367 
not call the man who holds such opinions as those I have referred to an 
Atheist, hut I do characterize opinions which would altogether exclude the 
Creator from the world, and would not only do that, but would exclude 
the power of an Omnipotent Being ruling and governing by His Will the 
visible things of the world — I do say that this Epicurean system, this 
system of no creation, this system of eternity of matter, must be charac- 
terized as an atheistical system, a system which has the effect of driving God 
out of the visible things of creation. (Cheers.) How would these men, while 
excluding God from the visible things of creation, admit God ruling and 
governing the moral being of man ? They tell the clergy that that is what 
they have to deal with, and that we ought to leave to them, the physical 
philosophers, the questions relating to what they refer to as self-creating, self- 
evolving, self-educing matter. To answer them scientifically, I would ask 
those who hold such opinions whether they can tell me what is matter and 
what is force, and what is the distinction between matter and force '! If 
they attempted to answer such questions and entered a little more deeply 
into the great problems of science, they would soon feel that ignorance which 
was expressed in no mere platitude by Sir Isaac Newton when he admitted 
that after all he had done, he, a physical philosopher, who, perhaps, saw more 
clearly and knew more of the constitution of matter than any man who has 
suc ceeded him, had simply been gathering a few pebbles from the sea-shore, 
while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before him. (Hear, hear.) 
That is the position which, I think, men of science ought to take up with 
regard to revelation. It would be much better if men of science would meet 
us as Professor Morris has done. But we say,—' “ Wait awhile.” We know not 
whether the chronology of the Bible be 6,000 years or 10,000 ; but we 
know that almost before the science of geology was thought or dreamt of 
by scientific Europe, theologians had a difficulty with regard to the inter- 
pretation of the first chapter of Genesis — as to whether the six days were 
days of four-and-twenty hours only, or whether the days referred to periods 
of thousands or even of millions of years. They knew not, and did not pro- 
fess to know, the exact meaning of the term. It was the men of science who 
afterwards set the example, which some theologians have followed, and who 
thought that they could bring the Bible to support the theory of successive 
creations, a theory which Sir Charles Lyell now abandons as not supported 
by the facts of science. I may say that I agree with Professor Morris in a 
great deal that he has told us ; but he knows that the subject of geology is 
as difficult a subject as a man can study. I myself do not pretend to be a 
geologist ; but Professor Morris is aware how hard I have been at work for 
many years trying to understand the very alphabet of the science, and yet 
all I have learned is how little we really do know upon the subject. He 
well knows that geology must meet demonstrative and mathematical science, 
and how imperfectly geologists, in general, are acquainted with the very 
foundation of their science. If this be the case with regard to the alphabet, 
what will be our difficulty when we come to spell our letters out and to 
interpret the hieroglyphics of the science, for hieroglyphics they certainly 
