SCIENCE, OR FAITH?
"Faith is destined to be left behind in the onward march of the human
intellect. It belongs to an infantile stage of intellectual development,
when experience, dependent on testimony, becomes the slave of credulity.
Children and childish nations are prone to superstition. Religion
belongs properly to such. Hence the endless controversies of religious
sects. But as man advances into the knowledge of the physical sciences,
and becomes familiarized with mathematical demonstration and scientific
experiment, he demands substantial proofs for all kinds of knowledge,
and rejects that which is merely matter of faith. The certainties of
science succeed the controversies of creeds. Science thus becomes the
grave of religion, as religion is vulgarly understood. But science gives
a new and better religion to the world. Instead of filling men's minds
with the vague terrors of an unknown futurity, it directs us to the best
modes of improving this life."--"This life being the first in certainty,
give it the first place in importance; and by giving human duties in
reference to men the _precedence_, secure that all interpretations of
spiritual duty shall be in harmony with human progress."--"Nature refers
us to science for help, and to humanity for sympathy; love to the lovely
is our only homage, study our only praise, quiet submission to the
inevitable our duty; and truth is our only worship."--"Our _knowledge_
is confined to this life; and _testimony_, and _conjecture_, and
_probability_, are all that can be set forth in regard to
another."--"Preach nature and science, morality and art; _nature, the
only subject of knowledge_; morality, the harmony of action; art, the
culture of the individual and society."[322]
Or, if you will insist upon preaching religion, support it "with such
proofs as accompany physical science. This I have always loved; for I
never find it deceives me. I rest upon it with entire conviction. There
is no mistake, and can be no dispute in mathematics. And if a revelation
comes from God, why have we not such evidence for it as mathematical
demonstration?"
Such is the language now used by a large class of half-educated people,
who, deriving their philosophy from Comte, and their religion from the
_Westminster Review_, invite us to spend our Sabbaths in the study of
nature in the fields and museums, turn our churches into laboratories,
exchange our Bibles for encyclopedias, give ourselves no more trouble
about religion, but try hard to learn as much science, make as much
money, and enjoy as much pleasure in this life as we can; because we
_know_ that we live now, and can only _believe_ that we shall live
hereafter. I do not propose to take any notice here of the proposal of
Secularism--for that is the new name of this ungodliness--to deliver men
from their lusts by scientific lectures, and keep them moral by
overturning religion. That experiment has been tried already. But it is
worth while to inquire, Is science really so positive, and religion so
uncertain, as these persons allege? Is a knowledge of the physical
sciences so all-sufficient for our present happiness, so attainable by
all mankind, and so certain and infallible, that we should barter our
immortality for it? And, on the other hand, are the great facts of
religious experience, and the foundations of our religious faith, so
dim, and vague, and utterly uncertain, that we may safely consign them
to oblivion, or that we can so get rid of them if we would?
The object of this chapter is to refute both parts of the Secularist's
statement; to show some of the uncertainties, errors, contradictions,
and blunders of the scientific men on whose testimony they receive their
science; and to exhibit a few of the facts of religious experience which
give a sufficient warrant for the Christian's faith.
Scientific observations are made by fallible men exposed to every
description of error, prejudice and mistake; men who can not possibly
divest themselves of their preconceived opinions in observing facts, and
framing theories.
Lord Bacon long ago observed that "the eye of the human intellect is not
dry, but receives a suffusion from the will and the affections, so that
it may be almost said to engender any science it pleases. For what a man
wishes to be true, that he prefers believing." "If the human intellect
hath once taken a liking to any doctrine, either because received and
credited, or because otherwise pleasing, it draws everything else into
harmony with that doctrine, and to its support; and albeit there may be
found a more powerful array of contradictory instances, these, however,
it does not observe, or it contemns, or by distinction extenuates, and
rejects."[323]
A prejudiced observer sees the facts distorted and exaggerated. "Thus it
is that men will not see in the phenomena what alone is to be seen; in
their observations they interpolate and expunge; and this mutilated and
adulterated product they call a fact. And why? Because the real
phenomena, if admitted, would spoil the pleasant music of their
thoughts, and convert its factitious harmony into a discord. In
consequence of this many a system professing to be reared exclusively on
observation and fact, rests, in reality, mainly upon hypothesis and
fiction. A pretended experience is indeed the screen behind which every
illusive doctrine regularly retires. 'There are more false facts,' says
Cullen, 'current in the world than false theories.' Fact, observation,
induction, have always been the watchwords of those who have dealt most
extensively in fancy."[324] We propose, therefore, to show that, _I. The
students of the physical sciences have no such certain knowledge of
their facts and theories as Secularists pretend._
1. Mathematical science relating merely to abstract truth is supposed to
possess powers of demonstration, and capability of scientific certainty
superior to all other kinds of knowledge, but the moment we begin to
apply it to any existing facts we enter the domain of liability to
errors as numerous as our fallible observations of these facts; and when
we attempt to apply mathematical demonstration to the infinite, and to
enter the domain of faith, in which as immortals we are chiefly
concerned, it baffles, deceives, and insults our reason. Take the
following illustrations:
Let an infinite whole be divided into halves; the parts must be either
finite or infinite. But they can not be finite, else an infinite whole
would consist of a finite number of parts; neither can they be infinite,
being each less than the infinite whole.
Again: it is mathematically demonstrable, that any piece of matter is
infinitely divisible. A line therefore of half an inch long is
infinitely divisible, or divisible into an infinite number of parts.
Thus we have an infinite half inch. Further, for a moving body to pass a
given point requires some time; and to pass an infinite number of points
must require an infinite number of portions of time, or an eternity;
therefore, as half an inch contains an infinite number of points, it
will require eternity to pass half an inch.
Again: it is mathematically demonstrable, that a straight line, the
asymptote of a hyperbola, may _eternally approach_ the curve of the
hyperbola and _never meet_ it. But no axiom can be plainer than that if
two lines continually approach each other they must at length meet. Here
is a demonstration contradicting an axiom; and no man has ever yet shown
the possibilities of reconciling them, nor yet of denying either side of
the contradiction.
Again: it is a fundamental axiom, contained in the definition of a
circle, that it must have a center; but the non-existence of this center
is mathematically demonstrable, as follows: Let the diameter of the
circle be bisected into two equal parts; the center must be in one, or
the other, of these parts, or between them. It can not be in one of
these parts, for they are equal; and, therefore, if it is in the one, it
must also be in the other, and thus the circle would have two centers,
which is absurd. Neither can it be between them, for they are in
contact. Therefore the center must be a point, destitute of extension,
something which does not occupy or exist in space. But as all existences
exist in space, and this supposed center does not, it can not be an
existence; therefore it is a non-existence.
In like manner it has been mathematically demonstrated,[325] that
motion, or any change in the rate of progress in a moving body, is
impossible; because in passing from any one degree of rapidity to
another, all the intermediate degrees must be passed through. As when a
train of cars moving four miles an hour strikes a train at rest, the
resulting instantaneous motion is two miles an hour; and the first train
must therefore be moving at the rate of four, and at the rate of two
miles an hour at the same time, which is impossible. And so the ancients
demonstrated the impossibility of motion.
Thus the non-existence of the most undeniable truths, and the
impossibilities of the most common facts are mathematically
demonstrable; and the proper refutation of such reasoning is, not the
scientific, but the common sensible; as when Plato refuted the
demonstration of the impossibility of motion, by getting up and walking
across the floor. In the hyperbola we have the mathematical
demonstration of the error of an axiom. In the infinite inch we behold
an absurdity mathematically demonstrated. So that it appears we can give
mathematical demonstration in support of untruth, impossibilities and
absurdities; and our reason can not discover the error of the reasoning!
Alas, for poor humanity, if an endless destiny depended upon such
scientific certainty! Yet mathematical reasoning about abstract truth is
universally conceded to be less liable to error than any other form of
scientific analysis. This line, then, is too short to fathom the ocean
of destiny; too weak to bear inferences from even the facts of common
life.
Attempts have indeed been made to apply mathematics to the facts of life
in what is called the doctrine of chances. By this kind of calculation
it can be shown, that the chances were a thousand millions to one that
you and I should never have been born. Yet here we are.
But when we begin to apply mathematics to the affairs of every-day life,
we immediately multiply our chances of error by the number and
complexity of these facts. The proper field of mathematics is that of
magnitude and numbers. But very few subjects are capable of a
mathematical demonstration. _No fact_ whatever which depends on the will
of God or man can be so proved. For mathematical demonstration is
founded on necessary and eternal relations, and admits of no
contingencies in its premises. The mathematician may demonstrate the
size and properties of a triangle, but he can not demonstrate the
continuance of any actual triangle for one hour, or one minute, after
his demonstration. And if he could, how many of my most important
affairs can I submit to the multiplication table, or lay off in squares
and triangles? It deals with purely ideal figures, which never did or
could exist. There is not a mathematical line--length without
breadth--in the universe. When we come to the application of
mathematics, we are met at once by the fact that there are no
mathematical figures in nature. It is true we speak of the orbits of the
planets as elliptical or circular, but it is only in a general way, as
we speak of a circular saw, the outline of its teeth being regularity
itself compared with the perturbations of the planets. We speak of the
earth as a spheroid, but it is a spheroid pitted with hollows as deep as
the ocean, and crusted with irregular protuberances as vast as the
Himalaya and the Andes, in every conceivable irregularity of form. Its
seas, coasts, and rivers follow no straight lines nor geometrical
curves. There is not an acre of absolutely level ground on the face of
the earth; and even its waters will pile themselves up in waves, or dash
into breakers, rather than remain perfectly level for a single hour. Its
minuter formations present the same regular irregularity of form. Even
the crystals, which approach the nearest of any natural productions to
mathematical figures, break with compound irregular fractures at their
bases of attachment. The surface of the pearl is proportionally rougher
than the surface of the earth, and the dew-drop is not more spherical
than a pear. As nature then gives no mathematical figures, mathematical
measurements of such figures can be only approximately applied to
natural objects.
The utter absence of any regularity, or assimilation to the spheroidal
figure, either in meridianal, equatorial, or parallel lines, mountain
ranges, sea beaches, or courses of rivers, is fatal to mathematical
accuracy in the more extended geographical measurements. It is only by
taking the mean of a great many measurements that an approximate
accuracy can be obtained. Where this is not possible, as in the case of
the measurements of high mountains, the truth remains undetermined by
hundreds of feet; or, as in the case of the earth's spheroidal axis,
Bessel's measurement differs from Newton's, by fully eleven miles.[326]
The smaller measures are proportionately as inaccurate. No field, hill,
or lake, has an absolute mathematical figure; but its outline is
composed of an infinite multitude of irregular curves too minute for
man's vision to discover, and too numerous for his intellect to
estimate. No natural figure was ever measured with absolute accuracy.
All the resources of mathematical science were employed by the
constructors of the French Metric System; but the progress of science in
seventy years has shown that _every element_ of their calculations was
erroneous. They tried to measure a quadrant of the earth's
circumference, supposing the meridian to be circular; but Schubert has
shown that that is far from being the case; and that no two meridians
are alike; and Sir John Herschel, and the best geologists, show cause to
believe that the form of the globe is constantly changing; so that the
ancient Egyptians acted wisely in selecting the axis of the earth's
rotation, which is invariable, and not the changing surface of the
earth, as their standard of measure.
The Astronomer Royal, Piazzi Smyth, thus enumerates the errors of
practice, which they added to those of their erroneous theory: "Their
trigonometrical survey for their meter length has been found erroneous,
so that their meter is no longer sensibly a meter; and their standard
temperature of 0° centigrade is upset one way for the length of their
scale, and another way for the density of the water employed; and their
mode of computing the temperature correction is proved erroneous; and
their favorite natural reference of a quadrant of the earth is not
found a scientific feature capable of serving the purpose they have been
employing it for; and even their own sons show some dislike to adopt it
fully, and adhere to as much of the ancient system as they can."[327]
But coming down to more practical and every-day calculations, in which
money is invested, how very erroneous are the calculations of our best
engineers, and how fatal their results. Nineteen serious errors were
discovered in an edition of _Taylor's Logarithms_, printed in 1796; some
of which might have led to the most dangerous results in calculating a
ship's place, and were current for thirty-six years. In 1832 the
_Nautical Almanac_ published a correction which was itself erroneous by
one second, and a new correction was necessary the next year. But in
making this correction a _new error was committed of ten degrees_.[328]
Who knows how many ships were run ashore by that error?
