EVIDENCE OF DIVINE INSPIRATION IN JOSEPH SMITH DERIVED FROM THE
PROPHET'S TEACHING IN REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF THE UNIVERSE, MAN'S PLACE
IN IT, AND HIS DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE GODS.
If the church Joseph Smith organized is a monument to his divine
inspiration; if the comprehensiveness of the work he introduced
gives evidence that more than human wisdom was necessary to conceive
it; if his proposed reconstruction of society as to its industrial
aspects proclaims for him a divine wisdom--a still greater evidence of
inspiration is to be seen in the prophet's teaching on the extent of
the universe, man's place in it, and his doctrine respecting the Gods.
To make this appear it will be necessary to state briefly the opinions
entertained on these subjects by those accepting orthodox Christianity
before the introduction of the New Dispensation. Indeed, I may go as
far back as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in this statement, in
order that the reader may see what the real orthodox faith on all these
subjects was before modern discoveries forced upon it some modification
of its views.
In the centuries named the geocentric theory respecting the universe
prevailed. That is, it was believed that the earth was in shape flat,
and the immovable centre of the universe; that about it circled sun,
moon and stars in regular order. Indeed it was supposed that the
specific and only purpose for which the sun was formed was to give
light and heat to the earth; and the moon and stars were formed to
give light by night in the absence of the sun. Above the earth was
bent the vast dome of the blue sky, its edges apparently resting on
the circumfluous waters. Above the blue sky was heaven, the abode of
God and the blest; and under the earth was the dark region of hell,
into which was thrust the wicked--the damned. It was believed that God,
about six thousand years ago, created by a word, out of nothing, all
this universe--earth, sun, moon, stars, and all things in the earth.
That man and all living creatures were moulded from the dust, and
then had breathed into them the spirit of life, and so became living
creatures. This was the view "authoritatively asserted by the church,"
[1] in the centuries I have designated.
There were, however, in those centuries a few bold spirits who held
views at variance with those accepted by the orthodox. These believed
in the heliocentric theory--the theory which regards the sun as the
centre of our planetary system, and that the earth is comparatively
a small and subordinate body revolving around it. This view was
maintained by Nicholas Cusa, afterwards Cardinal Cusa, at the Council
of Basil, in 1431. About a century later--1543--the great Copernicus
issued the first formal announcement, in modern times, of the
heliocentric theory. What storms of opposition the great philosopher
anticipated may readily be perceived in the preface to his work. That
preface was addressed to Pope Paul III., and in it, after referring
to the imperfections of the prevailing theory, he states that he had
sought among ancient writers for a better, and so had learned the
heliocentric doctrine. [2] "I, too, began to meditate on the motion
of the earth, and though it appeared an absurd opinion, yet, since I
knew that in previous times others had been allowed the privilege of
feigning what circles they chose in order to explain the phenomena,
I conceived that I might take the liberty of trying whether, on the
supposition of the earth's motion, it was possible to find better
explanations than the ancient ones of the revolutions of the celestial
orbs. * * * Though I know that the thoughts of a philosopher do not
depend on the judgment of the many, his study being to seek truth in
all things as far as is permitted by God to human reason, yet when
I considered how absurd my doctrine would appear, I long hesitated
whether I should publish my book, or whether it were not better to
follow the example of the Pythagoreans and others, who delivered their
doctrines only by tradition and to friends. * * * If there be vain
babblers who, knowing nothing of mathematics, yet assume the right of
judging on account of some place of scripture perversely wrested to
their purpose, and who blame and attack my undertaking--I heed them
not, and look upon their judgment as rash and contemptible."
