crust, of what is called ice. You may break this crust into pieces, but
if the cold continues, a new crust will soon be formed with bits of the
old one firmly cemented in it. And the greater the cold the thicker
will the crust be, until perhaps the whole of the water in the pools
may become solid. If you take a piece of this solid substance, you find
it to be cold, brittle, and transparent. Brought into a warm room it
soon melts into water, and you may drive off the water as before into
vapor. Ice is the general name given to water when it is in the solid
state, such forms as snow and hail being only different appearances
which ice puts on. Whenever water becomes colder than a certain
temperature it passes into ice, or freezes, and this temperature is
consequently known as the freezing-point.
The upper layers of the atmosphere are much colder than the
freezing-point of water. In the condensation which takes place
there, the clouds do not resolve themselves into rain. The vapor of
the up-streaming currents of warm air from the earth’s surface is
condensed and frozen in these high regions, and passes into little
crystals, which unite into flakes of snow. Even in summer the fine
white cloudlets which you see floating at great heights are probably
formed of snow. But in those countries, such as ours, where in winter
the air even at the surface is sometimes very cold, the snow falls to
the ground, and lies there as a white covering, until returning warmth
melts it away.
Besides rain and snow, the moisture of the air takes sometimes the form
of hail, which consists of little lumps of ice like frozen rain; and
of sleet, which is partially melted snow. But rain and snow are the
most important, and it is these two forms which we must follow a little
further.
Before doing so, let us gather together the sum of what has been said
about the aqueous vapor of the air. We have learned that, as every
sheet of water on the face of the globe evaporates, the air is full
of vapor; that this vapor is condensed into visible form, and appears
as dew, mist, and cloud. We have learned further, that the vapor of
which clouds are formed is resolved into rain and snow, and, in one
or other of these forms, descends to the earth again. There is thus
a circulation of water between the solid earth beneath and the air
above. This circulation is as essential to the earth in making it a
fit habitation for living things, as the circulation of blood is in
keeping our bodies alive. It mixes and washes the air, clearing away
impurities, such as those which rise from the chimneys of a town. It
moistens and quickens the soil, which it renders capable of supporting
vegetation. It supplies springs, brooks, and rivers. In short, it is
the very mainspring of all the life of the globe. So important a part
of the machinery of the world deserves our careful consideration. Let
us next attend, therefore, to what becomes of the rain and the snow
after they have been discharged from the air upon the surface of the
earth.
[To be continued.]
SUNDAY READINGS.
SELECTED BY REV. J. H. VINCENT, D.D.
[_October 7._]
“TENDENCIES TO ERROR.”
By REV. WILLIAM FRASER, LL.D.
“Let no one, upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an
ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man
can search too far, or be too well studied in the book
of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works—divinity
or philosophy—but rather let men endeavor an endless
progress or proficiency in both; only let them
beware that they apply both to charity and not to
arrogance; to use, and not to ostentation; and again,
that they do not mingle or confound these learnings
together.”—_Bacon._
Many have lost their early faith in the Bible and are following its
guidance with faltering footstep. Between them and hitherto accepted
truths the sciences have been placing apparently insurmountable
obstacles. The trustful simplicity with which they once read the
sacred record has almost perished. Inferences by the man of science,
conflicting with the interpretations of scripture by the theologian,
have rudely shaken their most cherished convictions. They are not
infidels, they are not skeptics, for doubt is distasteful to them, they
long for more definite expositions and a firmer faith.
Such, possibly, may be some of you. In the midst of such discussions
as are at present in progress, perplexity is not unnatural. Your most
anxiously sustained investigations have hitherto only multiplied
difficulties, and a sense of responsibility alone constrains you
to linger over conclusions from which your judgment recoils. This
hesitancy of belief may be at the outset disheartening; yet it may be
inseparable from that clearness of insight and that force of character
which, in the end, commonly create the stablest convictions, and evoke
adequate proof to shield them. To shun or to denounce you because you
can not acquiesce in what we believe is inconsistent, not only with the
lessons of philosophy, but with his example to “bear witness to the
truth.”
What is your duty, with the natural sciences on the one hand, appealing
so largely to your reason, and the scriptures on the other hand,
appealing so constantly to your faith? Obviously, to depreciate
neither, but to welcome both the sciences and the scriptures, to
ascertain their harmony, to note their differences, and to accept
all the treasures of truth which they may bring. Indifference is
inexcusable as is excessive zeal, and apathy as antagonism.
The Bible, free to us as are the fields of science, challenges the
severest scrutiny. It is the boldest of books, and demands the
application of every test. As it is the most comprehensive history
in the world, and gives amplest scope for research; as its earliest
records are the oldest in existence, and its latest prophecies shed
light far into the future; as it touches depths and reaches heights
which no other book can approach; as it brings into closest connection
the visible and invisible, natural law and supernatural force, the
condition of man and the character of God, it is exposed to assaults
which no other book can bear.