Nor can our American mathematicians boast of superior infallibility to
the French or British. In computing the experiments which were made at
Lowell (for a new turbine wheel), it was found that when the gate was
fully open, the quantity of water discharged through the guides was
_seventy per cent. of the theoretical discharge_. (An error of thirty
per cent.) The effect of the wheel during these experiments was
eighty-one and a half per cent. of the power expended; but when the gate
was half open the effect was sixty-seven per cent. of the power, while
the discharge through the guides eleven per cent. more than the
theoretical discharge. But when the opening of the gate was still
further reduced to one-fourth of the full opening, the effect was also
reduced to forty-five per cent. of the power, while the discharging
velocity was raised to _forty-nine per cent. more than that given by
the theory_.[329] An unscientific man would hardly call that good
guessing; but it was the best result of labored and expensive scientific
calculation. No wonder the _London Mechanics' Magazine_ says: "More can
be learned in this way (testing engines in the workshop) in half an
hour, than can be derived from the theoretical instructions, however
good, in a year." So much for the infallibility of a mathematical
demonstration. In regard even to the very limited circle of our
relations which can be measured by the foot rule, and the small number
of our anxieties which may be resolved by an equation, if by
mathematical accuracy be meant anything more than tolerable correctness,
or by mathematical demonstration a very high degree of probability,
mathematical certainty is all a fable.
2. _Astronomy._
The omniscience and prescience of the human intellect have been largely
glorified by some Infidel lecturers, upon the strength of the accuracy
with which it is possible to calculate and predict eclipses, and to the
disparagement of Bible predictions. And this glorification has been
amazingly swollen by Le Verrier's prediction in 1846 of the discovery of
the planet Neptune. But the prediction of some unknown motion would form
a more correct basis for a comparison of the prophecies of science with
those of Scripture; such, for instance, as Immanuel Kant's prediction of
the period of Saturn's rotation at six hours twenty-three minutes
fifty-three seconds; "which mathematical calculation of an unknown
motion of a heavenly body," he says, "_is the only prediction of that
kind in pure Natural Philosophy_, and awaits confirmation at a future
period." It is a pity that this unique scientific prediction should not
have had better luck, for the encouragement of other guessers; but
after waiting long and vainly, for the expected confirmation, it was
finally falsified by Herschel's discovery of spots on the surface of the
planet, and observation of the true time, ten hours sixteen minutes
forty-four seconds.[330] This, however, was not his only astronomical
prediction. He predicted that immense bodies in a transition state
between planets and comets, and of very eccentric orbits, would be found
beyond the orbit of Saturn, and intersecting it, but no such bodies have
been discovered. Uranus and Neptune have no cometary character whatever,
their orbits are less eccentric than others and do not intersect, nor
approach within millions of miles of Saturn's orbit. The verification of
Le Verrier's prediction affords even a more satisfactory proof of the
necessarily conjectural character of astronomical computations of
unknown quantities and distances. The planet Neptune has not one-half
the mass which he had calculated; his orbit, which was calculated as
very elliptical, is nearly circular; and the error of the calculation of
his distance is three hundred millions of miles![331]
"Let us then be candid," says Loomis, "and claim no more for astronomy
than is reasonably due. When in 1846 Le Verrier announced the existence
of a planet hitherto unseen, and when he assigned it its exact position
in the heavens, and declared that it shone like a star of the eighth
magnitude, and with a perceptible disc, _not an astronomer of France,
and scarce an astronomer in Europe, had sufficient faith in the
prediction to prompt him to point his telescope to the heavens_. But
when it was announced that the planet had been seen at Berlin, that it
was found within one degree of the computed place, that it was indeed a
star of the eighth magnitude, and had a sensible disc--then the
enthusiasm not only of the public generally, but of astronomers also,
was even more wonderful than their former apathy. The sagacity of Le
Verrier was felt to be almost superhuman. Language could scarce be found
strong enough to express the general admiration. The praise then
lavished upon Le Verrier was somewhat extravagant. _The singularly close
agreement between the observed and computed places of the planet was
accidental._ So exact a coincidence could not reasonably have been
anticipated. If the planet had been found even ten degrees from what Le
Verrier assigned as its probable place, _this discrepancy would have
surprised no astronomer_. The discovery would still have been one of the
most remarkable events in the history of astronomy, and Le Verrier would
have merited the title of First Astronomer of the age."[332]
Nevertheless, astronomy from the comparative simplicity of the bodies
and forces with which it has to deal, and the approximate regularity of
the paths of the heavenly bodies, may be regarded as the science in
which the greatest possible certainty is attainable. It opens at once
the widest field to the imagination, and the noblest range to the
reason; it has attracted the most exalted intellects to its pursuit, and
has rewarded their toils with the grandest discoveries. These
discoveries have been grossly abused by inferior minds, ascribing to the
discoverers of the laws of the universe the glory due to their Creator;
and boasting of the power of the human mind, as if it were capable of
exploring the infinite in space, and of calculating the movements of the
stars through eternity. Persons who could not calculate an eclipse to
save their souls, have risked them upon the notion that, because
astronomers can do so with considerable accuracy, farmers ought to
reject the Bible, unless its predictions can be calculated by algebra.
It may do such persons good, or at least prevent them from doing others
harm, to take a cursory view of the errors of astronomers; errors
necessary as well as accidental.
Sir John Herschel, than whom none has a better right to speak on this
subject, and whose devotion to that noble science precludes all
supposition of prejudice against it, devotes a chapter to _The Errors of
Astronomy_,[333] which he classifies and enumerates:
"I. External causes of error, comprehending such as depend on
external uncontrollable circumstances; such as fluctuations of
weather, which disturb the amount of refraction from its
tabulated value, and being reducible to no fixed laws, induce
uncertainty to the amount of their own possible magnitude.
"II. Errors of observation; such as arise for instance from
inexpertness, defective vision, slowness in seizing the exact
instant of the occurrence of a phenomenon, or precipitancy in
anticipating it; from atmospheric indistinctness, insufficient
optical power in the instrument, and the like.
"III. The third, and by far the most numerous class of errors,
arise from causes which may be deemed instrumental, and which
may be divided into two classes.
"The first arises from an instrument not being what it
professes to be, which is _error of workmanship_. Thus if an
axis or pivot, instead of being as it ought, exactly
cylindrical, be slightly flattened or elliptical--if it be not
exactly concentric with the circle which it carries--if this
circle so called be in reality not exactly circular--or not in
one plane--if its divisions, intended to be precisely
equidistant, shall be in reality at unequal intervals--_and a
hundred other things of the same sort_.
"The other subdivision of instrumental errors comprehends such
as arise from an instrument not being placed in the position
it ought to have; and from those of its parts which are made
purposely movable not being properly disposed, _inter se_.
These are _errors of adjustment_. Some are unavoidable, as
they arise from a general unsteadiness of the soil or building
in which the instruments are placed.[334] Others again are
consequences of imperfect workmanship; as when an instrument,
once well adjusted, will not remain so. But the most important
of this class of errors arise from the non-existence of
natural indications other than those afforded by astronomical
observations themselves, whether an instrument has, or has
not, the exact position with respect to the horizon, and the
cardinal points, etc., which it ought to have, properly to
fulfill its object.
"Now, with regard to the first two classes of error, it must
be observed, that in so far as they can not be reduced to
known laws, and thereby become the subjects of calculation and
due allowance, _they actually vitiate in their full extent the
results of any observations in which they subsist_. With
regard to errors of adjustment, not only the possibility, _but
the certainty of their existence in every imaginable form, in
all instruments_, must be contemplated. _Human hands or
machines never formed a circle, drew a straight line, or
executed a perpendicular, nor ever placed an instrument in
perfect adjustment, unless accidentally, and then only during
an instant of time._"
The bearing of these important and candid admissions of error in
astronomical observations upon all kinds of other observations made by
mortal eyes, and with instruments framed by human hands, in every
department of science, is obvious. No philosophical observation or
experiment is absolutely accurate, or can possibly be more than
tolerably near the truth. The error of a thousandth part of an inch in
an instrument will multiply itself into thousands, and millions of
miles, according to the distance of the object, or the profundity of the
calculation. Our faith in the absolute infallibility of scientific
observers, and consequently in the absolute certainty of science, being
thus rudely upheaved from its very foundations by Sir John Herschel's
crowbar, we are prepared to learn that scientific men have made errors
great and numerous.
To begin at home, with our own little globe, where certainty is much
more attainable than among distant stars, we have seen that astronomers
of the very highest rank are by no means agreed as to its diameter. Its
precise form is equally difficult to determine. Newton showed that an
ellipsoid of revolution should differ from a sphere by a compression of
1/230. The mean of a number of varying measurements of arcs, in five
different places, would give 1/299. The pendulum measurement differs
very considerably from both, and "no two sets of pendulum experiments
give the same result."[335] The same liability to error, and uncertainty
of the actual truth, attends the other modes of ascertaining this
fundamental measurement. A very small error here will vitiate all other
astronomical calculations; for the earth's radius, and the radius of its
orbit, are the foot-rule and surveyor's chain with which the astronomer
measures the heavens. But this last and most used standard is uncertain;
and of the nine different estimates, it is certain that eight must be
wrong; and probably that all are erroneous. For example, Encke, in 1761,
gives the earth's distance from the sun at
95,141,830
Encke, in 1769, 95,820,610
Lacaille, 76,927,900
Henderson, 90,164,110
Gillies and Gould, 96,160,000
Mayer, 104,097,100
Le Verrier, 91,066,350
Sir John Herschel, 91,718,000
Humboldt, 82,728,000[336]
Here now is the fundamental standard measure of astronomy; and nine
first-class astronomers are set to determine its length; but their
measurements range all the way from seventy-seven to one hundred and
four millions of miles--a difference of nearly one-fourth. Why the
old-fashioned finger and thumb measure used before the carpenter's
two-foot rule was invented never made such discrepancies; it could
always make a foot within an inch more or less; but our scientific
measurers, it seems, can not guess within two inches on the foot.
Their smaller measurements are equally inaccurate. Lias says the Aurora
Borealis is only two and a half miles high; Hood and Richardson make its
height double that, or five miles; Olmsted and Twining run it up to
forty-two, one hundred, and one hundred and sixty miles![337] When they
are thus inaccurate in the measurement of a phenomenon so near the
earth, how can we believe in the infallibility of their measurements of
the distances of the stars and the nebulæ in the distant heavens?
The moon is the nearest to us of all the heavenly bodies, and exercises
the greatest influence of any, save the sun, upon our crops, ships,
health and lives, and consequently has had a larger share of
astronomical attention than any other celestial body. But the most
conflicting statements are made by astronomers regarding her state and
influences. There is no end to the controversy whether the moon
influences the weather; though one would think that question, being
rather a terrestrial one, could easily be decided. Schwabe says Herschel
is wrong in saying that the years of most solar spots were fruitful; but
Wolf looks up the Zurich meteorological tables, and confirms Herschel.
In _Ferguson's Astronomy_, the standard text-book of its day, we are
informed that "Some of her mountains (the moon's) by comparing their
height with her diameter, are found to be three times higher than the
highest hills on earth." They would thus be over fifteen miles high. But
Sir Wm. Herschel assures us that "The generality do not exceed half a
mile in their general elevation." _Transactions of the Royal Society_,
May 11, 1780. Beer and Madler have measured thirty-nine whose height
they assure us exceed Mont Blanc. But M. Gussew, of the Imperial
Observatory at Wilna, describes to us, "a mountain mass in the form of a
meniscus lens, rising in the middle to a height of seventy-nine English
miles."[338] As this makes the moon lopsided, with the heavy side toward
the earth, the question of an atmosphere, and of the moon's
inhabitability is reopened; and the discussion seems to favor the man in
the moon; only he keeps on the other side always, so that we can not see
him.
