{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19566/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19566","id":"gutenberg_19566","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19566","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics -- History -- 19th century","Atheism -- Controversial literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Pantheism","Rationalism -- Controversial literature","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Lisa Reigel, Michael\nZeug, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of\npublic domain works from the University of Michigan Digital\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Robert Patterson]\n\n\n\n\nFABLES OF INFIDELITY\n\nAND\n\nFACTS OF FAITH:\n\nBEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCES OF INFIDELITY.\n\n\nBY\n\nREV. ROBERT PATTERSON, D. D.\n\n\nREVISED AND ENLARGED.\n\n\nCINCINNATI:\nWESTERN TRACT SOCIETY.\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by\n\nWESTERN TRACT SOCIETY,\n\nIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C.\n\n\nStereotyped by\nOGDEN, CAMPBELL & CO.,\n176 Elm St., Cincinnati.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n                                             PAGE.\n  Did the World Make Itself?                     7\n\nEternity of Matter.\nDisproved by its Composite Nature.\nDisproved by its Motion.\nEvolution only a big Perpetual Motion Humbug.\nWork of a Designer in the structure of the Eye.\nThe Eye-Maker sees over a wide Field and far.\nThe Eye-Maker sees Perfectly.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n  Was Your Mother a Monkey?                     34\n\nThe Divine Fact of Evolution Quite Different from the Atheistic Theory.\nState the Question Sharply--Why?\nDarwin's Answer.\nThe Ancestral Monkey, Fish, Squirt.\nNatural Selection.\nIntended to Exclude God.\n\n1. _The History of the Theory._\n\nIndian; Phoenician; Greek; Popish; La Place's Theory; The Vestiges of\n    Creation.\nHerbert Spencer's Contradictory Theory.\nThe Evolutionists' Hell.\nSpontaneous Generation--two Theories; the Conflicting Theories of\n    Progress; Tremaux; Lamarck; the Climatal; Darwin's; Huxley's;\n    Parson's; Mivart's; Hyatt's; Cope's; Wallace's; the Gods; Denounced\n    by the Princes of Science.\nAgassiz's Deliverance Against it.\nImperfection of the Theory Eked out.\nHuxley's Protoplasm.\nTyndall's Potency of Life in Matter.\nBuchner's Matter and Force.\nLubbock's Origin of Civilization.\nConsequences of the Brutal Origin of Man.\nPropagandism of Atheism.\n\n2. _The Theory Illogical and Incoherent._\n\nDarwin Admits Insufficiency of Proof.\nUseless as an Explanation of Nature.\nSelf-Contradictory; _e. g._, Protoplasm.\nWallace's Self-Contradictions.\nIncoherency of the Denial of Design with the Assertion of Progress.\nFailure of Alleged Facts to Sustain the Theory.\nDoes not Account for the Origin of Anything.\nWild Assumptions Made by Darwin.\nErroneous Assumption of the Tendency of Natural Selection to Improve\n    Breeds.\nAssumption of Infinite Possibility of Progress in Finite Creatures.\n\n3. _An Unfounded Theory._\n\nNo Evidence of the Facts Possible.\nNone Ever Alleged, save Gulliver's.\nDomestication Disproves Transmutation--Horses; Pigeons; Dogs.\nThe Egyptian Monuments.\nThe Mummied Animals.\nThe Geological Record.\nThe Limits of Geological Time.\n\n4. _Embryology._\n\nTestimony of Scientists:\n    1. Embryology Only Analogical.\n    2. Embryos _not_ all Alike.\n    3. Four Distinct Plans of Structure.\n    4. Germs Always True to the Breed.\n\n5. _Gradations of Species._\n\nLamarck's Statement.\nBirth Descent not Inferable from Gradation.\nNo such Imperceptible Blending in Nature.\nThe Fact of the Present Existence of Distinct Species.\nSterility of Hybrids.\nGeological Species Distinct.\nThe Intermediate Forms not Found.\nThe Gradation Does not Begin with the Lowest Forms.\nFour Kingdoms from the Beginning.\nThe New Species Began with the Giants.\nThe Gaps Fatal to the Theory.\nThe Abyss Between Death and Life.\nThe Gulf Between the Plant and the Animal.\nThe Gaps Between Species Which will not Breed Together.\nThe Gaps Between Air Breathers and Water Breathers, &c.\nThe Great Gulf Between the Brute and the Man.\nNatural Selection Could not Have Deprived a Monkey of Hair.\nNor Have Given a Human Brain.\nThe Brain-Worker Contravenes Natural Selection at Every Step.\nCivilization the Contradiction of Natural Selection.\nMorality and Religion the Direct Contraries of Natural Selection.\nTendency Immoral, Degrading, and Atheistic.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n  Is God Everybody, and Everybody God?          91\n\nPantheism Described.\nAn Antiquated Hindooism.\nA Jesuitical Atheism.\nGrossly Immoral.\nA Practical Atheism.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n  Have We Any Need of the Bible?               112\n\nCivilization and the Bible.\nRevelation Not Impossible.\nThe Mythical Theory.\nThe Inner Light.\nMany Ignorant of God.\nHeathen Morality--Plato's.\nInfidel Morality--Paine's.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n  Who Wrote the New Testament?                 147\n\nThe Bible Not Just Like Any Other Book.\nTwo Modes of Investigation.\nDid the Council of Nice Make the Bible?\nThe Mythical Theory.\nThe Evidence of Celsus.\nThe Fragment Hypothesis.\nThe Bank Signature Book.\nCould the New Testament be Corrupted?\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n  Is the Gospel Fact or Fable?                 169\n\nThe Nature of Historical Evidence; Letters; Monuments.\nContemporary Letters of Peter, Pliny and John.\nProve the Existence of Churches.\nAnd Their Worship, Holiness, and Sufferings.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n  Can We Believe Christ and His Apostles?      190\n\nThe Gospel a Unit; Must Take or Refuse it All.\nApostles' Testimony Circumstantial.\nWitnesses Numerous and Independent.\nConfirm Their Testimony with Their Blood.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n  Prophecy,                                    210\n\nPolitical--Napoleon's--Wrong.\nPresidential Candidates.\nDraper's Dogma of Youth and Decrepitude of Nations.\nStatesmen Prophets.\nGeneral Claim for All Genius.\nInstances of Secular Prediction:\n    Cayotte's of the French Revolution.\n    The Oracles of Apollo.\n    Vettius Valens' Twelve Vultures.\n    Spencer's of the Disruption of the American Union.\n    Saint Malachi's Prophecies.\n    Mohammed's Prophecies.\n    Seneca's of the Discovery of America.\n    Dante's of the Reformation.\n    Plato's of Shakespeare.\nSymbolical Language of Prophecy.\nAnybody may Predict Downfall of Nations.\nAn Awful Truth if it be True.\nBut Bible Predictions Circumstantial--Egypt; Babylon; Nineveh; Judea.\nPredict Life and Resurrection.\nThe Arabs; Jews; Seven Churches; Messiah.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n  Moses and the Prophets,                      266\n\nGod the Author of the Bible.\nEvery Other Book Inspired?\nConnection of Bible History and Morality.\nHume's Sophism. Miracles Being Violations of Laws of Nature, Contrary to\n    an Unalterable Experience.\nNo Testimony can Reach to the Supernatural.\nRecords of Facts Not Judged by Your Notions.\nRationalistic Explanation of the Miracles.\nBible Account of Creation Unscientific.\nAntiquity of Man.\nThe Anachronisms of the Pentateuch.\nBishop Colenso's Blunders:\n    The Universality of the Deluge.\n    Joshua Causing the Sun to Stand Still.\n    Cain's Wife.\n    Increase of Jacob's Family in Egypt.\n    The Number of the First-Born.\n    The Fourth Generation.\n    The Bishop's Blunders in Camp Life.\n    Sterility of the Wilderness.\n    Population of the Promised Land.\nModern Discoveries in Bible Lands.\nEgyptian Monuments of Joseph.\nAssyrian Ethnology and Genesis, Chaps. x. and xi.\nSennacherib's Conquest of Palestine.\nBelshazzar's Kingship.\nThe Moabitic Inscriptions, and Omri and Ahab.\nThe Samaritan Pentateuch.\nThe Character of the Books--Austere.\nVariety of Writers and Unity of Plan.\nContained the Surveys, and the Laws of the Nation.\nIntroduced New and Republican Usages.\nMoses' Law in Advance of Modern Social Science.\nTestimony of the Jewish Nation.\nTestimony of Christ.\nThe Lost Books.\nThe Law Abolished by the Gospel.\nThe Imperfect Morality of Old Testament.\nPolygamy, Slavery, and Divorce.\nThe Education of the World a Gradual Process.\nThe Imprecations of Scripture.\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n  Infidelity Among the Stars,                  335\n\nScientific Objections to the Bible.\nThe Infinity and Self-Existence of the Universe.\nDisproved by\n    Its Evident Limits.\n    Its Composite Materials.\n    Its Steady Loss of Heat.\nBuffon's Explosion of Planets.\nThe Nebular Theories.\nThe Fiction of Homogeneous Matter.\nThe Contradictory Theories.\nThe Perpetual Motion Machine.\nContrary to Facts of Astronomy.\nContradicted by Astronomers.\nImpossibility of any Cosmogony.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n  Daylight Before Sunrise,                     378\n\nInfidel Objections to Genesis.\nThe Hindoo Chronology.\nThe Egyptian Chronology.\nThe Bible Age of the Earth.\nThe Solid Firmament.\nLight Before the Sun.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n  Telescopic Views of Scripture,               423\n\nThe Source of the Water of the Deluge.\nThe Stars Fighting Against Sisera.\nThe Astronomers of the Great Pyramid.\nThe Grand Motion of the Sun.\nThe Formation of Dew.\nThe Multitude of the Stars.\nThe Descent of the Heavenly City.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n  Science or Faith?                            466\n\nMust Faith Fade Before Science?\nScientists as Partial as Other People.\nHave no Such Certainty as is Claimed.\n\n1. _Mathematical Errors._\n\nThe Infinite Half Inch, Etc.\nThe Doctrine of Chances.\nNo Mathematical Figures in Nature.\nThe French Metric System.\nThe Lowell Turbine Wheel.\n\n2. _Errors of Astronomy._\n\nKant's Predictions; Le Verrier's.\nHerschel's Enumeration of Errors.\nSun's Distance; Other Measurements.\nThe Moon's Structure and Influence.\nLa Place's Proposed Improvement.\nThe Sun's Structure, Heat, Etc.\nThe Sizes, Distances, and Densities of the Planets.\nErrors About the Nebulae.\nErrors About Comets.\nThe Cosmical Ether.\nThe Cold of Infinite Space.\nFrom This Chaos Springs the Theory of Development.\n\n3. _Errors of Geology._\n\nNo _Fact_ of Geology Anti-Biblical.\nAll Anti-Biblical Theories Based on an _If_.\nNo Geological Measure of _Time_.\nAll Calculations of Time by Geologists, which Have Been Tested, Have\n    Proved Erroneous--the Danish Bogs; the Swiss Lake Villager; Horner's\n    Nile Pottery; the Raised Beaches of Scotland; Lyell's Blunder in the\n    Delta of the Mississippi; Sir Wm. Thompson's Exposure of the\n    Absurdity of the Evolutionists' Demands for Time.\nConflicting Geological Theories--the Wernerian, Huttonian, and Diluvian\n    Theories; the Catastrophists and Progressionists; Eleven Theories of\n    Earthquakes; Nine Theories of Mountains; False Geology of America;\n    Scotland Kicked About Too.\n\n4. _Errors of Zoology._\n\nLamarck's Vestiges; Tremaux; Darwin's Contradictions; Huxley; Mivart,\n    and Wallace.\nBlunders of the French Academy, Denouncing Quinine, Vaccination,\n    Lightning Rods, and Steam Engines.\nUncertainty of Science Increases in Human Concerns.\nSecond-hand Science Founded on Somebody's Say So.\n\n5. _All Science Founded on Faith._\n\nReason Also Based on Faith.\nThis Life Depends on Faith.\nWe Demand Truths of which Science is Ignorant.\nAll Our Chief Concerns in the Domain of Faith.\nReligion the Most Experimental of the Sciences.\nThe Only Science which can Make You Happy.\nTry for Yourself.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis is not so much a volume upon the Evidences of Christianity, as an\nexamination of the Evidences of Infidelity. When the Infidel tells us\nthat Christianity is false, and asks us to reject it, he is bound of\ncourse to provide us with something better and truer instead; under\npenalty of being considered a knave trying to swindle us out of our\nbirthright, and laughed at as a fool, for imagining that he could\npersuade mankind to live and die without religion. Suppose he had proved\nto the world's satisfaction that all religion is a hoax, and all men\nprofessing it are liars, how does that comfort me in my hour of sorrow?\nScoffing will not sustain a man in his solitude, when he has nobody to\nscoff at; and disbelief is only a bottomless tub, which will not float\nme across the dark river. If Infidels intend to convert the world, they\nmust give us some positive system of truth which we can believe, and\nvenerate, and trust.\n\nA glimmering idea of this necessity seems lately to have dawned upon\nsome of them. It is quite possible that they have also felt the want of\nsomething for their own souls to believe; for an Infidel has a soul, a\npoor, hungry, starved soul, just like other men. At any rate, having\ngrown tired of pelting the Church with the dirtballs of Voltaire and\nPaine, they begin to acknowledge that it is, after all, an institution;\nand that the Bible is an influential book, both popular and useful in\nits way. Mankind, it seems, will have a Church and a Bible of some sort;\nwhy not go to work and make a Church and a Bible of their own?\nAccordingly they have gone to work, and in a very short time have\nprepared a variety of ungodly religions, so various that the\nworldly-minded man who can not be suited with one to his taste must be\nvery hard to please. Discordant and contradictory in their positive\nstatements, they are agreed only in negatives; denying the God of the\nBible, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come. Nevertheless\neach discoverer or constructor presents his system to the world with\ngreat confidence, large claims to superior benevolence, vast pretensions\nto learning and science, and no little cant about duty and piety.\nWonderful to tell, some of them are very fond of clothing their\nungodliness in the language of Scripture.\n\nNo pains are spared to secure the wide spread of these notions.\nProminent Infidels are invited to deliver courses of scientific\nlectures, in which the science is made the medium of conveying the\nInfidelity. Scientific books, novels, magazines, daily newspapers, and\ncommon school books, are all enlisted in the work. The disciples of\nInfidelity are numerous and zealous. It would be hard to find a factory,\nboarding-house, steamboat or hotel where twelve persons are employed,\nwithout an Infidel; and harder still to find an Infidel who will not use\nhis influence to poison his associates.\n\nThese systems are well adapted to the depraved tastes of the age. The\nbusiness man, whose whole soul is set on money-making and spending, is\nright glad to meet the Secularist, who will prove to him on scientific\nprinciples, that a man is much profited by gaining the whole world, even\nat the risk of his soul, if he has such a thing. The young and\nill-instructed professor of Christianity, whose longings for forbidden\njoys are strong, has a natural kindliness toward nationalism, which\nbefogs the serene light of God's holy law, and gives the directing power\nto his own inner liking. The sentimental young lady, who would recoil\nfrom the grossness of the Deist, is attracted by the poetry of\nPantheism. Infidelity has had, in consequence, a degree of success very\nlittle suspected by simple-minded pastors and parents, and which is\noften discovered too late for remedy.\n\nThis book is written to expose the _folly_ of some of these novel\nsystems of Infidelity--leaving others to show their wickedness. It may\nsurprise some who would glory in being esteemed fiends, to learn that\nthey are only fools. If they should be awakened now to a sense of the\nabsurdities which they cherish as philosophy, it might save them from\nawaking another day to the shame and everlasting contempt of the\nuniverse.\n\nI have not taken up all the cavils of Infidelity. Their name is Legion.\nNor have I troubled my readers with any which they are not likely to\nhear. Leaving the sleeping dogs to lie, I have noticed only such as I\nhave known to bark and bite in my own neighborhood, and know to be rife\nhere in the West. They are stated, as nearly as possible, in the words\nin which I have heard them in public debate, or in private conversation\nwith gentlemen of Infidel principles. I have made no references to\nbooks or writers on that side, save to such as I am assured were the\nsources of their sentiments. In such cases I have named and quoted the\nauthors. Where no such quotations are noticed it will be understood that\nI am responsible for the fairness with which I have represented the\nopinions which are examined. It is not my design to fight men of straw.