CHAPTER X.

INFIDELITY AMONG THE STARS.

A little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline a

man's mind to Atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's

minds about to religion.--BACON.

When skeptics, who are determined not to believe in the Bible, find the

historical evidences of its genuineness, authority, and inspiration,

impregnable against the assaults of criticism, they turn their attention

to some other mode of attack, and of late years have selected their

weapons from the physical sciences. The argument thus raised is, that

the Bible can not be the Word of God, because it asserts facts contrary

to the teachings of science. Of this warfare Voltaire may be considered

the leader, in his celebrated attack on the chemical processes recorded

in Scripture; in which he exposed himself to the ridicule of all the

chemists and metallurgists in Europe, by denying the possibility of

dissolving the golden calf; the solution of gold being actually found in

every gilder's shop in Paris, and known even to coiners and forgers, for

hundreds of years before he made this notable discovery. The result was

ominous.

The whole circle of the sciences has been ransacked for such arguments,

and especially has every new discovery been hailed by skeptics as an

ally to their cause, until further acquaintance has demonstrated that

the stranger, too, was in alliance with religion. Thus, when a few years

ago, Geology began to upheave his titanic form, he was eagerly greeted

as a being undoubtedly not of celestial, but rather of subterranean, or

even of infernal origin, willing to employ his gigantic powers in the

assault upon heaven, and able to overwhelm the Bible and the Church

under the ruins of former worlds. But now that skeptics have discovered

the proofs he gives of the presence of the Almighty on this world of

ours, they are getting shy of his acquaintance, and are cultivating the

society of some still more juvenile visitors from the chambers of animal

magnetism and biology. The same scene will doubtless be acted over

again; and these infantile strangers, when able to give distinct

utterance to the facts of their developed consciousness, will bear

testimony to the truth of God.

Such objections to the Bible are very rarely brought forward by truly

scientific men. It is a phenomenon, like the advent of a great comet, to

find a man profoundly versed in science attack the Bible. Your third or

fourth rate men of learning attain distinction in this field. An

anti-Bible writer or lecturer has generally been promoted to that high

eminence from the school-room, or the editorial sanctum of an

unsuccessful newspaper; or his patients have not sufficiently

appreciated his physic; or he has failed in getting a patent right for

his wonderful perpetual motion; or possibly he has enlarged his

practical knowledge of science in the laboratory of some college, or has

had his head turned by being asked to hear the mathematical recitations

during the sickness of some professor. But to hear of men like Galileo,

Kepler, Boyle, Newton, and Leibnitz, or Lyell, Mantell, Herschel,

Agassiz, Hitchcock, Faraday, Balbo, Nichol, or Rosse, heading an attack

upon Christianity, would be an unprecedented phenomenon. Such men are

profoundly impressed with the thorough agreement between the facts of

nature rightly observed, and the declarations of the Bible rightly

interpreted.

It is equally rare to hear of a specialist in any department of science

assume Atheistic ground in that department; though a few of that class

are willing to believe that some other department of science, of which

they have no personal knowledge, favors Infidelity. Even Huxley, with

all his nonsense about the identical composition of the protoplasm of

the mutton chop, and that of the lecturer, denies, and disproves,

spontaneous generation, and votes in the London School Board for the

reading of the Bible. The leading Infidel writers, such as Comte and

Spencer, are not distinguished by any personal scientific researches and

discoveries; they are merely collectors and retailers, at second-hand,

of other men's discoveries. The original scientific explorers and

discoverers are few and modest.

Nevertheless, the other class, being both the most numerous and the most

noisy, make up by loquacity for their deficiency of science, and

counterbalance their ignorance by their assurance. Such writers,

assuming that they have outstripped all the philosophers of former days,

will tell you how foolishly David, and Kepler, and Bacon, and Newton,

and Herschel dreamed of the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord, and

the firmament showing his handiwork; "while at the present time, and for

minds properly familiarized with true astronomical philosophy, the

heavens display no other powers than those of natural laws, and no other

glory than that of Hipparchus, of Kepler, of Newton, and of all who have

helped to discover them." Theology belongs only to the infancy of the

human intellect; metaphysical philosophy is the amusement of youth; but

the full-grown man has learned to relinquish both religion and reason,

and comes to the "positive state of science in which the human mind,

acknowledging the impossibility of obtaining absolute knowledge,

abandons the search after the origin and destination of the universe,

and the knowledge of the secret causes of phenomena." The crown of

modern science is ultimately to be placed upon the brow of Atheism; but

long before that eagerly desired achievement, the old Bible theology is

to be buried beyond the possibility of a resurrection, under mountains

of natural laws, and monuments of scientific discovery. These

assertions, confidently made, and perseveringly reiterated in the ears

of ungodly men ignorant of the facts, of impetuous youths eager to throw

off the restraints of religion, of Christians weak in the faith, and

even poured into the unsuspecting mind of childhood, produce the most

painful results; and it becomes the imperative duty of the bishops of

the Church of Christ not to allow them to pass unchallenged, but to

convince the gainsayers, and stop the mouths of these unruly and vain

talkers; or, if that be not possible, to make their folly manifest to

all men. The implements for such a service are well tried and abundant,

and the difficulty lies only in making a proper selection.

At first view, the extinction of religion by science seems very

unlikely. It is as unlikely that any thing that an Infidel says about

religion should be true, as that a blind man should describe the sun

correctly, or even read a chapter accurately, with the book open before

him? I shall show you presently that learned Infidels make the grossest

blunders respecting the plainest Scripture records of scientific facts.

It is very unlikely that Infidels, who lay no claim to prophetic

inspiration, should make any predictions about religion more reliable

than those they have been telling so abundantly for two hundred years

past, respecting the immediate overthrow of Christianity and the Bible;

which, nevertheless, has been going on conquering new kingdoms every

year, its missionaries outstripping scientific ardor in exploring the

mysteries of African geography, honorably receiving the prizes which the

Infidel Volney instituted for philological proficiency, and printing

Bibles from Voltaire's printing-press. And it is very unlikely that

these physical sciences, so long worshipers in the temple of God, should

now become impious; as unlikely as that Hitchcock, or McCosh, or Hodge,

or Barnes should now, in their old days, renounce the Bible, and

blaspheme God. What! astronomy, and zoology, and botany, and

ethnography, that were suckled at the breast of the Bible, raise their

hands against the mother that bore them! Incredible! These sciences made

an early profession of religion; taught Sabbath-school in the days of

Job, Zophar, and Elihu; wrote sacred poetry, and were licensed to

preach, in the days of Solomon; poured forth prophetic raptures in the

days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; wrote volumes on the

politics of Christianity in Babylon, and painted glorious visions of the

victories of the Lamb of God, and dazzling views of the landscapes of

paradise restored, in Patmos; employed the gigantic intellect of Newton,

the elegant pen of Paley, the eloquence of Chalmers, Herschel's

heaven-piercing eye, and Miller's muscular arm, to guard the outer

courts of the sanctuary, while they sung sublime anthems to the music of

David's harp within. Have they now, after such a life of devotion,

relinquished all these sublimities and beatitudes, taken lodgings in the

sty, and renounced their faith in God, and hope of heaven, for the

Infidel maxim, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die?" God forbid!

On the contrary, all matured science glorifies its Creator.

As a specimen of the testimony of matured science to religion, let us

look at the progress of astronomy, as it has successively swept away one

Atheistic theory after another, answered anti-Bible objections, and

illustrated promises couched in heavenly figures, long incomprehensible

to the Church. If, in order to present something like a fair outline of

the bearings of astronomy on modern Atheism, we should have occasion to

repeat, expand, and illustrate some things already introduced in

previous chapters, the repetition won't hurt us. A good story is nothing

the worse for being twice told; and the story of our opponents is

nothing but a ceaseless repetition of the Atheism of twenty centuries.

The progress of astronomical science has swept away the alleged facts on

which all systems of Atheism have been based.

1. _It has refuted the fundamental dogma of Atheism, that the universe

is infinite, and therefore self-existent._

The assertion is confidently made by Atheists and Pantheists, that the

universe has no boundaries; not merely none which we can see, but that

it actually fills all immensity; suns succeeding suns, and firmament

clustering beyond firmament, throughout infinite space.