In addition to recognizing the sun as the real centre of planetary
motions, Copernicus taught also that the earth was a planet which
turned upon its axis, and revolved around the sun. [3]
The person who most zealously accepted the Copernican system was
Giordano Bruno, born in Italy, 1550. In his book, "The Plurality of
Worlds," he taught that space is infinite; that every star is a sun
having opaque planets revolving around it; and that these planets
are inhabited. Bruno was a man of aggressive disposition and pushed
his doctrines on public attention irrespective of consequences to
himself. Because of his peculiar views he was compelled to flee from
Italy. He first went to Switzerland, thence to England, where he
delivered lectures at Oxford on Cosmology. Here his views were met
with intolerance and he fled to France. Meeting with persecution in
France, he next fled to Germany, and from thence ventured to return
to Italy. He was arrested at Venice and imprisoned for six years. At
the expiration of his long imprisonment he was demanded by the Holy
Inquisition to be tried for having written heretical books. Accordingly
he was given up to the authorities of Rome; and after an imprisonment
of two years was tried, found guilty, excommunicated and delivered over
to the secular authorities to be punished. "As mercifully as possible,
and without the shedding of his blood," reads the sentence which
delivered him to the secular authorities; "the abominable formula,"
remarks Draper, "for burning a man alive." [4] He was burned at Rome
on the 16th of February, 1600. Some of the spectators remarked as he
fell out of sight in the consuming flames that his soul had doubtless
gone to some of the imaginary worlds of whose existence he had been so
positive. [5]
It is suspected that this harsh treatment of Bruno, and in his person
of the Copernican theory itself, checked for a time speculation on
the lines of thought which Cusa, Copernicus and Bruno followed.
Investigation, however, was afoot, and in an age when the people
were just awakening to a sense of intellectual freedom, it could not
be expected that a subject of such great interest would long remain
unagitated. The man who next championed the Copernican system was the
immortal Galileo. Early in the seventeenth century he invented the
telescope, and by its aid made numerous discoveries which demonstrated
the truth of the Copernican theory. He discovered that the planet Venus
had phases like the moon, which demonstrated for her a motion around
the sun. The discovery of this fact well nigh silenced the opposition
to the Copernican theory, at least, among its more intelligent
opponents who were capable of appreciating the value of the discovery.
"If the doctrine of Copernicus be true," they had said, "the planet
Venus ought to show phases like the moon which is not the case."
But the telescope of Galileo proved that Venus had phases and hence
furnished the proof demanded by the objectors to the Copernican theory.
By means of his telescope Galileo also discovered the existence
of innumerable stars not visible to the unaided eye. The ignorant
multitude who assailed the Copernican theory of the universe, starting
to argue from the supposition that the stars had been created merely to
give light by night, said that since the stars which Galileo claimed to
have discovered could not be seen by the naked eye, they could be of no
use in giving light to the earth and therefore they did not exist!
Galileo by turning his telescope upon the moon found that she had
mountains casting shadows, and valleys like those of the earth. He also
discovered the four satellites of Jupiter, and their movement about
their primary. As this furnished an illustration in miniature of the
Copernican theory of the solar system, it was hailed with great delight
by the ever increasing number that accepted the heliocentric doctrine.
Galileo, like Bruno, lacked the caution that characterized Copernicus,
and by boldly affirming the truth of the heliocentric doctrine, he
brought upon himself the displeasure of the orthodox party, and finally
the condemnation of the church. The controversy which arose over his
doctrines and discoveries would require too much space to detail here.
Let it be sufficient to say that he was tried before the Inquisition
for teaching as a positive truth that the earth moves; that the sun
is stationary; and attempting to reconcile these doctrines with the
scriptures. He acknowledged the charges made against him, and thereupon
was commanded on pain of imprisonment to renounce these heretical
opinions and pledge himself for the future not to defend or publish
them. Doubtless the fate of Bruno, still sufficiently recent to be
vividly remembered, influenced the conduct of the astronomer, for he
gave the necessary pledges. The Inquisition in passing sentence on
Galileo took occasion to say something of the Copernican system itself,
denouncing it as "_that false Pythagorean doctrine utterly contrary to
the Holy Scriptures_."