The best astronomers have gravely calculated the most absurd
problems--for instance the projection of meteorites from lunar
volcanoes; Poisson calculated that they would require an initial
velocity of projection of seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-five
feet per second; others demanded eight thousand two hundred and
eighty-two; Olbers demanded fourteen times as much; but La Place, the
great inventor of the nebular theory, after thirty years' study fixed it
definitely at seven thousand eight hundred and sixty-two! It appears
that the absurdity of the discharging force of a part greater than the
attracting force of the whole never occurred to him.[339]
This same La Place supposed, that he could have placed the moon in a
much better position for giving light than she now occupies; and that
this was the only object of her existence. As this was not done he
argued that her waxing and waning light was a proof that she was not
located by an Omniscient Creator. He says he would have placed her in
the beginning in opposition to the sun, in the plane of the ecliptic,
and about four times her present distance from us, with such a motion as
would ever maintain that position, thus securing full moon from sunset
to sunrise, without possibility of eclipse. But Lionville demonstrates
that "if the moon had occupied at the beginning the position assigned
her, by the illustrious author of the _Mecanique Celeste_, she could not
have maintained it but a very short time."[340] In short, La Place's
hypothetical calculations generally have proved erroneous when applied
to any existing facts; and we have no reason to attach more value to his
nebular theory calculations.
The sun is the principal orb of our system, and by far the most
conspicuous, and the most observed of all observers, astronomers
included. But we have seen already how contradictory their measurements
of his distance, and their observations of the influence of his spots.
Far more conflicting are the theories as to his constitution, of which
indeed we may truly say very little was known before the application of
photography and the spectroscope to heliography within the last seven
years. One astronomer fixed the period of his rotation at twenty-five
days, fourteen hours, and eight minutes; another at twenty-six days,
forty-six minutes; another at twenty-four days, twenty-eight
minutes.[341]
In regard to the sun's heat, a matter fundamental to the nebular
theory, the calculations differ widely, and some of them must be grossly
erroneous. M. Vicaire called the attention of the French Academy, at a
recent meeting, to this unsatisfactory condition of science. Father
Secchi estimates it at eighteen million Fahrenheit; while Pouillet says
it ranges from two thousand six hundred and sixty-two to three thousand
two hundred and one; and others range from two hundred thousand
downward. The most singular thing is that these results are derived from
observations or radiations made by apparatus identical in
principle.[342] But Waterston calculates the temperature of the solar
surface at above ten, and probably twelve million Fahrenheit.[343]
Now what feeds these enormous fires? The old opinion of astronomy, that
the sun was a mass of fire, was assailed by Sir Wm. Herschel, who
maintained that it was in the condition of a perpetual magnetic storm.
This notion was altered into the belief of a central dark body,
surrounded by a stratum of clouds, outside of which is a photosphere of
light and heat; which some made one thousand five hundred miles in
depth, others four thousand. Outside of this was another layer of
rose-colored clouds. To this theory Arago, Sir John Herschel and
Humboldt assented. But Le Verrier declares that the facts observed
during late eclipses are contrary to this theory, and a new theory is
slow in process of construction, to be demolished in its turn by later
observations.[344]
One of the most recent theories is that the fuel is furnished by a
stream of meteorites, planetoids, and comets, falling in by the power of
attraction, and being speedily converted into gas flames; a process the
very reverse of the theory of the evolution of the solid celestial
bodies from gas. But it is pretty evident from these conflicting
theories that nobody knows anything certainly as to the materials of the
sun, or the fuel which feeds his flames. But if the very best
astronomers do not know of what he is made, is it not too great a demand
upon our credulity to ask us to believe that they can tell how he was
made?
The size, density, and distances of the planets, which form such
essential elements in the calculations of the nebular theory of
evolution, are equally uncertain. Ten or twelve years ago Mercury was
believed to be nearly three times as dense as the earth (2.94); and the
theory of evolution was partly based upon this assumed fact. But Hausen
now finds that it is not half so dense; that, as compared with the
earth, it is only 1.22; and that its mass is less than half (5/12) of
what had been confidently calculated.[345] Corrections of the masses and
densities of other planets are also offered.
Still wider differences prevail in calculating the velocities of these
bodies; velocities _calculated_ and found to correspond with the theory
of evolution. Bianchini gives the period of the rotation of Venus at
twenty-four days, eight hours; but Schroeter says it is not as many
hours as Bianchini gives days; that it is only twenty-three hours and
twenty minutes. Sir Wm. Herschel can not tell which is right, or whether
both are wrong.[346]
From such imperfect and erroneous calculations astronomers have deduced
what they called a _law_, which holds the same place in nature that the
Blue Laws of Connecticut maintain in history; and which like them have
imposed upon the credulous. Titius and Bode imagined that they had
discovered that, "When the distances of the planets are examined, it is
found that they are almost all removed from each other by distances
which are in the same proportion as their magnitudes increase." And this
_law_ played an important part in introducing the theory of evolution,
which, it was alleged, exactly corresponded with such an arrangement.
But more accurate calculations and recent discoveries have dissipated
the supposed order of progression. Humboldt says of it, it is "a law
which scarcely deserves this name, and which is called by Lalande and
Delambre a play of numbers; by others a help for the memory. * * * In
reality the distances between Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus approximate
very closely to the duplication. Nevertheless, since the discovery of
Neptune, which is much too near Uranus, the defectiveness in the
progression has become strikingly evident." And Olbers rejects it, as
"contrary to the nature of all truths which merit the name of laws; it
agrees only approximately with observed facts in the case of most
planets, and what does not appear to have been once observed, not at all
in the case of Mercury. It is evident that the series, 4, 4+3, 4+6,
4+12, 4+48, 4+96, 4+192, with which the distances should correspond, is
not a continuous series at all. The number which precedes 4+3 should not
be 4; _i. e._, 4+0, but 4+3/2. Therefore between 4 and 4+3 there
should be an infinite number, or as Wurm expresses it, for _n_=1, there
is obtained from 4+2^{n-2}.3; not 4, but 5-1/2."[347] Thus this
so-called law is erroneous in both ends, and defective in the middle.
Finally it has been utterly abolished by the discovery of the planet
Vulcan, which does not correspond to any such law.[348] If the theory of
evolution then corresponds to Bode's law, as its advocates alleged, it
corresponds to a myth.
About the nebulæ which have played so large a part in the atheistic
world building, our astronomers are utterly at variance. Sir John
Herschel says they are far away beyond the stars in space. But the
Melbourne astronomer, M. Le Seur, suggests that the star Eta and the
nebulous matter are neighbors; that the nebulous matter formerly around
it, which has recently disappeared, while the star has blazed up into
flames, is being absorbed and digested by the star. This has happened
before, thirty years ago, to that star. Why may not our sun also absorb
and burn up nebulæ. But if so, what becomes of the rings of the nebular
theory?
The light of the stars is almost the only medium through which we can
observe them, and it would naturally be supposed that astronomers would
be at pains to have clear views of light. But the most surprising
differences of statement regarding it exist among the very first
astronomers. They do not see it alike. Herschel says a Herculis is red;
Struve says it is yellow. They dispute about its nature, motion, and
quantity. Some astronomers believe the sun to be the great source of
light, at least to our system. But Nasmyth informs the Royal
Astronomical Society that "the true source of latent light is not in the
solar orb, but in space itself, and that the grand function of the sun
is to act as an agent for the bringing forth into existence the
luciferous element, which element I suppose to be diffused throughout
the boundless regions of space."[349] The nature of light is however
still as great a mystery as when Job demanded, "Where is the way where
light dwelleth?" The undulatory theory of light, now generally accepted,
assumes that light is caused by the vibrations of the ether in a plane
transverse to the direction of propagation. In order to transmit motions
of this kind, the parts of the luminiferous medium must resist
compression and distortion, like those of an elastic solid body; its
transverse elasticity being great enough to transmit one of the most
powerful kinds of physical energy, with a speed in comparison with
which that of the swiftest planets of our system is inappreciable, and
its longitudinal elasticity immensely greater--both of these
elasticities being at the same time so weak as to offer no perceptible
resistance to the motion of the planets, and other visible bodies.[350]
Is the velocity of light uniform? Or, if variable, is the variation
caused by the original difference of the projectile force of the
different suns, stars, comets, etc.? or by the different media through
which it passes? Arago alleges that light moves more rapidly through
water than through air; but Brequet asserts that the fact is just the
reverse.[351] Both admit that its velocity varies with the medium.
Jacobs alleges that during the trigonometrical survey of India he
observed the _extinction_ of light reflected through sixty miles of
horizontal atmosphere.[352] How, then, can astronomers make any reliable
calculations of the velocity of light reaching us through regions of
space filled with unknown media? Newton calculated the velocity of light
at one hundred and fifty-five thousand five hundred and fifty-five and
five-ninth miles a second; but Encke shows he erred thirty per cent.
Other eminent astronomers make the time of the passage of light from the
sun all the way from eleven to fourteen minutes, instead of Newton's
seven or eight. Busch reckons its velocity at one hundred and
sixty-seven thousand nine hundred and seventy-six miles; Draper one
hundred and ninety-two thousand; Struve two hundred and fifteen thousand
eight hundred and fifty-four. Wheatstone alleges that electric light
travels at the rate of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand miles a
second; but Frizeau's calculations and measurements give only one
hundred and sixty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-eight for the
light of Oxygen and hydrogen.[353] Thus we have a variation of one
hundred and twenty thousand miles a second in all calculations of
sidereal distances. Humboldt tries to reconcile these differences by the
suggestion, that no one will deny, that lights of different magnetic or
electric processes may have different velocities; a fact which throws
all sidereal astronomy into inextricable confusion, and sets aside all
existing time tables on sidereal railroads.
They are no more agreed as to its composition after it reaches us than
as to its velocity. Newton taught that it consisted of seven colors;
Wallaston denies more than four; Brewster reduces the number to
three--red, yellow, and blue. Newton measures the yellow and violet, and
finds them as forty to eighty. Fraunhofer makes the proportion
twenty-seven to one hundred and nine. Wallaston's spectrum differs from
both. Field says, "No one has ventured to alter either estimate, and no
one who is familiar with the spectrum will put much faith in any
measurement of it, by whosoever and with what care soever made."[354] He
says white light is composed of five parts red, three yellow, and eight
blue; which differs wholly from Brewster, who gives it three parts red,
five yellow, and two of blue.
Equally wild are their calculations of the quantity of light emitted by
particular stars. Radeau calculates Vulcan's light at 2.25 that of
Mercury; Lias, from the same observations, at 7.36, nearly three times
as much.[355] Sir John Herschel calculates that _Alpha Centauri_ emits
more light than the sun; that the light of Sirius is four times as
great, and its parallax much less; so that by such a calculation Sirius
would have an intrinsic splendor sixty-three times that of the sun. But
Wallaston only calculates his light at one-fourth of this amount; and
Steinheil makes it only one two-hundredth part of the former
estimate.[356]
Astronomers have lately been comforting the world with the assurance
that we have little to fear from comets; that the superstitious fear of
the comets prevalent in the past was ill founded, because comets are so
very thin that we might pass through one without its breaking up
anything. But that, as Principal Leitch shows us, is not the only
question. "We know that the most deadly miasmata are so subtle that it
is impossible to detect them by any chemical tests, and a very
homeopathic dose of a comet, in addition to the elements of our own
atmosphere, might produce the most fatal effects."[357]
The phenomena indicative of cosmical processes are out of the range of
astronomical observation. We can only observe those indicated by light,
and gravitation; but how small a proportion of the formative processes
of our own world indicate themselves by these two classes of phenomena!