It is indispensable for the Atheist not only to assert, but to prove

this to be the fact, if he would convince himself, or any other person,

that the universe had no Creator, but exists by the necessity of its own

nature; for that which exists by the necessity of its own nature must

exist in all time, and in every place. No reason can be given why

self-existent suns, planets, and moons should exist in any one portion

of space, and not exist in any other similar portion of space. For if

such a reason could be given, that reason must show a cause for their

existence in the one place, and their non-existence in another; and that

cause must have existed before the universe, and must have been a cause

sufficient to produce the effect. This sufficient cause includes ability

to produce, wisdom to arrange, and force to put in motion all the powers

of the universe; qualities which reside only in an intelligent being.

This is the cause which the Bible asserts when it says, "In the

beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth," and which Atheists

deny when they assert that "the universe is eternal and infinite."

Now, this fundamental article of the creed of Infidels is utterly

incapable of proof. If the fact were really so, they never could prove

it. They acknowledge no revelation from an infinite understanding, but

found their belief on the knowledge of a number of finite and ignorant

beings. Before they are competent to pronounce upon the extent of the

universe, they must explore it thoroughly; which, when they shall have

done, they will have demonstrated that it has boundaries, seeing they

have discovered them; but, if they have not thoroughly explored the

universe, they can not say that it is infinite, because they do not

know. The very utmost, then, which could possibly be asserted on the

matter would be, not that the universe has no boundaries, but that man

has never reached them. As in the case of ocean soundings, if we can not

find bottom, we are not therefore to conclude that there is none, but

that our line is not long enough, or our lead not heavy enough to reach

it.

It were a logical absurdity to say, that the whole is greater than the

sum of its parts--that any number of finite parts could compose an

infinite universe. Each sun or planet is a finite object, and any

possible number of them can be counted in a sufficient time. It is

impossible that any number can be infinite; for we are not using the

word infinite here in the loose sense in which it is used by

mathematicians, when they speak of an infinite series; that is, a series

which, though it has no end, has a beginning; but in the strict sense of

something having neither beginning nor end. A beginning of the universe,

either in space or time, is the very thing the Atheist denies.

The same objection applies to the allegation, that infinite space is

full of ether, air, gas, nebulæ, or any other kind of matter. It is an

assertion incapable of proof; and therefore thoroughly unscientific; as

all Infidel theories are. But if it could be proven that every part of

space accessible to our telescopes is full of an ether whose undulations

transmit light, as we believe it can, that would be only a proof of the

finitude of matter. That ether consists of parts whose movements can be

measured and numbered; and no possible multitude of such parts can

amount to the infinite.

While reason thus enables us to show this dogma of the infinity of the

universe to be theoretically improbable, and logically irrational,

science has lately taken a more decisive step, and demonstrated it to be

actually false. The universe has boundaries, and we have seen them. The

proof is simple, and easily demonstrable. That broad band of luminous

cloud which stretches across the heaven, called the Milky Way, consists

of millions of stars, so small and distant that we can not see the

individual stars, and so numerous that we can not help seeing the light

of the mass; just as you see the outline of the forest at a distance,

but are unable to distinguish the individual trees. Besides this mass of

stars to which our solar system belongs, there are thousands of smaller

similar clouds in various parts of the heavens, which have successively

been shown to consist of multitudes of stars. But all around these

star-clouds the clear blue sky is discovered by the naked eye.

Now, it is easy to perceive, that if all the regions of infinite space

were filled either with self-luminous suns, or planets capable of

reflecting light, or luminous nebulæ, or comets of gaseous consistency,

at such distances as the Milky Way, or any other star-cloud demonstrates

to be safe and practicable, we should see no blue sky at all; but the

whole vault of heaven would present that whitish light resulting from

the mingling of the rays of multitudes of stars, planets, and comets,

which the Milky Way does actually exhibit. No matter how small or how

distant these stars, _if they were only infinitely numerous_, it is

impossible that there could be any point in the heavens unilluminated by

their rays, even although the stars themselves were invisible to our

eyes, or even to our telescopes. The whole heaven would be one vast

Milky Way. Or rather, as Humboldt reasons, "If the entire vault of

heaven were covered with innumerable strata of stars, one behind the

other, as with a widespread starry canopy, and light were undiminished

in its passage through space, the sun would be distinguished only by its

spots, the moon would appear as a dark disc, and amid the general blaze

not a constellation would be visible."[186] It would appear also to

follow, as a necessary consequence, that such an infinite multitude of

blazing suns must generate a heat compared with which the general

conflagration would be cool and comfortable.

But the telescope shows us a state of matters vastly different from

this. It shows us, in fact, that space, so far from being occupied with

suns and stars, is mostly empty. Our universe is only a little island in

the great ocean of infinite space.

Though the telescope discovers multitudes of stars where the naked eye

sees none, yet they are, in far the greater number of instances, "_seen

projected on a perfectly dark heaven, without any appearance of

intermixed nebulosity_."[187] And even through the Milky Way, and the

other nebulæ, the telescope penetrates, through "_intervals absolutely

dark, and completely void of any star, of the smallest telescopic

magnitude_."[188] It may assist us to understand the full import of this

declaration, to remember that Lord Rosse's large telescope clearly

defines any object on the moon's surface as large as the Custom House.

Its power of penetrating space surpasses our power of imagination, but

is represented by saying, that light, which flashes from San Francisco

to London quicker than you can close your eye and open it again,

requires _millions of years_ to travel to our earth from the most

distant star-cloud discoverable by this telescope.[189] If a galaxy like

this of ours existed anywhere within this amazing distance, that

telescope would discover its existence. It has, in fact, augmented the

universe visible to us, 125,000,000 times, and thus made us feel that

not merely this world, which constitutes our earthly all, and yon

glorious sun, which shines upon it, but all the host of heaven's suns,

and planets, and moons, and firmaments, which our unaided eyes behold,

are but as a handful of the sand of the ocean shore compared with the

immensity of the universe. But ever, and along with this, it has shown

us the ocean as well as the shore, and revealed boundless regions of

darkness and solitude stretching around and far away beyond these

islands of existence. The telescope, then, enlarges and confirms our

views of the extent of the unoccupied portions of space.

If there were only one dark point of the heavens no larger than the

apparent magnitude of the smallest star, this one unoccupied space would

sufficiently disprove the infinity of the universe, inasmuch as there

would be a portion of space of boundless length, and of a diameter not

less than the diameter of the earth's orbit, say 190,000,000 miles, in

which stars might exist, as they do in its borders, but yet do not. But

the argument becomes utterly overwhelming, when the attempt is made to

calculate the proportion of space occupied by the stars to that left

unoccupied. Whether we take Herschel's computation, that the nebulæ

cover one two hundred and seventieth part of the superficies of the

visible heaven,[190] or Struve's supposition of the existence of a star

subtending no measurable angle, in every part of the visible sky as

large as the surface of the moon, the vast disproportion of the

universe, to the space in which it is placed, forces itself upon our

notice. For, upon the largest of these computations, the proportion of

existence to empty space is mathematically proved to be not greater

than as the cube of one to the cube of two hundred and sixty-nine; that

is to say, there is room for 19,395,109 such universes as this of ours

in that small part of infinite space open to the view of Herschel's

telescopes. But when we come to consider the vastness of these regions

of darkness, over which no light has traveled for twenty millions of

years, and remember also that astronomers have looked clear through the

nebulæ, and find that they bear no more cubical proportion to the

infinite darkness behind them than the sparks of a chimney do to the

extent of the sky against which they seem projected, so far from

imagining the universe to be infinite, we stand confounded at its

relative insignificance, and are convinced that it bears no more

proportion to infinite space than a fishing-boat does to the Atlantic

Ocean.

There is no possible evasion of this great fact, by any contradictory

hypothesis. It can not be objected "that stars may exist at infinite

distances, whose light has not yet reached the limits of our universe."

If they do, they did not exist from eternity, for there is no possible

distance over which light could not have traveled, during eternal

duration. But their eternal existence is the very thing which the

Atheist is concerned to prove. Grant that infinite space is filled with

worlds _which had a beginning_, and their necessary existence instantly

falls, and we are compelled to seek for a cause of their beginning of

existence; that is to say, a Creator.

Nor will it answer the purpose to say, "that for anything we know to the

contrary, these dark regions may be filled with dark stars."

If the fact were so, it is equally fatal to the dogma of self-existence.

Some stars shine; others are dark. Why so? Wherefore this difference?

