INFIDEL OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
ARROGANCE OF INFIDELS--THEIR IGNORANCE--SUN'S HEAT--SATURN'S RINGS--A
SCIENTIST'S THEORY OF THE DELUGE--DENSITY OF COMETS--THE MILKY
WAY--UNKNOWN FORCES OF THE UNIVERSE--ANTIQUITY OF THE EARTH--TEACHINGS
OF ANCIENT PROPHETS--TEACHINGS OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH--MODERN SCIENTISTS.
The grand error of infidel theories in regard to creation lies in the
arrogant assumption on which every one of them must be founded. They
assume that the theorist is acquainted with all substances and all
forces in the universe, and with all the modes of their operation.
This knowledge must apply, not merely to the present age, but to
all past epochs; not merely to this world, but, likewise, to others
in widely different and utterly unknown situations and conditions.
Otherwise, that unknown force must have had its influence in framing
the world. For instance, a theory of creation which would neglect the
attraction of gravitation would be manifestly false. But there are
other laws, the power of repulsion, for instance, whose omission would
be equally fatal. Skeptics {152} are aware of this fact, and have
sought to simplify matters, by reducing all substances to a few simple
elements, and all forces to the form of one universal law. Instead
of this, chemistry, every year, reveals new substances and increases
our knowledge of nature's variety. At one time, it was boasted that
astronomy would enable us to account for all the operations of the
universe; but, instead of this, it has revealed substances and forces,
whose nature and combinations are entirely unknown.
For example, it is estimated that the sun's heat at its surface is
300,000 times greater than at the surface of the earth. An exceedingly
few rays of the sun, concentrated by a burning mirror, will convert
gold and platina into vapor. At this rate, it is calculated that "if a
cataract of icebergs, a mile high and as broad as the Atlantic ocean,
was launched into the sun, with the velocity of a cannon ball, it would
be converted into steam as fast as it entered his atmosphere, without
cooling his surface in the least degree. But how is such an enormous
heat kept up? Hitherto, every discovery, so far from giving us an
explanation, seems rather to remove farther the prospect of probable
explanation." (_Outlines of Astronomy, Vol. vi., p_. 400.) Yet the sun
is the nearest of the fixed stars, by far the best known, and most
nearly related to us. In fact, we are dependent on his influence for
life and health. But if the infidel cannot tell the sun's substance,
or the nature and cause of the light and heat he sends us, how can he
presume to {153} tell us how this same sun was formed, or declare that
the Biblical account is false?
[ILLUSTRATION: VIEW OF SATURN, SHOWING RINGS.]
Concerning the nearest planets, how little do we know! Are they
built of the same materials as our planet? Are Saturn's rings solid
or liquid? The planet, Saturn, is surrounded with a revolving belt
consisting of several distinct rings, containing an estimated area a
hundred and forty-six times greater than the surface of our globe,
with a thickness of a hundred miles. From mechanical considerations,
it has been proved that these rings could not be of uniform thickness
all around, else when a majority of her seven moons were on the same
side, the attraction would draw them in upon her on the opposite side;
and once attracted to her surface, they could never get loose again,
if they were solid. It was next ascertained that the motion of the
moons of Saturn and her rings was such that the rings must be capable
of changing their thickness according to circumstances. Finally, it
was demonstrated that these rings were fluid and that their density
is nearly that of water, and that the inner portion, at least, is so
transparent {154} that the planet has been seen through it. The rings
of Saturn are, then, a stream or streams of fluid, rather denser than
water, flowing about the planet. This extraordinary fact, which shows
how God can deluge a planet when He pleases, is given in the language
of a philosopher whose thoughtless illustration of revelation is all
the more valuable that it is unintentional:
"M. Otto Struve, Mr. Bond and Sir David Brewster are agreed that
Saturn's third ring is fluid, that it is gradually approaching the body
of Saturn, and that we may expect, sooner or later, to see it united
with the body of the planet. With this deluge impending, Saturn would
scarcely be a very eligible residence for men whatever it might be for
dolphins." (_See Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1856, p_. 377.)
Let the skeptic show that God did not, or could not suspend a similar
celestial ocean over the earth, or cease to pronounce a universal
deluge impossible.