\n\nEvery historical or scientific fact adduced in support of the arguments\nhere used is confirmed by reference to the proper authority. But it has\nnot been deemed needful to crowd the pages with references to the works\nof Christian apologists. The Christian scholar does not need such\nreferences; while to those for whose benefit I write, their names carry\nno authority, and their arguments are generally quite unknown. One great\nobject of my labor will be gained if I shall succeed in awaking the\nspirit of inquiry among my readers, to such an extent as to load them to\na prayerful and patient perusal of several of the works named on the\nnext page. They have heard only one side of the question, and will be\nsurprised at their own ignorance of matters which they ought to have\nknown.\n\nBooks on the Evidences are not generally circulated. Ministers perhaps\nhave some volumes in their libraries; but in a hundred houses, it would\nbe hard to find half a dozen containing as many as would give an\ninquiring youth a fair view of the historical evidences of the truth of\nthe gospel. Nor, where they are to be found, are they generally read.\nBeing deemed heavy reading, the magazine, or the newspaper is preferred.\nMinisters do not in general devote enough of their time to such sound\nteaching as will stop the mouths of gainsayers. I have been assured by\nskeptical gentlemen, who in the early part of their lives had attended\nchurch regularly for twenty-two years, that during all that time they\nhad never heard a single discourse on the Evidences. Moreover, the\nprotean forms of Infidelity are so various, and many of its present\npositions so novel, that books or discourses prepared only twenty years\nago miss the mark; and rather expose to the charge of misrepresentation,\nthan produce conviction. New books on Infidelity are needed for every\ngeneration.\n\nThe lectures expanded into this volume were delivered in Cincinnati, in\n1858. Replying to different, and discordant systems of error, whose only\nbond is opposition to the gospel, they are necessarily somewhat\ndisconnected. No attempt was made to mold them into a suit of royal\narmor, but merely to select a few smooth pebbles from the brook of\ntruth, which any Christian lad might sling at the giant defiers of the\narmies of the living God. Having proved acceptable for this purpose, and\na steadily increasing demand for repeated editions wearing out the\noriginal plates, the author has been requested by British and American\npublishers to revise the work in the light of the recent discoveries of\nscience. This he has attempted; with what success the reader will judge.\nConscious of its many defects, yet grateful to God for the good which he\nhas done to many souls by its instrumentality, the author again commends\nthe book to the Father of Lights, praying him to use it as a mirror to\nflash such a ray of light into many dark souls as may lead them into the\nlight of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.\n\nSAN FRANCISCO, March 30, 1875.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe author having been repeatedly asked by inquirers for the names of\nbooks on the Evidences of Christianity, subjoins a list of those easily\naccessible in the West. It is not supposed that any one inquirer will\nread all these; but it is well to read more than one, since the evidence\nis cumulative, and it is impossible for any writer to present the whole.\nHaving a list of several works, the inquirer who can not obtain one may\nbe able to procure another. There are many other works on the Evidences\non the shelves of all our principal booksellers.\n\n_Modern Atheism_, by James Buchanan, LL. D.\n\n_Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation_, by James McCosh, LL. D.,\nand George Dickie, M. D.\n\n_Religion and Geology_, Edward Hitchcock, LL. D.\n\n_The Architecture of the Heavens_, J. P. Nichol, LL. D.\n\n_The Christian Philosopher_, Thomas Dick, LL. D.\n\n_Natural Theology_, William Paley, D. D.\n\n_The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and\nCourse of Nature_, Joseph Butler, D. C. L.\n\n_The Bridgewater Treatises_, Whewell, Chalmers, Kidd, &c.\n\n_The Comprehensive Commentary_, William Jenks, D. D.\n\n_The Cause and Cure of Infidelity_, Rev. David Nelson.\n\n_A View of the Evidences of Christianity_, William Paley, D. D.\n\n_The Eclipse of Faith_, ascribed to Henry Rogers.\n\n_The Restoration of Belief_, ascribed to Isaac Taylor.\n\n_Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity_, University of Virginia.\n\n_The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testaments Asserted_, J.\nLeland, D. D.\n\n_The Bible Commentary._\n\n_An Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Letters to Thomas Paine_, R.\nWatson.\n\n_A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion_, S. Jenyns.\n\n_A Letter to G. West, Esq., on the Conversion of St. Paul_, Lord\nLyttleton.\n\n_Observations on the History and Evidence of the Resurrection of\nJesus Christ_, Gilbert West, Esq.\n\n_Difficulties of Infidelity_, Faber.\n\n_Dissertations on the Prophecies_, Thos. Newton, D. D.\n\n_An Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures_, T. H. Horne,\nVol. I.\n\n_The Evidences of Christianity_, Charles Petit McIlvaine, D. D.\n\n_Rawlinson's Historical Evidences._\n\n_Modern Skepticism_, by Joseph Barker.\n\n_Haley's Discrepancies of the Bible_, W. G. Holmes, Chicago.\n\n_The Superhuman Origin of the Bible_, Rogers.\n\n_Christianity and Positivism_, McCosh.\n\n_The Supernatural in Relation to the Natural_, McCosh.\n\n_Aids to Faith_, Appleton & Co.\n\n_Modern Skepticism_, Randolph & Son.\n\n_Modern Doubt_, Christlieb.\n\n_Alexander's Evidences of Christianity._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nDID THE WORLD MAKE ITSELF?\n\n     _Understand, ye brutish among the people;\n     And, ye fools, when will ye be wise?\n     He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?\n     He that formed the eye, shall he not see?\n     He that chastiseth the heathen, shall he be not correct?\n     He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?_--PSALM xciv. 8, 9.\n\n\nHas the Creator of the world common sense? Did he know what he was about\nin making it? Had he any object in view in forming it? Does he know what\nis going on in it? Does he care whether it answers any purpose or not?\nStrange questions you will say; yet we need to ask a stranger\nquestion: Had the world a Creator, or did it make itself? There are\npersons who say it did, and who declare that the Bible sets out with a\nlie when it says, that \"In the beginning God created the heavens and the\nearth.\" Whereas, say they, \"We know that matter is eternal, and the\nworld is wholly composed of matter; therefore, the heavens and the earth\nare eternal, never had a beginning nor a Creator.\"\n\nBut, however fully the atheist may know that matter is eternal, we do\nnot know any such thing, and must be allowed to ask, How do _you_ know?\nAs you are not eternal, we can not take it on your word.\n\nThe only reason which anybody ever ventured for this amazing assertion\nis this, that \"all philosophers agree that matter is naturally\nindestructible by any human power. You may boil water into steam, but it\nis all there in the steam; or burn coal into gas, ashes, and tar, but it\nis all in the gas, ashes, and tar; you may change the outward form as\nmuch as you please, but you can not destroy the substance of anything.\nWherefore, as matter is indestructible, it must be eternal.\"\n\nProfound reasoning! Here is a brick fresh from the kiln. It will last\nfor a thousand years to come; therefore, it has existed for a thousand\nyears past!\n\nThe foundation of the argument is as rotten as the superstructure. It is\nnot agreed among all philosophers that matter is naturally\nindestructible, for the very satisfactory reason that none of them can\ntell what matter in its own nature is. All that they can undertake to\nsay is, that they have observed certain properties of matter, and, among\nthese, that \"it is indestructible by any operation to which it can be\nsubjected in the ordinary course of circumstances observed at the\nsurface of the globe.\"[1] The very utmost which any man can assert in\nthis matter is a negative, a want of knowledge, or a want of power. He\ncan say, \"Human power can not destroy matter;\" and, if he pleases, he\nmay reason thence that human power did not create it. But to assert that\nmatter is eternal because man can not destroy it, is as if a child\nshould try to beat the cylinder of a steam engine to pieces, and,\nfailing in the attempt, should say, \"I am sure this cylinder existed\nfrom eternity, because I am unable to destroy it.\"\n\nBut not only is the assertion of the eternity of matter unproven, and\nimpossible to be proved, it is capable of the most demonstrable\nrefutation, by one of the recent discoveries of science. The principle\nof the argument is so plain that a child of four years old can\nunderstand it. It is simply this, that all substances in heaven and\nearth are compounded of several elements; but no compound can be\neternal.\n\nWe say to our would-be philosophers, When you tell us that matter is\neternal, how does that account for the formation of this world? What is\nthis matter you speak of? This world consists not of a philosophical\nabstraction called matter, nor yet of one substance known by that name,\nbut of a great variety of material substances, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon,\nsulphur, iron, aluminum, and some fifty others already discovered.[2]\nNow, which of these is the eterna-matter you speak of? Is it iron, or\nsulphur, or clay, or oxygen? If it is any one of them, where did the\nothers come from? Did a mass of iron, becoming discontented with its\ngravity, suddenly metamorphose itself into a cloud of gas, or into a\npail of water? Or are they all eternal? Have we fifty-seven eternal\nbeings? Are they all eternal in their present combinations? or is it\nonly the single elements that are eternal? You see that your\nhypothesis--that matter is eternal--gives me no light on the formation\nof this world, which is not a shapeless mass of a philosophical\nabstraction called matter, but a regular and beautiful building,\ncomposed of a great variety of matters. Was it so from eternity? No man\nwho was ever in a quarry, or a gravel pit, will say so, much less one\nwho has the least smattering of chemistry or geology. Do you assert the\neternity of the fifty-seven single substances, either separate or\ncombined in some other way than we now find them in the rocks, and\nrivers, and atmosphere of the earth? Then how came they to get together\nat all, and particularly how did they put themselves in their present\nshapes?\n\nEach of them is a piece of matter of which _inertia_ is a primary and\ninseparable property. Matter _of itself_ can not begin to move, or\nassume a quiescent state after being put in motion.\n\nWill you tell us that the fifty-seven primary elements danced about till\nthe air, and sea, and earth, somehow jumbled themselves together into\nthe present shape of this glorious and beautiful world, with all its\nregularity of day and night, and summer and winter, with all its\nbeautiful flowers and lofty trees, with all its variety of birds, and\nbeasts, and fishes? To bring the matter down to the level of the\nintellect of the most stupid pantheist, tell us in plain English, _Did\nthe paving stones make themselves?_ For the paving stones are _made_ out\nof a dozen different chemical constituents, and each one is built up\nmore ingeniously than the house you live in. _Now, did the paving stones\nmake themselves?_\n\nNo conviction of the human mind is more certain than the belief that\nevery combination of matter proves the existence of a combiner, that\nevery house has had a builder, and that every machine has had a maker.\nNo matter how simple the combination, if it be only two laths fastened\ntogether by a nail, or two bricks cemented with mortar, or the sole of\nan old pegged boot, all the atheists in the world could not convince you\nthat those two laths, or those two bricks, or those two bits of leather\nexisted in such a combination from all eternity. If any wise philosopher\ntried to persuade you that for anything you could tell they might have\nbeen always so, you would reply, \"No, sir! You can't cram such stuff\ndown my throat. Even a child's common sense shows him that those two\nlaths were not always so nailed together; that those two bricks were not\nalways so placed, one on the top of the other; and that those two pieces\nof old sole leather were not always pegged together in the sole of a\nboot.\" There is no conviction more irresistible than our belief that\n_no compound can possibly be eternal_.\n\nBut the universe is the greatest of all compounds. Everything in it is\ncompound. Chemists speak of simple substances, or elements of matter,\nand it is well enough to separate the elements of things in our\nthoughts, for the sake of distinct consideration, and to speak of the\nproperties of pure oxygen, or of pure hydrogen, or of pure carbon, or of\npure gold, or of pure iron, or of pure silver. But then we should always\nremember that there is nothing pure in the world, that there is no such\nthing in nature as any substance consisting only of a single element,\npure and uncombined with others. Just as your gold eagle is not pure\ngold, but alloyed with copper, everything in nature is alloyed.\nEverything in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, and in the\nwaters under the earth, is compound. The air you breathe, simple as it\nseems, is composed of three gases, and is besides full of what Huxley\ncalls \"a stirabout\" of millions of seeds of animalculae and motes of dust\nvisible in the sunbeam. That hydrant water you are about to swallow is a\nrich aquarium full of all manner of monsters, which the oxy-hydrogen\nmicroscope will exhibit to your terrified gaze, devouring each other\nalive. Should you get rid of them by evaporating your water, your\nchemist will tell you that still your pure water must be a compound of\noxygen and hydrogen. There is no help for it.\n\nMany years ago some astronomers fancied they had found clouds, or\nnebulae, of gas, quite simple and uncompounded with anything else, a\ngreat many millions of miles away in the sky. They were so very far away\nthat they thought nobody would ever be able to fly so far to bottle up a\nspecimen of that gas and bring it back here to earth and analyze it, to\nfind out whether it was pure and simple, or compound. So they felt quite\nsafe in affirming that there was the genuine, simple, homogeneous gas,\nin the nebulae, with which Almighty God had nothing whatever to do, but\nwhich had first made itself and then had condensed into our present\nworld. But unfortunately for this brilliant discovery the spectroscope\nopened windows into the nebulae, and showed very plainly that they were\non fire; and fire is a compound; it can not burn without fuel and\nsomething to support the combustion; so that settled the alleged\nsimplicity of the nebulae. It is now demonstrated, therefore, that every\nknown substance existing in nature is a compound, and therefore can not\nbe eternal. And the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. No\nnumber of finite existences can be eternal. The universe, then, can not\nbe eternal.\n\nSuppose, however, that, for the sake of argument, we should grant our\natheistic world-builder his materials, away off beyond the rings of\nSaturn, or the orbit of Uranus (since he seems to like to have his\nquarries a good way off from his building), would he be any nearer the\ncompletion of his world-making? As Cornwallis declared that the conquest\nof India resolved itself ultimately into a question of bullocks, the\nprime consideration in the construction of the world, after you have got\nyour materials, is that of transportation. When one beholds the three\ngreat stones in the temple of Baalbec, each weighing eleven hundred\ntons, built into the wall twenty feet high, and a fourth in the quarry,\na mile away, nearly ready for removal, he asks, \"How did the builders\nmove those immense stones, and raise them to their places?