Systematic and persistent study is required at your hand, that you
may estimate aright not only the facts and arguments brought against
the Bible, but those also which are adduced in its favor. The task
may be arduous, but this price is not too great for the settlement of
questions so momentous; and if the solution of some of them may have
to be for a season postponed, yours will be the satisfaction which the
conscientious improvement of every opportunity invariably fosters.
Different lines of investigation may be profitably followed, but we may
suggest the following as exhaustive, or nearly exhaustive, of the most
prominent questions which modern research has raised.
As the Bible is confessedly related to the natural sciences,
archæology, history, and modern civilization, let it be placed
successively in the midst of their facts, and let us see to what extent
its statements can bear their light.
There are many questions which none of us can honestly avoid; and while
some may remain unsettled, the unbiased review of those solutions which
have been already offered, and which have been generally accepted, will
be found to confirm scripture instead of confuting it.
1. As to science. Have astronomy and geology given evidence for or
against the eternity of the visible universe? Has biology determined
the origin of life? Whence it is? Have comparative anatomy and
physiology, psychology and ethics, established more than one origin for
the human race? Are the incidental allusions in scripture contradicted
or confirmed in natural science?
2. As to archæology. Can the Bible confront prehistoric revelations?
Antiquity is pouring over the oldest records, increasing light. Ruins,
monuments, inscriptions, parchments, have been emitting their wondrous
testimonies, parallel with scripture histories. Assyria, Egypt,
Palestine, Greece, Rome, in their histories, revolutions, and domestic
episodes, have all been interwoven with the statements of scripture as
with those of no other book. To what purpose has historic criticism
dealt with the sacred page? Is the Bible yielding or is it growing
brighter in the crucible of archæology?
3. As to modern history and civilization. By its claim to uplift and
bless the human race, the Bible is separated from all other books. It
proposes to revolutionize man’s moral history here, and to prepare him
for a future whose course it in part delineates. Has it failed, or is
it failing? Has it been enfeebled by the lapse of ages? Has it become
effete amid changes which have given intellect new instruments and
reason new spheres? Has it lost its former hold of the human mind, and
is it sinking amid the tumult of bitterly conflicting opinions? Has
ever tribe been found which it could not raise and enlighten? Or has
ever civilization outshone, in any land, its intellectual and moral
splendor?
4. As to the supernatural. If the Bible is the book which it professes
to be, and which we hold it is, the ordinary and the extraordinary,
the natural and the supernatural, must be associated in its character
and history. What is the warrant which men of science adduce for
repudiating the supernatural while they accept the natural? And by
what reason does the Christian apologist attempt to preserve their
connection? Is there no evidence around us in the contrasts of
barbarism and civilization, as well as in the histories of nations, in
their relation to prophecy? And are there no facts in the strangely
revolutionized lives of thousands in the Christian church, which
proclaim the singular moral force of the word of God?
[_October 14._]
Assuming that you are willing to follow such a course of study as
we have sketched, either to remove doubts which may be lingering in
your own mind, or to aid some brother in his struggle to win the
repose which you have gained, we shall, at the outset, offer some
suggestions as to the spirit and the method by which your work should
be characterized. It is of much importance to know, what is, and what
is not, within our reach.
1. Do not assume the possibility, in the present state of our
knowledge, of demonstrating a perfect agreement between science and
scripture, or rather between the inferences of the philosopher and
the interpretations of the theologian. Much remains to be ascertained
before that result can be realized. The natural sciences are
confessedly incomplete; some of them are only in their infancy, and
can teach us little. Many years may pass before they can be brought
into perfect accord with the Bible. As the facts of natural science
have not been all ascertained and classified, as its laws have not been
all recognized, and as the inferences of to-day may be modified by
the discoveries of to-morrow, it is absurd to be demanding immediate
evidence of a perfect agreement between science and scripture. Apparent
contradictions are, at the present stage unavoidable. There must first
be an exact and exhaustive examination of all those points at which the
scriptures and the sciences touch each other; for so long as a single
fact or a single law remains unknown, some important or essential
truth, intimately related to the Bible, may be concealed. While the
natural sciences continue incomplete, natural theology must necessarily
have an imperfect foundation. As confessedly dependent on what is
incomplete, natural theology can have neither the comprehensiveness
nor the definiteness which characterizes supernatural theology, as
dependent on what is now complete and unvarying. We can not force the
legitimate yet somewhat incoherent teachings of the one book—the works
of God—of which but a few leaves have been separated, scanned and
paged, into perfect harmony with the teachings of the other book, whose
revelation of truth has been finished, accredited, and closed.