Galileo after his condemnation by the Inquisition received some
kindnesses both from Pope Paul V, and Urban VIII, his successor,
and from other high ecclesiastical authorities. Whether or not the
considerate and even flattering treatment he received from these popes
led him to think he could with impunity break the pledge he had so
solemnly given the church not to publish more about or defend the
Copernican doctrine, is difficult to determine; but it is a fact that
he broke that pledge by publishing in 1632, the work entitled "The
system of the world," the purpose of which was to establish the truth
of the heliocentric doctrine. He was again summoned before the Holy
Inquisition. His offenses were recited and he was told that he had
brought upon himself the suspicion of heresy, and was liable to the
penalties thereof--imprisonment or death. The Inquisition, however,
was inclined to be merciful, and agreed to give him absolution for
his offenses if with real intent of heart he would adjure and curse
his heresies. This the now aged philosopher consented to do. But
that he might be a warning to others he was to be kept a prisoner at
the pleasure of his judges, his new work was prohibited by public
edict, and for three years he was condemned to recite once a week the
penitential psalms. "In his garment of disgrace the aged philosopher
was now made to fall upon his knees before the assembled cardinals, and
with his hand upon the gospels, to make the required abjuration of the
heliocentric doctrine and to give the pledges demanded. He was then
committed to the prison of the Inquisition. The persons who had been
concerned in the printing of his book were punished; and the sentence
and abjuration were formally promulgated, and ordered to be publicly
read in the universities." [6]
It has been claimed that Galileo as he rose from his humble posture
before the cardinals exclaimed,--_soto voce--"ep pur si muove!" [7]_
Whether the philosopher ever made the remark may be doubtful, but the
truth nevertheless was that it did move, and it found those of a more
daring spirit than Galileo to affirm it. Among these was Galileo's
contemporary, the great Kepler. [8] He lived in Protestant Germany
where, though as bitterly opposed by the Protestant Christians of
Germany as Galileo was by the Catholics of Italy; and his advocacy
and defense of the Copernican theory as emphatically condemned by the
Theological Faculty of Tubingen as the Italian philosopher's efforts
in the same line were by the Inquisition, yet, though the Academical
Senate of Tubingen might prevent the publication of his works, he could
not be threatened with death or imprisonment, nor could he be compelled
to deny the truths he had discovered.
Kepler relieved the Copernican system from the erroneous hypothesis
of circular orbits for the planets, by proving that the orbits were
elliptical and have the sun as a common focus. This first discovery,
known as Kepler's first law, together with his other two laws of
planetary motion, establish the Copernican system upon an immovable
basis by adding to the fact of the motion of the planets around
the sun, the other fact that that motion is under the influence of
never-varying mathematical law.
But one thing was lacking to complete the triumph of the new theory--an
explanation of the force which held the planets in their orbits and
balanced the universe. That explanation came in Newton's great law of
gravitation, by which it is made know that "Every portion of matter in
the universe attracts every other portion with a force varying directly
as the product of the masses acted upon, and inversely as the square of
the distance between them." [9]
The explanation of the Copernican system was now complete, and
everywhere triumphant. Meantime larger and more powerful telescopes
were being invented which constantly extended man's knowledge of the
immensity of the universe. It is estimated that the unaided eye can
see from five to eight thousand of the fixed stars; but with the aid
of our modern telescopes, though no very reliable computation has yet
been made, it is estimated that between thirty and fifty millions are
visible; [10] and it only requires the invention of larger or more
perfect telescopes to increase the number of God's creations to our
already astonished vision!
It could only be expected that the facts discovered by our exact
scientists would set in motion those of a speculative turn of mind.
Among those most noted for outstripping the plodding scientists and
plunging into speculation were Kant [11] and Johann Heinrich Lambert.
[12] The former taking the now well-known construction of the planetary
system as the basis of his speculation advanced the idea that the whole
stellar universe was constructed on the same plan. That is, as the
planets of our solar system revolved about a common centre, and are
kept from falling into each other or into the sun by the centrifugal
force generated by their revolutions in their orbits, "so Kant supposed
the stars to be kept apart by a revolution around some common centre."