\" And when we\nbehold the quarry out of which these stones were taken, and all the\nother quarries of the world, and all the everlasting mountains, and the\nwhole of this solid earth, and boundless sea, brought, as our theorists\naffirm, from far beyond the orbit of the most distant planet, we raise\nthe question of transportation, and demand some account of the wagon and\nteam which hauled them to their places. We can not get rid of the\nnecessity for transportation by evaporating the building stones into\ngas, for a world of gas weighs just as many tons as the world made out\nof it. Before we can make a world we must have _power_; but we can never\nget power out of the world to build itself. The atheists' world is only\na great machine. The first law of mechanics is that action and reaction\nare equal; consequently machinery can never create power. You will never\nlift yourself by pulling at your boot-straps; much less can a machine\nlift and carry itself.\n\nIt is no matter how big you make the wheels of your machine, as big as\nthe orbits of the planets if you like, still it is only a machine,\nunless it has a mind in it; and your big machine can no more create\npower than a little machine as small as a lady's watch. Nor does it make\nthe least difference in respect to making power, of what materials your\nperpetual motion peddler makes his machine--whether of a skein of silk\non a reel in a bottle, or of steel and zinc electro magnets running upon\ndiamond points, or whether he melts up his steel, and zinc, and diamonds\ninto red hot fire mist; it is still only a machine, made of these\nmaterials, as destitute of power as the smaller machines made out of it.\nThe atheists' universe is only a big machine, and no machine can create\npower, no more than a paving stone.\n\nIt has been, however, proposed to manufacture power by the law of\ngravitation, according to which all bodies attract each other, directly\nin proportion to their mass, and inversely as the square of their\ndistances. This law appears to prevail as far as our observation extends\nthrough space; and our world builders affirm that it must have operated\neternally, and that not only were the separate parts of our earth thus\ndrawn together, but that all the orbs of heaven were caused to revolve\nunder its influence.\n\nSuppose, however, we grant that matter was eternal, and the force of\ngravitation eternally operating upon it, would that sufficiently account\nfor the building up of even our own little planetary system? By no\nmeans.\n\nThe unresisted force of gravitation would, in far less than an eternity,\ndraw all things together toward the center of gravity of the universe.\nWe should not have separate stars, and suns, and planets, and moons,\nrevolving in orderly orbits, but one vast mass of matter, in which all\nmotion had long since ceased. There must be some power of resistance to\ngravitation, and nicely balanced against it, a centrifugal force--no\nmatter whether you call it heat, light, or electricity, or by any other\nname--from which balance of power the movements of the universe are\nregulated. But here again we arrive at the same conclusion from the\nbalance of power to which we were before driven by the combination of\nmatter--regulated power proclaims a regulator, a governor. Power\nbelongeth unto God.\n\nIn world-building we need not only a quarry of materials, and power for\ntransportation, but a head to plan their arrangement. For, as ten\nthousand loads of brick and stone dumped down higgledy piggledy will not\nbuild a house, neither will ten thousand millions of materials poured\ninto a chaos make a world like this earth, arranged in order and beauty.\nIt is grossly absurd to imagine that the inanimate materials of the\nearth arranged themselves in their present orderly structure.\n\nAbsurd as it seems to every man of common sense, there are persons\nclaiming to be philosophers who not only assert that they did, but will\ntell you how they did it. One class of them think they have found it out\nby supposing every thing in the universe reduced to very fine powder,\nconsisting of very small grains, which they call atoms; or, if that is\nnot fine enough, into gas, of which it is supposed the particles are too\nfine to be perceived; and then by different arrangements of these atoms,\naccording to the laws of attraction and electricity, the various\nelements of the world were made, and arranged in its present form.\n\nSuppose we grant this gassy supposition, that the world millions of ages\nago existed as a cloud of atoms, does that bring us any nearer the\nobject of getting rid of a Creator than before? The atoms must be\nmaterial, if a material world is to be made from them; and so they must\nbe extended; each one of them must have length, breadth and thickness.\nThe atheist, then, has only multiplied his difficulties a million times,\nby pounding up the world into atoms, which are only little bits of the\npaving stones he intends to make out of them. Each bit of the paving\nstone, no matter how small you break it, remains just as incapable of\nmaking itself, or moving itself, as was the whole stone composed of all\nthese bits. So we are landed back again at the sublime question, _Did\nthe paving stones make themselves, and move themselves?_\n\nOthers will tell you that millions of years ago the world existed as a\nvast cloud of fire mist, which, after a long time, cooled down into\ngranite, and the granite, by dint of earthquakes, got broken up on the\nsurface, and washed with rain into clay and soil, whence plants sprang\nup of their own accord, and the plants gradually grew into animals of\nvarious kinds, and some of the animals grew into monkeys, and finally\nthe monkeys into men. The fire mist they stoutly affirm to have existed\nfrom eternity. They do not allege that they remember that (and yet as\nthey themselves are, as they say, composed body and soul of this eternal\nfire mist, they ought to remember), but only that there are certain\ncomets which occasionally come within fifty or sixty millions of miles\nof this earth, which they suppose may be composed of the fire mist which\nthey _suppose_ this world is made of. A solid basis, truly, on which to\nbuild a world! A cloud in the sky, fifty million of miles away, may\npossibly be fire mist, may possibly cool down and condense into a solid\nglobe; therefore, this fire mist is eternal, and had no need of a\nCreator; and our world, and all other worlds, may possibly have been\nlike it; therefore, they also were never created by Almighty God. Such\nis the atheist's ground of faith. The thinnest vapor or the merest\nsupposition will suffice to risk his eternal salvation upon; provided\nonly it contradicts the Bible and gets rid of God. We can not avoid\nasking with as much gravity as we can command, Where did the mist come\nfrom? Did the mist make itself? Where did the fire come from? Did it\nkindle of its own accord? Who put the fire and mist together? Was it red\nhot enough from all eternity to melt granite? Then why is it any cooler\nnow? How could an eternal red heat cool down? If it existed as a red hot\nfire mist from eternity, until our atheist began to observe it beginning\nto cool, why should it ever begin to cool at all, and why begin to cool\njust then? Fill it as full of electricity, magnetism and odyle as you\nplease; do these afford any _reason_ for its very extraordinary conduct?\nThe utmost they do is to show you _how_ such a change took place, but\nthey neither tell you _where the original matter came from_, nor _why\nits form was changed_. Change is an effect, and every effect requires a\ncause. There could be no cause outside of the fire mist; for they say\nthere was nothing else in the universe. Then the cause must be in the\nmist itself. Had it a mind, and a will, and a perception of propriety?\nDid the mist become sensible of the lightness of its behavior, and the\nfire resolve to cool off a little, and both consult together on the\npropriety of dropping their erratic blazing through infinite space, and\nresolve to settle down into orderly, well-behaved suns and planets? In\nthe division of the property, _what became of the mind_? Did it go to\nthe sun, or to the moon, or to the pole star, or to this earth? Or, was\nit clipped up into little pieces and divided among the stars in\nproportion to their respective magnitudes; so that the sun may have,\nsay the hundredth part of an idea, and the moon a faint perception of\nit? Did the fire mist's mind die under this cruel clipping and\ndissecting process; or is it of the nature of a polypus, each piece\nalive and growing up to perfection in its own way? Has each of the\nplanets and fixed stars a great \"soul of the world\" as well as this\nearth, and are they looking down intelligently and compassionately on\nthe little globe of ours? Had we not better build altars to all the host\nof heaven and return to the religion of our acorn-fed ancestors, who\nburned their children alive, in honor of the sun, on Sun-days?\n\nAn aqueous solution of this difficulty of getting rid of Almighty God,\nis frequently proposed. It is known that certain chemical solutions,\nwhen mixed together, deposit a sediment, or precipitate, as chemists\ncall it. And it is supposed that the universe was all once in a state of\nsolution, in primeval oceans, and that the mingling of the waters of\nthese oceans caused them to deposit the various salts and earths which\nform the worlds in the form of mud, which afterward hardened into rock,\nor vegetated into trees and men. Thus, it is clearly demonstrated that\nthere is no need for the Creator if--if--if--we only had somebody to\nmake these primeval oceans--and somebody to mix them together![3]\n\nThe development theory of the production of the human race from the mud,\nthrough the mushroom, the snail, the tortoise, the greyhound, the monkey\nand the man, which is now such a favorite with atheists, if it were\nfully proved to be a fact, would only increase the difficulty of getting\nrid of God. For either the primeval mud had all the germs of the future\nplants and monkeys, and men's bodies and souls, in itself originally, or\nit had not. If it had not, where did it get them? If it had all the life\nand intelligence in the universe in itself, it was a very extraordinary\nkind of God. We shall call it the _mud-god_. Our atheists then believe\nin a god of muddy body and intelligent mind. But if they deny\nintelligence to the mud, then we are back to our original difficulty,\nwith a large appendix, viz: _The paving stones made themselves first and\nall atheists afterward._\n\nThe whole theory of development is utterly false in its first\nprinciples. From the beginning of the world to the present day, no man\nhas ever observed an instance of the spontaneous generation of life.\nThere is no law of nature, whether electric, magnetic, odylic, or any\nother, which can produce a living plant or animal, save from the germ or\nseed of some previous plant or animal of the same species. Nor has a\nsingle instance of the transmutation of species ever been proved. Every\nbeast, bird, fish, insect and plant brings forth after its kind, and has\ndone so since its creation. No law of Natural Philosophy is more firmly\nestablished than this, _That there is no spontaneous generation, nor\ntransmutation of species._ It is true there is a regular gradation of\nthe various orders of animal and vegetable life, rising like the steps\nof a staircase, one above the other; but gradation is no more caused by\ntransmutation than a staircase is made by an ambitious lower step\nchanging itself into all the upper ones.\n\nTo refer the origin of the world to the laws of nature is absurd. Law,\nas Johnson defines it, is a rule of action. It necessarily requires an\nacting agent, an object designed in the action, means to attain it, and\nauthoritative enforcement of the use of those means by a lawgiver. Are\nthe laws of nature laws given by some supposed intelligent being,\nworshiped by the heathen of old, and by the atheists of modern times,\nunder that name? Or do they signify the orderly and regular sequence of\ncause and effect, which is so manifest in the course of all events? If,\nas atheists say, the latter, this is the very thing we want them to\naccount for. How came the world to be under law without a lawgiver?\nWhere there is law, there must be design. Chance is utterly inconsistent\nwith the idea of law. Where there is design there must, of necessity, be\na designer. Matter in any shape, stones or lightnings, mud or magnets,\ncan not think, contrive, design, give law to itself, or to any thing\nelse, much less bring itself into existence. There is no conceivable way\nof accounting for this orderly world we live in but one or other of\nthese two: Either an intelligent being created the world, or--_the\npaving stones made themselves_.\n\n\"Here are two hypotheses, of which the oldest is admitted to offer a\nfull and consistent explanation of all the facts of science. There can\nbe no better cause for any given formation than that God created it so.\nMen of science, however, allege that creation (out of nothing) is\n'scientifically inconceivable;' but this is only throwing dust in our\neyes; of course, science can not _verify_ it, neither can it verify any\nother theory of causation. The question is whether reason can accept the\nfact, though science can not even imagine the process? If not, there is\nnothing for us but the _eternity of matter_, for evolution itself has to\nface the very same difficulty when asked to account for its primal germ.\nIt is surely more conceivable that God created the first matter out of\nnothing, than that nothing evolved something out of itself, by an\nimminent law of its nature. This point, however, our scientific men are\nsadly given to shirking. They profess in general not to hold the\neternity of matter, but they have nothing to suggest for its origin.\nThey accept it as the starting point of evolution, and decline to\nspeculate on its cause. This, as Dr. Christlieb observes of Bauer's\nkindred system of criticism, is 'beginning without a\nbeginning--everything is already extant'. We may as well start with\nspecies, as with protoplasm, if the inquiry is not to be pushed beyond\nthe fact. The evolutionist is bound to answer whether the process is\neternal, or how it began to be. Either it had a beginning or it had not;\nif it had, creation out of nothing is conceded, and there is nothing\nleft to dispute. It is puerile to except to the _frequency_ of creative\nacts on the ordinary hypothesis of specific origin, because it is freely\nopen to science to reduce the several 'kinds' to the lowest _minimum_ it\ncan experimentally establish. Moreover--besides the utter inconsequence\nof such purely relative ideas as _often_ and _rare_--it is far more\nreasonable that an eternal, personal author of creation should watch\nover his work to shape and diversify it at his pleasure, than that,\nafter a single act, he should relapse into _inertia_ like the Hindu\nBrahmin. To concentrate the whole evidence of design in one original\nact, ages upon ages ago, with no opening for after interference,\nundermines belief in a personal designer, simply because it leaves him\nnothing to do.\"[4]\n\nLeaving these brutish among the people who assert the latter, to the\nenjoyment of their folly, let us ascertain what we can know of the great\nCreator of the heavens and the earth. God refers the atheists of the\nPsalmist's days to their own bodies for proofs of his intelligence, to\ntheir own minds for proofs of his personality, and to their own\nobservation of the judgments of his providence against evil-doers for\nproofs of his moral government. Our text ascribes for him perception and\nintelligence: _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that\nformed the eye, shall he not see?_ It does not say, he has an eye or an\near, but that he has the knowledge we acquire by those organs. And the\nargument is from the designed organ to the designing maker of it, and is\nperfectly irresistible. A blind god could not make a seeing man. Let us\nlook for a little at a few of the many marks of design in this organ to\nwhich God thus refers us.