Variety is an effect, and demands a prior cause. Were there only two

stars in the sky, or two substances on the earth, and those unlike in

any particular, that plurality, and that variety, would prove that they

could not be infinite or self-existent, but dependent upon some cause

for their existence, and for their variety of form.

But we do know many things contrary to the notion that the dark regions

of infinite space may be full of dark stars. Light is not the only

indication of the presence of a star. The attraction of gravity, which

is wholly independent of light, is a proof quite as certain and

satisfactory to the astronomer. The presence of stars and planets too

faint to be discovered by the naked eye, and of one, the planet

Neptune,[191] as far distant from the planet disturbed by its attraction

as the earth is from the sun, was ascertained, and its place pointed out

by Adams and Le Verrier, _before it was seen_. If the dark

interplanetary spaces, then, were full of dark attracting bodies, the

perturbations of the other planets would discover their existence. So

the presence of some invisible stars at much greater distances from

their visible associates has been discovered by Bessel,[192] and it is

quite possible that a dark firmament may yet be discovered, containing

as great a number of dark stars as we now behold of luminaries; another

group of islets in the ocean of infinite space. But the very facts which

will prove their existence will disprove their infinity; for we can know

their presence only by their perturbation of the proper motions of the

visible stars; but if infinite space were full of dark bodies, the

visible stars would have no room to move at all. It is easily

demonstrable, that if infinite space were filled with dark stars, the

equilibrium and coherence of our galaxy, and of all other clusters of

stars, would be destroyed. The existence of nebulæ, and clusters, and

the revolutions of the binary stars, are conclusive proof that the dark

parts of infinite space are not full of dark attracting bodies.

Nor can the Atheist here raise his usual argument from unknown facts,

and say that, "far beyond the range of our most powerful telescopes, a

boundless expanse of firmaments may exist." It concerns not our present

argument whether such exist or not. Whatsoever discoveries may be made

to eternity, of firmaments, ten thousand times ten thousand times larger

than we now behold, _they can never bear the smallest proportion to the

infinite space in which they exist_. Beyond these islets will extend

gulfs and oceans immeasurable. Our argument, however, has no concern

with the unknown possible, but with the actual fact--visible to the

naked eye and confirmed by the telescope--that there is a portion of

space in which millions of universes such as this might exist with

safety, yet they do not. Worlds, therefore, do not exist by the

necessity of their own nature, wherever there is room for them, but must

have had some pre-existent, external, and supernatural cause of their

existence in this place and not in other places. This implies

choice--will--God.

The physical refutation of the self-existence of the universe is

completed by the discovery, _that all the orbs of heaven, as well as the

earth, are in motion, and that an orderly and regulated motion_.[193]

The fact need not be illustrated, for it is not denied. The consequence

is inevitable. That which is self-existent must be unchangeable; for

change is an effect, and demands a cause; and the cause must exist

before the effect, and produce it. Whatsoever is changeable, then, is a

product of a prior cause, and so not self-existent. But every part of

the universe is changeable, for it is in motion, which is a change of

place; and, therefore, is not self-existent, but the product of a prior

cause.

Professor Fick, who was some time since called from Zurich to fill the

professorship of physiology at Wurzburg, and who is known by his

experiments on muscular physics, in a recent work on the transformation

of force, brings out the argument in proof of the non-eternity of our

universe in a new form. He shows that heat is continually being lost by

radiation; and when mechanical force is converted into heat _some_ of

that heat can never be brought back to be mechanical force. And as this

change from mechanical force to heat is ever going on, all force must at

last turn into heat, in which case all difference of temperature would

be lost and universal stagnation and death would be the result. He then

concludes in the following words, which we quote from _Nature_,

Macmillan's weekly: "We are come to this alternative; either in our

highest, or most general, our most fundamental scientific abstractions

some great point has been overlooked; or the universe will have an end,

and must have had a beginning; could not have existed from eternity, but

must at some date, not infinitely distant, have arisen from something

not forming part of the chain of natural causes, _i. e._, must have been

created."[194]

To this it has been replied, that motion is the normal condition of

matter; arising from the force of gravitation, acting in and upon the

various bodies composing the universe; and mathematical calculations

have been attempted to show how vortices, and spiral motions, could be

produced by the force of gravitation, and the mutual resistances of the

atoms originally composing the universe.

But this attempt is easily seen to be a failure. The attraction of

gravitation alone can not possibly produce any such motion as we behold

in the heavens; nor can it originate, nor sustain, any kind of eternal

motion whatever. For the attraction of gravitation is always in right

lines; but there is no rectilinear motion in the heavens; all celestial

motions are curvilinear. Nor can the attraction of gravitation account

for the maintenance of any kind of eternal motion. Its tendency is to

draw all bodies to the center of gravity, and to keep them there, in one

vast heap, by the force of their mutual attraction; thus bringing all

motion to an eternal rest.

To this it is now replied that motion is the equivalent of light, heat,

electricity, and chemical reaction; all of which are convertible into

motion. These are properties of matter, and inseparable from it, and so

as eternal as itself.

We have already disproved the eternity of matter; but if, for the sake

of argument, it were granted, yet would not the regulated and orderly

motions of the universe be thereby accounted for. For these forces

either exactly balance the force of gravitation, or they do not. If they

do not, and their repulsion prevails, by even the slightest degree, the

particles of matter had been driven away into infinite space millions of

years ago, and suns, and planets, and atheistic philosophers, would have

vanished like the baseless fabric of a vision. But if the attraction of

gravitation had prevailed, by even the weight of an ounce, long ages ago

sun, moon and stars would have rushed together into one vast mountain

mass, whose attraction would have been so great, that no living creature

could move upon its surface, and whose parts would be compressed into a

density compared with which quicksilver would be lighter than cork.

But if, on the other hand, it be alleged, that these inherent forces of

matter exactly balance its power of gravitation--with which they have no

other apparent relation--then the argument is irresistible, that these

grains of sand and drops of water and globes of granite being unequal to

such calculations, there was some calculating engineer at work arranging

the motions of the stars.

No mechanical law is a sufficient cause for this motion. To allege that

a power of orderly, regulated motion--and there is no other sort of

motion in heaven or earth--is an inherent property of matter, is simply

to insult our common sense, and overturn the foundation of all reason.

For we have no knowledge of matter, and can have none, more certain than

we have of the constitution of our own minds, which requires us to trace

up every change among material objects to _the energy and will of a

person_ capable of planning and effecting the change. To refer us to the

law of gravity is not to give us a cause for the motions of the heavenly

bodies, but only a _name_; for law is only _a rule of action_. We demand

a lawgiver--an agent--a _force_, capable of producing effects. When the

law of projectiles makes a cannon-ball, and projects it, we will believe

that the law of gravity made the worlds, and moves them.

"Descending within the mind's interior chambers, I find no conviction so

sure of the existence of an external world, as is my belief in the

reality of _power_--of something that sustains succession, and causes

order. Again, then, whence this idea, and what is it? What this

attribute with which I endow material laws, and raise them into

_forces_? Now, in my apprehension, the strictest scrutiny can not obtain

for these inquiries any reply save one; we _primarily_ connect the idea

of _power_ with no change or movement, except an act or determination of

the FREE WILL; but from such acts, that idea is inseparable. If,

therefore, in order to explain the progress of material things, we

require the agency of _efficient causes_, is not this a direct and

solemn recognition--through all form and transiency--of the necessity of

an _ever-present creative power_; a power requisite and necessary to

uphold--to renew the universe every moment--or, rather, to prolong

creation by the persistence of the creative act? And, in very truth,

startling though it be, such is the only and ultimate scientific idea of

the divine omnipresence. Law is not even the Almighty's minister; the

order of the material world, however close and firm, is not merely the

Almighty's ordinance. The _forces_, if so we name them, which express

that order, are not powers which he has evolved from the silences, and

to whose guardianship he has committed all things, so that he himself

might repose. No! above, below, around, _there_ is God; there his

universal presence, speaking to finite creatures, in finite forms, a

language which only the living heart can understand. In the rain and

sunshine; in the soft zephyrs; in the cloud, the torrent, and the

thunder; in the bursting blossom, and the fading branch; in the

revolving season, and the rolling star; there is the infinite essence,

and the mystic development of HIS WILL."[195]

2. _Scientific astronomy inexorably demolishes the Atheistic scheme for

the arrangement of the solar system by accident, commonly known as

Buffon's cosmogony._

"Buffon supposed that the force of a comet falling obliquely on the sun

has projected to a distance a torrent of the matter of which it is

composed, as a stone thrown into a basin causes the water which it

contains to splash out. This torrent of matter, in a state of fusion,

has broken into several parts, which have been arrested at different

distances from the sun, according to their density, or the impetus they

received. They then united in spheres, by the effect of the motion of

rotation, and condensing by cold, have become opaque and solid planets

and satellites."[196]

This formation of worlds by accident, it is true, gave no reason for the

form of their orbits, for their rotation on their axes, in one

direction, and that, too, the direction of their motion, nor for several

other matters, of which Infidels make little account, but about which

plain men like to ask, namely: Where did the sun come from? What melted

it down into a fluid state, fit to be splashed about? Where did the

comet come from? And who threw it with so correct an aim through

infinite space as exactly to hit the sun _in an oblique direction_.