How few of the chemical, vegetative, animal, moral, social, or even
geological processes, now progressing under our own observation, could
give us notice of their existence by the two channels of light and
gravitation? How, then, can philosophers ever learn the process of
building worlds like our own in which many other powers are at work?
Astronomers are not all agreed as to the existence of a cosmical ether;
nor do those who assert it agree as to its properties. What is its
nature, density, power of refraction and reflection of light, and
resistance to motion? What is its temperature? Is it uniform, or like
our atmosphere, ever varying? These are manifestly questions
indispensable to be answered before any theory of the development of
worlds is even conceivable. But of the properties of this all-extending
cosmical atmosphere, which is the very breath of life of the development
theory, astronomers present the most conflicting statements. Professor
Vaughan says, "If such a body exists, it is beyond our estimation of all
that is material. It has no weight, according to our idea of weight; no
resistance, according to our idea of calculating resistance by
mechanical tests; no volume, on our views of volume; no chemical
activity, according to our experimental and absolute knowledge of
chemical action. In plain terms, it presents no known re-agency by which
it can be isolated from surrounding or intervening matter."[358] Or, in
plainer terms, we know nothing about it.
The only fact about it which astronomers have ventured to specify and
calculate is its temperature; for upon this all the power of the
development world-making process depends. But they are very far from any
agreement; indeed, they are much farther apart than the equator from the
poles. Stanley finds the temperature of absolute space--58°; Arago--70°;
Humboldt--85°; Herschel--132°; Saigey--107°; Pouillet, to be exact to a
fraction--223-6/10° below the freezing point; though when it gets to be
so cold as that one would think he would hardly stay out of doors to
measure fractions of a degree. But Poisson thinks he is over 200° too
cold, and fixes the temperature accurately, in his own opinion, 8-6/10°.
Moreover, he alleges that there is no more uniformity in the temperature
of the heavens than in that of our own atmosphere, owing to the unequal
radiations of heat from the stars; and that the earth, and the whole
solar system, receive their internal heat from without, while passing
through hot regions of space.[359]
From this chaos of conflicting assertions of unknown facts the theory of
development develops itself. Its fundamental postulate is the
difference of temperature between the nebulæ and the surrounding space.
But the fact is that nobody knows what is the temperature of either
space or nebulæ, nor is anybody likely ever to know enough of either to
base any scientific theory upon. Astronomy will never teach men how to
make worlds; nor is it of the least consequence that it does not; since
we could not make them, even if we knew how.
From these specimens of the errors and contradictions of the best
astronomers, the teachers upon whose accuracy we depend for our faith in
science, we can see, that though the Pope and the Infidel savans may
claim infallibility, yet after all the savant is just as infallible as
the Pope, viz: he is right when he is right, and he is wrong when he is
wrong, and that happens frequently and common folks can not always tell
when. There is no such thing, then, as infallible science upon faith, in
which I can venture to reject God's Bible, and risk my soul's salvation.
Science is founded on faith in very fallible men.
3. _Geology_, one of the most recent of the sciences, and in the hands
of Infidel nurses one of the most noisy, has been supposed to be
anti-Christian. The supposition is utterly unfounded. Such of its facts
as have been well ascertained have demonstrated the being, wisdom, and
goodness of an Almighty Creator, with irresistible evidence. Nor, though
a wonderful outcry has been raised about the opposition between the
records of the rocks and the records of the Bible, regarding the
antiquity of the earth, has any one yet succeeded in proving such an
opposition, for the plain reason that neither the Bible nor geology says
how old it is. They both say it is very old. The Bible says, "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and by the use which
it makes of the word _beginning_, leaves us to infer that it was long
before the existence of the human race.[360] If the geologist could
prove that the earth was six thousand millions of years older than Adam,
it would contradict no statement of the Bible. The Bible reader,
therefore, has no reason to question any well ascertained fact of
geology. But when Infidels come to us with their geological _theories_
about the mode in which God made the earth, or in which the earth made
itself, and how long it took to do it, and tell us that they have got
scientific demonstration from the rocks that the Bible account is false,
and that our old traditions can not stand before the irresistible
evidence of science, we are surely bound to look at the foundation of
facts, and the logical superstructure, which sustain such startling
conclusions.
Now it is remarkable that every Infidel argument against the statements
of the Bible, or rather against what they suppose to be the statements
of the Bible, is based, not on the _facts_, but upon the _theories_, of
geology. I do not know one which is based solely on facts and inductions
from facts. Every one of them has a wooden leg, and goes hobbling upon
an _if_.
Take for example the argument most commonly used--that which asserts the
vast antiquity of the earth--a thing in itself every way likely, and not
at all contrary to Scripture, if it could be scientifically proved. But
how does our Infidel geologist set about his work of proving that the
earth is any given age, say six thousand millions of years? A scientific
demonstration must rest upon _facts_--well ascertained facts. It admits
of _no suppositions_. Now what are the facts given to solve the problem
of the earth's age? The geologist finds a great many layers of rocks,
one above the other, evidently formed below the water, some of them out
of the fragments of former rocks, containing bones, shells, and casts of
fishes, and tracks of the feet of birds, made when these rocks were in
the state of soft mud, and altogether several miles thick. He has a
great multitude of such facts before him, but they are all of this
character. Not one of them gives him the element of _time_. They
announce to him a succession of events, such as successive generations
of fishes and plants; but not one of them tells how long these
generations lived. The condition of the world was so utterly different
then, from what it is now, that no inference can be drawn from the
length of the lives of existing races, which are generally also of
different species. The utmost any man can say, in such a case, is, _I
suppose_, for there is no determinate element of time in the statement
of the problems, and so no certain time can appear in the solution.
Here is a problem exactly similar. A certain house is found to be built
with ten courses of hewn stone in the basement, forty courses of brick
in the first story, thirty-six courses in the second, thirty-two in the
third; with a roof of nine inch rafters covered with inch boards, and an
inch and a half layer of coal tar and gravel; how long was it in
building? Would not any school-boy laugh at the absurdity of attempting
such a problem? He would say, "How can I tell unless I know whence the
materials came, how they were conveyed, how many workmen were employed,
and how much each could do in a day? If the brick had to be made by
hand, the lumber all dressed with the hand-saw and jack-plane, the
materials all hauled fifty miles in an ox-cart, the brick carried up by
an Irishman in a hod, and the work done by an old, slow-going, jobbing
contractor, who could only afford to pay three or four men at a time,
they would not get through in a year. But if the building stone and sand
were found in excavating the cellar, if the brick were made by steam and
came by railroad, a good master builder, with steam saw and planing
mills, steam hoists, and a strong force of workmen, would run it up in
three weeks."
So our geologist ought to say; "I do not know either the source of the
materials of the earth's strata, nor the means by which they were
conveyed to their present positions; therefore I can not tell the time
required for their formation. If the crust of the earth was created
originally of solid granite, and the materials of the strata were ground
down by the slow action of frost and rain, and conveyed to the ocean by
the still slower agencies of rivers and torrents--hundreds of millions
of ages would not effect the work. But if the earth was created in such
a shape as would rationally be considered the best adapted for future
stratification; if its crust consisted of the various elements of which
granite and other rocks are composed; if these materials were ejected in
a granular or comminuted form, and in vast quantities by submarine
volcanoes generated by the chemical action of these elements upon each
other; and if, after being diffused by the currents of the ocean, and
consolidated by its vast pressure, the underlying strata were baked and
melted and crystallized into granite[361]--a very few centuries would
suffice. Until these indispensable preliminaries are settled, geology
can make no calculations of the length of time occupied by the formation
of the strata."
But instead of saying so, he _imagines_ that God chose to make the earth
out of the most impossible materials, by the most unsuitable agencies,
and with the most inadequate forces; and that therefore a long time was
needed for the work. In short, to revert to our illustration of the
house-building, he _supposes_ that Almighty God built the earth with the
ox-team, and employed only the same force in erecting the building,
which he now uses for doing little jobbing repairs. Almost all
geological computations of time are made upon the supposition that only
the same agents were at work then which we see now, that they only
wrought with the same degree of force, and that they produced just the
same effects in such a widely different condition of the earth as then
prevailed. It takes a year say to deposit mud enough at the bottom of
the sea to make an inch of rock now; _and if mud was deposited no
faster_ when the geological strata were formed, they are as many years
old as there are inches in eight or nine miles depth of strata. But this
is not the scientific proof we were promised. How does he prove that mud
was deposited at just the same rate then as now? The very utmost he can
say is that it is a very probable supposition. I can prove it a very
improbable supposition. But it is enough for my present purpose to point
out that, probable or improbable, it is _only supposition_. No proof is
given or can possibly be given for it. Any conclusion drawn from such
premises can be only a _supposition_ too. And so the whole fabric of
geological chronology, upon the stability of which so many Infidels are
risking the salvation of their souls, and beneath which they are
boasting that they will bury the Bible beyond the possibility of a
resurrection, vanishes into a mere _unproved notion_, based upon an
_if_.
It is truly astonishing, that any sober-minded person should allow
himself to be shaken in his religious convictions by the alleged results
of a science so unformed and imperfect, as geologists themselves
acknowledge their favorite science to be. "The dry land upon our globe
occupies only _one-fourth_ of its whole superficies. All the rest is
sea. How much of this fourth part have geologists been able to examine?
and how small seems to be the area of stratification which they have
explored? We venture to say not one _fiftieth part of the whole_."[362]
"Abstract or speculative geology, were it a perfect science, would
present a history of the globe from its origin and formation, through
all the changes it has undergone, up to the present time; describing its
external appearance, its plants and animals at each successive period.
_As yet, geology is the mere aim to arrive at such knowledge_; and when
we consider how difficult it is to trace the history of a nation, even
over a few centuries, we can not be surprised at the small progress
geologists have made in tracing the history of the earth through the
lapse of ages. To ascertain the history of a nation possessed of written
records is comparatively easy; but when these are wanting, we must
examine the ruins of their cities and monuments, and judge of them as a
people from the size and structure of their buildings, and from the
remains of art found in them. This is often a perplexing, always an
arduous task; _much more so is it to decipher the earth's
history_."[363] "The canoes, for example, and stone hatchets found in
our peat bogs afford an insight into the rude arts and manners of the
earliest inhabitants of our island; the buried coin fixes the date of
some Roman emperor; the ancient encampments indicate the districts once
occupied by invading armies, and the former method of constructing
military defenses; the Egyptian mummies throw light on the art of
embalming, the rites of sepulture, or the average stature of ancient
Egypt. This class of memorials yields to no other in authenticity, but
it constitutes a small part only of the resources on which the historian
relies; whereas in geology it forms the only kind of evidence which is
at our command. For this reason _we must not expect to obtain a full and
connected account of any series of events beyond the reach of
history_."[364] "There are no calculations more doubtful than those of
the geologist."[365] In fact, no truly scientific geologist pretends
that it stands on the same level with any authentic history, much less
with the Bible record; inasmuch as the discovery of a single new fact
may overturn the whole theory. "It furnishes us with no clew by which to
unravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation. These mysteries belong
to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We attempt to theorize upon
them, and to reduce them to law, and all nature rises up against us in
our presumptuous rebellion. A stray splinter of cone bearing wood--a
fish's skull or tooth--the vertebra of a reptile--the humerus of a
bird--the jaw of a quadruped--_all_, _any_ of these things, weak and
insignificant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel too strong for
us and our theory--the puny fragment in the grasp of truth forms as
irresistible a weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old; and
our slaughtered sophisms lie piled up, 'heaps upon heaps,' before
it."[366]
The history of the progress of geology furnishes abundant proof of the
truth of these admissions of weakness and fallibility. In almost every
instance when we have had the opportunity of testing geological
calculations of time they have proved to be erroneous; and sometimes
grossly erroneous. The lake dwellings of Switzerland, which were once
alleged to be at least fifteen thousand years old, are found surrounded
by heaps of burnt corn; illustrating Cæsar's account of the burning of
their corn by the Helvetians, preparatory to the invasion of Gaul, which
he repelled. The peat bogs of Denmark, surrounding stumps of oak, beech,
and pine, claimed to be successive growths, and at least twelve thousand
five hundred years old, have been compared with a piece of primeval bog
and forest, on the Earl of Arran's estate, in Scotland, which
corresponds perfectly to the Danish bog; but which shows the three
growths not successive, but contemporaneous, at different levels; the
bog growing as well as the trees. And the frequent discovery of Danish
remains of the stone and bronze ages in the old Danish forts and
battle-fields of Ireland fixes their historical period at the era of the
Danish invasion; some of these stone and bronze weapons being found on
the battle-field of Clontarf, dating A. D. 827. Skeletons of warriors
with gold collars, bronze battle-axes, and flint arrow heads are quite
common in the Irish bogs. The absence of iron, on which so great a
theory of the stone, bronze, and iron ages as successive developments of
civilization has been raised, is easily accounted for by the perishable
nature of iron when exposed to moisture. But that this Celtic race used
iron also, as well as bronze and stone, is proved incontestably by the
discovery, in 1863, of the slag of their iron furnaces, among a number
of flint weapons, and Celtic skulls, at Linhope, in Northumberland; the
iron itself having perished by rust.[367] The pottery, glass, and
handmills found beside these skulls show that their owners were by no
means the degraded savages supposed to represent the so-called stone
age.