\n\nWe shall first observe the mechanical skill displayed in the formation\nof the eye, and then the optical arrangements, or rather a few of them,\nfor there are more than eight hundred distinct contrivances already\nobserved by anatomists in the dead eye, while the great contrivance of\nall, the power of seeing, is utterly beyond their ken. I hold in my hand\na box made of several pieces of wood glued together, and covered on the\noutside with leather. Inside it is lined with cotton, and the cotton has\na lining of fine white silk. You at once observe that it is intended to\nprotect some delicate and precious article of jewelry, and that the\nmaker of this box must have been acquainted with the strength of wood,\nthe toughness of leather, the adhesiveness of glue, the softness and\nelasticity of cotton, the tenacity of silk, and the mode of spinning and\nweaving it, the form of the jewel to be placed in it, and the danger\nagainst which this box would protect it--ten entirely distinct branches\nof knowledge, which every child who should pick up such a box in the\nstreet would unhesitatingly ascribe to its maker. Now, the box in which\nthe eye is placed is composed of seven bones glued together internally,\nand covered with skin on the outside, lined with the softest fat,\nenveloped in a tissue compared with which the finest silk is only\ncanvas, and the cavity is shaped so as exactly to fit the eye, while the\nbrow projects over like a roof of a veranda, to keep off falling dust\nand rain from injuring it while the lid is open; and the eyebrows, like\na thatch sloping outward, conduct the sweat of the brow, by which a man\nearns his bread, away around the outer cover, that it may not enter the\neye and destroy the sight. If it were preposterous nonsense to say that\nelectricity, or magnetism, or odyle, contrived and made a little\nbracelet box, how much more absurd to ascribe the making of the cavity\nof the eye to any such cause.\n\nLet us next look at the shape of the eye. You observe it is nearly round\nin its section across, and rather oval in its other direction, and the\ncavity it lies in is shaped exactly to fit it. Now there are eyes in the\nworld angular and triangular, and even square; and as you may readily\nsuppose, the creatures which have them can not move them; to compensate\nfor such inconvenience, some of them, as the common fly, have several\nhundred. But, unless our heads were as large as sugar hogsheads, we\ncould not be so furnished, and we must either have movable eyes or see\nonly in one direction. Accordingly, the Contriver of the eye has hung it\nwith a hinge. Now there are various kinds of hinges, moving in one\ndirection, and the Maker of the eye might have made a hinge on which the\neye would move up and down, or he might have given us a hinge that would\nbend right and left, in which case we should have been able merely to\nsquint a little in two directions. But to enable one to see in every\ndirection, there is only one kind of hinge that would answer the\npurpose--the ball and socket joint--and the Former of the eye has hung\nit with such a hinge, retaining it in its place partly by the projection\nof the bones of the face, and partly by the muscles and the optic nerve,\nwhich is about as thick as a candlewick, and as tough as leather. Most\nof you have seen a ship, and know the way the yards are moved, and\nturned, and squared by ropes and pulleys. The rigging of the eye, though\nnot so large, is fully as curious. There is a tackle, called a muscle,\nto pull it down when you want to look down; another tackle to pull it\nup when you have done; one to pull it to the right, and another to the\nleft; there is one fastened to the eyeball in two places, and geared\nthrough a pulley which will make it move in any direction, as when we\nroll our eyes; and the sixth, fastened to the under side of the eye,\nkeeps it steady when we do not need to move it. Then the eyelids are\neach provided with appropriate gearing, and need to have it durable too,\nfor it is used thirty thousand times a day; in fact every time we wink.\nIf God had neglected to place these little cords to pull up the eyelash,\nwe should all have been in the condition of the unfortunate gentleman\ndescribed by Dr. Nieuwentyt, who was obliged to pull up his eyelashes\nwith his fingers whenever he wanted to see. There is, too, another\nadmirable piece of forethought and skill displayed by the Former of the\neye, in providing a liquid to wash it, and a sponge to wipe it with, and\na waste pipe, through the bone of the nose, to carry off the tears which\nhave been used in washing and moistening the eye. Now what absurdity to\nsay that a law of nature, say gravity, or electricity, or magnetism has\nsuch knowledge of the principles of mechanics as the eye proclaims its\nFormer to have--that it could make a choice among multitudes of shapes\nof eyes and kinds of joints, and this choice the very best for our\nconvenience; and that having known and chosen, it could have\nmanufactured the various parts of this complicated machine. Such a\nmachine requires an intelligent manufacturer; and yet we have only as\nyet been looking at the dead eye, paying no regard to sight at all. Even\na blind man's eye prove an intelligent Creator.\n\nLet us now turn our thoughts to the instrument of sight. The optic nerve\nis the part of the eye which conveys visions to the mind. Suppose,\ninstead of being where you observe it, at the back part of the eye, it\nhad been brought out to the front, and that reflections from objects had\nfallen directly upon it. It is obvious that it would have been exposed\nto injury from every floating particle of dust, and you would always\nhave felt such a sensation as is caused by a burn or scald when the skin\npeels off, and leaves the ends of the nerves exposed to the air. The\ntender points of the fibers of the optic nerve, too, would soon become\nblunted and broken, and the eye, of course, useless. How, then, is the\nnerve to be protected, and yet the sight not obstructed? If it were\ncovered with skin, as the other nerves are, you could not see through\nit. For thousands of years after men had eyes and used them, they knew\nno substance, at once hard and transparent, which could answer the\ndouble purpose of protection and vision. And to this day they know none\nhard enough for protection, clear enough for vision, and elastic enough\nto resume its form after a blow. But men did the best they could, and\nput a round piece of brittle but transparent glass in a ring of tougher\nmetal for the protection of the hands of a watch; and he who first\ninvented the watch crystal thought he had made a discovery. Now, observe\nin the eye, that forward part is the watch glass; the cornea, made of a\nsubstance at once hard, transparent and elastic--which man has never\nbeen able to imitate--set into the sclerotica, that white, muscular coat\nwhich constitutes the white of your eye, acts as a frame for the cornea,\nand answers another important purpose, as we shall presently see.\n\n[Illustration: Structure of the Human Eye]\n\nBut, supposing the end of the nerve protected by the glass, we might\nhave had it brought up to the glass without any interposing lenses or\nhumors, as, in fact, is nearly the case with some crustacea. We can not\nwell imagine all the inconveniences of such an eye to us. If we could\nsee distinctly at all, we could not see much farther or wider than the\nbreadth of the end of the nerve at once. Our sight would then be very\nlike that faculty of perceiving colors by the points of the fingers,\nwhich some persons are said to possess. In that case, seeing would only\nbe a nicer kind of groping, and our eyes would be more conveniently\nfixed on the points of our fingers; or, as with many insects, on the\nends of long antennae. Such a form of eye is precisely suited to the\nwants of an animal which has not an idea beyond its food, which has no\nbusiness with any object too large for its mouth, and whose great\nconcern is to stick to a rock and catch whatever animalculae the water\nfloats within the grasp of its feelers. But for a being whose\nintercourse should be with all the works of God, and whose chief end in\nsuch intercourse should be to behold the Creator reflected in his works,\nit was manifestly necessary to have a wider and larger range of vision;\nand, therefore, a different form of eye. Both these objects, breadth of\nfield combined with length of range, are obtained by placing the optic\nnerve at the back of the eye, and interposing several lenses, through\nwhich objects are observed. By this arrangement a visual angle is\nsecured, and all objects lying within it are distinctly visible at the\nsame time. This faculty of perceiving several objects at the same time\nis a special property of sight which tends greatly to enlarge our\nconceptions of the knowledge of Him who gave it. A man who never saw can\nhave no idea of it. He can not taste two separate tastes at once, nor\nsmell two distinct smells at once; nor feel more than one object with\neach hand at once; and if he hears several sounds at the same time, they\neither flow into each other, making a harmony, or confuse him with their\ndiscord. Yet we are all conscious that we see a vast variety of\ndistinct and separate objects at one glance of our eyes. I think it is\nmanifest that the Former of such an eye not only intended its owner to\nobserve such a vast variety of objects, but from the capacity of his own\nsight to infer the vastly wider range of vision of Him who gave it.\n\nBesides the breadth of the field of vision, we also require length of\nrange for the purpose of life. The thousand inconveniences which the\nshort-sighted man so painfully feels are obvious to all. Yet it may tend\nto reconcile such to their lot to know that thousands of the liveliest\nand merriest of God's creatures can not see an inch before them. Small\nbirds and insects, which feed on very minute insects, need eyes like\nmicroscopes to find them; while the eagle and the fish hawk, which soar\nup till they are almost out of sight, can distinctly see the hare or the\nherring a mile below them, and so must have eyes like telescopes. We,\ntoo, need to observe minute objects very closely, as when we read fine\nprint, or when a lady threads a fine needle at microscope range; but, if\nconfined to that range, we could not see our friends across the room, or\nfind our way to the next street. Again, in traveling we need to see\nobjects miles away, and at night we see the stars millions of miles\naway; but then, if confined to the long range, we should be strangers at\nhome, and never get within a mile of any acquaintance. Now, how to\ncombine these two powers, of seeing near objects and distant ones with\nthe same eye, is the problem which the Maker of the eye had to solve.\nLet us look how man tried to solve it. A magnifying lens will collect\nthe rays from any distant object, and convey them to a point called the\nfocus. Then suppose we put this glass in the tube of an opera-glass, or\npocket spy-glass, and look through the eye-hole and the concave lens,\nproperly adjusted, in front of it, we shall see the image of the object\nconsiderably magnified. But suppose the object draws very near, we see\nnothing distinctly; for the rays reflected from it, which were nearly\nparallel while it was at a distance, are no longer so when it comes\nnear, but scatter in all directions, and those which fall on the lens\nare collected at a point much nearer to the lens than before, and the\neye-glass must be pushed forward to that focus. Accordingly, you know\nthat the spy-glass is made to slide back and forward, and the telescope\nhas a screw to lengthen or shorten the tube according to the distance of\nthe objects observed. Another way of meeting the case would be by taking\nout the lens, and putting in one of less magnifying power, a flatter\nlens, for the nearer object. Now, at first sight, it would seem a very\ninconvenient thing to have eyes drawing out and in several inches like\nspy-glasses, and still more inconvenient to have twenty or thirty pairs\nof eyes, and to need to take out our eyes, and put in a new set twenty\ntimes a day. The ingenuity of man has been at work hundreds of years to\ndiscover some other method of adapting an optical instrument to long and\nshort range, but without success. Now, the Former of the eye knew the\nproperties of light and the properties of lenses before the first eye\nwas made; he knew the mode of adjusting them for any distance, from the\nthousands of millions of miles between the eye and the star, to the\nhalf-inch distance of the mote in the sunbeam; and he had not only\navailed himself of both the principles which opticians discovered, but\nhas executed his work with an infinite perfection which bungling men may\nadmire, but can never imitate. The sclerotic coat of the eye, and the\nchoroid which lies next it are full of muscles which, by their\ncontraction, both press back the crystalline lens nearer the retina, and\nalso flatten it; the vitreous humor, in which the crystalline lens lies,\na fine, transparent humor, about as thick as the white of an egg, giving\nway behind it, and also slightly altering its form and power of\nrefraction to suit the case. Thus, that which the astronomer, or the\nmicroscopist, performs by a tedious process, and then very imperfectly,\nwe perform perfectly, easily, instantly, and almost involuntarily, with\nthat perfect compound microscope and telescope invented by the Former of\nthe human eye. Surely, in giving us an instrument so admirably fitted\nfor observing the lofty grandeur of the heavens and the lowlier beauties\nof the earth, he meant to allure us to the discovery of the perfections\nof the great Designer and Former of all these wondrous works.\n\nBut there is another contrivance in the eye, adapted to lead us further\nto the consideration of the extent of the knowledge of its power. We are\nplaced in a world of variable lights, of day and night, and of all the\nvariations between light and darkness. We can not see in the full blaze\nof light, nor yet in utter darkness. Had the eye been formed to bear\nonly the noonday glare, we had been half blind in the afternoon, and\nwholly so in the evening. If the eye were formed so as to see at night,\nwe had been helpless as owls in the day. But the variations of light in\nthe atmosphere may be in some measure compensated, as we know, by\nregulating the quantity admitted to our houses--shutting up the windows.\nWhen we wish to regulate the admission of light to our rooms, we have\nrecourse to various clumsy contrivances; paper blinds, perpetually\ntearing, sunblind rollers that will not roll, venetian blinds\ncontinually in need of mending, awnings blowing away with every storm,\nor shutters, which shut up and leave us in entire darkness. A\nself-acting window, which shall expand with the opening of light in the\nmornings and evenings, and close up of its own accord as the light\nincreases toward noon, has never been manufactured by man. But the\nFormer of the eye took note of the necessities and conveniences of the\ncase, and besides giving a pair of shutters to close up when we go to\nsleep, he has given the most admirable sunblinds ever invented. The\nnerve of the eye at the back of its chamber can not see without light,\nand its light comes through the little round window called the pupil, or\nblack of the eye--which is simply a hole in the iris, or colored part.\nNow this iris is formed of two sets of muscles: one set of elastic\nrings, which, when left to themselves, contract the opening; and another\nset at right angles to them, like the spokes of a wheel, pulling the\ninner edge of the iris in all directions to the outside. In fact it is\nnot so much a sunblind, as a self-acting window, opening and closing the\naperture according to our need of light, and doing this so\ninstantaneously that we are not sensible of the process.\n\nIt is self-evident that the Maker of such an eye was acquainted with the\nproperties of light, and the alternations of night and day, as well as\nwith the mechanical contrivances for adjusting the eye to these variable\ncircumstances. He has given us an eye capable of seeking knowledge among\npartial darkness, and of availing itself for this purpose of imperfect\nlight; an apt symbol of our mental constitution and moral situation in a\nworld where good and evil, light and darkness, mix and alternate.\n\nPerhaps some one is ready to ask, What is the use of so many lenses in\nthe eye? It seems as if the crystalline lens and the optic nerve were\nsufficient for the purpose of sight, with the cornea simply to protect\nthem. What is the use of the aqueous humor and the vitreous humor?