Creation, it seems, was nearly missed, after all. This chaotic theory

never gained much respect from men of science, though its simplicity

speedily opened its way among the vulgar, and it has ever been a

favorite with the most ignorant class of Infidels, numbering thousands

of warm advocates, even at the present day.

It was thought to be very much corroborated by the discovery of the

asteroids, and their supposed formation by the explosion of a larger

body. There is a certain proportion observed in the distances of the

orbits of the planets from each other--a breadth or gauge, as it were,

on the celestial railroad. But there was the breadth of a track between

the orbits of Mars and Jupiter on which no train ran, and this vacancy

excited the curiosity of astronomers. In the first seven years of this

century, three very small planets were discovered, running near this

track; and Dr. Olbers, the discoverer of Pallas, finding that they were

nearly in the same track, and sometimes crossed each other, and that

they were diminutively small--bearing about the same proportion to a

regular planet which a hand-car does to a freight train--imagined that

they were formed by the explosion of a large planet; that the boiler of

the large locomotive had burst, the fragments had all lighted upon the

track again, in the shape of hand-cars, and the hand-cars had

magnanimously resolved to keep running, and do the business of the line;

and that, as there must have been material enough in the original planet

to make some thousands of them, more would be discovered by watching two

depots, at the crossings of the tracks, in the constellations Virgo and

the Whale, where they must all pass. In fact, he did himself find

another, very near one of these nodes; more recently many others have

been found; and astronomers now expect to hear of one or two more every

year.

At first sight his theory seemed strengthened by every new discovery.

It is true, reflecting men could not help wondering at such a

marvelously regular explosion as would produce beautiful little orderly

planets, going so regularly too, and all by accident. They never heard

of the blowing up of a palace producing cottages, or the explosion of a

steamboat throwing off the hurricane deck in the shape of whaleboats, or

the bursting of a locomotive producing model engines, or even hand-cars.

However, as the theory removed God out of sight, it was generally

accepted and freely used by Infidels, to show that the world had no need

of a Creator.

But astronomers saw, that as each new asteroid had a track of its own,

and ran to a different terminus, and the roads in which they ran were of

different gauges and grades--one little asteroid, Pallas, running up and

down a track inclined thirty-five degrees, just as speedily as the

others--every new discovery increased the difficulty of accounting for

their origin by explosion. But the discovery of the planet Hygeia, at a

vast distance from the others, utterly overturned the explosion theory.

Loomis says:

"The difficulties in the way of our regarding these small planets, as

fragments of a single body, were well nigh-insuperable before the

discovery of Hygeia. This last discovery has probably given the

death-blow to the theory of Olbers. The orbit of Hygeia completely

incloses the orbits of several of the asteroids, its perihelion

distance--that is, its least distance from the sun--exceeding the

aphelion--or greatest distance--of Flora by _twenty-five millions of

miles_. _No change of position of the orbits could, therefore, bring

these orbits to a coincidence._"[197]

The matter has been finally settled by the greatest of modern

mathematicians, Le Verrier, who has subjected the eccentricities,

distances, and inclinations of the orbits of the asteroids to a

mathematical investigation, the result of which is as follows:

"In the present state of things, these eccentricities and these

inclinations are totally incompatible with Olbers' hypothesis, which

supposed that the small planets--some of which were discovered even in

his day--were produced from the wreck of a larger star, which had

exploded. The forces necessary to launch the fragments of a given body

in such different routes (whose existence we should be obliged to

suppose) would be of such an improbable intensity, that the most limited

mathematical knowledge could not but see its absurdity." He concludes

the memoir by advancing four propositions, "which forever annihilate

Olbers' hypothesis."[198]

3. _The progress of astronomical discovery has utterly refuted the

notion of creation by natural law, known as the Development Theory, or

the Nebular Hypothesis._

Scientific Infidels knew that there was too much order and regularity in

the motions of the planets to allow any rational mind to ascribe these

motions to accident, according to Buffon's notion. They saw that these

movements must be regulated by law. La Place, an eminent mathematician,

saw that there are at least five great regularities pervading the

system, for which Buffon's theory gave no reason:

1. The planets all move in elliptical orbits, nearly circular. They

might, on the contrary, have been as elongated as those of comets.

2. They revolve in orbits nearly in the plane of the sun's equator. They

might have revolved in orbits inclined to it at any angle, or even in

the plane of his poles.

3. They revolve around the sun all in the same direction, which is the

direction of his rotation on his axis.

4. They rotate on their axes, also, so far as known, in the same

direction.

5. The satellites (with the exception of those of Uranus) revolve around

their primary planets, and also rotate on their axes, in the same normal

direction.

It was evident, even to the believers in chance, that so many

regularities were not produced by accident. La Place found, by computing

the chances by the formula of probabilities, that the chances were two

millions to one against these regularities happening by chance, _and

four millions to one in favor of these motions having a common origin_.

The grand phenomenon being a motion of rotation in the whole system, of

which the rotation of the sun is the central part, he thought if he

could account for this, he could explain all the rest.

He set out by supposing, that the sun and planets originally existed as

a vast cloud of gaseous matter, intensely heated--a vast

fire-mist--placed in a region of space much cooler, and that this cloud,

by gradual cooling, and the pressure of its parts, settled down into

solid forms. It was supposed that some portions of this cloud would

begin to cool sooner than others, and so become solid sooner, and that

the hot gas, rushing to the solid part, would form a vortex, which would

set the cloud in motion around its center. As the speed of its rotation

would increase, and the outside condense and grow solid before the

inside, the cloud would whirl off the rings of solid matter, which would

keep revolving in the same orbits in which they were cast off, and would

revolve faster and faster as they grew cooler and more solid, till they

broke up, by the force of their velocity, into smaller pieces; which

fragments, in their turn, repeated the process, until the present number

of planets and their satellites was produced.[199]

This theory differs from Buffon's much as a low pressure engine,

deriving most of its power from the condenser, differs from one of high

pressure. La Place does not explode the boiler to make his planets, but

merely runs his train so fast as to break an axle every now and then,

when the wheel runs off with the velocity it has got, and keeps its

track as well as if it had an engineer to guide it, grows into a little

locomotive by dint of running, and after a while breaks an axle

too--breaking is a hereditary failing of these suns and planets that had

no God to make them--and the wheels thus thrown off supply it with moons

and rings, like Saturn's. The illustration is not nearly so absurd as

the theory, inasmuch as a locomotive is an incomparably less complicated

contrivance than a planet. However the nonsense was cradled in the halls

of philosophy by means of antiquity, and distance.

As no fiction was too marvelous for the credence of the Greek, if it

were only a hundred years old, or located beyond the Euxine, so to our

development philosopher any impossibility may be accepted, if it can

only be dissolved into gas, and located a good many millions of miles

away; and to make it an article of faith on which he will risk his soul,

it is only necessary to give it a remote antiquity. No Papist ever

insisted more on antiquity as the solvent of all absurdity. Antiquity,

distance, and expansion are his trinity, with which all absurdities

become scientific facts.

Herschel had discovered numbers of nebulæ, or luminous clouds, in the

distant heavens shining with a distinct light, but which, with the

highest magnifying power he could apply, presented no trace of stars.