Horner's Nile pottery, discovered at a depth of sixty feet, and
calculated to be twelve thousand years old, and fragments found still
deeper in this deposit, and calculated at thirty thousand years, were
found to be underlaid by still deeper layers, producing Roman pottery;
and in the deepest boring of all, at the foot of the statue of Rameses
II., the discovery of the Grecian honeysuckle, marked on some of these
mysterious fragments, which they had claimed as pre-historic, proved
that it could not be older than the Greek conquest of Egypt. Sir Robert
Stephenson found in the neighborhood of Damietta, at a greater depth
than Mr. Horner reached, a brick bearing the stamp of Mohammed Ali.[368]
The shifting currents of all rivers flowing through alluvial deposits
bury such things in a single season of high water.
The raised beaches of Scotland are quite conspicuous geological features
of the Highlands, and have furnished themes for calculations of their
vast antiquity. Here and there human remains had been discovered in
them, but no link could be had to connect them otherwise than
geologically with history. Geologists, accordingly, with their visual
generosity of time, assigned them to the pre-Adamite period. But
recently the missing link has been found, and these progenitors of Tubal
Cain, and the pre-Adamites generally, are found to have been in the
habit of supping their broth out of Roman pottery!
Lyell, the acknowledged prince of geologists, is famous for his
chronological blundering; of which his calculations of the age of the
delta of the Mississippi is a very good American example. He calculates
the quantity of mud in suspension in the water, and the area and depth
of the delta, and says it must have taken sixty-seven thousand years for
the formation of the whole; and if the alluvial matter of the plain
above be two hundred and sixty-four feet deep, or half that of the
delta, it must have required thirty-three thousand five hundred years
more for its accumulation, even if its area be estimated at only equal
to the delta, whereas it is in fact larger.[369] He makes no allowance
for tidal deposits.
But Brig. Gen. Humphrey, of the United States Surveying Department,
goes over Lyell's calculations, and shows that instead of 3,702,758,400
cubic feet of mud brought down by the Mississippi, as estimated by
Lyell, the actual amount is 19,500,750,000,000; that the rate at which
the delta is now advancing into the gulf is fifty feet per annum, and
that the age of the delta and alluvial deposit is four thousand four
hundred, instead of Lyell's one hundred thousand five hundred
years.[370] We might go on and give a dozen such instances of geological
miscalculations of time did space permit; but these are enough to
disabuse us of any faith in such calculations.
With such specimens before us of the miscalculations of the smaller
periods by geologists, we are not surprised to find that they grossly
exaggerate the larger cycles of time. The necessities of the evolution
of the ascidian into the snail, of the snail into the fish, and of the
fish into the lizard, of the lizard into the monkey, and of the monkey
into the man, by slow and imperceptible changes, demanded an almost
infinite length of time; and the geologists of that school accordingly
asserted the existence of animal life upon our globe for hundreds of
thousands of millions of years.
But Sir Wm. Thompson, one of the first mathematicians, demonstrates[371]
the impossibility of any such length of time being spent in the process
of cooling our little globe. Beginning with their own assumption, of a
globe of molten granite cooling down to the present state, he proves
that the earth can not have been in existence longer than a hundred
millions of years; and of course that plants and animals have existed on
it a much shorter time; as for the greater part of that period it was
too hot for them. The geologists are now becoming ashamed of their
poetical cycles, and some acknowledge that their chiefs blundered
egregiously in their calculations.
The principles of geology seem to be as unsettled as its facts. There is
no agreement upon any of its theories. The history of its theories, like
that of their framers, begins with their birth, and ends with their
burial. Each new theory placed the tombstone upon the preceding, and
inscribed it with the brief record of the antediluvian, "and he died." A
busy time they must have had with their Wernerian, Huttonian, and
Diluvian hypotheses; not to mention the Hutchinsonian theory, the animal
spirits flowing from the sun, the vegetative power of stories, and other
sage and serious facts and theories, theological and philosophical,
invented to account for the world's creation. "No theory," says Lyell,
"could be so far-fetched or fantastical as not to attract some
followers, provided it fell in with the popular notion." "Some of the
most extravagant systems were invented or controverted by men of
acknowledged talent." A more amusing exhibition of philosophical
absurdity can not be found than those chapters which he devotes to "The
Historical Progress of Geology,"[372] unless perhaps the scientific
discussions of the erudite acquaintances of Lemuel Gulliver.
Let it not be supposed that the progress of inductive science, and the
prevalence of the Baconian philosophy have banished absurdities and
contradictions from the sphere of geology. It would require a man of
considerable learning to find three geologists agreed, either in their
facts, or in their theories. In a general way, indeed, we have the
Catastrophists, with Hugh Miller, overwhelming the earth with dire
convulsions in the geological eras, and upheaving the more conservative
Lyell and the Progressionists; who affirm that all things continue as
they were from the beginning of the world. And there is perhaps a
general agreement now that the underlying _primitive_ rocks, so called,
are not primitive at all, as geologists thought twenty years ago; but,
like the foundations of a Chicago house, have been put in long after the
building was finished and occupied. But then comes the question how they
were inserted--whether as Elie de Beaumont thinks, the mountains were
upheaved by starts, lever fashion, or, as Lyell affirms, very gradually,
and imperceptibly, like the elevation of a brick house by screws.[373]
Nor is there the least likelihood of any future agreement among them;
inasmuch as they can not agree either as to the thickness of the earth's
solid crust which is to be lifted, or the force by which it is to be
done? Hopkins proves by astronomical observation that it is eight
hundred miles thick. Lyell affirms that at twenty-four miles deep there
can be no solid crust, for the temperature of the earth increases one
degree for every forty-five feet, and at that depth the heat is great
enough to melt iron and almost every known substance. But then there is
a difference between philosophers about this last test of
solidity--those who believe in Wedgewood's Pyrometer, which was the
infallible standard twenty years ago, asserting that the heat of melted
iron is 21,000° Fahrenheit; while Professor Daniells demonstrates by
another infallible instrument that it is only 2,786° Fahrenheit;[374]
which is rather a difference. In one case the earth's crust would be
over two hundred miles thick, in the other twenty-four. But then comes
the great question, What is below the granite? and a very important one
for any theory of the earth. It evidently underlies the whole foundation
of speculative geology, whether we assume with De Beaumont and Humboldt,
that "the whole globe, with the exception of a thin envelope, much
thinner in proportion than the shell of an egg, is a fused mass, kept
fluid by heat--a heat of 450,000° Fahrenheit, at the center, Cordier
calculates--but constantly cooling, and contracting its dimensions;" and
occasionally cracking and falling in, and "squeezing upward large
portions of the mass;" "thus producing those folds or wrinkles which we
call mountain chains;" or, with Davy and Lyell, that the heat of such a
boiling ocean below would melt the solid crust, like ice from the
surface of boiling water--and with it the whole theory of the primeval
existence of the earth in a state of igneous fusion, its gradual cooling
down into continents and mountains of granite, the gradual abrasion of
the granite into the mud and sand which formed the stratified rocks, and
all the other brilliant hypotheses which have sparked out of this great
internal fire. Instead of an original central heat he supposes that "we
may _perhaps_ refer the heat of the interior to chemical changes
constantly going on in the earth's crust."[375] Now if the very
foundations of the science are in such a state of fusion, and floating
on a _perhaps_, would it not be wise to allow them to solidify a little
before a man risks the salvation of his soul upon them?
The various theories are contradictions. The igneous theory assault the
aqueous theory with the greatest heat; while the aqueous theorists pour
cold water, in torrents, upon the igneous men. The shocks of conflicting
glacier theories have shaken the Alps and convulsed all North America;
and have not yet ceased. There are eleven theories of earthquakes, which
have been, and are still, such energetic agents in geology; and the
whole eleven afford not the least rational idea of their causes; nor of
any means of preventing, predicting, or escaping their ravages. The best
geologists have described fossil tracks as the footprints of gigantic
birds, which others equally as authoritative pronounce the tracks of
frogs and lizards. Indeed, a good part of every geological treatise, and
of the time of every association of geologists, is taken up with
refutations of the errors of their predecessors.
There are no less than nine theories of the causes of the elevation of
mountains; some scoop out the valleys by water; others by ice; others
heave up the mountains by fire; and some by the chemical expansion of
their rocks; while others still upheave them by the pressure of molten
lava from beneath; and others again make them out to be the wrinkles of
the contraction of the supposed crust of the liquid interior. Of all
these theories an able geologist says: "The many proposed theories of
mountain elevation are based upon assumptions which unfortunately are
not true; but that is an unimportant matter to the majority of our
speculating geologists; and one never seen by the inventors of the
theories, who allow themselves to be led captive by a poetic
imagination, instead of building their inductions upon field
observations.
"Thus, to suppose that mountains are elevated by a wedge like intrusion
of melted matter is to give to a fluid functions incompatible with its
dynamic properties. So also the supposition that the igneous rocks were
intruded, as solid wedges separating and lifting the crust, is opposed
to the fact that no apparent abrasion, but generally the closest
adhesion, exists at the line of contact of the igneous and stratified
rocks. Equally fatal objections may be advanced against the other
theories."[376]
Multitudes of the alleged facts of Infidel geologists are as apocryphal
as their theories. Thus in a recent ponderous quarto volume, the
production of half a dozen philosophers, this identical impossible
theory--of the cooling of the earth's crust down to solidity, while an
irresistible central heat remains below--is presented to the world as an
ascertained fact; we are informed of the discovery of a human skull
fifty-seven thousand years old, _in good preservation_; asked to believe
that two tiers of cypress snags could not be deposited in the delta of
the Mississippi in less than eleven thousand four hundred years; and to
calculate that the delta of the Nile must have been a great many ages in
growing to its present size, because it is quite certain that for the
last three thousand years _it has never grown at all_.[377]
It were easy to fill a volume with such mistakes of geologists, but my
limits restrict me to a few specimens. Silliman's Journal, in a review
of "_The Geology of North America_, by Julius Marcoe, U. S. Geologist,
and Professor of Geology in the Federal Polytechnic School of
Switzerland; quarto, with maps and plates," says:
"The author describes the mountain systems of north America as _he
supposes they must be_, according to the theoretical views of Elie de
Beaumont." "Thus one single fossil--that one a species of pine, and only
very much resembling the _Pinites Fleurotti_ of Dr.