\n\nLight, when refracted through the lens, becomes separated into its\ncomponent colors--red, yellow, green, blue, and violet; and the greater\nthe magnifying power of the lens, and the brighter the object viewed,\nthe greater the dispersion of the rays. So that if the crystalline lens\nof the eye alone were used, we should see every white object bluish in\nthe middle, and yellowish and reddish at the edges; or, in vulgar\nlanguage, we should see starlight.\n\nThis difficulty perplexed Sir Isaac Newton all his life, and he never\ndiscovered the mode of making a refracting telescope which would obviate\nit. But M. Dolland, an optician, reflecting that the very same\ndifficulty must have presented itself to the Maker of the eye,\ndetermined to ascertain how he had obviated it. He found that the Maker\nof the eye had a knowledge of the fact that different substances have\ndifferent powers of refracting or bending the rays of light which pass\nthrough them, and that liquids have generally a different power of\nrefraction from solids. For instance, if you put a straight stick in\nwater, the part under water will seem bent at a considerable angle,\nwhile if you put the stick through a little hole in a pane of glass it\nwill not seem so much bent. He further discovered that oil of cassia had\na different power of refraction from water, and the white of an egg\nstill a different power. He discovered also that the first lens of the\neye, the aqueous humor, is very like water; that the crystalline lens is\na firm jelly, and that the vitreous humor is about the consistency of\nthe white of an egg. The combination of these three lenses, of different\npowers of refraction, secures the correction of their separate errors.\nHe could not make telescope lenses of jelly, nor water; therefore, he\ncould not make a perfect achromatic telescope, but he learned the lesson\nof mutual compensations of difficulties which the Maker of the eye\nteaches the reflecting anatomist, and procuring flint and crown glass of\ndifferent degrees of refraction, he arranged them in the achromatic lens\nso as nearly to remedy the defect.\n\nI think that you will at once admit that Dolland's attempt to remedy the\nevils of confused sight in the telescope indicated a desire to obtain a\nprecise and correct view of the objects; and that his success in\nconstructing an instrument, nearly perfect, for the use of astronomers,\ngave evidence that he himself had a clear idea of that perfect and\naccurate vision which he thus attempted to bestow on them. Shall we then\nimagine any inaccuracy in the sight of Him, who not only desired, but\nexecuted and bestowed on us, an instrument so perfectly adapted to the\nimperfections of this lower world, and whose very imperfections are the\nmaterials from which he produces clear and perfect vision? No! in God's\neye there are no chromatic refractions of passions, or prejudice, or\nparty feeling, or self-love. He sees no reflected or refracted light. O\nFather of Light! with whom is no variableness, or shadow of turning,\nopen our eyes to behold Thee clearly!\n\nOur text thus leads us to a knowledge of God's character, from the\nstructure of the bodies he has given us. He that formed my eye sees.\nThough my feeble vision is by no means a standard or limit for his\nOmniscience, yet I may conclude that every perfection of the power of\nsight he has given me existed previously in him. Has he endowed me, a\npoor puny mortal, the permanent tenant of only two yards of earth, with\nan eye capable of ranging over earth's broad plains and lofty mountains,\nof traversing her beauteous lakes and lovely rivers, of scanning her\ncrowded cities, and inspecting all their curious productions, and\nspecially delighting to investigate the bodily forms of men, and their\nmental characters displayed on the printed page? Has he given me the\nprinciple of curiosity, without which such an endowment were useless?\nThen most undoubtedly he has Himself both the desire to observe all the\nworks of his hands, and the power to gratify that desire. The Former of\nthe eye must of necessity be the great Observer.\n\nWheresoever an eye is found of his handiwork, and wheresoever sight is\npreserved by his skill, let the owner of such an instrument know that if\nhe can see, God can, and as surely as he sees, God does.\n\nIf it is possible for us to behold many objects distinctly at once, it\nis not impossible for God to behold more. If he has given us an eye to\nlook from earth to heaven, then his eye sees from heaven to earth. If I\ncan see accurately, God's inspection is much more impartial. And if he\nhas given me the power of adjusting my imperfect vision to the varying\nlights and shades of this changing scene, let me not dream for a moment\nthat he is destitute of a corresponding power of investigating\ndifficulties, and penetrating darknesses, and bringing to light hidden\nworks and secret things. God is light. In him is no darkness at all.\nNeither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all\nthings are naked and opened to the eyes of him with whom I have to do.\nHe has seen all my past life--my faults, my follies, and my crimes. When\nI thought myself in darkness and privacy, God's eye was upon me there.\nIn the turmoil of business, God's eye was upon me. In the crowd of my\nungodly companions, God's eye was upon me. In the darkness and solitude\nof night, God's eye was upon me. And God's eye is on me now, and will\nfollow me from this house, and will watch me and observe all my actions,\non--on--on--while God lives, and wheresoever God's creation extends.\n\n     \"O God, Thou has searched and known me;\n     Thou knowest my down sitting and mine uprising;\n     Thou understandest my thoughts afar off.\n     Thou compassest my path and my lying down,\n     And art acquainted with all my ways\n     For there is not a word in my tongue,\n     But, lo! O Lord, Thou knowest it altogether.\n     Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.\n     Such knowledge is too wonderful for me!\n     It is high, I can not attain unto it;\n     Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?\n     And whither shall I flee from thy presence?\n     If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there,\n     If I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there!\n     If I take the wings of the morning,\n     And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,\n     Even there shall thy hand lead me,\n     And thy right hand shall hold me.\n     If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall cover me,'\n     Even the night shall be light about me;\n     Yea the darkness hideth not from thee,\n     But the night shineth as the day,\n     The darkness and the light are both alike to Thee.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Reid's Chemistry, II. Sec. 37.\n\n[2] Johnson's Turner's Chemistry, Sec. 341.\n\n[3] It might be supposed that such a theory is too palpably absurd to be\nbelieved by any save the inmates of a lunatic asylum, had not the\nwriter, and hundreds of the citizens of Cincinnati, seen a lecturer\nperform the ordinary experiment of producing colored precipitates by\nmixing colorless solutions, as a demonstration of the self-acting powers\nof matter. Common sense, being a gift of God, is righteously withdrawn\nfrom those who deny him.\n\n[4] John Bull.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWAS YOUR MOTHER A MONKEY?\n\n\nIn the previous chapter we saw the evidences of God's skill and wisdom\nin the adaptations of nature, fitting the organs of animals for hearing,\nwalking, and eating, and especially in the structure of the human eye.\nThis has long been owned by candid minds as an unanswerable argument,\ndemonstrating the being of God by the works of his hands. But since that\nchapter was written a school of scientists has arisen, of whom Mr.\nDarwin is at present the most popular, claiming to be able to show how\nall the species of living things can evolve, not only their eyes, but\ntheir legs and wings and lungs, and every part of them, from a little\nbit of primeval life stuff, called protoplasm, by the influence of\nNatural Selection. Mr. Darwin owns that the formation of an eye is\nrather a tough job for a little pin point germ of protoplasm; but he has\nno doubt that it has been done, and he writes several books to show us\nhow. We propose to look into this self-evolving process, as he and his\nbrother evolutionists describe their theory.\n\nIt is necessary, right here at the outset, to distinguish the theory of\nthe evolutionists from the great fact of evolution. Almighty God created\nthe world, not only for his own pleasure, but also for his own glory,\nthat men and angels might learn to know him by his works. Creation is\nthus God's great object lesson for men and angels to learn. But learning\nis a process, gradual, slow, from one step to another. Therefore the\nobject lesson must not be precipitated all in a heap upon the infantile\nintellects of the learners, but unfolded by degrees. Geologists assure\nus that so it was in the past; that first the lifeless strata were\ndeposited; next, light was evolved; afterward, fishes, and marine\nreptiles, and birds; then came the carboniferous or plant era; afterward\nthe mammalia; last of all man. You observe here an ascending scale of\ncreation, beginning with first principles and simple forms, and\nascending to the most complicated; a series of experiments in God's\ngreat lecture-room, illustrative of the various steps of the evolution\nof the divine idea. But six thousand years before geology was born Moses\ndescribed this same evolution of creation, in the first chapter of\nGenesis. As he could not have learned it from any science known in his\nday, God Himself must have shown it to him.\n\nThe divine idea is still in process of evolution for our instruction. We\nbehold it in the continual formation of new strata by the destruction of\nthe old; in the chemical combinations of the elements of the air, sea,\nand earth; in the evolution of the grass from the seed, and of the oak\nfrom the acorn; in the development of the insect germ into the\ncaterpillar, and the butterfly; in the hatching of the egg into the\nchicken; and in the growth of the infant into the man. We observe also a\ndivine development of society, an advance of civilization, a\nprovidential guidance of history, and a fall and disorder among mankind,\nwith a process of redemption, medical, educational, political and\nreligious, for the human race. The whole process, therefore, of the\ncreation, natural history, and moral government of the world, is the\ndevelopment of a divine idea, according to a divine plan, by the direct\nor mediate efficacy of divine power, for the accomplishment of the\ndivine purpose as revealed to us in the divine word, the Holy\nScriptures. Galen taught that the study of physiology was a divine hymn.\nThis divine development is to be clearly and sharply distinguished from\nthe atheistic theory of evolution. They differ in the following\nparticulars:\n\n1. The divine development of the world is a great fact; the theory of\natheistic evolution is only a baseless theory, a fiction.\n\n2. The divine development begins in the beginning, with God, creating\nthe heavens and the earth; but the theory of atheistic evolution has no\nbeginning, asserting the eternal existence of a changing world.\n\n3. The divine development is the unfolding of an intelligent plan,\nshowing the adaptation of means to ends for the accomplishment of a\npurpose; the atheistic theory of evolution denies plan, purpose,\nadaptation and final cause.\n\n4. The divine development is conducted, and continually reinforced by\nthe will of the Omnipotent God; the atheistic development evolves only\nthe forces of matter.\n\n5. The divine development has a moral character, and terminates in the\nhighest holiness and happiness of all obedient men and angels; but the\natheistic development contemplates and promises only the evolution of\nanimal instinct and passions, the eternal death of the individual, and,\nfor the universe, only purposeless cycles of progress, and catastrophies\nof ruin.\n\nIn this chapter we discuss only the theory of atheistic evolution. In\nthe discussion of all questions affecting human life it is advantageous\nto trace them to their origin, and to follow them out to their practical\nresults. Thus we get a clear view of the whole subject, and are enabled\nto assign to it its proper influence. It is also a great benefit to the\nmass of mankind to conduct such discussions in plain language, and to\ntranslate the roundabout phrases, and the Latinized words of scientific\nmen, as much as we can, into the vulgar tongue; to state the subjects of\ndiscussion so as to be understood of the people. So we shall put the\nwhole business of Darwinism and development before you, reader, in a\nnutshell, by simply asking you the question at the head of this chapter,\n\"Was your mother a monkey?\"\n\nWhat a question!\n\nWell, then, your grandmother? her grandmother? or does it seem less\noffensive, or more likely to you to go back some thousands of years, and\nsay your forefathers were apes?\n\nThat is exactly what Mr. Darwin says when we translate his scientific\nlanguage into the vulgar tongue: \"The early progenitors of man were no\ndoubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were\npointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a\ntail having the proper muscles. The foot, judging from the condition of\nthe great toe in the foetus, was then prehensile, and our progenitors,\nno doubt, were arboreal in their habits, frequenting some warm\nforest-clad land. The males were provided with great canine teeth, which\nserved them as formidable weapons.\"[5] This ancient form \"if seen by a\nnaturalist, would undoubtedly have been ranked as an ape or a monkey.\nAnd as man, under a genealogical point of view, belongs to the CATARHINE\nor Old World stock (of monkeys), we must conclude, however much the\nconclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have\nbeen properly thus designated.\"[6] So here you have your genealogy, name\nand thing fully described. Mr. Darwin thinks it is quite an honorable\npedigree: \"Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length,\nbut not, it may be said, of noble quality. * * * Unless we willfully\nclose our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately\nrecognize our parentage, nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble\norganism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our\nfeet; and no one with an unbiased mind can study any living creature,\nhowever humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvelous\nstructure and properties.\"[A] There are people, however, who do not grow\nenthusiastic at the idea of their long-tailed progenitors; but there is\nno accounting for taste in such matters!\n\nFor elderly people, who do not take so enthusiastically to monkeys as\nhis junior readers, Mr. Darwin has provided a rather less gymnastic\nancestry. How would you like to have a fish for your forefather? If it\nwere one of Neptune's noble tritons, or the Philistine fish-god, Dagon,\nor a mermaid, it might not be so repulsive as the ape; or even a\ntwenty-pound salmon, flashing its silver and blue in the sunlight as it\nspins the line off the reel, might not be so utterly disgusting as the\nmonkey burlesque of humanity. But, alas! Mr. Darwin has been sent to\nthis proud nineteenth century as the prophet to teach us humility, and\nhere is the scientific statement of the structure of our fishy\nforefathers: \"At a still earlier period the progenitors of man must have\nbeen aquatic in their habits, for morphology plainly tells us that our\nlungs consist of a modified swim bladder which once served as a float.\nThese early predecessors of man thus seen in the dim recesses of time\nmust have been as lowly organized as the lancelot or amphibioxus, or\neven still more lowly organized.\"[7]\n\nThat certainly is a very humble origin. We are not, however, by any\nmeans to the end of our pedigree. Mr. Darwin says that your codfish\naristocracy are descended from a race of squirts--the squirts which you\npicked up on the shore and squeezed, when you were a boy, discharging\nthese primitive Babcock Extinguishers upon your playfellows,\nirreverently regardless of the harm done the poor squirt, the ancestor\nof the human race. If you doubt it, here is the latest deliverance of\ninfallible science upon the subject. He describes the Ascidians: \"They\nhardly appear like animals, and consist of a simple tough leathery sack,\nwith two small projecting orifices. They belong to the Molluscoida of\nHuxley, a lower division of the great family of the Mollusca; but they\nhave recently been placed by some naturalists among the vermes or worms.