Some nebulæ, it is true, his largest telescope resolved, like our own

Milky Way, into beds of distinct stars; but there were others--for

instance, one in the belt of Orion--visible to the naked eye as a cloud,

but which his forty feet telescope only displayed as a larger cloud,

without any shape of stars. Now, reasoning upon the matter, he found

that if these nebulæ were composed of stars as large as those distinctly

visible, they must be immensely distant to be indistinguishable by his

telescope, and exceedingly numerous and close together to give a cloud

of light visible to the naked eye. In fact, the suns of those firmaments

must be so close to each other as to present a blaze of glory, and

complexities of revolution inconceivable to the dwellers on earth. But

as this daring idea seemed incredible, even to his giant mind, he

thought the appearance of these nebulæ might be more rationally

accounted for by supposing that they were not stars at all, but simply

clouds of gaseous matter, like the matter of comets, from which he

supposed that stars were formed by a long process of condensation and

solidification. He thought this theory was favored by the fact, that

nebulæ are generally seen in those portions of the heavens that are not

thickly strewn with stars; and also by the various forms of these

clouds. Some were merely loose clouds, without any definite form; others

seemed gathering toward the center. In some, of a roundish, or oval

form, the central mass seemed well defined. In a few, the process seemed

nearly complete, a bright star shining in the midst of a faint nebulous

halo. Here, then, it was said, we see the whole progress of the growth

of stars; their development from the gaseous nebulous fluid into solid,

brilliant suns. La Place accepted Herschel's discoveries as conclusive

proof of the truth of his theory, and it was generally accepted by the

scientific world. Oddly enough, Infidels seem not to have noticed that

those appearances of _condensation toward the center_, which seemed to

Herschel so strongly in favor of his theory of the nebulous fluid, were

diametrically opposed to La Place's requirements of _condensation at the

circumference_; and these two contradictory notions were supposed to

support each other, and to furnish a solid basis for the development

hypothesis.

This theory, as stated by Herschel, and expounded by Nichol, Dick, and

other Christian writers, _is not necessarily Atheistical_. On the

contrary, they allege that it furnishes us with greater evidences of the

power of God, and gives us higher ideas of his wisdom, to suppose a

system of creation by development, under natural law, than by a direct

exercise of his will. Undoubtedly, had God so pleased he could have made

suns from fire-mists, according to some plan which his infinite wisdom

could devise, and his omnipotent power could execute; but it is beyond

the possibilities even of omniscience and omnipotence to make worlds, or

to make anything but nonsense, according to La Place's plan. Had God so

pleased, to make firmaments grow as forests do, and if he should please

to enable us to discover such celestial growth in some distant part of

heaven, we should have the same kind of evidence of his being, power,

wisdom, and goodness in this creation by natural law which we now have

from his providence by natural law, in the growth of the fruits of the

earth, and as much greater an amount of it as the heavens are greater

than the earth. The first beginning of primeval elements demands a

Creator. The contrivance of the law of development proclaims a

Contriver. The force by which it operates--whether that of gravity or

chemical reaction--must be the force of an Agent.

_The development theory, then, fails to account for the origin of the

universe, or even of our own world._ Herbert Spencer, its most eloquent

expounder, admits this. He says: "It remains only to point out that

while the genesis of the solar system, and of countless other systems

like it, is thus rendered comprehensible, the ultimate mystery continues

as great as ever. The problem of existence is not solved; it is simply

removed farther back. The Nebular Hypothesis throws no light on the

origin of diffused matter; and diffused matter as much needs accounting

for as concrete matter. The genesis of an atom is not easier to conceive

than the genesis of a planet. Nay, indeed, so far from making the

universe a less mystery than before, it makes it a greater mystery.

Creation by manufacture is a much lower thing than creation by

evolution. A man can put together a machine, but he can not make a

machine develop itself. The ingenious artisan, able as some have been,

so far to imitate vitality as to produce a mechanical piano-forte

player, may in some sort conceive how, by greater skill, a complete man

might be artificially produced; but he is unable to conceive how such a

complex organism gradually arises out of a minute, structureless germ.

That our harmonious universe once existed potentially as formless,

diffused matter, and has slowly grown into its present organized state,

is a far more astonishing fact than would have been its formation after

the artificial method vulgarly supposed. Those who hold it legitimate to

argue from phenomena to noumena, may rightly contend that the Nebular

Hypothesis implies a First Cause as much transcending 'the mechanical

god of Paley,' as this does the fetish of a savage."[200]

The Nebular Hypothesis, then, can not exist without God. However, as it

seems to remove him to a great distance from this present world, both in

space and time, it has become popular with Atheists.

The Nebular Hypothesis, as presented by Atheists, _imagines a state of

primeval matter as simple, or homogeneous, of which science presents no

example, in heaven or on earth_.

This homogeneous condition of matter is the very foundation of the

theory. Spencer reasons at great length, that all progress is from the

simple to the differentiated. And it is indispensable for the Atheists

to prove that the primeval world was composed of matter perfectly simple

and homogeneous. If they alleged that it was composed of several

ingredients, nobody would believe them that this compound was eternal.

There is no conviction of common sense stronger than that every compound

has been put together by some compounder.

They could not persuade a child that a plum pudding made itself, or that

a steamship filled with passengers existed so from eternity, much less a

planet with a much larger crew and company. They therefore alleged that

the first matter of the universe was perfectly homogeneous and simple.

When common people objected that no such thing was to be seen in this

world nowadays, since all things here--stones, water, air, earth,

plants, animals--are compounded and built up out of a great variety of

matters, they claimed that this is the result of the growth of our

planet; but that the nebulæ, which astronomers see far away in the sky,

are young suns and planets, just beginning to condense, and that the gas

they consist of is the genuine, simple, homogeneous matter out of which

this world, and all worlds, originally made themselves. They thought the

nebulæ were so very far away that nobody would ever go there to see and

come back to contradict them; and so they were quite safe in pointing to

them as examples of homogeneous matter.

Now one does not see, if the nebula had been exactly what the

development men assert--_simple, homogeneous matter_--_how they could

ever have made such a composite world as this out of it_, or indeed how

they could make anything but itself out of it. No chemical actions or

reactions can begin in a simple substance; there must always be at least

two simple substances to make a compound. Heating or cooling a simple

substance will never make it a compound. You may heat water in a boiler

and cool it again as often as you please, but your heating and cooling

will never make coffee out of it, unless you put coffee into it. So you

may heat and cool your simple nebula to all eternity, but you will never

get coffee out of it, much less coffee and coffee-pot, china and

company, with the biscuits and butter; all which, and a great deal

more, our philosophers contrive to churn out of the primeval homogeneous

nebula.

But the progress of science has enabled us to show that the nebulæ, far

from being simple, homogeneous matter, are compounded of as many

ingredients as the flame of your lamp or gas light, which is combined of

half a score of different substances. By the discovery of Spectrum

Analysis we are able to analyze the chemical composition of the most

distant flames, to tell whether they proceed from solids or gases in a

state of combustion, and what are the gases and minerals consumed in

them. As space forbids the details of this discovery here, I can only

state the results, namely that some of the nebulæ consist of clouds of

small solid stars, of which the nebula in Orion is an instance; but

others consist of flames of gases, in all cases compound, and showing,

besides the oxygenated flame, the lines which declare the presence of

hydrogen, and of several metals. Thus it is proved, that no such

eternal, homogeneous nebulæ are to be found in heaven, and consequently

nobody could ever make worlds out of a substance which had no existence.

This theory of development was always _a mere notion, a castle in the

air_, and never could be anything more. To say that it was mere

moonshine would be to give it far too respectable a standing; for

moonshine has a real existence, and may be seen and felt. But nobody

ever saw or felt a homogeneous nebula. Indeed, its inventor never

pretended that he, or anybody else, ever saw one; or saw it sailing off

into moons, and planets, and suns, or ever would see any such thing. No

scientific man has ever pretended that it was an established fact, or

anything more than a theory, a notion. Young people, who are invited to

hazard their souls on the strength of this miscalled scientific theory,

should remember that it is not science, which means something a man

knows, but merely a theory, which is some notion which he imagines.

_It is an unsatisfactory notion._ It does not answer the purpose of its

inventors. As we have already seen, it gives us no account of the origin

of the homogeneous matter of the nebula. It gives no answer to the

questions, How did it get to be so hot, while all the space around it

was so cold? Is the fire that heated it burning still, or is it

exhausted for want of fuel? Were the germs of all the plants and animals

in it while it was blazing at a white heat? If they were, how did they

escape being burnt to ashes? If they were not, where did they come from?