Monguett--_establishes_ a connection between the New Red of France, and
that of America. This is a very strong word for a geologist to use on
evidence so small, _and so uncertain_, with the fate of four thousand or
five thousand feet of rock at stake, and the beds beneath, containing
'perhaps Belemnites.' The prudent observer would have said, _establishes
nothing_; and such is the fact." "_On such evidence_ a region over the
Rocky Mountains, which is one thousand miles from north to south, and
eight hundred miles from east to west, is for the most part colored in
the maps as Triassic. Such a region would take in quite a respectable
part of the continent of Europe." "We now know beyond any reasonable
doubt, that all the country from the Platte to the British Possessions,
and from the Mississippi to the Black Hills, is occupied by Cretaceous
and Tertiary rocks. And as regards the region from the Platte southward
to the Red River, very far the largest part _is known to be not
Triassic_, while it is possible the Trias may occur in some parts of
it." "It is unfortunate in its bearing on the progress of geological
science to have false views about some five hundred thousand miles of
territory, and much more besides, spread widely abroad through
respectable journals, and transactions of distinguished European
Societies."[378]
One can not but sympathize with the poor abused Rocky Mountains,
tormented and misrepresented for a thousand miles by this French
geologist. But our American patriotism may be partially pacified when we
find that Europe fares no better; and that Great Britain, and Old
Scotland, Hugh Miller's own cradle, which has been the very lecture room
of geologists, has nevertheless been most grossly misrepresented in all
books and maps, up till the last decade. The _Edinburgh Review_, a
competent authority, says (No. cxxvii.): "The new light which has been
thus thrown on the history of the geological series of Scotland (by Sir
Roderick Murchison), showing that great masses of crystalline rocks,
called primary, and supposed to be much more ancient than the Silurian
system, are here simply metamorphosed strata of that age, may with
justice be looked upon as one of the most valuable results which have
been attained by British geologists for many years." A very just remark
indeed! If only geologists would learn a little modesty from this
discovery, which completely turns upside down their old world-building
process of grinding down all the upper strata out of the molten
granite, and gives us, instead, the baking of the strata into
crystalline rocks; a process exactly the reverse of the former, and of
that asserted by the theory of evolution. There is no prospect of any
cessation of the war of geological theories.
4. _Zoology._
Equally hostile to each other are the expounders of the development of
man from the monkey. As Ishmaelites their hand is against every man.
Each is a law in theorizing unto himself. Their contendings may well
teach us caution. Lamarck set those right who preceded him. The author
of the _Vestiges of Creation_ outstripped Lamarck, and Mr. Darwin sets
both aside; while he in his turn is severely censured by M. Tremaux, and
has all his reasoning controverted in favor of the new theory. Lamarck
believed in spontaneous generation; Darwin does not. The author of the
_Vestiges of Creation_ expounded a law of development, and Mr. Darwin
replaces it by Natural Selection. M. Tremaux has repudiated the origin
which Mr. Darwin has assumed, and insists on our believing that, not
water, but the _soil_, is the origin of all life, and therefore of man.
With him there is no progress; all creatures have reached their resting
place. But man rises or sinks, according to the more ancient or recent
soil he dwells upon. Professor Huxley is unwilling to abandon his idea
that life may come from dead matter, and is not disposed to accept of
Mr. Darwin's explanation of the origin of life by the Creator having, at
first, breathed it into one or more forms. While accepting of Mr.
Darwin's theory of a common descent for man with all other creatures, he
not only differs from him as to the beginning, but he admits that there
is no gradual transition from the one to the other. He acknowledges that
the structural differences between man and even the highest apes are
great and significant; and yet because there is no sign of gradual
transition between the gorilla, and the orang, and the gibbon, he
infers that they all had a common origin; whereas the more natural
conclusion from the facts would be that they had separate beginnings.
Mr. Wallace, whose claims are admitted to be equal to these of Mr.
Darwin, as the propounder of the theory of the origin of species by
Natural Selection, has firmly asserted that, with all its resources,
Natural Selection is utterly inadequate to account for the origin and
structure of the human race.[379] Thus they go, biting and devouring
each other, until at last it becomes a reproduction of the Kilkenny
cats, and there is nothing left but the tails. We have only to wait, and
the current Infidel theory will certainly be exposed and demolished next
year, by the author of some equally impossible theory.
Not merely individual scientists, but the most learned societies have
blundered. "Has not the French Academy pronounced against the use of
quinine and vaccination, against lightning rods and steam engines? Has
not Reaumer suppressed Peysonnel's 'Essay on Corals,' because he thought
it was madness to maintain their animal nature? Had not his learned
brethren decreed, in 1802, that there were no meteors, although a short
time later two thousand fell in one department alone; and had they not
more recently still received the news of ether being useful as an
anæsthetic with sure and unanimous condemnation?"[380]
If space permitted we could go over the circle of the sciences, and show
that a similar state of uncertainty and exposure to error exists in them
all. We have, however, confined our attention to those whose certainty
is now most loudly vaunted, and whose theories are most largely used as
the basis of Infidelity. Nor have we by any means exhausted the list of
errors and contradictions of these. A volume as large as this would be
required to present the list of several hundred errors, absurdities,
contradictions, and mutual refutations of scientists, in the physical
sciences, now before me; errors not sought after, but incidentally
observed and noted in the spare hours' reading of a busy professional
life.
It is worthy of notice, that the uncertainties of science increase just
in proportion to our interest in it. It is very uncertain about all my
dearest concerns, and very positive about what does not concern me. The
greatest certainty is attainable in pure mathematics, which regards only
ideal quantities and figures; but biology--the science of life--is
utterly obscure. The astronomer can calculate with considerable accuracy
the movements of distant planets, with which we have no intercourse; but
where is the meteorologist bold enough to predict the wind and weather
of next week, on which my crops, my ships, my life may depend? Heat,
light, and electricity may be pretty accurately measured and registered,
but what physician can measure the strength of the malignant virus which
is sapping the life of his patient? The chemist can thoroughly analyze
any foreign substance, but the disease of his own body which is bringing
him to the grave, he can neither weigh, measure nor remove. Science is
very positive about distant stars and remote ages, but stammers and
hesitates about the very life of its professors.
4. Such, then, are a few of the uncertainties, imperfections, and
positive and egregious errors of science at its fountain head. To the
actual investigator infallible certainty of any scientific fact is
hardly possible, error exceedingly probable, and gross blunders in fact
and theory by no means uncommon. But how greatly diluted must the
modified and hesitating conviction possible to an actual observer
become, when, as is generally the case, a man is not an actual observer
himself, but _learns his science at school_. Such a person leaves the
ground of demonstrative science, and stands upon faith. The first
question then to be proposed to one whose demonstrative certainty of the
truths of physical science has disgusted him with a religion received on
testimony and faith, is, How have you reached this demonstrative
certainty in matters of science? Are you quite sure that your certainty
rests not upon the testimony of fallible and erring philosophers, but
solely upon your own personal observations and experiments?
To take only the initial standard of astronomical measurements--the
earth's distance from the sun. Have you personally measured the earth's
radius, observed the transit of Venus in 1769, from Lapland to Tahiti at
the same time, calculated the sun's parallax, and the eccentricity of
the earth's orbit? Would you profess yourself competent to take even the
preliminary observation for fixing the instruments for such a reckoning?
Were you ever within a thousand miles of the proper positions for making
such observations? Or have you been necessitated to accept this primary
measure, upon the accuracy of which all subsequent astronomical
measurers depend, merely upon hearsay and testimony, and subject to all
those contingencies of error and prejudice, and mistakes of copyists,
which, in your opinion, render the Bible so unreliable in matters of
religion?
Or to come down to earth. You are a student of the stone book, with its
enduring records graven in the rock forever; and perhaps have satisfied
yourself that "under the ponderous strata of geological science the
traditionary mythology and cosmogony of the Hebrew poet has found an
everlasting tomb." But how many volumes of this stone book have you
perused personally? You are quite indignant perhaps that theologians and
divines, who have no practical or personal knowledge of geology, should
presume to investigate its claims. Have you personally visited the
various localities in South America, Siberia, Australia, India,
Britain, Italy, and the South Seas, where the various formations are
exhibited; and have you personally excavated from their matrices the
various fossils which form the hieroglyphics of the science? Have you,
in fact, ever seen one in a thousand of these minerals and fossils _in
situ_? Or are you dependent on the tales of travelers, the specimens of
collectors, the veracity of authors, the accuracy of lecturers, aided by
maps of ideal stratifications, in rose-pink, brimstone-yellow, and
indigo-blue, for your profound and glowing convictions of the
irresistible force of experimental science, and of the shadowy vagueness
of a religion dependent upon human testimony?
To come down considerably in our demands, and confine ourselves to the
narrow limits of the laboratory. You are a chemist perhaps, and proud,
as most chemists justly are, of the accuracy attainable in that most
palpable and demonstrative science. But how much of it is experimental
science _to you_? How many of the nine hundred and forty-two substances
treated of in Turner's Chemistry have you analyzed? One-half? One-tenth?
Would you face the laughter of a college class to-morrow upon the
experiment of taking nine out of the nine hundred, reducing them to
their primitive elements, giving an accurate analysis of their component
parts, and combining them in the various forms described in that, or any
other book, whose statements, because experimentally certain, have
filled you with a dislike of Bible truths, which you must receive upon
testimony? In fact, do you know anything worth mention of the facts of
science upon your own knowledge, except those of the profession by which
you make your living?
Or, after all your boasting about scientific and demonstrative
certainty, have you been obliged to receive the certainties of science
"upon faith, and at second-hand, and upon the word of another;" and to
save your life you could not tell half the time who that other is, by
naming the discoverers of half the scientific truths you believe? What!
are you dependent on hearsay, and probability, for any little science
you possess, having in fact never obtained any personal demonstration or
experience of its first principles and measurements, nor being capable
of doing so? Then let us hear no more cant about the uncertainty of a
religion dependent upon testimony, and the certainties of experimental
science. Whatever certainty may be attainable by scientific men--and we
have seen that is not much--it is very certain you have got none of it.
The very best you can have to wrap yourself in is a second-hand
assurance, grievously torn by rival schools, and needing to be patched
every month by later discoveries. Your science, such as it is, _rests
solely upon faith_ in the testimony of philosophers, often contradictory
and improbable, and always fallible and uncertain.
5. Nor would you cease to be dependent upon faith could you personally
make all the observations and calculations of demonstrative science. The
knowledge of these facts does not constitute science; it is merely the
brick pile containing the materials for the building of science. Science
is knowledge systematized. But if the parts of nature were not arranged
after a plan, the knowledge of them could not be formed into a system.
Chaos is unintelligible. Our minds are so constituted that we look for
order and regularity, and can not comprehend confusion. We possess this
expectation of order before we begin to learn science, and without it
would never begin the search after a system of knowledge. All scientific
experiment is but a search after order, and order is only another name
for intelligence--for God. Deprive us of this fundamental faith in cause
and effect, order and regularity--of reason, in short--and science
becomes as impossible to man as to the orang-outang. _All science, even
in its first principles, rests upon faith._
Not only science, reason, also, is founded upon faith; for we can not
prove by reason the truths which form the data of reasoning. The
intuitions of the mind, which form the postulates necessary to the first
process of reasoning, are believed, not proven. When the wise fool
attempted to prove his own existence by the celebrated sophism, "I
think, therefore I exist," he necessarily postulated his existence in
order to prove it. How did he know that there was an "I" to think? And
how did he know that the "I" thought? Certainly not by any process of
reasoning, but by faith. He believed these truths; but could never
reason them into his consciousness. Faith, then, underlies reason
itself.
We may now proceed to inquire whether or not faith, which we have found
so prevalent even among those who repudiate it, is a thing to be ashamed
of; or if it be a sufficiently certain and reliable basis for human life
and conduct.
1. We are met at the very outset by the great fact that God has so
constituted the world and everything in it, that _in all the great
concerns of life we are necessitated to depend on faith_; without any
possibility of reaching absolute certainty regarding the result of any
ordinary duty. We sow without any certainty of a crop, or that we may
live to reap it. We harvest, but our barns may be burned down. We sell
our property for bank-bills, but who dare say they will ever be paid in
specie? We start on a journey to a distant city, but even though you
insure your life, who will insure that fire, or flood, or railroad
collision may not send you to the land whence there is no return?