\nTheir larvae somewhat resemble tadpoles in shape, and have the power of\nswimming freely about. * * * We should thus be justified in believing\nthat, at an extremely remote period, a group of animals existed\nresembling in many respects the larvae of our present Ascidians, which\ndiverged into two great branches, the one retrograding in development\nand producing the present class of Ascidians, the other rising to the\ncrown and summit of the animal kingdom, by giving birth to the\nvertebrata.\"[8] Thus it appears that Mr. Darwin deduces his origin, and\nthat of mankind in general, from one of these Ascidians, or, in plain\nEnglish, makes them a race of squirts.\n\nThe notion of evolution is a belief that all living beings, plants as\nwell as animals, have not been created, but, like Topsy, just grew, from\nthe very smallest germs or spores. Evolutionists inform us that all\nkinds of organisms have been evolved from four or five primeval germs or\nspores; or more consistently with their great principle, that the simple\ngave birth to the differentiated, from one primeval germ or egg. Mr.\nDarwin alleges four or five primal forms, acknowledging that analogy\nwould lead him up to one. But other members of this school consistently\nand boldly follow up the stream to its fountain, and allege a single\nprimeval living seed as the origin of all living things, and that this\nmust have been a microscopic animalcule, or plant spore, of the very\nlowest order, which, multiplying its kind, gave birth to improved and\nenlarged offspring; and they, in their turn, grew, and multiplied, and\ndifferentiated into varieties; and so, in the course of endless ages,\nthe poorer sorts perishing and the better sorts prospering, the world\nbecame filled with its existing populations, without any new creative\nacts of God, and without any particular providential care over the new\nspecies.\n\nThe particular process according to which this multiplication and\nimprovement took place, Mr. Darwin calls Natural Selection. Every\ncreature tends to increase and multiply; and the very slowest breeders\nwould soon fill the earth, were their multiplication not checked by\nhunger, by the attacks of enemies, and by the struggle for existence.\nBut all are not born alike strong, or swift, or of the same color; some\nof the same brood are better fitted to escape enemies, or to fight the\nbattle of life, than others. These will survive, while the weak ones\nperish. This Mr. Wallace calls, the survival of the fittest. They will\ntransmit their superior size, or swiftness, or better color, or whatever\nsuperiority they possess, to their offspring. The process will go on in\nsuccessive generations, each adding an infinitesimal quantity to the\nstock gained by the past generation; just as breeders of improved stock\nincrease the weight of cattle by breeding from the largest; or breeders\nof race-horses increase the speed by breeding from the swiftest. In this\nway varieties from the same family will grow into different species.\nAnd, as only those differences which are beneficial to the animal are\npreserved, they will grow into improved species; and, as variations of\nall sorts take place, so all sorts of varieties and species arise in\nprocess of time. All will thus tend to perfect themselves according to\nthe laws of nature, and without any special oversight or care of God, or\nof anybody but Natural Selection; which Mr. Darwin takes special care to\ndescribe as an unintelligent selector. He defines the nature which\nselects to be \"the aggregate action and product of natural laws,\" and\nthese laws are \"the sequences of events as ascertained by us.\" He\nridicules the idea of God's special endowment of the fantail pigeon with\nadditional feathers, or of the bull dog's jaws with strength, and says,\n\"But if we give up the principle in the one case, if we do not admit\nthat the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in\norder, for instance, that the greyhound, that perfect image of symmetry\nand vigor, might be formed; no shadow of reason can be assigned for the\nbelief that variations alike in nature, and the results of the same\ngeneral laws which have been the groundwork through Natural Selection of\nthe most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were\nintentionally and specially guided.\"[9] This, then, is the grand\ndistinctive difference of Mr. Darwin's mode of producing the various\nanimals; namely, that it is unintelligent, their variations are not\ndesigned nor intended by the Creator, but they are the results of a\nmethod of trial and error, producing a hit-and-miss pattern. The\nfailures all perish, and the successes live and prosper; but there is no\nintentional or special guidance of God in the business. And the business\nincludes the whole process of peopling the globe, from the creation of\nthe first four or five germs down to the last formation of human\nsociety. God is thus dismissed from the greatest part of the world's\nlife, including all human affairs. This is not exactly atheism in\ntheory, but practically it amounts to much the same thing.\n\nIt is this excommunication of God's agency from the management of the\nworld, and especially from human affairs, by Mr. Darwin's method, which\nhas so commended his books to the ungodly world. There is a general\nagreement among this class of writers, that Mr. Darwin has destroyed the\nbasis of the argument for the being of God from design as displayed in\nthe adaptations of birds and beasts to their conditions. Mr. Huxley says\nthat \"when he first read Mr. Darwin's book, what struck him most\nforcibly was the conviction that teleology, as commonly understood, had\nreceived its death blow at Mr. Darwin's hands.\"[10] \"For the notion that\nevery organism has been created as it is, and launched straight at a\npurpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may\nfairly be termed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary\nincessantly; of these variations the few meet with surrounding\nconditions which suit them and thrive; the many are unsuited and become\nextinguished. * * * For the teleologist (the Christian) an organism\nexists, because it was made for the conditions in which it was found.\nFor the Darwinian an organism exists, because out of many of its kind it\nis the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in\nwhich it was found. * * * If we apprehend the spirit of the Origin of\nSpecies rightly, then nothing can be more entirely and absolutely\nopposed to teleology, as it is commonly understood, than the Darwinian\ntheory.\"[11] Prof. Haeckel argues to the same purpose that Darwin's\ntheory leads inevitably to Atheism and Materialism. Dr. Buchner says of\nDarwin's theory, \"It is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be\nimagined, and far more atheistic than that of his decried predecessor,\nLamarck.\" Carl Vogt also commends it because \"It turns the Creator, and\nhis occasional intervention in the revolution of the earth and in the\nproduction of species, without any hesitation out of doors, inasmuch as\nit does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being. The\nfirst living germ being granted, out of it the creation develops itself\nprogressively by Natural Selection, through all the geologic periods of\nour planet, by the simple law of descent. No new species arise by\ncreation, and none perishes by annihilation; the natural cause of\nthings, the process of evolution of all organisms, and of the earth\nitself, is of itself sufficient for the production of all we see. Thus\nman is not a special creation, produced in a different way, and distinct\nfrom other animals, endowed with an individual soul, and animated by the\nbreath of God; on the contrary, man is only the highest product of the\nprogressive evolution of animal life, springing from the group of apes\nnext below him.\"[12]\n\nWhether, therefore, Mr. Darwin himself intends his theory to be\natheistic or not, it has had the misfortune to be so viewed by the\ngreater number of its supporters; and, accordingly, it is this view of\nit which we shall keep prominent in the following discussion. Mr. Darwin\ndoes undoubtedly intend his theory to be antagonistic to the Bible\naccount of creation and providence, and an improvement upon it; and,\nwhether atheistic or not, it is undoubtedly anti-Christian.\n\n\n_I. The History of the Theory._\n\nThe first thing which strikes a common person on first hearing this\ntheory is that it is a very queer notion for any Christian man to\ninvent. We are naturally curious to know how a man, educated in a\nChristian country, could have fallen into it. But it is, in fact, no new\ndiscovery, but an old heathen superstition. Some four hundred years\nbefore Christ, when the world had almost wholly apostatized into\nidolatry, Democritus, among the Greeks, became offended with the vulgar\nheathen gods, and set himself to invent a plan of the world without\nthem. From Eastern travelers the Greeks knew that the Brahmins, in\nIndia, had a theory of the world developing itself from a primeval egg.\nHe set himself to refine upon it, and imagined virtually the Nebular\nHypothesis. He said that all matter consisted of very small atoms,\ndancing about in all directions, from all eternity, and which at last\nhappened into the various forms of the present world.\n\nThe ancient Phoenicians held a theory that all life was from the sea;\nand that, as the wet mud produces all sorts of herbs in spring now, so\noriginally it produced all manner of animals. They worshiped it as a\ngod, and called it Mot, or Mud. Anaximander took up the theory and\ncarried it out in true Darwinian style, alleging that the first men\nsprang from the ground watered by the sea, and that they had spines like\nsea urchins; evidently deriving them from the Radiates. Lucretius still\nfurther developed the theory in a poem in six books. The spread of\nChristianity, however, hindered the spread of the doctrine, as Mr.\nTyndall feelingly laments, until the Saracens overspread the East, when\nsome of them, it seems, favored it. But it seems to be an unlucky dogma,\nsince, with the downfall of the power of the false prophet, the\nanti-Christian form of science went down again.\n\nThe dogma of the transmutation of species reappeared, however, in the\nRomish Church in a religious form; the old heathenism, which had never\nbeen wholly banished from the minds of men, thus reasserting itself.\nAbout the tenth century some began to teach that the bread of the\ncommunion of the Lord's Supper was transubstantiated, and the wine also,\ninto the body, and blood, and soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus\nChrist. This is probably the most complete transmutation of species\nwhich has ever been imagined or described. The evolution of bread into\nDeity is only equaled by Mr. Tyndall's endowment of matter with all the\npotencies of life and thought; a miracle differing from the popish\ntransubstantiation only in the element of time, but in its essential\nnature equally supernatural. The dogma excited great discussion for\ncenturies, and produced as many theories of transubstantiation as we now\nobserve of evolution, keeping philosophic minds and pens busy till the\ndawn of modern science after the Reformation.\n\nLa Place threw out the Nebular Hypothesis, which is substantially\nDemocritus' concourse of atoms, only La Place endeavored to substitute\ncircular motions under the law of gravitation, instead of Democritus'\nchance arrangement, as a sufficient cause for the formation and motions\nof planets. Herschel's discovery of the nebulae was hastily laid hold of\nby a number of writers, and notably by the author of the Vestiges of\nCreation, as furnishing the primeval matter necessary for world-making;\nand till the spectroscopic discoveries of the composite nature of\ngaseous nebulae, they were claimed as specimens of worlds in process of\nformation. La Place supposed his nebulous matter to be gas in a state of\nwhite-heat combustion, compared with which the heat of the hottest fire\nwould be a cool bath. In no other way could he dissipate the world's\nsubstance into sufficient thinness for his vortices. But Spencer saw\nthat this tremendous heat would be fatal to all forms of life, and\nespecially to sensitive beings; and Tyndall shows us that this original\nmatter must have had all the potencies of life and sensation, and a\npotency of sensation means being able to feel. Now the worst fate\nthreatened against sinners in the Bible is a place in the lake burning\nwith fire and brimstone, which burns at 500 deg. Fahrenheit; but the\ntemperature of the original fire-mist was a thousand times hotter. Some\nof these scientists call such a fate as the Bible threatens against the\nwicked, cruel. But here is a hell manufactured by the evolutionists\ninfinitely worse than that of the Bible; for the hell of the Bible is\nonly for the wicked, but the evolutionists' hell is indiscriminately for\nall, saints and sinners, and all sorts of creatures, innocent as babes\nunborn of any crime; yet they, or, which is the same thing, the matter\ncontaining all the potency of their sensations, that is their power of\nfeeling, were born in this hell, and kept in it from all eternity, until\nit pleased the evolutionists to begin to cool it down a little. However,\nit was rather scientific than benevolent reasons which induced Mr.\nSpencer to reverse the order of procedure, and make his star dust cold\nto begin with, and to heat it up by condensation and pressure to about\nthe temperature of molten iron; which was still an uncomfortably warm\nlodging for Mr. Tyndall's potencies of sensation for some millions of\nyears. The division of opinion about the original nebulae, however, still\nprevails; some evolutionists of the old-fashioned order still taking\ntheir nebulae hot, while others, with Spencer, prefer it cold, with star\ndust.\n\nAs to the Spontaneous Generation of life, there has been less progress\nof opinion, though great variety has been exhibited. Ovid and Virgil\ndescribe the way in which a carcass produces bees. It was generally\nbelieved that putrid meat produced the maggots, till the blow-flies were\ndiscovered laying their eggs. Then it was alleged that the entozoa, the\nworms found in the bodies of animals, were self-produced, without eggs,\nuntil the microscope discovered that one could lay 60,000 eggs. Strauss,\nhowever, adhered to the idea that as the tapeworm, as he supposed, was\nself-produced, so man was originated by the primeval slime. So also\nProfessor Vogt, and M. Tremaux develop their animals from the land, and\nthe latter accounts for their various qualities from the various\nqualities of their respective birthplaces, the crop being conditioned by\nthe soil. But Mr. Darwin derives all his organisms from the sea.\nElectricity in its galvanic form was for a while the agent to fire the\nearthly or marine mud with the vital spark; and Mr. Crosse's experiments\nwere supposed instances of the creation of acarii or mites in the\nbattery bath, until it was found that the bath contained eggs and the\nelectricity only hatched them. Some English evolutionists still adhere\nto the theory of Spontaneous Generation, but the leading Germans deny\nany instance of it being known. Huxley denies that any case of it has\nbeen established as now practicable; but supposes that if we could have\nbeen present at the beginning of the world, when all the elements were\nyoung and vigorous, we should have seen the chemical elements of the\nearth and air combining to form living beings, by the mere powers of\ntheir nature. If that were the fact, it would be a fact unique and\nunparalleled, utterly out of the course of nature, and so as contrary to\nthe theory of evolution as if these living beings had been inspired with\nlife by Almighty God.\n\nSo the theory here again is divided. Two utterly irreconcilable ideas of\nthe origin of life claim our belief--the theories of Biogenesis, and of\nAbiogenesis, the one says all life is from the egg, and has always been\nso; and so we have an eternal begetting of finite creatures; the other\nalleges the spontaneous beginning of plants and animals; a fact, if it\nbe a fact, as unparalleled as creation, and far more miraculous.