For there was nothing but that nebula then in existence. Did it contain

within itself all the principles of things, all the forces now found in

the worlds which grew out of it? If so, how came they there? If not, how

did attraction, and repulsion, vegetable life, animal life, intellect,

and free will, work themselves into that cloud of homogeneous gas?

Professor Tyndall thus exposes the absurdity of the supposition that the

nebula contained the elements of mind: "For what are the core and

essence of this hypothesis? Strip it naked and you stand face to face

with the notion that not alone the more ignoble forms of animalcular or

animal life, not alone the noble forms of the horse and lion, not alone

the exquisite and wonderful mechanisms of the human body, but the human

mind itself--emotion, intellect, will, and all these phenomena, were

once latent in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion

is more than a refutation."[201]

_It was only one of several contradictory notions._ Thus a writer in the

_Atlantic Monthly_, so far from accepting the notion that the sun and

earth are solidifying and cooling down, as explanatory of the facts

revealed by astronomy and geology, infers the very contrary from the

acknowledged facts, namely, that we are coming up to the nebular

condition, rather than developing from it. He writes as follows:

"The earth is progressing by excessively slow changes toward

the solar and nebulous condition. Its history is a repetition

of the solar, and a time must arrive when the surface,

becoming incandescent, will be obscured only by casual dark

pits in a brilliant atmosphere, a _souvenir_ of the present

darkness of the crust; yet during a certain period, within

fixed limits of gravitating force and heat of mass, the human

race may continue to exist; progressing, we may suppose, in

force and fineness of organization. The race will perish,

perhaps, in the order of nature, by failure or insufficient

number of offspring, a principal cause of the extinction of

superior races. The earth must become lone and voiceless long

before the incandescence of the crust. Science may follow it

into the condition of an attendant star, and then of an

expanding nebula.

"In the cosmos all movements are cyclical, and recurrent,

without change, save interchange among forms of motion. A

universe which is, in its total, the same to-day as yesterday,

and always, would appear idle and dull if it were not the

footstool of divine force, upon which the creative will

maintains a certain equipoise, necessary to the continued

production of spiritual forms."

_It is an impracticable notion, contrary to the first principle of

mechanics, that action and reaction are equal._

The grand requirement of the system--power to work the engine--can never

be raised by La Place's, nor by any other mechanical plan. The cooling

cloud of fire-mist is simply a very big machine, and no machine can

generate power to work itself. If La Place could have somehow or other

got power for the motion of rotation outside of his cloud, he might have

made it revolve, and scatter off great lumps of the lightest outside

stuffs, as your grindstone scatters off drops of water when you turn it

rapidly; but, having no such power, his theory is a plan to make the

grindstone turn itself. It is, therefore, precisely of the same value

as any one of the hundred of ingenious schemes for creating power by

machinery, of the perpetual motion men, in defiance of the first law of

mechanics, that action and reaction are equal.

Moreover, he proposes to raise the power by making the gas cool at one

part of the surface faster than at another, and so to make a vortex

around that spot, which would set the whole mass to revolving. But no

conceivable reason can be alleged why the homogeneous mass should begin

to cool at one place faster than another, or indeed why an eternally hot

mass should ever begin to cool at all. But, letting that pass, to make

the required vortex for the rotation of the whole mass, it should not

begin to cool at any part of the surface, but at the center, where, as

every engine driver who ever saw a condenser, and every woman who ever

cooled a dish of mush knows, it could not possibly begin to cool till

the outside mass had become cold; and so no motion could be produced.

This is so well known in the machine shops that it is rare to find a

machinist own the theory.

But even a more fatal objection has been raised by one of the most

eloquent expounders of the theory. Mr. Spencer shows us that the mass,

condensing under the influence of gravitation, so far from cooling _must

necessarily evolve heat_. He is perfectly clear and decided on this

matter, _that the condensing mass could never, by any possibility, begin

to cool, but must begin to heat, and go on heating till it burst out in

a blaze_. He says: "Heat must inevitably be generated by the aggregation

of diffused matter into a concrete form; and throughout our reasonings

we have assumed that such generation of heat has been an accompaniment

of nebular condensation."[202] "While the condensation and the rate of

rotation are progressively increasing, the approach of the atoms

necessarily generates _a progressively increasing temperature_. As this

temperature rises light begins to be evolved, and ultimately there

results a revolving sphere of fluid matter radiating intense light and

heat--a sun."[203]

This, it will be perceived, is exactly the reverse of the original

nebular theory of a cooling globe, or spheroid of homogeneous nebular

matter, diffused by intense heat, and cooling down into suns, and moons,

and planets. So far as the Spencer system is accepted, it displaces La

Place's theory, and the inventor accordingly works out a new theory of

his own, and equally inconsistent with known facts and principles. But

as Mr. Spencer candidly owns that his scheme can neither generate matter

nor force, as we have already seen, it needs no further discussion in

this connection.

The fact is simply this, a chemical perpetual motion is as impossible as

a mechanical one. The discovery of the convertibility of forces shows

this. The development theory of the generation of motion by processes of

the self-heating or the self-cooling of the machine, or by chemical

actions and reactions, is, in its last analysis, only a big perpetual

motion humbug.

Even were the rotation, and the cooling process, to take place, as is

supposed, _no such results would proceed from these combined operations

as the case requires_; for, according to the theory, as the cooling and

contracting rings revolve in the verge of a vortex of fluid less dense

than themselves, one of these two results must take place: either, as is

most probable, from their exceeding tenuity, the rings will break at

once into fragments, when, instead of flying outward, they will sink

toward the center, and, as long as they are heavier than the surrounding

fluid, _they will stay there_; and, as the cooling goes on on the

outside, so will the concentration of the heavier matter, till we have

_one_ great spheroid, with a solid center, liquid covering, and gaseous

atmosphere. A vortex will never make, nor allow to exist beyond its

center, planets heavier than the fluid of which it is composed. The

other alternative, and the one which La Place selected, was the

supposition that the cooling and contracting rings did not at first

break up into pieces, but retained their continuity; but, contrary to

all experience and reason, he supposed that these cooling rings kept

contracting and widening out from the heated mass, at the same time. The

only fluid planetary rings which we can examine--those of Saturn--have

been closing in on the planet since the days of Huygens, and eventually

will be united with the body of the planet. Every boy who has seen a

blacksmith hoop a cart-wheel has learned the principle, that a heated

ring contracts as it cools, and in doing so presses in upon the mass

around which it clings. But, according to this nebular notion, the

fire-mist keeps cooling and shrinking up, while the rings, of the very

same heat and material, keep cooling faster, and widening out from it; a

piece of schismatical behavior without a parallel among solids or

fluids, either in heaven or earth, or under the earth.

Plateau's illustration of the mode in which centrifugal force acts in

overcoming molecular attraction, has been cited as a demonstration of

the truth of the nebular hypothesis. The conditions, however, are

entirely different. By means of clock-work he caused a globule of oil to

rotate in a mixture of alcohol and water _of the same density_, thus

entirely getting rid of the power of gravitation; and by increasing the

velocity he caused it to flatten out into a disc, and finally to project

a multitude of minute drops, which continued their revolutions so long

as the fluid in which they floated kept revolving by the motion of the

rotating spindle, _the divergent drops, the central mass, and the

surrounding fluid, being all the while of the same density_. But the

essential conditions of the nebular theory are, that _the central mass_

exert an attraction of gravitation upon all its parts, and _therefore be

denser than the surrounding ether or empty space_, and that _the cooling

and contracting rings be of a different density from the rest of the

mass_. Their divergence from the more fluid portion is supposed to arise

from their growing denser. And Reclus shows[204] that the divergent

drops owe their existence to the _expansion_, not to the _contraction_,

of the globule of oil. This experiment, then, contradicts the theory, so

far as it is applicable.

Plateau himself never adduced this experiment in support of the nebular

theory; but having, by way of illustration, spoken of the revolving

drops as satellites, and finding that expression misunderstood, he

corrected the error in a subsequent paper. He says: "It is clear that

this mode of formation is entirely foreign to La Place's cosmogonic

hypothesis; therefore we have no idea of deducing from this little

experiment, which only refers _to the effects of molecular attraction_,

and _not to those of gravitation_, any argument in favor of the

hypothesis in question; an hypothesis which _in other respects we do not

adopt_."[205]

_It was always contrary to the facts of astronomical science._ It has

accordingly been repudiated by the most eminent astronomers.