Science is the child of yesterday; but from the beginning of the world
men have lived by faith. Before science was born, Cain tilled his ground
without any mathematical demonstration that he should reap a crop. Abel
fed his flock without any scientific certainty that he should live to
enjoy its produce; and Tubal Cain forged axes and swords without any
assurance that he should not be plundered of his wages. All the
experience of mankind proves that experimental certainty regarding the
most important business of this life is impossible. By what process of
philosophical induction is religion alone put beyond the sphere of faith
and hope? If religious duties are not binding on us, unless religion be
scientifically demonstrated, then neither are moral obligations; for
these two can not be separated. Is it really so, that none but
scientific men are bound to tell the truth, and pay their debts; and
that a person may not fear God, and go to heaven, unless he has
graduated at college? The common sense of mankind declares that we live
by faith, not by science.
2. _We demand the knowledge of truths of which science is profoundly
ignorant._ Science is but an outlying nook of my farm, which I may
neglect and yet have bread to eat. Faith is my house in which all my
dearest interests are treasured. Of all the great problems and precious
interests which belong to me as a mortal and an immortal, science knows
nothing. I ask her whence I came? and she points to her pinions scorched
over the abyss of primeval fire, her eyes blinded by its awful glare,
and remains silent. I inquire what I am? but the strange and questioning
_I_ is a mystery which she can neither analyze nor measure. I tell her
of the voice of conscience within me--she never heard it, and does not
pretend to understand its oracles. I tell her of my anxieties about the
future--she is learned only in the past. I inquire how I may be happy
hereafter--but happiness is not a scientific term, and she can not tell
me how to be happy here! Poor, blind science!
3. _All our dearest interests lie beyond the domains of science, in the
regions of faith._ Science treats of things--faith is confidence in
persons. Take away the persons, and of what value are the things? The
world becomes at once a vast desert, a dreary solitude, and more
miserable than any of its former inhabitants the lonely wretch who is
left to mourn over the graves of all his former companions--the last
man. Solitary science were awful. Could I prosecute the toils of study
alone, without companion or friend to share my labors? Would I study
eternally with no object, and for no use; none to be benefited, none to
be gratified by my discoveries? Though you hung maps on every tree, made
every mountain range a museum, bored mines in every valley, and covered
every plain with specimens, made Vesuvius my crucible, and opened the
foundations of the earth to my view--yet would the discovery of a single
fresh human footprint in the sand fill my heart with more true hope of
happiness, than an endless eternity of solitary science. I can live, and
love, and be happy without science, _but not without companionship,
whose bond is faith_.
Faith is the condition of all the happiness you can know on earth. Law,
order, government, civilization, and family life, depend not upon
science, but upon confidence in moral character--upon faith. In its
sunshine alone can happiness grow. It is faith sends you out in the
morning to your work, nerves your arms through the toils of the day,
brings you home in the evening, gathers your wife and your children
around your table, inspires the oft-repeated efforts of the little
prattler to ascend your knee, clasps his chubby arms around your neck,
looks with most confiding innocence in your eye, and puts forth his
little hand to catch your bread, and share your cup. Undoubting faith is
happiness even here below. Need you marvel, then, that you must be
converted from your pride of empty, barren science, and casting yourself
with all your powers into the arms of faith, become as a little child
before you can enter into the kingdom of heaven?
4. But religion is not founded upon faith as distinct from observation
and experiment. _It is the most experimental of all the sciences._ There
is less of theory, and more of experience in it than in any other
science. Its faith is all practical. It is a great mistake to suppose
that faith is the opposite pole of experience. On the contrary,
experience is the fruit which ripens from the blossom of faith. We have
seen how an underlying conviction of the existence of an intelligent
planner and upholder of the laws of nature is the source of all
scientific experiment, and systematized knowledge. A similar underlying
conviction of the existence of a moral governor of the world is the
source of all religious experience. _He that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is the rewarder of those that diligently seek
him._ But this fundamental axiom believed, long trains of experience
follow; of every one of which you can be, and actually are, infinitely
more certain than of any fact of physical science. Your eyes, your ears,
your touch, your instruments, your reason, may be deceived; but your
consciousness can not. If your soul is filled with joy, that is a
_fact_. You know it, and are as sure of it as you are that the sun
shines. If you feel miserable, you are so. A sense of neglected duty, a
consciousness that you have done wrong, and are displeased with yourself
for it; a certainty that God is displeased with you for wrong-doing, and
that he will show his displeasure by suitable punishment; the tenacious
grasp of vicious habits on your body and soul, and the fearful thought
that by the law of your nature these vipers, which you vainly struggle
to shake off, will forever keep involving you more closely in their
cursed coils--these are _facts of your experience_. You are as certain
that they give you disquiet of mind, when you entertain them, as that
the sea rages in a tempest; and that you can no more prevent their
entrance, nor compel their departure, nor calm nor drown the anxiety
they occasion, than you can prevent the rising of the tempest, dismiss
the thunder-storm, or drown Etna in your wine-glass. Of these primary
facts of moral science, and of others like them, you possess the most
absolute and infallible certainty from your own consciousness. They
result from the inertia of moral matter, which, when put into a state of
disturbance, has no power of bringing itself to rest; as expressed in
the formula, _There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked._[381]
Let us now go out of your own experience, as you must do in every other
science, into the region of observation, and study a few of the other
phenomena of religion. Your comrade, Jones, has taken to drinking of
late, and also to going with you to Sunday lectures, and in the evening
to other places of amusement. He has, however, been warned that the next
time he comes drunk to the workshop he will be discharged; and as he is
a clever young fellow, and knows more about the Bible than you, having
gone to Sabbath-school when a boy, and is able to use up the saints
cleverly, you would be sorry to lose his company. So you set on him to
go with you to hear a temperance lecture, hoping that he may be induced
to take the pledge; for if he does not you fear he will soon lie in the
gutter. He curses you, and himself too, if ever he listens to any such
stuff; and refuses to go. You can easily gather a hundred other
illustrations of the great law of the moral repulsion between vice and
truth, expressed in the following formula: "_This is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil
hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved._"[382] Your life, however, is but a long illustration of this
principle. Have you not willingly remained in ignorance of the contents
of the Bible, because you dislike its commands?
There is another fact of the same science--there, in the gutter before
you, wallowing in his own vomit, covered with rags, besmeared with mud,
smelling worse than a hog, his bruised and bleeding mouth unable to
articulate the obscenities and curses he tries to utter. "Is it possible
that can be Bill Brown! Why, only three years ago we worked at the same
bench. It was he who introduced me to the Sunday Institute; as clever a
workman and as jovial a comrade as I ever knew, but would get on a spree
now and again. He had a good father and mother, got considerable
schooling, had good wages, got married to a clever girl, and had two
fine children. Is it possible he could make such a beast of himself in
such a short time?" Yes, quite possible, and more, quite certain. Not
only in his case, but in all others, the law of moral gravitation is
universal and infallible. "_Evil men and seducers wax worse and
worse._"[383] The degradation may not always be in this precise form,
nor always as speedy; as all heavy bodies do not fall to the same place,
nor with like rapidity. But it is always as certain and always as deep,
and will one day be far more public. Fix it firmly in your mind. It
concerns you more than all the science you will ever know. You, too, are
in the course of sin, and you know it. You have already begun to fall.
Come again into this room. "What, into a prayer-meeting? I don't go to
such places." But, if you want to study the phenomena of religion
scientifically, you should go to such places; just as if you want to
study geology, you should go to the places where the strata are exposed
to view. I do not ask you to speak, and to ask people to pray for you,
but only to look on and listen. If you are a philosopher I wish you to
cease dogmatizing about fanaticism, and enthusiasm, and the ignorance,
and credulity of believers, at least until you philosophically examine
the evidence upon which they believe. You can set aside, if you please,
their unfounded beliefs concerning matters beyond their capacity, and
also their confident hopes for futurity. What I wish you to examine is
their _actual experience of religion_, as they severally relate it. For
as we have seen, the facts of consciousness are just as certain, and as
ascertainable, as the facts discovered by our senses; and there is no
reason in the world why we should not pursue the study of religion in
the same way that we gain a knowledge of science; namely, by collecting
and studying the facts accumulated by those who have made experiments,
and have obtained a practical knowledge of the matter.
There are here, as you see, a great number of religious experimenters.
They are also of very various conditions of life, and of various degrees
of education. Many of them are moreover well known to you, so that you
are in a favorable position for forming a fair judgment of their
discoveries. There is your comrade Smith, Hopkins who does the hauling
for your establishment, Lawyer Hammond, Professor Edwards, whose
chemical lectures you attend, Dr. Lawrence, who lectured before the
Lyceum last winter, Mr. Heidenberger, who wrote a series of articles on
Comte's Positive Philosophy for the Investigator, Mrs. Bridgman, your
Aunt Polly, who nursed you during your typhoid fever, and a great many
others whom you know quite well. Professor Edwards leads in prayer, and
gives a brief address. You never dreamt that he was hoaxing you when he
told you of his chemical experience; have you any reason to offer for
believing that he now solemnly, and in the presence of God, lies to you
and to this assembly, when he tells you of the peace he has found in
believing in Christ, and the happiness he experiences in uniting with
his brethren in the worship of God? Or is he more liable to error in
noting the fact of his mental joy or sorrow, than in observing the
effect of the extraordinary ray in double refraction? If not, the fact
that he has felt this religious experience, is just as certain as the
fact, that he has seen polarized light.
There is your comrade Smith, whom you have known for years, actually
got up to speak in meeting. You are surprised; but listen: "Neighbors
and friends, most of you know I never cared much about religion, and was
often given to take more liquor than was good for me, and then I would
fight and curse awful bad. I knew as well as anybody that it wasn't
right, and always felt bad after a spree, and many a time I said I would
turn over a new leaf, and be good. But it was all no use, for as soon as
any of the fellows would come around after me, I always went along with
them, till at last I gave it up and said it was no use to try. Still,
whenever any of my acquaintances died, I felt scared like; and I kept
away as far as I could from churches and preachers and such like,
because I could not bear to think about God and judgment to come. Well,
about five weeks ago my little Minnie set on me one Sabbath morning to
carry her to church, and to please the little creature--for she is as
pert a darling as you could see anywhere--I told my wife to get her
ready, and we would go. She seemed as if she would cry, and kept talking
to herself all the way. When we got into the church the singing almost
upset me, for I had not been to a church since I was a little fellow,
just before father and mother died. But it seemed as if it was the same
tune, and as if the tune brought them all back, and as if I saw them
again and all the family, and heard mother sing as she used to, and I
forgot church and everything, and thought I was a little fellow playing
about on the floor just as I used to do when I was a happy child. When
they stopped I was so sorry, and wished I could just be as innocent and
as happy as I was then. Well, it seemed like the preacher had been
reading my thoughts, for he gave out for his text, '_Verily, verily, I
say unto you, unless a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of
God._' He began to preach how Jesus can give us new hearts, and save us
from our sins; that his blood cleanses from all sin; that he is able to
save to the uttermost all that come unto God through him. The tears
came into my eyes, and I could hardly keep my mouth shut till I got out.
When I got home I knelt down, and cried to Jesus to save me from my
sins; and my wife prayed too, and we cried for mercy. The Lord heard us,
and I felt light and happy, and I went to church again, and sung with
the rest. And the best of it is, the Lord delivered me from the drink;
as I told a man who asked where I was going to-day, and I told him I was
going to prayer-meeting, for I had got religion now. He said there were
a great many religions, and most of them wrong, and a great many people
said all religion was only a notion, and preaching only nonsense. I says
to him, 'Look here, stranger, do you see that tavern there?' 'Yes,' says
he. 'Well,' says I, 'do you see me?' 'I do, of course,' says he. 'Well,'
says I, 'every little fellow in these parts knows that so long as Tom
Smith had a quarter in his pocket he could never pass that tavern
without having a drink. All the men in Jefferson could not stop him. Now
look here,' says I, 'there is my week's wages, and I can go past, and
thank God I don't feel the least like drinking, for the Lord Jesus has
saved me from it. If you call that a notion, it is a mighty powerful
notion, and it is a notion that has put clothes on my children's backs,
and plenty of good food on my table, and songs of praise to the Lord in
my mouth. _That's a fact, stranger._ Glory be to God for it. And I would
recommend you to come to prayer-meeting with me, and maybe you would get
religion too. A great many people are getting religion now.'"