Again, it may be asked. Has the moon an atmosphere? Are the atmospheres
of the planets like ours? What is the cause of the light and heat of
the sun? These and many other questions scientists variously answer,
but leave unanswered after all.
Comets constitute by far the greatest number of the bodies of our
solar system. Arago says seven millions frequent it, within the orbit
of Uranus. They are the largest bodies known to us, stretching across
hundreds of millions of miles.
{155} [ILLUSTRATION: THE COMET OF 1811.]
They approach nearer to this earth than any other bodies, sometimes
even involving it in their tails, and generally exciting great alarm
among its inhabitants. But the nature of the transparent, luminous
matter of which they are composed is utterly unknown. While their
density was doubtful, they formed very convenient material for the
atheist's world-factory; but recently they have been literally
dissipated into smoke by powerful telescopes. In fact a respectable
wreath of smoke is quite substantial compared with the densest
of the comets. Stars of the smallest magnitude remain distinctly
visible though covered by what appears to be their densest portion;
although these same stars would be completely obscured by a moderate
fog extending only a few yards above the {156} earth. Neither are
they dense enough to cast a shadow. It is thus evident that the most
substantial clouds which float in our atmosphere are dense and massy
bodies compared with the filmy and all but spiritual texture of a
comet's tail.
Neither do men understand the laws that govern the motion of comets.
As they approach the sun, they come under an influence directly the
opposite of attraction. While the body of the comet travels towards the
sun, sometimes with a velocity nearly one-third of that of light, the
tail shoots forth in the opposite direction with much greater velocity.
The greatest velocity with which we are acquainted on earth is the
velocity of light, which travels a million times faster than a cannon
ball, or at the rate of 195,000 miles per second.
[ILLUSTRATION: COMET PASSING ROUND THE SUN (ITS PERIHELION).]
But infidels tell us that the universe is infinite, and therefore
self-existent. This assertion is essential to their creed. They must
establish this fact {157} before they can convince themselves or any
other person, that the universe had no Creator; for that which exists
by the necessity of its own nature must exist in all time and in every
place. But it can be easily shown that our solar system has boundaries,
and does not fill the immensity of space. That broad band of luminous
clouds, which stretches across the heaven, called the Milky Way,
consists of millions of stars, so small and distant that we cannot see
the individual stars, and so numerous that we cannot help seeing the
light of the mass; just as we may see the outline of a forest at a
distance, but are unable to distinguish the individual trees. Besides
the Milky Way there are many other star-clouds, in various parts of the
heavens, which have successively been shown by the telescope to consist
of multitudes of stars. But all around these star-clouds, or Nebulae
as they are called, the clear blue sky is discovered by the naked eye.
Now it is easy to perceive that if all the regions of space were filled
with self-luminous suns or planets capable of reflecting light, or even
comets, we should see no blue sky at all: in a word, the whole heaven
would be one vast Milky Way.
Though the telescope discovers multitudes of stars where the naked eye
sees none, yet they are seen projected on a perfectly dark heaven. "And
even through the Milky Way, and the other star-clouds, the telescope
penetrates through intervals absolutely dark and completely void of any
star of the smallest telescopic magnitude" (_Outlines of Astronomy,
chap. xvii_). {158} It may assist us to understand the full import of
this declaration to remember that the largest telescopes now in use,
clearly define any object on the moon's surface as large as the Deseret
Bank. We may comprehend to some extent their power of penetrating
space by the fact that light, which flashes from San Francisco to
London quicker than you can close your eye and open it again requires
_thousands of years_ to travel to our earth from the most distant stars
discernible by these telescopes. If a solar system like ours existed
anywhere within this amazing distance these telescopes would certainly
reveal it. In gazing through these instruments we are made to feel most
sensibly that not merely this world which constitutes our earthly all,
and yon glorious sun which shines upon it, but all the host of heaven's
suns, planets, moons and firmaments, which our unaided eyes behold,
are but as the handful of sand of the ocean shore, compared with the
immensity of the universe. But ever, and along with this it has shown
us the ocean, as well as the shore, and revealed boundless regions
of darkness and solitude stretching around and far away beyond these
islands of existence.
