It is enough to remark concerning these theories, (1.) That they lea vethe origin oj things unaccounted for. Whence came the mat- ter, which the theory in one form assumes ? Whence came its physi- cal properties, to which all organization is referred ? And as to the other doctrine, it may be asked, Whence came the living germs of plants and animals ? To assume that matter in a state of chaos is eternal ; or that there has been an endless succession of living germs ; or that there has been an eternal succession of cj^cles in the history of the universe, chaos unfolding itself into cosmos, during immeasurable ages, are all assumptions which shock the reason, and must of necessity be destitute of proof.
(2.) These theories are atheistic. They deny the existence of a personal Being to whom we stand in the relation of creatures and children. The existence of such a Being is an innate, intui- tive truth. It cannot be permanently disbelieved. And, therefore, any theory which denies the existence of God must be not only false but short-lived.
The Scriptural Doctrine.
The Scriptural doctrine on this subject is expressed in the first words of the Bible : " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The heavens and the earth include all things out of God. Of which things the Scriptures teach that they owe their existence to the will and power of God. The Scriptural doctrine therefore is, (1.) That the universe is not eternal. It began to be. (2.) It was not formed out of any preexistence or substance ; but was created ^a; nihilo. (3.) That creation was not necessary. It was free to God to create or not to create, to create the universe as it is, or any other order and system of things, according to the good pleasure of his will.
The doctrine of an eternal creation has been held in various forms. Origen, although he referred the existence of the universe to the will of God, still held that it was eternal. We speak of the divine decrees as free and yet as from everlasting. So Origen held that this was not the first world God made ; that there never was a first, and never will be a last. " Quid ante faciebat Deus," he asks, " quam mundus inciperet ? Otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium est simul et absurdum, vel putare,. quod bonitas aliquando bene non fecerit, et omnipotentia aliquando non egerit potentatum. Hoc nobis objicere solent dicentibus mun- dum hunc ex certo tempore coepisse, et secundum scripturae fidem annos quoque aetatis ipsius numerantibus Nos vero conse-
654 PART L — THEOLOGY. [Ch. X. — Creation.
quenter respondimus observaiites regulani pietatis, quoniam non tunc primum cum visibilem istum muudum fecit Deus, coepit op- erari, sed sicut post corruptionera hujus erit alius mundus, ita et antequam hie esset, fuisse alios credimus." ^
Of course those of the schoolmen who made the thoughts of God creative, or identified purpose with act, or who said with Scotus Erigena, " Non aliud Deo esse et velle et facere," must regard the universe as coeternal with God. This was done by Scotus in a pantheistic sense, but others who regarded the universe as distinct from God and dependent upon Him, still held that the world is eternal. The influence of the modern Monistic philoso- phy, even upon theologians who believe in an extitamundane per- sonal God, has been such as to lead many of them to assume that the relation between God and the world is such that it must have always existed. The common doctrine of the Church has ever been, in accordance with the simple teaching of the Bible, that the world began to be.
The second point included in the Scriptural doctrine of creation is, that the universe was not formed out of any preexistent mat- ter, nor out of the substance of God. The assumption that any thing existed out of God and independent of his will, has ever been rejected as inconsistent with the perfection and absolute su- premacy of God. The other idea, however, namely, that God fashioned the world out of his own substance, has found advocates, more or less numerous, in every age of the Church. Augustine, referring to this opinion, says, " Fecisti coelum et terram ; non de te : nam esset aequale unigenito tuo, ac per hoc et tibi, . . . . et aliud prseter te non erat, unde faceres ea ; . . . . et ideo de nihilo fecisti coelum et terram." ^
Not only those of the schoolmen and of the modern theologians who are inclined to the Monistic theory, made all things to be modifications of the substance of God, but many Theistic and even Evangelical writers of our day hold the same doctrine.^ Sir William Hamilton also held that it is impossible to conceive the complement of existence being either increased or diminished. When anything new appears we are forced to regard it as some- thing which had previously existed in another form. " We ai'e un- able, on the one hand, to conceive nothing becoming something; or,
1 De Principiis, iii. v. 3. Works, edit. Paris, 1733, vol. i. p. 149, c, d.
2 Confessloiies, xii. 7. Woi-ks, edit. Benedictines, P.-iris, 1836, vol. i. p. 356, c, d.
* The writer was dining one day witli Tholuck and five or six of his students, when h« took up a knife from the table, and asked, " Is this knife of the substance of God? " and they all answered, " Yes."