Sir John Herschel declares that the appearance of those groups, or

clusters, of stars, supposed to be formed by the condensation of nebulæ

is quite different from that depicted by this theory, and that no traces

of the ring-making process is visible among them. He thus describes the

appearances of these groups; exactly the contrary of that demanded by

the theory, which he emphatically disclaims, from the presidential chair

of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

"If it is to be regarded as demonstrated truth, or as receiving the

smallest support from any observed numerical relations which actually

hold good among the elements of the primary orbits, I beg leave to

demur. Assuredly it receives no support from the observation of the

effects of sidereal aggregation as exemplified in the formation of

globular and elliptic clusters, supposing them to have resulted from

such aggregation. For we see this cause working out in thousands of

instances, to have resulted, _not_ in the formation of a single large

central body, surrounded by a few smaller attendants disposed in one

plane around it, but in systems of infinitely greater complexity,

consisting of multitudes of nearly equal luminaries, grouped together in

a solid elliptic or globular form. So far then as any conclusions from

our observations of nebulæ can go, the result of agglomerative

tendencies _may_ indeed be the formation of families of stars of a

general and very striking character, but we see nothing to lead us to

presume its further result to be the surrounding of those stars with

planetary adherents."[206]

_This theory is contradicted by the peculiarities of our solar system._

The orbits of the comets being inclined at all angles to the sun's

equator, are often out of the plane of his rotation, and so in the way

of the theory. The moons of Uranus revolve in a direction contrary to

all the other bodies, and fly right into the face of the theory.

According to the nebular theory, the outer planets, first cast off from

the sun, ought to be lighter than those nearer him, as these had longer

pressing near the middle of the mass; and the sun himself, having been

pressed by the weight of all the rest of the system, should be the

densest body of the whole. And the author of _The Vestiges of Creation_,

in expounding the theory, manufactures a set of facts to suit it, and

tells his readers that the planets exhibit a progressive diminution in

density from the one nearest the sun to that which is most distant. Our

solar system could not have lasted thirty years had that been the case.

The Earth, Venus, and Mars, are nearly of the same density. Uranus is

more dense than Saturn, which is nearer the sun. Neptune is more dense

than either. The sun, which ought to be the heaviest of all, according

to the theory, is only one-fourth the density of the earth. La Place

himself has demonstrated that these densities and arrangements are

indispensable to the stability of the system. But they are plainly

contradictory to his theory of its formation.[207]

The palpable difference of luminosity between the sun and the planets,

which, as they are all made of the very same materials, and by the same

process, according to this theory, ought to be equally self-luminous, is

in itself a self-evident refutation of the nebular hypothesis, or of any

other process of creation by mere mechanical law. "The same power,

whether natural or supernatural, which placed the sun in the center of

the six primary planets, placed Saturn in the center of the orb of his

five secondary planets; and Jupiter in the center of his four secondary

planets; and the earth in the center of the moon's orbit; and,

therefore, had this cause been a blind one, _without contrivance or

design_, the sun would have been a body of the same kind with Saturn,

Jupiter, and the Earth; that is, _without light or heat_. Why there is

one body in our system qualified to give light and heat to all the rest,

I know no reason, but because the Author of the system thought it

convenient." So says the immortal Newton.[208]

The great expounder of modern science--Humboldt--is equally explicit in

enumerating the decisive marks of choice and will in the construction of

the solar system, and in contemptuously dismissing the notion of

development and creation by natural law from the halls of science.

"Up to the present time, _we are ignorant, as I have already remarked,

of any internal necessity--any mechanical law of nature_--which (like

the beautiful law which connects the square of the periods of revolution

with the cube of the major axis) represents the above-named

elements--the absolute magnitude of the planets, their density,

flattening at the poles, velocity of rotation, and presence or absence

of moons--of the order of succession of the individual planetary bodies

of each group, in their dependence upon the distances. Although the

planet which is nearest the sun is densest--even six or eight times

denser than some of the exterior planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and

Neptune--the order of succession in the case of Venus, the Earth, and

Mars, is very irregular. The absolute magnitudes do, generally, as

Kepler has already observed, increase with the distances; but this does

not hold good when the planets are considered individually. Mars is

smaller than the Earth; Uranus smaller than Saturn; Saturn smaller than

Jupiter, and succeeds immediately to a host of planets, which, on

account of their smallness, are almost immeasurable. It is true, the

period of rotation generally increases with the distance from the sun;

but it is in the case of Mars slower than in that of the Earth, and

slower in Saturn than in Jupiter."[209] "_Our knowledge of the primeval

ages of the world's physical history does not extend sufficiently far to

allow of our depicting the present condition of things as one of

development._"[210]

Sir David Brewster adds his testimony as follows: "Geology does not

pretend to give us any information respecting the process by which the

nucleus of the earth was formed. Some speculative astronomers indeed

have presumptuously embarked in such an inquiry; but there is not a

trace of evidence that the solid nucleus of the globe was formed by

secondary causes, such as the aggregation of attenuated matter diffused

through space; and the _nebular theory_, as it has been called, though

maintained by a few distinguished names, has, we think, been overturned

by arguments which have never been answered. Sir Isaac Newton, in his

four celebrated letters to Dr. Bentley, has demonstrated that the

planets of the solar system could not have been thus formed and put in

motion round a central sun."[211]

4. _Astronomy not only exposes the folly of past cosmogonies, but

demonstrates the impossibility of framing any true theory of creation,

and thus refutes all future cosmogonies._

The grand error of all cosmogonies lies in the arrogant assumption, on

which every one of them must be founded, _that the theorist is

acquainted with all substances, and all forces in the universe_, and

with all the modes of their operation; not only at the present period,

and on this earth, but in all past ages, and in worlds in widely

different, and utterly unknown situations; for, if he be ignorant of any

substance, or of any active force in the universe, his generalization is

avowedly imperfect, and necessarily erroneous. That unknown force must

have had its influence in framing the world. Its omission, then, is

fatal to the theory which neglects it. A theory of creation, for

instance, which would neglect the attraction of gravitation would be

manifestly false. But there are other forces as far reaching, whose

omission must be equally fatal; for instance, the power of repulsion.

A conviction of this truth has given rise to a constant effort to

simplify matters down to the level of our ignorance, by reducing all

substances to one, or at most two simple elements, and all forces to the

form of one universal law; but the progress of science utterly blasts

the attempt. Instead of simplifying matters, the very chemical processes

undertaken with that view revealed new substances, and every year

increases our knowledge of nature's variety. No scientific man now

dreams of one primeval element. In the same way, astronomy, which, it

was boasted, would enable us to account for all the operations of the

universe, by reducing all motion to one mechanical law, has revealed to

us the existence of other forces as far reaching as the attraction of

gravitation, and more powerful; and substances whose nature and

combinations are utterly unknown. But every cosmogony is just an attempt

to simplify matters, by ignoring the existence of these unknown

substances, and mysterious forces; a process which science condemns, as

utterly unphilosophical and absurd.

Astronomy has shown us _our ignorance of the substances_, or

_materials_, _of our own little globe_. It has demonstrated that the

whole body of the earth must have an average density equal to iron. As

the rocks near the surface are much lighter, those toward the center

must be heavier than iron, to make up this density. Of what, then, do

they consist? The geologist says he does not know. No geologist ever saw

them. No mortal ever will see them, and report their chemical

constitution, their dip, and the arrangement of their strata, to the

American Association for the Advancement of Science. The very utmost "we

can say is that they are unlike anything with which we are acquainted."

Very well; then be pleased to have the decency to abstain from telling

us how the world was made, when you don't know what it is made of.

The sun's heat, at its surface, is 300,000 times greater than at the

surface of the earth, but a tenth of this amount, collected in the focus

of a lens, dissipates gold and platinum in vapor. When the most vivid

flames which we can produce are held up in the blaze of his rays, they

disappear. If a cataract of icebergs, a mile high, and wider than the

Atlantic Ocean, were launched into the sun with the velocity of a

cannon-ball, the small portion of the sun's heat expended on our earth

would convert that vast mass into steam as fast as it entered his

atmosphere without cooling its surface in the least degree. "The great

mystery, however, is to conceive how so enormous a conflagration (if

such it be) can be kept up. Every discovery in chemical science here

leaves us completely at a loss, or rather seems to remove farther the

prospect of probable explanation."[212] Yet, the sun is the nearest of

the fixed stars, and by far the best known, and most nearly related to

us. In fact, we are dependent on his influences for life and health. But

if the theorist _can not tell his substance, or the nature and cause of

the light and heat he sends us_, how can he presume so far on the

world's credulity as to present a theory of his formation?