When we come to consider the vastness of these regions of darkness,
over which _no light has traveled for millions of years_, and remember
also that astronomers have looked clear through the nebulae, and find
that they bear no more proportion to the infinite darkness behind them,
than the sparks of a chimney do to the extent of the sky against {159}
which they seem projected, so far from imagining the solar system to be
infinite, we stand confounded at its relative insignificance.
There is no possible evasion of this great fact. It cannot be objected
"that stars may exist at vast distances, whose light has not yet
reached the limits of our system;" for there is no possible distance
over which light could not have traveled, during eternal duration.
But the eternal existence of these stars is the very thing which the
atheist is concerned to prove. If we admit that these worlds had a
beginning, we are compelled to seek a cause for that beginning: that is
to say, a Creator.
Nor will it answer the purpose to say, "that these dark regions may
be filled with dark stars." If it could be proven that some stars
shine, while others are dark; then why this difference? Variety is an
effect, and demands a prior cause. Worlds therefore do not exist by the
necessity of their own nature, wherever there is room for them, but
must have had a pre-existent, external and supernatural cause of their
existence in the places where they exist. This implies design--will--
God.
In these amazing disclosures of the unknown forces of the heavens, do
we not hear a voice rebuking the presumption of ignorant theorists,
and asking, "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set
the dominion thereof in the earth" (_Job xxxviii_. 33). How many
influences, hitherto undiscovered by our ruder senses, may be ever
{160} streaming toward us, and modifying every terrestrial action. And
yet, because man has traced a little concerning one or two of these
laws, we have deemed our astronomy complete. We have no reason, save
our own self-sufficient arrogance, to believe that the discovery of
these forces exhausts the treasures of infinite wisdom.
But the infidel asks us, "Does not the Bible make a false declaration,
when it says that the universe was created only some six or seven
thousand years ago?" We reply by asking, _Where does the Bible say
so_? "But," says our objector, "is not this the doctrine held by the
various sects and taught by the various commentators?" That is not the
question before us just now. We are not asking what sects believe, or
uninspired teachers teach; but, "What does the Bible say." The Bible
uniformly attributes the most remote antiquity to the work of creation.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (_Gen. i_,
1). So far from supposing man's appearance on the earth to be even
approximately coeval with the creation, human presumption is reproved
in the remarkable words, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations
of the earth?" (_Job, xxxviii_. 4.) In majestic contrast with the frail
human race, Moses glances at the primeval monuments of God's antiquity,
as though by them he might form some faint conceptions of eternity, and
sings, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting, to everlasting
thou art God" (_Ps. xc_, 2). The {161} very phrase _in the beginning_,
is in itself an emphatic refutation of the notion, that the work of
creation is only some six or seven thousand years old. Geologists have
been unable to invent a better, and have borrowed from the Bible this
very form of speech, to designate as the _primary formations_, those
strata beyond which human knowledge cannot penetrate. This phrase,
in Bible language, marks the last promontory on the boundless ocean
of past eternity: the only positive phrase, by which we can express
the most remote period of past duration. It expresses not a date--a
point of duration; but a period--a vast cycle. But one boundary is
perceptible to mortals: that where creation rises from its abyss.
Created eye has never seen the other shore.
Let the geologist then penetrate as deeply as he can into the
profundities of the earth's foundations, and bring forth the monuments
of their hoary antiquity; we will follow with unfaltering faith. Let
the astronomer raise his telescope and reflect, on our astonished eyes,
the light which flashed from morning stars, on the first day of this
earth's existence, or even the rays which began to travel from distant
suns millions of years ere the first morning dawned on our planet:
they shall shed a sacred lustre over the pages of inspiration, and
give new beauties of illustration to its majestic symbols. But never
in this life will geologists penetrate the depth of its mysteries, nor
astronomers attain the sublimity of that beginning revealed in its
pages. It is placed in an {162} antiquity beyond the power of human
calculation, in that sublime sentence with which it introduces mortals
to the Eternal, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth."