\n\nAs to the history of the progress of the germs of plants and animals\nthus produced, we find still greater diversities of opinion, not only as\nto details, but as to principles. Each inventor has added to, or\naltered, the original idea of evolution, until it has been burdened with\nmore improvements and new patents than the sewing machine; only the\nevolutionary improvements bid fair to improve the theory out of\nexistence. We have seen M. Tremaux, with the autochthonic Athenians,\nderiving the powers of improvement of plants and animals from their\nnative soils. Lamarck on the contrary, inspired all his plants and\nanimals--fungi and frogs, and elephants and apes--with the desire of\ngetting on in the world and improving their limbs by exercise; so the\ngreyhound grew slim and fleet by running; the giraffe's neck elongated\nby reaching up to the branches of the trees on which it browsed, and the\nduck acquired web feet by swimming. Others attributed the evolution of\ndifferences to external conditions. The negro became black by exposure\nto the tropical sun; the arctic hare received its coat of thick white\nfur from the cold climate, and the buffalo and camel their humps of fat\nfrom the sterility of their pastures at certain seasons, and the\nconsequent need of a reserved store of fat for food for the rest of the\nbody. Mr. Darwin's doctrine of Natural Selection refuses Lamarck's\nnotion of any conscious attempt of the plant or animal at improvement;\nand equally denies the power of external nature to improve anything,\nexcept by killing off poor specimens, save in that very limited range\nwhere good pastures make fat animals for a season or two. An innate\npower of accidental variation to a very small amount, and the slow but\nconstant adding up of profitable variations during countless\ngenerations, with the killing off of the unimproved breeds by Natural\nSelection, is his patent populator and improver. But this theory is too\nslow for the nineteenth century, and so neither Huxley, nor Parsons, nor\nMivart, nor even Wallace, accepts the doctrine as Darwin propounds it.\nIt is, in fact, already becoming unpopular among scientific men. Lyell\nproposed the origination of new species by leaps; as we see great\ngeniuses born of commonplace parents; and Huxley supports that opinion,\nand Parsons, Owen and Mivart coincide in this inexplicable explanation.\nThe author of the Vestiges of Creation accounts for improved species\nfrom a prolongation of the period of gestation. But Hyatt and Cope\nderive them from quite the contrary process--accelerated development of\ngestation. MM. Ferris and Kolliker derive them from parthenogenesis, a\nmode of genesis of which our world offers no example whatever.\n\nThe origin of man, with all his mental powers and religious aspirations,\nis the great difficulty. Mr. Mivart excludes man wholly from the\ninfluence of Natural Selection, from the time he acquired a soul. Mr.\nWallace, rejecting the action of one Supreme Intelligence for everything\nbut the origin of universal forces and laws, \"Contemplates the\npossibility that the development of the essentially human portions of\nman's structure and intellect may have been determined by the directing\ninfluence of some higher intelligent beings acting through natural and\nuniversal laws;\"[13] _i. e._, the gods of the old heathen nations. And\nso after twenty-two centuries wandering over the world, we have got back\nto where Democritus started from--to pure old heathenism.\n\nAfter such a history of the theory of evolution, and in presence of such\ncontradictory presentations by its advocates, I need scarcely say that\nit is by no means an established scientific principle, were it not for\nthe insolent manner in which some of them assert it as scientifically\ndemonstrated; and denounce the Bible doctrine of creation as mere\nsuperstition, \"A feather bed of respectable and respected tradition,\"\nand warn off Christians from any attempt to investigate theories of\ncosmogony; and overbear the ignorant by the array of the names of men of\nscience who give their sanction to some phase of the theory. But let it\nbe borne in mind that no well-established scientific principle, no\ndemonstrated law, exhibits such contradictory and conflicting phases as\nthose we have just witnessed. The laws of gravitation, or of chemical\naffinity, for instance, offer no such contradictions of their adherents;\nbecause they are founded on facts, while evolution is a mere notion,\nfounded on ignorance and error, as we shall presently see. Accordingly,\nby far the greater number of the greatest scientists oppose it, as\nutterly unscientific, and have recorded their opposition, and the\nreasons for it. Sir John Herschel and Sir Wm. Thompson, among\nastronomers, have proclaimed its antagonism to the facts of physical\nastronomy. No new facts subversive of the foundations of faith in God as\nrecognized in the universe by Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Descartes, Leibnitz,\nPascal, Paley and Bell, have been discovered by such scientists as\nWhewell, Sedgwick, Brewster, Faraday, Hugh Miller, or our American\ngeologists, Dawson, Hitchcock, and Dana. Nor have the deliberate and\nexpanded demonstrations of its unscientific character by the late\nlamented Agassiz been ever fairly met, much less overturned. I refer to\nthese honored names for the benefit of that large class who must take\ntheir science upon faith in some scientific prophet or apostle, in\ndefault of any possibility of personal investigation of the facts.\nIndeed, to the great majority, even of so-called scientific men, their\nscience must be founded upon faith in the dogma of some scientific pope\nand council. And to such it may be reassuring, amidst the evolutionists'\ncries of Science! Science! to know that a great many of the greatest\nscientists, in spite of all these confused assertions, do still believe\nin Almighty God, do call their souls their own, and hope when they die\nto go to heaven.\n\nAs a specimen of the contempt in which this theory is held by the\nprinces of science, read the following extract of an address by Agassiz,\nat a recent meeting of the Academy of Science:[14]\n\n\"As I grow older in the ranks of science,\" said the professor, \"I feel\nmore and more the danger of stretching inferences from a few\nobservations to a wide field. I see that the younger generation among\nnaturalists are at this moment falling into the mistake of making\nassertions and presenting views as scientific principles which are not\neven based upon real observation. I think it is time that some positive\nremonstrance be made against that tendency. The manner in which the\nevolution theory in zoology is treated would lead those who are not\nspecial zoologists to suppose that observations have been made by which\nit can be inferred that there is in nature such a thing as change among\norganized beings actually taking place. _There is no such thing on\nrecord._ It is shifting the ground from one field of observation to\nanother to make this statement, and when the assertions go so far as to\nexclude from the domain of science those who will not be dragged into\nthis mire of mere assertion, then it is time to protest.\n\n\"He thought it was intolerant to say he was not on scientific grounds\nbecause he was not falling into the path which was occupied by those who\nmaintain that all organized beings have been derived from a few original\nprogenitors. Other supporters of the transmutation doctrine assume that\nthey can demonstrate the changes to have taken place by showing certain\ndegrees of resemblance; but what they never touch is the quality and\ncondition of those few first progenitors from which they were evolved.\nThey assume that they contained all that is necessary to evolve what\nexists now. That is begging the question at the outset; for if these\nfirst prototypes contained the principle of evolution, we should know\nsomething about them from observation, and it should be shown that there\nare such organized beings as are capable of evolution.\n\n\"I ask, Whence came these properties? If this power and capacity of\nchange is not inherent to the first progenitors, then I ask, Whence\ncame the impulses by which those progenitors which have not this power\nof change in themselves acquire them? What is the power by which they\nare started in directions which are not determined by their primitive\nnature? From the total silence of the supporters of the transmutation\ntheory on these and other points, _he did not think it worth their while\nto take the slightest notice of this doctrine of evolution in his\nscientific considerations_. He acknowledged what the evolutionists had\ndone incidentally in scientific research; none had done more than Mr.\nDarwin. He believed he had been injured woefully by his adherents. He\nwas a far better man than most of his school made him.\"\n\nIt is to be acknowledged, however, that many scientists are\nevolutionists. Mr. Darwin is not alone in his belief. If he were, it\nwould not be worth while to spend time in examining it. Quite a number\nof scientific men have fallen into it, and lecture and write\ncommendations of it; and it has become quite popular among a certain\nclass who do not like to accept the Bible doctrine that God created man,\nwith its necessary consequence that the creature ought to obey his\nCreator; and they have proceeded to patch it out into completeness--for,\nas you observe, it is a little defective; like its own primeval squirt,\nit lacks a head and a tail--it has neither a beginning nor an end\nproperly fitted to it. It takes a piece out of the middle of the\nuniverse from the management of God, but it leaves the beginning and the\nend totally unaccounted for; telling us neither whence came the first\ngerms, nor whither tends the final fully developed angel. Mr. Darwin,\nthough he calls one of his works, the Origin of Species, really avoids\nthe question of origin. He admits the miracle of the creation of the\nfour or five original germs of life, which, according to the\nevolutionists, is as unscientific as if he admitted four or five\nhundred. They desire to escape the operation of God altogether.\nMoreover, he gives no account of the origin of the law of heredity, by\nwhich each being produces its like; nor yet of the origin of the power\nof variation, according to which profitable variations occur. Here,\nthen, is still a field in which God reigns. But it is specially with Mr.\nDarwin's admission of the Creator to bestow the origin of life that\nevolutionists are displeased. If they admit God at the beginning of the\nworld they see plainly that there is no possibility of getting rid of\nhim afterward. Messrs. Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall, Buchner, Haeckel and\nVogt combine their forces accordingly to evolve the world as we find it\nwithout God's intervention.\n\nMr. Huxley, perceiving that to make either man, or monkey, or nomad, you\nmust have materials, kindly brings a little pitcher of protoplasm, which\nhe calls the physical basis of life. It is the meat our Caesar feeds on,\nand indeed, for that matter, all living things. All vegetable and animal\ntissues are made up mostly of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen; and\nas the materials of which all living beings are built are the same\noriginally, and are simply these chemical substances with a little iron,\nsalt and lime, with their properties, he will have it that all life,\nincluding man's life and thought, is merely a development of protoplasm.\nThis is the clay out of which all the various bricks, and tiles, and tea\ncups, and porcelain vases of the great world building are built. We\ndon't need to begin with monkeys, nor fish, or pollywogs, now to develop\ninto men, for we go down to the very bottom, since we have the stuff\nthey all are made of, namely, protoplasm. Still this clay needs a potter\nto mold and bake it.\n\nThe difficulty about the protoplasm is that it must be _alive_. You can\nnot get a living pollywog, no more than a living elephant, out of dead\nprotoplasm. Mr. Huxley shows very well that all protoplasm consists of\nthe same materials; in fact, that all flesh is grass, as the Scripture\nsays. The difficulty is how to convert the grass into flesh, unless by\nsome animal eating it; or to convert the nitrogen, carbon and water into\ngrass or grain, or any other form of protein or protoplasm, without the\nprevious action of some plant. In short, how are we to make the chemical\nmaterials live? Here Mr. Tyndall comes in and endows the matter of the\nuniverse with life, and with all the potency of producing bodies and\nsouls. In his famous Belfast Address he says: \"Abandoning all disguise,\nthe confession that I feel bound to make before you is that I prolong\nthe vision backward, beyond the boundary of the experimental evidence,\nand discern in this matter, which we in our ignorance, and\nnotwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator, have hitherto\ncovered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of every form and\nquality of life.\"\n\nYet, after all this marvelous endowment of matter with all potency, we\nhave not got quite back to the beginning. For still the questions arise,\nWhere did this almighty matter come from? Who endowed it with these\nwonderful potencies? And how does it happen to work so well, in such\norderly and regular evolution of star dust, suns, planets, pollywogs,\nmonkeys, men and maggots, in eternal cycles, ever advancing higher and\ndoing better and better for the race, though poorly enough, it appears,\nfor the miserable individuals? Here Buchner, Vogt, Spencer and other\nmaterialists come in and perfect that which was lacking; showing how the\nstar dust made itself, and how the paving stones made themselves, and\nare under no obligations to any Creator but themselves. Matter and force\nare all they need, and endless time in which to work, and they will\naccount for the universe without any Creator at all. Everything and\nevery person must be just as it is, according to the regular operation\nof the laws of Nature.\n\nAs Buchner, Vogt and Spencer have given the system a head, Lubbock,\nEvans and others have supplied it with a tail, and demonstrated how\nsociety, and morals, and religion have been excogitated by the apes out\nof their meditations in the forests. It is a fearful and wonderful\naccount they give us of the origin of marriage from the battles of the\nbaboons, of the rights of property established by terrible fights for\ngroves of good chestnuts, of the beginnings of morals from the instincts\nof brutes, and of the dawnings of religion, or rather of superstition,\nfrom the dreams of these animals; the result of the whole being that\ncivilization, and society, and law, and order, and religion, are all\nsimply the evolution of the instincts of the brutes, and that there is\nno necessity for invoking any supernatural interference to produce them.\nThe termination of the whole, as far as you and I are concerned, is that\n\"We shall fade away as the faint cloud melts into the blue ether,\" into\nthe eternal sleep of death.\n\nIt thus appears that there is an orderly succession and attempted\nadjustment of one part of the doctrine of evolution to another, and that\nall the various workers are cooperating toward one grand result. It is\ntrue they differ widely in their professed religious creeds and\npolitical partialities. Mr. Darwin avows his belief in a Creator. Mr.\nHuxley votes on the London School Board for the introduction of the\nBible into the public schools. Mr. Spencer is willing to allow the\nexistence of some great unknowable mystery. Some of the French and\nGerman evolutionists dispense with any reference to God, as an\nunnecessary hypothesis. Others oppose the idea of God altogether, as\ninimical to progress. M. Comte proposed a worship of humanity. M.