242 
which they had previously confined), affecting something outside that was 
not even lukewarm. There is another view that may be taken of the 
dissipation of energy. What is this dissipation of energy ? It is a 
change ; but is it not accompanied by the production of a real something ? 
You pull a weight up to a height, and it does a certain work, so that the 
final result is, that an equilibrium is produced, or, comparing the 
universe to a clock, atoms vibrating at different paces, all come to one 
uniform pace. Now that this inter-action of vibrations should take place at 
all is in itself a something— I cannot say what, I cannot even think what it 
is ; but it is something. Is there not a something produced which exactly 
agrees with that ? That is to say, if the dissipation of energy be like the 
running down of a clock, is there not a corresponding permanent gain in 
the universe ? With regard to the nebular theory, this idea must be met. 
The nebulas, or star-dust, noticed by astronomers, will, according to modern 
scientific views, themselves form into systems like this of ours. Well, 
suppose that a quadrillion of years ago this earth w r as in the nebulous 
condition, what was the condition of the present nebulous matter then ? 
And, further, though scientific men generally regard the nebulous as the 
ultimate original state, we not only see that the now nebulous was once in a 
penultimate state, but that when this earth, still going back, was in its 
penultimate state the now nebulous was in its antepenultimate state, and 
so on. Thus, science alone finds itself lost in a hopeless “ and wliat 
then ? ” In conclusion, I would urge one or two arguments on the orthodox 
side. Men of science hold that because a certain law — say with regard to 
atoms — has been verified for 200 or 300 years it should be accepted. 
What does this, in effect, mean ? That the human mind constructs 
some theory, and if that theory seems to satisfy the facts connected with 
it, then it is laid down as a law. Now, I say there is a theory which on 
this principle has a claim to be regarded as a law of existence far beyond 
any other — far beyond the theories of gravitation, dissipation of energy, 
conservation of force, and all the other theories that are supposed to be 
true — and that is the wonderful theory of an infinite, paternal, personal 
Being. Why should not this be as likely to be true as any of the theories 
named, especially as it not only satisfies all the surrounding facts, but by its 
very nature it accounts for the creation ? I say that that theory rests on as 
solid a foundation as any scientific law ; because scientific laws, by the very 
nature of science as at present understood, do not exist except sq far as 
they can satisfy the surrounding facts. This argument does not, of course, 
prove that there is a God : it only shows that He may exist, starting from 
the scientific basis. But it must be noted that, whatever matter and mind 
are, mind is much nearer than matter to our thoughts ; therefore the above- 
stated theory of a Divine existence is more within our ken than that of 
material existence. Nor must we overlook the immense time, granting, for 
the sake of argument, the truth of the evolution theory humanity has had for 
testing and verifying the theory of Divinity, the persistent belief in which 