[13]
At that time but little, if anything, was known positively about the
proper motion of the stars; and the objection was made to his theory
that the stars were found to occupy not only the same position from
year to year, but from age to age, and therefore could not be moving
about a centre. To this the philosopher replied that the motion of the
stars was so slow, their distances from us so immense, and the time
of their revolutions so long that the movement was imperceptible to
us, but he doubted not that "future generations by combining their
observations with those of their predecessors, would find that there
actually was a motion among the stars." [14]
Lambert, the contemporary and a correspondent of Kant's, supposed
"the universe to be arranged in a system of different orders. The
smallest systems which we know are those made up of a planet with its
satellites circulating around it as a center. The next system in order
of magnitude is a solar system, in which a number of smaller systems
are each carried round the sun. Each individual star which we see is a
sun, and has its retinue of planets revolving round it, so that there
are as many solar systems as stars. These systems are not, however,
scattered at random, but are divided up into greater systems which
appear in our telescopes as clusters of stars. An immense number of
these clusters make up our galaxy, and form the visible universe as
seen in our telescopes. There may be yet greater systems, each made up
of galaxies, and so on indefinitely, only their distance is so immense
as to elude our observation. Each of the smaller systems visible to us
has its central body, the mass of which is much greater than that of
those which revolve around it. This feature Lambert supposed to extend
to other systems. As the planets are larger than their satellites, and
the sun larger than its planets, so he supposed each stellar cluster to
have a great central body round which each solar system revolved. As
these central bodies are invisible to us, he supposed them to be opaque
and dark. All the systems from the smallest to the greatest, were
supposed to be bound together by the one universal law of gravitation."
[15]
This of course in Lambert was speculative conjecture, based on the
few facts that astronomers had discovered up to his day. There was no
evidence, astronomers said, of the existence of the opaque centers
referred to by Lambert, and they relegate the sublime ideas of the
philosopher to the realm of pure speculation.
Later the German astronomer Madler [16] attempted to show from an
examination he made of the motion of the stars that the whole steller
universe was revolving around the star Alcyone, in the constellation
of Pleiades. No more weight, however, has been given by astronomers to
the conjectures of Madler than to those of Kant or Lambert. The ideas
of all three have been held to be mere baseless speculation. [17] There
is this to say, however, in favor of the theories of Kant, Lambert and
Madler, and against the astronomers who condemn their conjectures: the
stars which, in the days of the two former, at least, were generally
supposed to be stationary and hence called fixed stars, are now known
to have "a proper motion," by which astronomers mean "not an absolute
motion, but only a motion relative to our system. As the sun moves, he
carries the earth and all the planets with him; and if we observe a
star at perfect rest while we ourselves are thus moving, the star will
appear to move in the opposite direction. * * * Hence from the motion
of a single star it is impossible to decide how much of this apparent
motion is due to the motion of our system, and how much to the real
motion of the star. If, however, we should observe a great number of
stars on all sides of us, and find them all apparently moving in the
same direction, it would be natural to conclude that it was really our
system which was moving and not the stars. When Herschel averaged the
proper motions of the stars in different regions of the heavens he
found that this was actually the case. In general the stars moved from
the direction of the constellation Hercules, and toward the opposite
point of the celestial sphere, near the constellation Argues. This
would show that, relatively to the general mass of the stars, our sun
was moving in the direction of the constellation Hercules." [18]
As our sun is conceded to be one of the stars--one of the smaller ones,
too, of the great galaxy that spans the heavens--if it be in motion,
the inference that other stars are also in motion is not unreasonable.