The doctrine of the creation the earth only six or seven thousand years
ago is a product of monkish ignorance. Clemens of Alexandria, who lived
in the second century of the Christian era, and Justin Martyr, who was
a disciple and companion of the Apostle John, both teach the existence
of an indefinite period between the creation and the preparatory work,
fitting it for the habitation of man. The Jewish rabbis also are
perfectly explicit in recognizing these distinctions.
But it is replied, "Does not the Bible say, in the fourth commandment,
'In six days the Lord made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all
that in them is?' etc" True. But we are speaking just now of a very
different work; the work of creation. If any one does not know the
difference between create and make, let him turn to his dictionary,
and Webster will inform him. If he has no dictionary, he can satisfy
himself thoroughly, as to the different meanings of these two words, by
looking at their use in the Bible. He will find the term create used
when there were no organized materials to form the earth from; unless
we adopt the infidel absurdity that the paving stones made themselves.
He will also find that the term make is applied to the adjusting of the
earth in its present condition (_see Gen., i_, 21 _and_ 27. _Psalms,
li_, 10. _Ecclesiastes, xii_, 1. _Col, i_, 16).
{163} But between these two widely different processes, namely the
creation, and the organizing of the world there intervened a period of
indefinite length. That original chaos, which some would find in the
second verse, never had an existence save in the brains of atheistic
philosophers. It is purely absurd. The crystals of the smallest grain
of sand, the sporules of the humblest fungus on the rotten tree, and
the animalculae in the filthiest pool of mud, are as orderly in their
arrangements, as perfect after their kind, and as wisely adapted to
their station as the most perfect beings on the earth.
If then astronomers and geologists assert that the earth was millions
or hundreds of millions of years in process of preparation for its
present state, by a long series of successive destructions and
renovations, and gradual formations, there is not one word in the Bible
to contradict that opinion; but on the contrary, very many texts which
fully and unequivocally imply its truth.
Infidels frequently attempt to make sport of the figures of sacred
poetry such as the "pillars," and "windows of heaven," the "corners
of the earth," the "four winds of heaven," etc. One prominent infidel
writer asserts that Moses was so ignorant of the nature of the
atmosphere, and the origin of rain that he taught that the firmament
was simply a brazen hemisphere or huge caldron placed in an inverted
position over the earth, that a fresh-water ocean was outside of this,
and that the figurative term "windows of heaven" meant trap-doors to
let {164} the waters descend in the form of rain upon the inhabitants
of the earth. If so, Moses did not put his teachings into practice;
for we find that he set up a brazen hemisphere in the tabernacle and
placed its mouth upwards and put water on the inside of it. Such
are the miserable subterfuges to which infidels will resort when
in want of an argument. They seem to forget that a thousand years
before skeptics had learned to talk nonsense about crystal spheres,
and trap-doors in the bottom of celestial oceans, the writers of
the Bible were recording those conversations of pious philosophers
concerning stars, clouds and rain, from which Galileo derived the
first hints of the causes of barometrical phenomena. The origin of
rain, its proportion to the amount of evaporation, and the mode of
its distribution by condensation, could not be propounded by Humboldt
himself with greater clearness than they are described by Job, the
ancient philosopher of the land of Uz. "He maketh small the drops of
water: they pour down rain according to the vapor thereof, which the
clouds do draw and distil upon man abundantly" (_Job xxxvi_. 27).
The cause of this rarefaction of cold water, is as much a mystery to
modern scientific associations as it was to Job and Elihu; and even
were all the electrical tension of vapors disclosed, "the balancing of
the clouds" would only be more clearly discovered to be, as the Bible
declares, "the wonderful works of Him, who is perfect in knowledge."
Three thousand years before the theory of the trade winds was {165}
demonstrated by Maury, it was written in the Bible, "The wind goeth
toward the south, and turneth about unto the north," and, "The wind
returneth again according to his circuits" (_Eccl. i_, 6). Thousands
of years before Newton, Galileo and Copernicus were born, Isaiah
was writing about the orbit of the earth and the earth's relative
insignificance (_Isaiah xl_, 22). Even the modern names of some of the
constellations of the heavens were known to the ancients. "Canst thou
bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
(_Job xxxviii_, 31).
