This will probably be conceded by pretty nearly everybody, on sober second thought. And yet it will still seem to believers and to those who wish to believe, a pity that astronomy cannot give at least this little help, which they hoped might be one of its latest results. Formerly, they say, there was no trouble or difficulty, such as we have now. The earth was supposed to be the principal body in the universe; the sun, moon, and stars to be comparatively small bodies, hung in the heavens. But now you tell us that the sun is a million times as big as the earth; and that there are other stars much bigger than the sun. Our poor little earth is lost in the midst. of these gigantic and innumerable orbs; why in the world should it have been selected for the great work which the Christian religion tells us was done here? This idea that it was just in the middle of the whole mighty blaze of suns seemed to give some little dignity to it; and now you will not allow us even that. Perhaps it does not, as you say, amount to much or even anything at all; but it did seem to help. Well, if it does help, astronomy certainly does not forbid any one to entertain this idea. We may be as near the centre as it is possible to get in this vast and necessarily more or less irregular swarm of moving bodies. Astronomy cannot prove it; but it can never disprove it. But, after all, it is better to get rid of the difficulty in other ways. To do so, let us look fairly at the difficulty, and see what it is. It seems to be unlikely that the Lord should select such a little spot of His vast universe, for the habitation of creatures whose nature He was to take on Himself; that such wonderful works should be done here on this little undistinguishable planet, and that the rest of the universe should go for nothing in comparison. Why should He make such an immense number of suns, which might all have systems of planets like our own, and make no use of them for purposes as important as any that He has in view here? At least it would seem that He must have made them for the use of intelligent beings like ourselves; and if so, why are we singled out in this very extraordinary way? This really does seem a difficulty; but let us examine it carefully. Would the difficulty exist if we were simply told that the we might estimate as the population of the universe? Theology actually does describe their number as being very great; but that seems to make no difficulty in the way of what it teaches with regard to the Incarnation. Why then should a difficulty come in simply because of an increase of number? If we were told that it was as great as just stated, it really does not seem as if there would be anything to cause a temptation against faith. Why then should there be a difficulty if instead of pure spirits like the angels, we substitute spirits united with bodies? Even supposing that there are in the universe such an immense number as we have supposed, not of angels, but of embodied spirits like ourselves, why should not our own nature be selected for the Incarnation in preference to any other? Why should we be bound to suppose that these others should be subjected to sin or to death, or that they should need a special Redemption? Why should the mere idea of their being united with bodies make such a difference? We accept the doctrine of the Church as to the angels without difficulty, and would do so no matter how great their number might be; where would the trouble come in if their nature were not angelic, but more like our own? The difficulty then does not seem so very alarming, even putting it at its greatest. But is there any really strong reason for so putting it? Why must we imagine this immense number of beings such as we have supposed? Really there seems to be no reason, except that otherwise space, standing room as it were, would be wasted. This is an argument which appeals perhaps specially to those who live in large cities. With us, space is certainly very valuable. We would not keep an acre, or even a yard of land, without intending to utilize it for standing or walking room. But does it follow that the Lord regards the matter in the same way? Is it of such importance to Him? Does He have our ideas of economy? Evidently not, at any rate in this respect. On the surface of the sun, there is ten thousand times as much standing room. as on the whole face of the earth, oceans included. But there is not an inch of it on which any one could stand. Can we imagine creatures living where metals are turned to vapor? Perhaps, but cer the stars that we see are just as impossible for habitation; they are simply furnaces, heated beyond anything that we have here. And are they duly utilized, even as furnaces? On this planet, we catch only about half a billionth part of the enormous heat our sun is radiating. Even all the planets together only collect a few billionths of it. The rest all goes to waste. The same is true, of course, of its light. And the same may be said, of course, of all the stars in this vast universe, even if they have systems of planets like our own. Evidently, Almighty God is not economical, according to our ideas. We say, "if they have systems of planets." Why should they have them? Of course if the Lord does want people to live in His universe, He must provide some place where they can live. But evidently the mere fact that there is a material universe does not prove that He does want people to live in it, when the immense mass of it is so