Indeed they are known to be in motion, but their appears to be, so
far as the observations of astronomers enable them to determine, no
regularity in that movement more than the general movement noted from
the direction of Hercules. "So far as they have yet been observed,"
says Newcomb, "and indeed so far as they can be observed for many
centuries to come, these motions take place in perfectly straight
lines. If each star is moving in some orbit, the orbit is so immense
that no curvature can be perceived in the short arc which has been
described since accurate determinations of the position of the stars
began to be made. * * * The stars in all parts of the heavens move
in all directions, with all sorts of velocities. It is true that by
averaging the proper motions, as it were, we can trace a certain law in
them; but this law indicates, not a particular kind of orbit, but only
an apparent proper motion, common to all the stars, which is probably
due to a real motion of our sun and solar system." [19]
The assertion of the fact on the part of our exact masters in working
astronomy that there is a motion among the stars, places under the
speculations of Kant, Lambert and Madler the groundwork of a great
probability in respect to their main idea, which I understand to be,
that as the planets move around the sun in regular order, influenced
by unvarying law, so the stars that make up the visible universe move
around one or more centres. These centres are yet unknown. Madler may
have been mistaken in pointing to Alcyone as that centre, but who shall
say that one does not exist?
Meantime we need not follow this matter further. Enough has been said
to show that the false geocentric theory has been displaced by the
heliocentric doctrine, which has been demonstrated to be true. The
earth is no longer looked upon as the centre of the universe, with the
sun, the moon and stars especially created to revolve about it, to
give it light by day and preserve it from total darkness in the night.
The burning of Bruno, the imprisonment of Galileo by the Catholics,
the condemnation of the works of Kepler by the Protestants of Germany,
could not save the erroneous geocentric theory. It went down as all
error in the end must go down. The earth instead of being the immovable
centre of the universe is relegated to its true place--it is one of
a number of planets, one of the smaller ones--that revolve around
the sun. With all its islands and continents; its rivers, lakes and
mighty oceans; its mountains and valleys; its towns, cities, and all
the tribes of men, together with all their hopes and fears and petty
ambitions--all is but a moat in God's sunbeam--a single grain of sand
on the seashore! Our solar system itself, magnificent as it is in its
greatness, is nevertheless insignificant in comparison with the visible
universe of which it is only so small a part.
"As there are other globes like our earth," says a popular author,
"so, too, there are other worlds like our solar system. There are
self-luminous suns exceeding in number all computation. The dimensions
of the earth pass into nothingness in comparison with the dimensions of
the solar system, and that system, in its turn, is only an invisible
point if placed in relation with the countless hosts of other systems
which form, with it, clusters of stars. Our solar system, far from
being alone in the universe, is only one of an extensive brotherhood,
bound by common laws and subject to like influences. Even on the very
verge of creation, where imagination might lay the beginning of the
realms of chaos, we see unbounded proofs of order, a regularity in the
arrangement of inanimate things, suggesting to us that there are other
intellectual creatures like us, the tenants of those islands in the
abysses of space.
"Though it may take a beam of light a million years [20] to bring to
our view those distant worlds, the end is not yet. Far away in the
depths of space we catch the faint gleams of other groups of stars like
our own. The finger of a man can hide them in their remoteness. Their
vast distances from one another have dwindled into nothing. They and
their movements have lost all individuality; the innumerable suns of
which they are composed blend all their collected light into one pale
milky glow.
"Thus extending our view from the earth to the solar system, from
the solar system to the expanse of the group of stars to which we
belong, we behold a series of gigantic nebula creations rising up one
after another, and forming greater and greater colonies of worlds.
No numbers can express them, for they make the firmament a haze of
stars. Uniformity, even though it be the uniformity of magnificence,
tires at last, and we abandon the survey, for our eyes can only behold
a boundless prospect, and conscience tells us our own unspeakable
insignificance!" [21]
That philosophy which considered the earth to be the immovable centre
of the universe with sun, moon and stars performing a daily revolution
about it was not more erroneous than that which asserted the earth and
the universe to be instantaneously created about six thousand years
ago, out of nothing.
The doctrine that the earth and universe were created out of nothing,
need not detain us a moment. The absurdity of such a proposition is
self-evident, and is becoming quite generally conceded.