His last remark is certainly very true. There are so many, and of such
various characters and grades of life, and in so many places, that every
reader can easily find several Tom Smiths of his own acquaintance, whose
conversions display all the essential facts of this case, and prove
that:
5. The facts of religious experience _are better attested, and more
unobjectionable_ than those of any other science.
Unless they can be shown to be unreasonable or impossible, we are bound
to receive them, when presented by the experimentists who have
discovered them, though personally we may not have any such experience;
just as we believe the chemists, or the astronomers who relate their
discoveries which personally we have not observed. But the facts of
religion are _by no means unreasonable_. They can not be shown to
contradict any known law of the human mind. It is true they are
mysterious. But so are the facts of physical science--heat, light,
electricity, gravitation. Of either, we may be quite certain that such
phenomena exist, and utterly ignorant of the mode of their operation. It
were as utterly unphilosophical to deny that Almighty God could impart
nervous energy to the languid limbs of your sick neighbor, because you
are ignorant of its origin and means of transmission, as to deny that
God could impart spiritual electricity to his paralyzed soul, because
you are ignorant of the mode in which he bestows it. And ignorance is
all that you can plead in this case. You must just admit that having
tried an experiment which you have not, your religious friend has a
right to know more than you.
Moreover, the facts of religion are presented for belief upon _the most
abundant and reliable testimony_. In physical science you must rely on
the testimony of a very few observers--the great bulk even of scientific
men having no opportunity of testing the facts themselves, and being
well satisfied if any fact is confirmed by the testimony of two or three
philosophers--and this testimony often contradictory, and always
fallible, as the discordant results of their experiments prove. But here
you have a great multitude of experimentists, in every city and village
of the land, of every variety of intellect and education, prosecuting
the same course of experiments, and all arriving at the same results.
They do not all confess the _same_ sins, but they all felt the power of
_some_ sin, and felt miserable in their guilt. And however they may
differ in their external circumstances, their inward constitution, or in
their views of the outward part of religion, there is no difference
among them about the great facts of their religious experience. They all
believed the faithful saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners, cried to God for mercy through him, and received peace of
mind, grace to live a new life, and to delight in the worship of God. Do
you know any science which has been prosecuted by one-hundredth part of
this number of inquirers? Which has been confirmed by one-thousandth
part of this number of experimenters? Or any experiment tried with such
uniform and unfailing success as this, "_Whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved?_"[384] Why then do you hesitate to
admit the correctness of these facts? Is it because you perceive they
lead to results which you dislike?
They do lead to results. They are effects and tell us of a cause. They
are powerful effects, and proclaim a powerful cause. They are moral and
spiritual effects, and assure us of the existence of a moral and
spiritual agent who has caused them. They are holy effects, and convince
your sinful soul that they are produced by a holy being. But they are
also benevolent, life-giving, blessed effects, and proclaim that God is
love. The Lord, the Spirit, is as plainly declared in the facts of
religious experience, as the Creator is in the creation of the universe;
and it were as rank Atheism to attribute these orderly and blessed
results to chance or to evil passions, as to attribute the Cosmos to
blind fate, or to the beasts that perish. He is as much an enemy to his
happiness who denies the one, as a foe to his reason who rejects the
other. Dear reader, why should you not believe in,
6. _The only science which can make you happy?_ which can bestow peace
of mind, nerve you to conquer your evil habits, enable you to live a
holy and happy life, and to die with a blessed hope of a glorious
resurrection? You know there is no science which makes any such offers,
or which you would believe if it did. But the Bible unfolds a science
which does, and enables you to believe it too. The facts of religious
experience give most convincing evidence of the reality and power of the
grace of God. It were as easy to persuade a Christian that he had
produced this change of heart and life by the excitement of his own
feelings, as that he had kindled the sun with a lucifer match. And the
character of the work and the worker assures him that it will not be
left unfinished. His faith receives these facts of religious experience
as the first installments upon God's bonds, and as pledges for the
payment of the remainder of his promises. The joy and peace which God
gives him now, prove most satisfactorily his ability and willingness to
give him larger measures of these enjoyments when he is capable of
receiving them. Just as we have good reason to believe that he who has
made the sun to rise out of darkness will guide him onward in his course
to perfect day, have we also good reason to believe that he that hath
begun the good work of his grace in us will perform it until the day of
Jesus Christ. Christ is in us the hope of glory. This eternal life,
which is begun in our souls, is so much superior to mere animal
vitality, that we can not doubt that he who has given us the greater,
will also give us the lesser, and quicken our mortal bodies also, by his
Spirit which dwelleth in us. We know that our Redeemer liveth.
7. And now, in conclusion, dear reader, we ask you not to take these
things on our testimony, nor yet on our experience; _but to try for
yourself_. Oh taste and see that the Lord is good. Come see the Savior
who has saved us, and be saved by him too. There is nothing more
dangerous, unless resisting the evidence of the truth as it is in Jesus,
than acknowledging this to be truth without immediately obeying the
gospel. God requires your immediate and cordial acceptance of Christ to
save you from your sins. He tells you that the only way of escape from
your sins now and from hell hereafter is through him; for there is none
other name given under heaven or among men whereby you must be saved. He
promises to hear your prayer and give you his Holy Spirit to work in you
the work of faith with power, if you will only and earnestly ask. "_Ask,
and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall
be opened unto you: What man is there of you whom if his son ask bread,
will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a
serpent? If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good
things to them that ask him?_"[385]
Thus you will come to possess an actual experimental knowledge of the
most excellent of the sciences. In the present begun enjoyment of
eternal life you will, not merely believe in, but positively _know_, its
Author, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. You will
rest in no fallible and erring testimony of man's wisdom, but your faith
will stand in the power of God. You will be able to say, "_Now we
believe not because of thy sayings: for we have heard him ourselves,
and_ KNOW _that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the
World._"[386]
Hear God's own warrant and invitation to your poor, thirsty soul, to
forsake your vanities and come and be eternally blessed in Christ. Have
the witness in yourself and be a living proof of the blessed reality of
religion.
"Ho every one that thirsteth! Come ye to the waters!
And he who hath no money! Come ye, buy and eat!
Yea, come! Buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread?
And your labor for that which satisfieth not?
Hearken diligently unto me and eat ye that which is good,
And let your soul delight itself in fatness.
Incline your ear and come unto me:
Hear and your soul shall live:
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
Even the sure mercies of David.
Behold! I have given him for a witness to the people,
A leader and a commander to the people:
Behold! thou shall call nations that thou knowest not,
And nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee,
Because of the Lord thy God,
And for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee.
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found,
Call ye upon him while he is near:
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him,
And to our God for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven,
And return not thither again,
But water the earth, and cause it to bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater;
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
It shall not return unto me void,
But it shall accomplish that which I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace.
The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing,
And all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands.
Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree,
And instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree:
_And it shall be to the Lord for a name,
For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off._"
FOOTNOTES:
[322] Holyoak's Discussion with Grant and Tonney.
[323] Bacon Novum Organum, I. xlix. xlvi.
[324] Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures, I. 53.
[325] Journal of Speculative Philosophy, I. 20.
[326] Humboldt, _Cosmos_, Vol. I. p. 7, 156.
[327] Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, 356.
[328] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852.
[329] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852.
[330] _Cosmos_, 4, 518. Dick's _Celestial Scenery_, chap. III. Sec. 7.
[331] _Cosmos_, 1, 75. Loomis' _Progress of Astronomy_, pp. 34, 40
[332] Loomis' _Progress of Astronomy_, p. 34, etc.
[333] _Outlines of Astronomy_, III. Sec. 13, 140.
[334] Thus several of the best telescopes in the world are rendered
nearly useless by the passage of heavy railroad trains in their
vicinity.
[335] Somerville's Physical Sciences, VI.
[336] Cosmos IV. 477. Phillips' Address to the British Association,
1865.
[337] North British Review, LXV.
[338] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, 158.
[339] Cosmos I. 109.
[340] Cosmos IV. 501.
[341] Cosmos IV. 378.
[342] Harper's Magazine, June, 1872, p. 149.
[343] Annual Scientific Discovery, 1864, 134.
[344] Cosmos III. 40; IV. 363. Annual, 1861, 395, 396.
[345] Cosmos IV. 474.
[346] Kendall's Uranography, p. 11.
[347] Cosmos, 443-5.
[348] North British Review, No. LXV.
[349] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852, 119.
[350] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1854, 150.
[351] Cosmos III. 115.
[352] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860.
[353] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852, 139.
[354] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, 166.
[355] Plurality of Worlds, XII.
[356] North British Review, LXV.
[357] God's Glory in the Heavens, 168.
[358] Annual Scientific Discovery, 1863, 324.
[359] Cosmos IV. 378.
[360] See this proved chapter XI., _Daylight Before Sunrise_.
[361] See the possibility of such a source of volcanic action, of such a
formation of plutonic rocks, proved by Lyell. _Principles_, chaps.
XXXII. and XII.
[362] Sir David Brewster, K. H., D. C. L., F. R. S., _More Worlds than
One_, p. 56.
[363] _Rudiments of Geology_, W. & R. Chambers, p. 10.
[364] Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, p. 3.
[365] Miller, _Old Red Sandstone_, p. 25.
[366] Hugh Miller, _Footprints of the Creator_, p. 313.
[367] American Cyclopædia, 1863, p. 374. Annual of Scientific Discovery,
1861, p. 351.
[368] London Quarterly Review, 1866, No. 51, p. 240.
[369] Lyell's Second Visit to the United States.
[370] _The Advance_, Chicago, May 28, 1868.
[371] Geological Time.
[372] _Principles_, Chaps. III. and IV.
[373] _Principles_, chap. XI.
[374] _Principles_, p. 530.
[375] _Principles_, chap. XXXI.
[376] Chambers' Cyclopædia Art. Appalachians.
[377] Types of Mankind, 329, 335, 338.
[378] The American Journal of Science and Art, edited by Profs. Silliman
and Dana, XXVI. 235, 300.
[379] Frazer--Blending Lights, p. 113.
[380] De Vore's _Modern Magic_, 58.
[381] Isaiah, chap. xlviii. 22.
[382] John, chap. iii.
[383] 2 Timothy, chap. iii. Read the whole chapter.
[384] Romans, chap. x. Read the chapter.
[385] The Sermon on the Mount. Read it all.
[386] John, chap. iv.
[THE END.]
Transcriber's Notes:
Missing punctuation, including periods, hyphens, and commas, has been
added.
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
Variations in spelling have been left as in the original in the
following words:
coveredst coverest
orang-otang orang-outang
water-skin waterskin
The following words use an oe ligature in the original:
foetus Phoenician
Phoebus Phoenicians
Phoenicia
The spelling of the last name of Scottish astronomer John Pringle Nichol
has been corrected throughout the text.
The spelling of the last name of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
has been corrected throughout the text.
The spelling of the last name of French physicist Claude-Servais-Mathias
Pouillet has been corrected throughout the text.
The spelling of the last name of Hellenistic astrologer Vettius Valens
has been corrected throughout the text.
The spelling of the last name of French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph
Le Verrier has been corrected throughout the text.
A series of three asterisks * * * represents an ellipsis in the text.
Shorter and longer rows of asterisks have been standardized to three
asterisks.
The carat ^ character indicates that the following numbers (enclosed in
{} brackets) are superscripted in the original.
The mathematical formula 4+3/2 is rendered 4 + 1-1/2 in the original.
Footnote 15 reads "Origin of Species, 4, 10, 127, 9, 97, 100, 409, 410,
415, 423. Descent of Man, 192, 204, and II.--15, 257." The page number
"9" is probably a typographical error, but it has been left as in the
original.