_Christian._ Gentlemen; I am happy to meet you again. Be seated. Have
you weighed the matter I gave you in our last interview? If you have, I
would like to hear your objections, if you have any.
_Reason._ We think we have some valid objections. First, we are
satisfied that your position is unscientific, although it is ingeniously
taken. Among scientific men it is conceded that nature reveals her own
birth, and declares her creation. Now, if it is true that Nature
_herself_ tells the history of her origin, then your idea that God the
creator told this, is to us unreasonable, for there is no need of the
same story being told to the same auditors by two different parties; so
we must regard your position as untrue.
_Christian._ Are you sure that Nature ever gave the history of her
origin, of her birth? do you read it in the book of Nature, or does she
tell it vocally?
_Reason._ Tell it vocally? No! Nature has no power of speech! She wrote
the history of her origin upon the pages of her own book, and the eye of
the Scientist reads it there.
_Christian._ Are you certain of this? how was she qualified to do so?
Could you write the history of your origin, of your birth, without the
aid of some one older than yourself? Did you have the powers of
observation in active exercise, watching every movement among the causes
that brought you into being? Now, if man could not be an eye-witness to
his own origin, upon this planet of ours, was there anything else in
nature that could be, and so gave that history, which you know you could
not? Is it not possible that you have obtained your intelligence from
another source--from what I call the revelation of the Creator? May it
not be true that you have thus borrowed your information, and falsely
credited it to Nature? If you found it in the book of Nature and read it
there, you can tell me on what page it is written? will you do this so
that I may read it too?
_Reason._ Read it there, and on some certain or well-known page! Really,
you are very captious. This great truth is on every page; the whole face
of Nature declares it; I can not tell you anything about the page.
_Christian._ There is a German maxim which, translated into English,
reads, "The clear is the true." The natural converse of this German
proposition is this: The truth of the ambiguous is very doubtful. This
leaves your claim in a very suspicious condition, if it does not brand
it with falsehood. Again, you say it was written in the book of Nature.
By whom was it written? A book can not write itself. Nature, or the
material universe, neither did nor could write it, for she has no power
of action, inertia being her property. She might be acted upon. I can
write upon this sheet, but it can not write upon itself. If it is
written upon it is _self-evident_ that a foreign power has done it. So
Nature, being the aggregate of everything, can not move without the hand
of a foreign power moving her. I suppose you are now ready to ask, "Is
it not a scientific truth that matter is eternal?"
_Reason._ Yes, we are satisfied that matter is uncreated, and hence
eternal. The idea that something was made of nothing might do for the
dark ages, but it will not stand the test now. The penetrating eye of
the scientist has exploded that dream.
_Christian._ I am glad to hear you speak thus with confidence, and yet
the sequel may show that you are the dreamer. Science, falsely so
called, has declared matter eternal. True science contradicts this.
"None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have
produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We
are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules,
or the identity of their properties, to the operation of any of the
causes which we call natural. The quality of each molecule gives it the
essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of
its being eternal and self-existent."--Prof. Clark Maxwell, lectures
delivered before the British Association, at Bradford, in Nature, vol.
8, p. 441.
Prof. Maxwell is a star of first magnitude among British scientists; he
has made a specialty of molecular organizations. No real scholar would
dare to risk his standing by disputing the conclusion of Prof. Maxwell.
An idea that is shut out by matter of fact discoveries will not be made
the basis of an argument by any scholar who has not been taking a "Rip
Van Winkle sleep" while the rest of the world has been advancing. The
great improvements resulting in the astonishing increase of power has
enabled us to closely examine the smallest known particles of matter,
molecules. And under the best glasses, these give every possible
indication of being a created, or manufactured article.
Thus, the latest and most grand discoveries in this field of science do
unequivocally confirm the declaration of Moses in Gen. 2: 3, where,
according to the Hebrew in which he wrote, speaking of the creation of
all things, he gives us this idea, "Which God created to make." See
marginal reading, Gen. 2: 3. Hebrew scholars tell me this is the correct
reading. The word, rendered, "and made," is in the infinitive mood, and
hence should read, "to make;" also, that the word rendered, "created" is
the proper term by which to indicate the producing cause. This, then, is
the thought presented by both of our witnesses, _i.e._, by Moses and
science. Moses says God created the material to make globes, or worlds.
The material was molecular, and science declares that every molecule
gives every possible indication of being manufactured or created. So,
true scientific discoveries have so completely vindicated the Mosaic
cosmogony that it leaves no chance for any, outside of three classes, to
object. For two of these classes I am not writing, viz., the cowardly
and the dishonest. To do this would be "casting pearls before swine."
But for the ignorant I send this on its mission. Read and digest. In my
next I will demonstrate the divine origin of language and religion. Till
then, farewell.