"Astronomical problems accumulate unsolved upon our hands, because we

can not, as mechanicians, chemists, or physiologists, experiment on the

stars. Are they built of the same material as our planet? Are Saturn's

rings solid, or liquid? Has the moon an atmosphere? Are the atmospheres

of the planets like ours? Are the light and heat of the sun begotten of

combustion? And what is the fuel which feeds these unquenchable fires?

These are questions, which we ask, and variously answer, _but leave

unanswered after all_."[213] But, till he can answer these, and a

thousand questions like these, let no man presume to describe the

formation of these unknown orbs.

Comets constitute by far the greatest number of the bodies of our solar

system. Arago says seven millions frequent it, within the orbit of

Uranus.[214] They are the largest bodies known to us, stretching across

hundreds of millions of miles. They approach nearer to this earth than

any other bodies, sometimes even involving it in their tails, and

generally exciting great alarm among its inhabitants. But the nature of

the transparent luminous matter of which they are composed is utterly

unknown. As they approach the sun, they come under an influence directly

the opposite of attraction. The tail streams away from the sun, over a

distance of millions of miles, _and yet the rate of the comet's motion

toward the sun is quickened_, as though it were an immense rocket,

driven forward by its own explosion.

Further, while the body of the comet travels toward the sun, sometimes

with a velocity nearly one-third of that of light, the tail sends forth

coruscations in the opposite direction, with a much greater velocity.

The greatest velocity with which we are acquainted on earth is the

velocity of light, which travels a million of times faster than a

cannon-ball, or at the rate of 195,000 miles per second; but here is a

substance capable of traveling twenty-three times faster, and here is a

force propelling it, twenty-three times greater than any which exists on

earth. Its existence was first discovered by the coruscations of the

comet of 1807. "In less than one second, streamers shot forth, to two

and a half degrees in length; they as rapidly disappeared, and issued

out again, sometimes in proportions, and interrupted, like our northern

lights. Afterward the tail varied, both in length and breadth; and in

some of the observations, the streamers shot forth from the whole

expanded end of the tail, sometimes here, sometimes there, in an

instant, two and a half degrees long; _so that within a single second

they must have shot out a distance of 4,600,000 miles_."[215] Similar

exhibitions of this unknown force were made by the comet of 1811, by

Halley's comet, and several others.

In these amazing disclosures of the unknown forces of the heavens, do we

not hear a voice rebuking the presumption of ignorant theorists, with

the questions, Knowest _thou_ the ordinances of heaven? Canst _thou_ set

the dominion thereof in the earth? Hear one of the most distinguished of

modern astronomers expound the moral bearings of such a discovery: "The

intimation of a new cosmical power--I mean of one so unsuspected before,

but which yet can follow a planet through all its wanderings--throws us

back once more into the indefinite obscure, and checks all dogmatism.

How many influences, hitherto undiscovered by our ruder senses, may be

ever streaming toward us, and modifying every terrestrial action. And

yet, because we had traced one of these, we have deemed our astronomy

complete! Deeper far, and nearer to the root of things, is that world

with which man's destiny is entwined."[216]

We can have no reason, save our own self-sufficient arrogance, to

believe that the discovery of these two forces exhausts the treasures of

infinite wisdom. Humboldt thus well refutes the folly of such an

imagination: "The imperfectibility of all empirical science, and the

boundlessness of the sphere of observation, render the task of

explaining the forces of matter by that which is variable in matter, an

impracticable one. What has been already perceived, by no means exhausts

that which is perceptible. If, simply referring to the progress of

science in our own times, we compare the imperfect physical knowledge of

Robert Boyle, Gilbert, and Hales, with that of the present day, and

remember that every few years are characterized by an increasing

rapidity of advance, we shall be better able to imagine _the periodical

and endless changes which all physical sciences are destined to

undergo. New substances and new forces will be discovered._"[217]

Thus, all true science, conscious of its ignorance, ever leads the mind

to the region of faith. Its first lesson, and its last lesson, is

humility. It tells us that every cosmogony, which the children of theory

so laboriously scratch in the sand, must be swept away by the rising

tide of science. When we seek information on the great questions of our

origin and destiny, and cry, "Where shall wisdom be found, and what is

the place of understanding?" The high priests of science answer, in her

name, "It is not in me; the measure thereof is longer than the earth,

and broader than the sea."

We receive this honest acknowledgment as an inestimable boon. We are

saved thereby the wearying labor of a vain and useless search after

knowledge which lies not in her domain. We come down to the Bible with

the profound conviction that science can give us no definite information

of our origin, no certainty of our destiny, and but an imperfect

acquaintance with the laws which govern this present world. If the Bible

can not inform us on these all-important questions, we must remain

ignorant. Science declares she can not teach us. The Word of God

remains, not merely the best, but absolutely the only, the last resource

of the anxious soul.

The Bible gives us no theory of creation. It simply asserts the fact,

that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," but does

not tell us _how_ he did so. The knowledge could be of no use to us, for

he never means to employ us as his assistants in the work of creation.

Nor could we understand the matter. The force by which he called the

worlds into being, and upholds them in it, exists in no creature. "He

stretcheth forth the heavens alone. He spreadeth abroad the earth by

himself." "He upholdeth all things by the word of his power."

But it presents anxious, careworn, humbled souls with something

infinitely more precious than cosmogonies; even an explicit declaration

of the love toward them of him who made these worlds.

"Thus saith the Lord, THY REDEEMER,

And he who formed thee from the womb:

I am the Lord, who maketh all things;

Who stretcheth forth the heavens alone,

And spreadeth abroad the earth, by myself."

"He healeth the broken in heart,

And bindeth up their wounds.

He telleth the number of the stars,

And calleth them all by their names.

Great is our Lord, and of great power;

His wisdom is infinite!"

Yes, the Creator of heaven and earth, who upholds all things by the word

of his power, became a man like you, and dwelt on earth, and suffered

the sorrow, the shame, the pain, the death, that sinful man deserved;

and when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand

of the Majesty on high. From that heavenly throne his voice now sounds,

reader, in your ear, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are

heavy-laden, and _I will give you rest_."

FOOTNOTES:

[186] Cosmos III. 138.

[187] Herschel's Outlines, chap. xvii. sec. 887.

[188] Cosmos III. 197.

[189] Nichol's Architecture of the Heavens, 9th ed. p. 180.

[190] Cosmos IV. 292.

[191] Nichol's Contemplations on the Solar System, xxx.

[192] Cosmos III. 253.

[193] Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy, chap. xvi.

[194] _New York Evangelist_, May 5, 1870.

[195] Nichol's Architecture of the Heavens, 9th edition, 272.

[196] Pontecoulant in _System of the World_, p. 70.

[197] Progress of Astronomy, 70.

[198] Memoirs of the French Academy, by M. Le Verrier; from _The Annual

of Scientific Discovery_, for 1855, p. 376.

[199] Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy, p. 558, ed. of 1853.

[200] Illustrations of Universal Progress, page 298.

[201] Fragments of Science and Scientific Thought, p. 163.

[202] Illustrations of Progress, page 292.

[203] Illustrations of Progress, page 34.

[204] The Earth, page 256.

[205] Taylor's Scientific Memoirs, Vol. V., cited in McCosh's Typical

Forms and Special Ends in Creation, p. 403.

[206] Opening Address to the British Association, 1845.

[207] Taking water as the unit of density, Mercury is 6.71; Venus, 5.11;

Earth, 5.44; Mars, 5.21; Saturn, 0.76; Uranus, 0.97; Neptune, 1.25; the

Sun, 1.37.--Cosmos IV. p. 447.

[208] Newton's Optics, IV. p. 438.

[209] Cosmos, IV. p. 425.

[210] Cosmos, III. p. 28.

[211] More Worlds Than One, p. 45.

[212] Herschel's Outlines, VI. Sect. 400.

[213] Dr. George Wilson, F. R. S. E., in Edinburgh Phil. Journal, V. p.

53.

[214] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, p. 360.

[215] Dick's Sidereal Heavens, chap. xx.

[216] Nichol's Solar System, p. 76.

[217] Cosmos, III. p. 27.