2. Wait patiently, while you work persistently, for the solution of
difficulties which may be continuing to press upon you. The experience
of the past is an encouragement for the future. The sciences have
again and again become their own interpreter, and rejected erroneous
inferences. Many examples might be given, but one or two may in the
meantime suffice. Human skeletons were found in what seemed old
limestone, on the northeast coast of the mainland of Guadaloupe; and
after bold attacks on the Bible, which were met by some very weak and
irregular defenses, it was ascertained that the whole was a mistake,
that the limestone was of very recent formation, that the skeletons
were of well-known Indian tribes, and agitation ceased. A similar
commotion was raised when the supposed imprints of human feet on
limestone had been figured and described in the _American Journal of
Science_; and Christians met strange infidel hypotheses by feeble
assertions, until Dr. Dale Owen proved the imprints to have been
sculptured by an Indian tribe. Thereafter, for a season, the scientific
inquirer and the theological student prosecuted their respective
investigations in peace. There are important lessons for us in these,
and in many similar facts. Christian apologists have often egregiously
erred, not only in hastily accepting statements as to supposed facts,
but in admitting the validity of the reasoning which has been eagerly
founded on them, and in making a fruitless attempt to twist scripture
into harmony with what science itself has subsequently disowned. Facts
ill observed, and afterward misstated, have drawn many of our best
and most candid students into unnecessary collision with biblical
critics; and, after much heat in controversy, and the waste on both
sides of much intellectual energy, the obstacle lying between them has
unexpectedly vanished in the fuller light of science. The evil to be
deplored is, that after the errors have disappeared their influence
remains. The imprint often lingers after the counterfeit die has been
broken.
3. There is a constant tendency on the part of discoverers to invest
new facts with a fictitious interest, and those who are hostile to
the Bible eagerly parade them for the discomfiture of Christians.
Every fact is to be welcomed, but it is to be treasured up only that
it may be adjusted to other facts, and become in part the foundation
of a new truth. Isolated and unexplained facts have been too often
unceremoniously dragged in to give testimony against some scripture
statement, and have too easily been held sufficient to push aside
those accumulated evidences to its truth, which history, or science,
or both, had indisputably established. It is not, indeed, surprising
that the faith of many young men has failed, when they have observed
the too ready acquiescence of prominent Christian writers in theories
which necessitate the abandonment of some of the impregnable fortresses
which have been raised by exact scholarship around those portions of
scripture which had longest been exposed to the fiercest assaults. Were
this method common, no permanent foundation could be laid, and progress
in any science would be impossible. Is it not absurd to be displacing
cornerstones, and disowning, at random, first principles? No system
of philosophy, no science, not even mathematical, the exactest, and
in one sense the most permanent of all the sciences, could have any
weight or make the least progress if subjected to such changes in both
its principles and their applications, as have marked the history of
Bible assaults, concessions and defenses. When facts, which are utterly
inexplicable are presented, we should retain the fact in science and
also the relative statement in scripture, assured that in due time the
solution will come.
[_October 21._]
4. Neither accept nor offer apologies for the Bible. It has, of late,
become common on the part of those who are alarmed by the temporary
triumphs which scientific investigation has given to those who are
avowedly hostile to the Bible, to demand that its propositions be
altogether disassociated from both science and philosophy, on the plea
that the Bible was not given to teach either the one or the other.
The proposal is plausible, but it is really unnecessary, for although
not given to teach physical science, the Bible can not contradict
either its facts or its legitimate inferences. The word of God can not
be regarded as by any possibility contradicting the just lessons of
his works. Like every other book, the Bible must bear all the light
that can fall on its pages; and it must not only stand the tests of
criticism and history, but vindicate all its claims as the “more sure
word of prophecy.” Otherwise, appeals for leniency are profitless.
True, in its highest connections, the Bible is unapproachable by other
books; it is easily distinguishable from them all; yet in its human
relations it must submit to all the ordinary appliances of scholarship.
No apologies can justify a single error in either its science or its
history, and its propositions are obviously inadmissable if they
contradict human reason; they may be above, but they can not be opposed
to it.
5. Akin to an easy escape from difficulties, through apologies for the
Bible, is the tendency to glide into conclusions directly hostile.
The prevailing activity of the age is so unfavorable to leisurely
investigations as to facilitate the subtle advances of error. While
many writers of the present day are as preëminently gifted, and as
distinguished in the different departments of learning, as those of
any preceding age; and while their reasonings and their conclusions
are borne by the daily and the serial press to every man’s door,
multitudes think and decide by substitute. They want leisure, and trust
to others. Rapidity of locomotion, the chief physical feature of our
time, betokens also its intellectual tendencies. Men read cursorily and
decide rapidly. The daily newspaper is making book-study rarer than
hitherto. It is felt in ten thousand instances to be distasteful or
difficult. The subtle influence of the daily newspaper is telling on
our thoughtfulness. We really seem to be approaching the fulfillment
of Lamartine’s prediction, “Before this century shall have run out,
journalism will be the whole press, the whole of human thought. Thought
will not have had time to ripen, to accommodate itself into the form
of a book. The book will arrive too late; the only book possible soon,
will be a newspaper.”
