a few examples: "The Lord God formed. the man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"-inbreathed, inspired, inspirited him with spirit (Gen. ii. 7). They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden, in the cool”—the breeze, the spirit-of the day (Gen. iii. 8). "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind-spirit-all that night' (Ex. xiv. 21). "By the blast of the breath-spirit—of Thy nostrils, the waters were heaped up" (Ex. xv. 8). "By His spirit-breath-the heavens were garnished" (Job xxvi. 13). "There is a spirit-breath—in man, and the inspiration,

inbreathing, of the Almighty, giveth him understanding " (Job xxxii. 8). "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their host by the breath-spirit-of His mouth" (Psalm xxxiii. 6). "Thou takest away their breath— spirit: they die and return to their dust:" "Thou sendest forth Thy spirit-breath-they are created, and Thou renewest the face of the earth" (Psalm civ. 29, 30). "He took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise, and her spirit-breath-came again, and she arose straightway" (Luke viii. 54, 55). "When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished, and He bowed His head, and "Then gave up the ghost-spirit, breath" (John xix. 30). will the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the spirit-breath-of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness of His coming" (2 Th. ii. 8). And God has been pleased to move the writers of His Scripture to take air as the emblem of the Divine Spirit. I know not why He was pleased to do this, unless it be because of the peculiar properties of air: a substance invisible, yet diffusive, subtilely permeating, animating, quickening, inspiring, forceful. I only know that He has chosen air as the symbol of the Spirit of God. Listen to a few examples: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit Wind, Breath" (John iii. 8). "He breathed on them, and saith to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost-breath" (John xx. 22). "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit—breath (Acts ii. 2-4).

b. Moved over the Face of the Fluids.

I would not be presumptuous. At the same time I would be true to the Sacred Story we are studying, seeking to unfold it as the Sacred Writer himself meant it. And, therefore, I must say I can hardly think that in using the phrase, "The Spirit of God," he meant any distinct reference to the Third Person of the Blessed and Adorable Trinity. For God's method of Revelation has ever been progressive; and His disclosure of the peculiar relations of the Godhead is among His latest revelations. Remember the meaning of the word translated Spirit: it means breath. The Breath of God moved on the face of the waters. Remember, also, that we are here moving in the range of transcendent facts, where the language must be more or less figurative. Remember, also, that the emphatic word, here and throughout this Creation Record, is the word-God. God it was Who created the elements of the Universe. God it was Who shaped the elements of the Universe into the heavens and the earth. God it was Who, to use the language of modern Christian Science, gave the first impulse to the original, relationless atoms of the primeval chaotic fluids to form into definite groups. God it was Who, to use the artless language of the ancients, breathed on the chaotic elements, and wafted them into order. In either case, God it was Who shaped Chaos into Cosmos. The ancient believer said: "The Breath of God moved on the face of the waters." The modern believer says: "God willed that atoms should group into molecules, and molecules into masses." In other words, the language of the ancient was phenomenal, the language of the modern is scientific; and, although believing the latter, I still suspect that, in the vision of the Omniscient One Who sees behind our Sci

ences, i. e., our notions of things, the old pictorial language is quite as true as the new philosophic. What the precise thing was which was effected when the Breath of God moved on the face of the fluids, I know not. Perhaps it was the endowing the atoms with the quantitative force of gravity, and the qualitative forces of chemism. But I am not here to deliver a scientific lecture. I am here to expound, as best I may, the Mosaic Record of the Creation. And the truth we have in hand to-day is this: God's Will it was that turned Chaos into Cosmos.

And just here it is that the believer crosses swords with the atheist.

The

Origin of Life. great question of to-day in this department of thought is this: Is the universe a fortuitous concourse of atoms," chancing to come under the reign of an impersonal, unfree, unforeseeing, goalless Force? Or is it the work of a personal, free, creative, previsional, purposeful, living God? In briefest words: Is nature self-operant? or is it Godoperant? Let me put the problem concretely, although, in doing so, I anticipate a point which will recur later on in this series. The most fascinating, baffling enigma of today is this: The Origin of Life. How shall we bridge the measureless chasm between dead matter and living matter, between CHON as an inorganic corpse and CHON as an organic person? What is that subtile, potent thing, vaguely called Principle of Life, Vital Force, etc., which, enshrined in the apparently structureless, dead centre of a microscopic cell, suddenly quickens it, endows it with energy, makes it a living, growing, parental thing? This is the problem over which some of the keenest-eyed of the race are poring with intensest gaze. Need I say that they are gazing in vain? Yet it need not be so. Long ages ago, when Humanity was yet young, an Oriental Emir, pastur