Of the idea that the earth and the heavens, by which I understand is
meant the universe, were created about six thousand years ago, it is
only necessary to say that the discoveries men made in astronomy led
them to question the correctness of that theory. Men have learned
that there is a progressive movement in light. That is, the rays of
light emitted by an object, "and making us sensible of its presence
by impinging on the eye, do not reach us instantaneously, but consume
a certain period in their passage. If any sudden visible effect took
place in the sun, we would not see it at the absolute moment of
its occurrence, but about eight minutes later, this being the time
required for light to cross the intervening distance." [22] It is said
by astronomers that there are objects in the heavens so distant that
it would take many hundreds of thousands of years--allowing that light
travels at the rate of 198,000 miles per second--for their light to
reach us; and since we see them it necessarily follows that they have
existed so long. They, at least, were not created six thousand years
ago, but long before that time. If the orthodox theory was wrong as to
the time when those distant worlds were created, may it not be equally
wrong concerning the age of the earth?
Of course, it cannot be expected that in this work the writer can
give any extended review of the evidence which geology furnishes
of the great age of the earth. It will be enough to say that when
men look upon the earth, and take note of those forces which today
are producing the gradual changes in the structure of its islands,
continents, mountain ranges and deltas, and then attribute the changes
which have evidently taken place in the past to the operation of those
same forces, they see on all sides of them evidences of a very great
antiquity for the origin of the earth.
It is generally conceded that all the heat we now have upon the surface
of the earth comes from the sun; but this only effects the surface of
the earth to the extent of a few feet at most. It has been determined,
however, by experiments so many times repeated, and in all parts of
the earth that it cannot be attributed to any merely local cause,
that beyond the few feet of the earth's surface affected by the sun's
heat, a stratum of invariable temperature is discovered, beneath which
as we descend, the heat increases at the uniform rate of one degree
Fahrenheit for every fifty or seventy feet. The uniformity of this rate
implies that at no great depth a very high temperature must exist. "We
have every reason to believe," remarks Newcomb, "that the increase of
say one hundred degrees a mile continues many miles into the interior
of the earth. Then we shall have a red heat at a distance of twelve
miles, while at the depth of one hundred miles the temperature will be
so high as to melt most of the materials which form the solid crust of
the globe." [23]
The globular form of the earth is also looked upon as evidence of its
original fluidity; while the existence of volcanoes, found all over
the land, as well in the frigid as the torrid zone; in ocean beds as
well as in the interior of continents, proving that they are not merely
local, or depend on restricted areas for the liquid lava they belch
forth--are supposed to furnish indisputable evidence that the interior
of the earth is now as its whole mass once was, white-hot, molten
matter.
Granting that the whole earth was once such a ball of fire, the time
for the cooling of such a mass to the present depth of the earth's
crust would require a much longer period than the sometime orthodox
view of the Bible account of creation allows. "The age of the earth,"
remarks Draper, "is not a question of authority, not a question of
tradition, but a mathematical problem sharply defined; to determine the
time of cooling a globe of known diameter, and of given conductibility
by radiation in a vacuum."
It would unquestionably require a great length of time for the thinest
of crusts to form on such a globe; long ages for the immense clouds of
gases and vapors in which the mass revolved to be separated into oceans
and atmosphere. Then followed upheavals from the ocean's bed, some
gradual, some abrupt--the mountains appeared, bleak and bare, dripping
only with the ocean's slime. Then came the action of atmosphere and
floods of rain upon them. Mountains were melted down and valleys
formed. Then followed depressions and more upheavals; vast quantities
of the interior lava were thrown to the surface through immense rents
in the earth's thin crust, and in time cooled. The ocean receded here
and advanced there, mountain chains, islands and continents were as
unstable as clouds, when viewed in geological time. Constantly the
earth's crust grew thicker and more stable as the mass of molten matter
within was more securely confined.
In time vegetation appeared and so did animal life. Still the operation
of depression and elevation went on, as is evident from the fact that
imbedded in various strata of the earth's crust, at great depths, are
found the remains of animals whose species is long extinct; while on
mountain tops are found imbedded in rocks in the region of perpetual
snow the fossil remains of animals that only inhabit the ocean.