As one result of this process, truth and error are often imperceptibly
mingled. So swift is the transition from one fact and inference to
another, that truth and error, like different colors blent into one
by rapid motion, become so much alike, that few can separate them.
Thus with every advance of truth, error is wafted forward. The seeds
of future tares and wheat are being profusely scattered. It can not
be denied, that while to almost every man’s door are daily wafted
accurate records of passing history, of the discoveries of science,
of the triumphs of art, and of the generalizations of philosophy, the
same messengers no less sedulously exhibit, now faintly and now in
the strongest light, every difficulty connected with the Bible, both
real and imaginary, the boldest objections of historic criticism,
the theories of speculative philosophy, the apparent contradictions
of science and scripture, and the saddening conflicts of professing
Christians. The constant diffusion of such influences does tell in the
long run, not only on less active minds, but on the most energetic, and
it renders easier of acceptance every erroneous conclusion.
But this incessant activity is a symptom of health. It augurs good.
Rightly directed, it may strengthen character while it develops mental
power, and gives a more exquisite appreciation of the just and true.
But remember that everything depends on this rightness of direction;
and to secure this, unfailing caution is required. The wind and tide
which, rightly used, would hasten the voyager to his harbor, may,
if unheeded, strand him on an unexpected shore; and those subtle
forces, and those under-currents, which should have aided in guiding
us to a satisfying intellectual and moral repose, may, through the
thoughtlessness or the indolence that at the outset disregarded
a slight divergence from the truth, almost but not altogether
imperceptible, destroy our happiness through the shipwreck and the
ultimate abandonment of our Christian faith.
6. Another common tendency in the wrong direction claims your
attention. It manifests itself in repugnance to controversy or
discussion in every form. Many shrink from it as unseemly, and
seek escape in either solitude or study. While peace is in itself
desirable, it is not always attainable. You cannot escape conflict
by letting go the Bible; nor can you traverse any fields of science
without entanglement in the intellectual struggles of disputants whose
reasonings have sometimes but little of the calmness of philosophy. Nor
is this to be regretted. The repose of meditation is not so bracing as
the discipline of occasional contest for the truth.
[_October 28._]
There are other advantages. The attrition of discussion often
reveals and beautifies truths which would otherwise have remained
unrecognized. Apathy or silence may shelter error without preserving
truth. Intellectual indolence, bad for the world, is still worse for
the Church. The highest life is demanded by the Bible, and, therefore,
also the greatest activity. From intellectual warfare, the sciences
and the scriptures have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.
On Christian or skeptic, on prophet true or false, the Bible never
enforces silence. It seals no thinker’s lip. “The prophet that hath a
dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak
my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”
In the field of thought, nothing save the chaff perishes. Lost truths
spring up again; and, beneath their spreading branches, vitiated
reasoning, unsound criticism, and erroneous conclusions, ultimately
decay as briers beneath the spreading oak.
There are those also who deplore discussion only because it raises
questions hostile to the scriptures, and alarms the weak. This anxiety,
though laudable, is fruitless. Vital questions are already discussed on
all hands, and in every variety of aspect. There are disadvantages, but
they are generally inseparable from the progress of truth.
It will be admitted on both sides, that while the extension of exact
knowledge contracts the sphere of superstition, it enlarges at the same
time the sphere of skepticism. Superstition may be displaced without
Christianity becoming its substitute; there may be a high and an
attractive civilization, based on science and its applications, which,
in acknowledging the intellectual and moral supremacy of the Bible, and
nothing more, may for a season destroy credulity, only to give fuller
scope to no-belief, and to evoke ultimately an opposition to the Bible
hitherto repressed or unknown. For such results we must be prepared;
they are collateral, not essential or direct. They are, in fact, the
price which we pay for our intellectual freedom. We are neither to
falter nor hesitate because the increasing light, which is dissipating
ignorance and extending the boundaries of truth, is at the same time
indirectly opening to error a wider field for the distribution of her
forces, revealing new weapons for her armory, and enabling her to seize
and for a season to retain, positions hitherto unknown and unassailed.
In the history of the physical sciences, and of archæological
discovery, error has often rushed to the battlements of truth, and,
seizing some detached or imaginary facts, has wielded them against the
Bible, until the sciences have themselves expelled her, and repudiated
her reasoning. Such agitation is not to be deplored; it conducts to
stability, it evokes more good than evil, and not unfrequently has it
happened that the superstition which long benumbed the Church, and the
infidelity which aroused her, have yielded to the unexpected sway of
some Bible truth, when a more definite meaning has been given to some
natural law or Providential dispensation.