One of the most vaunted objections, which infidels bring against the
Bible, is that which represents God as creating light before the
sun, and the sun, moon and stars, only two days before the creation
of man. They seem to forget that the term to create is nowhere used
in connection with the preparing of the earth for the habitation of
man. By careful reading it will be seen at once that the darkness
spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis had reference to this planet
only. There is not the remotest hint, in any portion of scripture,
that any other planet or star was shrouded in gloom at that time. On
the contrary, we are most distinctly informed that the wonders which
God was performing in this world, at that very time, were distinctly
visible amid the cheerful illumination of other orbs. "When the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," as this
earth emerged from its primeval darkness.
{166} True the Bible represents that this earth was illuminated
at a time when the sun was not visible from its surface. Now, if
any one will presume to scoff at the Bible for speaking of light
without sunshine--as infidels frequently do--what will he say of the
light which exists in the midst of a London fog or on the banks of
Newfoundland? To understand, how there may be day without sunshine,
we need only conceive the whole earth enveloped in vapors such as
Humboldt describes a portion of Peru. "A thick mist obscures the
firmament in this region for many months. If by chance the sun's disc
becomes visible during the day, it appears devoid of rays, as if seen
through colored glasses. According to what modern geology has taught
us concerning the ancient history of our atmosphere, its primitive
condition must have been unfavorable to the transmission of light"
(_Humboldt's Cosmos, Vol iii, p_. 139).
Dr. Dana is evidently of the same opinion. In speaking of the formation
of coal and the peculiar vegetation which flourished upon the earth
during that period, the remains of which are found imbedded in the
coal measures; he says, "In the Pacific ocean, off the coast of Chili,
there is an island named Chiloe, where it rains 300 days in the year,
and where the light of the sun is shut out by perpetual fogs. On this
island, arborescent ferns, form forests, beneath which grow herbaceous
ferns, which rise three feet and upwards above a marshy soil, and a
mass of plants flourish there, {167} resembling in their main features
the plants found in the coal fields" (_Manual of Geology_, 1880). Thus
science corroborates the word of God.
Another favorite theory of the unbeliever is the uniformity of nature.
"Where," says he, "is the promise of Christ's coming to judgment;
for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were
since the beginning of the world?" But on examination astronomy
dispels the illusion, exhibits the course of nature as a succession
of catastrophies, displays the conflagration of other worlds, and
the extinction of other suns, before our eyes, and asks, _Why should
our sun differ from other suns_? In short there is no permanence
in the heavens, any more than on the earth; but a perpetual change
is the destiny of suns and stars. A few instances it may be well
to transcribe: "On the 11th of November, 1572, as the illustrious
Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, was walking through the fields, he
was astonished to observe a new star in the constellation Cassiopea,
beaming with a radiance quite unwonted in that part of the heavens.
Suspecting some delusion about his eyes, he went to a group of peasants
to ascertain if they saw it, and found them gazing at it with as much
astonishment as himself. He went to his instrument and fixed its
place, from which it never after appeared to deviate. For some time it
increased in brightness--greatly surpassing Sirius in luster, and even
Jupiter--so that it could be seen by good eyes in the day time. After
reaching its greatest brightness, it again diminished, {168} assuming
in succession the hues of a dying conflagration, and then finally
disappeared. It is impossible to imagine anything more tremendous than
a conflagration that could be visible at such a distance" (_Nicholl's
Solar System, page_ 118).
Sir John Herschell describes the star, Eta Argus, which, in the year
1837, went through similar variations. Humboldt gives a catalogue of
twenty-four such stars, whose variations have been recorded, and asks,
_Why should our sun differ from other suns?_ "What we no longer see is
not necessarily annihilated. It is merely the transition of matter into
new forms--into combinations which are subject to new processes. Dark
cosmical bodies may, by a new process of light, again become luminous"
(_Cosmos Vol. III, page_ 232).
Nicholl sums up the matter in the following emphatic words: "No more is
light inherent in the sun than in Tycho's vanished star; and with it
and other orbs a time may come when the sun shall cease to be required
to shine. The womb which contains the future is that which bore the
past" (_Solar System, page_ 190).
The threatenings of God's word are invested with a mantle of terrible
literality by the facts we have been contemplating.
{169}