obviously impossible for habitation. But it may be asked, would not planets necessarily be formed, by the "nebular theory," or whatever you call it? No, not necessarily planets like those in our system, with such circular orbits, and such possibilities for life. The actual evidence which we have by observation of the double stars shows that in fact as well as in theory the chances would be very much against such conditions ensuing. And even when they do, a nice balance is required, a simultaneous evolution of all the requisites, which might well occur only in one isolated case. This Mr. Wallace well shows; and his authority is good on such matters specially. The fact of the whole matter is that we insist on pinning the Lord down to our way of looking at things. We forget that His ways are not as our ways, and His thoughts not as our thoughts. If we could fit up even a small universe, we should say, "somebody ought to live in this; it is a pity that such good building and living space should be wasted." We should feel that if we could do it, we would have to create men to occupy the house prepared for them. The men would be made for the house, not the house for the men. Matter has value in our eyes, just because we cannot create it. But to God all these blazing suns are, for their own sake, of no the way of what it Why then should a increase of number? we might estimate as the population of the universe? Theol- Why then should there be a difficulty if instead of pure spirits like the angels, we substitute spirits united with bodies? Even supposing that there are in the universe such an immense number as we have supposed, not of angels, but of embodied spirits like ourselves, why should not our own nature be selected for the Incarnation in preference to any other? Why should we be bound to suppose that these others should be subjected to sin or to death, or that they should need a special Redemption? Why should the mere idea of their being united with bodies make such a difference? We accept the doctrine of the Church as to the angels without difficulty, and would do so no matter how great their number might be; where would the trouble come in if their nature were not angelic, but more like our own? The difficulty then does not seem so very alarming, even putting it at its greatest. But is there any really strong reason for so putting it? Why must we imagine this immense number of beings such as we have supposed? Really there seems to be no reason, except that otherwise space, standing room as it were, would be wasted. This is an argument which appeals perhaps specially to those who live in large cities. With us, space is certainly very valuable. We would not keep an acre, or even a yard of land, without intending to utilize it for standing or walking room. But does it follow that the Lord regards the matter in the same way? Is it of such importance to Him? Does He have our ideas of economy? Evidently not, at any rate in this respect. On the surface of the sun, there is ten thousand times as much standing room as on the whole face of the earth, oceans included. But there is not an inch of it on which any one could stand. Can we imagine creatures living where metals are turned to vapor? Perhaps, but cer the stars that we see are just as impossible for habitation; they are simply furnaces, heated beyond anything that we have here. And are they duly utilized, even as furnaces ? On this planet, we catch only about half a billionth part of the enormous heat our sun is radiating. Even all the planets together only collect a few billionths of it. The rest all goes to waste. The same is true, of course, of its light. And the same may be said, of course, of all the stars in this vast universe, even if they have systems of planets like our own. Evidently, Almighty God is not economical, according to our ideas. We say, "if they have systems of planets." Why should they have them? Of course if the Lord does want people to live in His universe, He must provide some place where they can live. But evidently the mere fact that there is a material universe does not prove that He does want people to live in it, when the immense mass of it is so obviously impossible for habitation. But it may be asked, would not planets necessarily be formed, by the "nebular theory," or whatever you call it ? No, not necessarily planets like those in our system, with such circular orbits, and such possibilities for life. The actual evidence which we have by observation of the double stars shows that in fact as well as in theory the chances would be very much against such conditions ensuing. And even when they do, a nice balance is required, a simultaneous evolution of all the requisites, which might well occur only in one isolated case. This Mr. Wallace well shows; and his authority is good on such matters specially. The fact of the whole matter is that we insist on pinning the Lord down to our way of looking at things. We forget that His ways are not as our ways, and His thoughts not as our thoughts. If we could fit up even a small universe, we should say, "somebody ought to live in this; it is a pity that such good building and living space should be wasted." We should feel that if we could do it, we would have to create men to occupy the house prepared for them. The men would be made for the house, not the house for the men. Matter has value in our eyes, just because we cannot create it. But to God all these blazing suns are, for their own sake, of no |