All these changes, necessarily gradual and slow, require periods of
time so vast that the finite mind fails to grasp them. The book of
nature, made up of the earth's crust, turn to what page of it you will,
"tells us of effects of such magnitude as imply prodigiously long
periods of time for their accomplishment. Its moments look to us as if
they were eternities. What shall we say when we read in it that there
are fossiliferous rocks which have been slowly raised ten thousand
feet above the level of the sea so lately as since the commencement
of the Tertiary times? * * * That, since a forest in a thousand years
can scarce produce more than two or three feet of vegetable soil, each
dirt-bed is the work of hundreds of centuries? What shall we say when
it tells us that the delta of the Mississippi could only be formed in
many tens of thousands of years, and yet that is only as yesterday when
compared with the date of the inland terraces? * * * If the depression
of the carboniferous strata of Nova Scotia took place at the rate of
four feet in a century, there were demanded 375,000 years for its
completion--such a movement in the upward direction would have raised
Mount Blanc. * * * It would take as great a river as the Mississippi
millions of years to convey into the Gulf of Mexico as much sediment as
is found in those strata. Such statements may appear to us, who with
difficulty shake off the absurdities of the patristic chronology, wild
and impossible to be maintained, and yet they are the conclusions that
the most learned and profound geologists draw from their reading of the
book of nature." [24]
While not accepting all the conclusions of geologists, and certainly
not all their speculations--because they do not know what conditions
have existed in the past, nor can they be sure that the forces which
they now see operating are the only ones that have operated in all past
time--yet the evidence is very clear that the earth has a much greater
age than was attributed to it by the orthodox explanations of the
scriptural accounts of creation. It is now generally conceded that the
six creative days spoken of in Genesis are not six ordinary days, but
six long creative periods. So strong is the proof of the great age of
the earth, however absurd some of the conjectures of geologists may be
considered, that no one undertakes to dispute it.
Thus the ideas of men as to the relation of the earth in time as well
as its relation in space have been completely changed within the last
century. Illimitable ages of duration corresponding to infinite space,
leads up to a grander conception of the universe and prepares the mind
for a better comprehension of God and his works.
So far I have considered these changes in the ideas of men relative
to the universe as they have been affected by the researches of
scientists and speculative philosophers. It now remains to show that
while these philosophers have been plodding their way through slow
discovery and precarious conjecture towards the truth; wholly apart
from them and independent of them, there sprang into existence a
philosophy pertaining to duration, space, matter, the earth's place in
the universe, the universe itself, the relation of man therein and the
Gods which, while running parallel with the truths that scientists have
discovered, goes far beyond them, and demonstrates a divine inspiration
as its source.
Footnotes
1. "Intellectual Development of Europe" (Draper), Vol. ii. pp. 252-4.
2. "Intellectual Development," Vol ii. p. 255.
3. "Newcomb's Popular Astronomy," Introduction, p. 6.
4. "Intellectual Development," Vol. ii. p. 258.
5. I have read with some attention the apology which Catholics make
for the church's harsh treatment of Galileo; but I have not yet found
a writer among Catholics who attempts a defense of the church in this
Bruno affair. Perhaps it is a credit to modern Catholics that they
make no such effort. The incident stands, however, as an evidence of
Catholic intolerance and bigotry, and shows how the apostate church of
Rome had departed from the spirit of the Gospel of Christ.
6. "Intellectual Development," Vol. ii. p. 264.
7. "It moves however."
8. Kepler was born near Stuttgard in Wurtemburg, 1571, died 1630.
9. "Gillet & Rolfe's Astronomy," p. 48.
10. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 422.
11. Born 1724, died 1804.
12. Born 1728, died 1777.
13. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 475.
14. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 476.
15. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 477.
16. Johann Heinrich Madler, born 1794, died 1874.
17. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 466.
18. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 466-7.
19. "Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 466.
20. And light travels at the rate of 198,000 miles per second.
21. "Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. ii., p. 292-3.
22. Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. II., p. 299.
23. Newcomb's Astronomy, p. 305.
24. Intellectual Development of Europe, vol. ii, page 334.