\nStrauss would worship the universe. But with all this variety of\nuniform, and armor, and tactics, the evolutionists are all soldiers of\nthe same army, and are all fighting the same great battle, for the\nbrutal origin of man, and his independence of God. From which\nindependence of God, and brutal origin of mankind, result very\nimportant consequences. For the belief of this notion necessarily\ndestroys all faith in the Bible, and in the Christianity which it\nreveals, and revolutionizes the basis of the civilization founded upon\nit, and all the laws protecting life, property, marriage and religion;\nwhich laws are based upon the belief of mankind in the dignity of man,\nthe sacredness of human life, and the sanction of morality by the\nAll-seeing Judge of all the earth, who will reward every man according\nto his works. For all practical purposes it makes no great difference\nwhether a man denies that there is any God at all, or admits that there\nis some kind of a god who created the world millions of years ago, and\njust set it a spinning to work out its destiny as best it might, but\nnever after concerned himself about it, or its people, and never will;\nfor nobody will ever trouble his head about a god who never troubles his\nhead about him.\n\nMost of the evolutionists are zealous advocates of their system. These\npropagandists have had such a degree of success in attracting public\nattention, in inspiring a large proportion of the secular press, besides\nscientific journals, as advocates of their notions, and in obtaining\nentrance for them into the common school books, put into the hands of\nour children, and into massive quartos published by State legislatures\nwith the money of Christian people, and in the prevalent corruption of\npublic morals and breach of private trusts necessarily resulting from\nthe evolution of these principles, that we are compelled, in\nself-defense, to examine the doctrine of evolution. It is all very well\nfor Mr. Tyndall to warn off everybody, but evolutionists, from any\ninvestigations into cosmogony; about which he owns that they know very\nlittle now, and will not know much for some millions of years to come.\nBut common people, who will not live so long, but who in the meantime\nhave to live and make money, and save it, who have children to rear,\nand houses which they do not want burned over their heads, who have\ntaxes to pay, increasing every year, and public plunderers to prosecute\nand whose ballots may be asked one of these days for the substitution of\nthe communes of the original apes, and the Red Republic for these United\nStates, all upon the alleged scientific proof for the truth of the\ndoctrine of evolution, and the consequent abolishment of\nChristianity--common people, I maintain, by whose money and votes this\ndogma is to be established, will not be debarred from asking the why and\nthe wherefore, neither by Mr. Tyndall, nor by any other scientific pope.\nIt is a little too late in the day for men who do not know their own\nmind from the Alps to Belfast, and who doubt whether God made them\nwhenever they are dyspeptic, to stand up before the public demanding\nthat we shut our eyes and open our mouths, and swallow every\npreposterous notion they think proper to proclaim as science, to the\ndestruction of our faith in the God who made us, of our respect for our\nbrethren of mankind, and of our hope of heaven.\n\n\n_II. The Illogical Structure of the Theory._\n\nWhen men come before the world with a dogma freighted with such\nwide-reaching revolutions, they ought to be prepared to furnish the most\nirrefragable proofs of its truth, and of its obligation and authority.\nWe should be able to establish it beyond all controversy as based on a\nseries of facts which take their place historically in the line of the\ninductive sciences; about which all men of science are agreed, as all\nastronomers, for instance, are agreed about gravitation; and we should\nbe able to show that each of the alleged consequences flows inevitably\nand logically from these established facts. Ignorance, hypothesis,\nassumption of facts, sophisms, begging the question, and the like, are\nwholly impertinent in any such discussion. Were they even tolerable in\nthe field of metaphysical discussion, they must, by the rules of the\nPositive Philosophy itself, banishing all but ascertained facts from the\nhalls of science, be excluded from this discussion of an alleged general\nlaw of nature. But when we enter on the examination of the dogma of\nevolution, we find its parentage among ignoble superstitions; its\nfundamental facts still lie in the darkness of ignorance and assumption;\nand its reasoning is illogical and absurd.\n\nThe most prominent feature which arrests our notice as we look closely\nat the theory of evolution, as presented by any of its prominent\natheistical advocates is, _its illogical and incoherent structure_. The\nwriter contradicts himself. The various parts of the theory do not hang\ntogether. The alleged facts do not sustain the conclusions deduced from\nthem. Mr. Darwin's books especially abound in the most intolerable\nassumptions of principles and facts, not only without proof, but in the\nface of unanswered and unanswerable objections. And the theory is\nuseless for the purpose of its proposal. All this is utterly at variance\nwith the method of true science. None but a mind debauched by bigoted\nattachment to a preconceived theory could overlook these fatal defects\nin the system. Indeed both Darwin and Huxley admit that acceptance of\nthe evidence must be preceded by belief in the principle of evolution.\nIt is marvelous that any properly educated student of mental science\nshould accept a theory so incoherent, in which the rents are scarcely\nheld together by the patches. We can only exhibit a few specimens of the\nmultitude of these fatal inconsistencies and deficiencies.\n\nThe theory is useless as an explanation of the arcana of Nature. Mr.\nDarwin is, by his own acknowledgment, a very ignorant man--ignorant of\nthe very things necessary for him to know before he can construct a\nmethod of creation, and unable to explain to us what he sets out to\nexplain. He confesses himself ignorant of the origin and laws of\ninheritance, by which his whole system hangs together; of the common\nancestors from which he alleges all creatures are derived; of the laws\nof correlation of parts, though these are indispensable to development;\nof the reasons of the extinction of species, which is the great\nbusiness, the very trade of his great agent, Natural Selection. He has\nno knowledge of the duration of past ages, though that duration is an\nessential element of his calculations. The spontaneous variations of\nplants and animals are the very mainspring of his machine; but he tells\nus he knows nothing of the laws governing them; nor has he any\ninformation about the creation of the primordial forms, nor about the\ndate of beginning, or rate of progress.[15] All which are necessary to\nbe known in order to the formation of a correct theory. Again and again,\nwhen confronted with facts which his theory can not explain, he takes\nrefuge in confessions of ignorance. When he meets facts which flatly\ncontradict his theory of the imperceptible beneficial acquirement of\norgans, or of properties by inheritance--such as the sterility of\nhybrids, the instincts of neuter bees, the battery of the electric eel,\nthe human eye, and the eye of the cuttle-fish, he owns that \"_it is\nimpossible to conceive_ by what steps these wondrous organs have been\nproduced.\" When asked for the missing links between existing species, he\nrefers us to the undiscovered fossiliferous strata below the Silurian.\nSo Sir C. Lyell refers us for a view of the apes, which developed the\nfirst men, to the unexplored geological regions of Central Africa! And\nRev. Baden Powell refers us, for the missing links of the chain of\ndevelopment, to \"that enormous period of which we are, from the\nconditions, _precluded from knowing any thing whatever_.\" And as to the\nOrigin of Species, the very thing the title of his book proclaims, and\nhow the original germs varied into the four or five primeval forms, and\nthese into the next, he says: \"_Our ignorance of the laws of variation\nis profound!_\" And that is science!\n\nThe Christian acknowledges his ignorance of the method of creation; but\nhe presents a sufficient cause for the existence of the facts. The\nevolutionist ridicules the Bible account of creation as\nincomprehensible, and then he gives us an account which he himself owns\nto be incomprehensible, and which we, besides, perceive to be absurd. He\nproposes to explain to us the origin of species, and locates it in the\ngeological strata of an unexplored continent, and in those remote ages\nof which by the conditions _we are precluded from knowing any thing\nwhatever_! Objecting to the idea of the God of the Bible, as a\nself-existent, infinite, intelligent, omnipotent, good Spirit, because\nof its unthinkability, Messrs. Spencer, Tyndall, and the rest assure us\nof the eternal self existence of an intelligent cloud of gas, endowed\nwith all promises and potencies, of life and thought, as a simple and\nintelligible substitute! Belief in God Almighty is only superstition,\nbut faith in Mr. Tyndall's gas-god is science. Mr. Spencer honestly\nlands in the unknowable. Well, then, what science have we gained of the\nmysteries of our origin?\n\nOf the self-contradictions of evolutionists, we have an instance in\nHuxley's treatment of the fundamental fact of his system--protoplasm.\nThe grand question is: How does the protoplasm become alive? In his\nfamous lecture on the subject, Physical Basis of Life, he argues\nthroughout, that life is a property of protoplasm; that protoplasm owes\nits properties to the nature and arrangement of its molecules; that\nthere is no more need to infer or allege a faculty called vitality, to\naccount for the production of these various properties of the\nprotoplasm from its chemical constituents, than to infer a power called\naquosity, to account for the generation of water from oxygen and\nhydrogen; and that our thoughts are the expression of molecular changes\nin that matter of life which is the source of our other vital phenomena.\nBriefly, our minds are manufactured by our bodies. But in his more\nrecent work, the Classification of Animals, 1869, without any retraction\nof his previous error, or acknowledgment that he has changed his mind,\nhe flatly contradicts his Physical Basis, accepting and indorsing \"the\nwell-founded doctrine that life is the cause and not the consequence of\norganization.\"\n\nA still more ridiculous incoherency of the same sort is displayed in the\nlogical department of Huxley's Physical Basis of Life; where, after\ntrying to persuade us to put our feet on the ladder which leads in the\nreverse direction from Jacob's, and to descend with him into the slough\nof materialism, and affirming that \"our thoughts are the expression of\nmolecular changes in that matter of life which is the source of our\nother vital phenomena;\" he goes on to say, that he does not believe in\nmaterialism. And he tries to vindicate himself by asserting that \"we\nknow nothing about the composition of any body whatever as it is.\" And\nthis after deducing our thoughts from the molecular changes of the\nprotoplasm! A pretty story truly, and an impudent one! Here is a man who\nwill tell you all about how your body made your soul out of protoplasm,\nand in the next page acknowledges that he knows nothing about the\ncomposition of either the body or soul as it is! And yet this man will\nmock the believers in the Bible as \"smothering their minds under a\nrespectable feather bed of tradition,\" because they hesitate to shut\ntheir eyes, and swallow his contradictions.\n\nMr. Wallace gives us a specimen of this logical incoherence affecting if\npossible still more deeply the foundations of philosophic faith.[16] He\nheads his paragraph _Matter is Force_, and goes on to argue that matter\nis essentially force, and nothing but force; that matter, as popularly\nunderstood, does not exist. Then in a couple of pages he goes on to\nargue \"that the whole universe is not merely dependent on, but actually\n_is_, the will of higher intelligences, or of one Supreme Intelligence.\"\nBut the whole tenor of his book is thus demolished; since evolution, if\nit means anything, means the interposition of natural law between the\nwill of the one Supreme Intelligence and the universe. And on this\ntheory Mr. Wallace's criticisms on Mr. Darwin and others are impious,\nbeing criticisms upon parts of the will of the one Supreme Intelligence.\n\nSimilar instances of self-contradiction could be given, did space\npermit, from almost every advocate of evolution.\n\nOur space permits the exhibition of but a single instance of the\ninherent incoherency of the theory. There is nothing in which all the\natheistic evolutionists are more emphatic than in the exclusion of\ndesign from the universe. All their arguments and sneers are leveled\nagainst the idea, that the adaptations of Nature were designed or\nintended by an intelligent mind; and the theory of evolution is welcomed\nchiefly because it enables them to give some account of the order of the\nworld, without any acknowledgment of a providence guiding it to some end\nor purpose. But yet all these same evolutionists proclaim progress as\nthe great law of Nature, and expend themselves with wonderful eloquence\nin tracing the progress of nebulae into worlds, and of worms into men.\nThey glory in progress of the past, and prophesy progress in the future,\napparently in the most childish unconsciousness, that the very idea of\nprogress involves design, and that the fact of progress asserts\nprovidence. Nor is there any escape by alleging necessity of Nature,\nwhich is merely endowing the designer of progress with omnipotence as\nwell as omniscience.\n\nThe illogical character of the theory is still further manifested by the\nfailure of its alleged facts to sustain the consequences deduced from\nthem. Suppose all the facts alleged by the atheistic evolutionists were\ngranted, how would they do away with the evidence of the being and\ngovernment of God? as they loudly allege they do. Let it be granted that\nall men grew up from monkeys, and the monkeys from worms, and all worms\ngrew from invisible animalculae, and that the animalculae flashed into\nlife by the chemical contact of the materials of the protoplasm, and\nthat the protoplasm was a natural crop of the cooling globe, and that\nthe cooling globe condensed itself out of fire mist or nebulae or star\ndust, I demand to know how does all that enable me to get rid of the law\nof causation? It is a necessary law of my nature to believe that every\neffect demands an adequate cause. It is equally a law of my nature to\nbelieve that every compound, or composite substance, is an effect, that\nthe compound did not compound itself.\n\nHere is a great effect--a universe in solution, with all the chemical\nconstituents of our globe and solar system floating in it, and all their\nlaws of chemical affinity and proportion, and all their electrical\nattractions and repulsions, in full operation (else we would never get a\nuniverse to thicken down out of it); and besides, all the potencies of\nvegetable and animal life, and all the great powers of the human mind,\nin a rather vaporous condition, it is true, but still all\nthere--Socrates, Seneca and Solomon, Moses, Solon and Blackstone, Homer,\nMilton and Shakespeare, Demosthenes, Cicero and Daniel Webster, Watt,\nStephenson, Fulton and Morse, popes, puritans and evolutionists,\nuniversities and newspapers and congresses, the United States and the\nBritish Empire, and the rest of mankind--all boiled up into Mr.\nTyndall's potencies, but all there in potency, just as truly as they\never were here in fact. Well! here is a great effect just as\nimperatively demanding a great First Cause as the world afterward formed\nout of it. These substances did not make themselves then, any more than\nthe resulting persons or paving stones make themselves now, and they did\nnot endow themselves with these potencies, nor calculate and establish\nthese laws of chemical combination in exact proportion, nor determine\nscientifically the laws of gravitation and electricity and light and\nheat, before they came into being; which must have all been established\nbefore a single particle of the star dust could begin to cool, or to\napproach another. The very first idea of matter or of force we can form\ndemands law, and law is merely another name for the divine order of\nNature. Whatever foundation for Natural Religion, for faith in God as\nthe Creator and Governor of the world, is afforded by the existing order\nof the world, it is in no degree logically weakened (though it may be\npractically) by viewing that order as reached by a process of evolution,\nsince that process also must have been designed, planned, adapted to its\npurpose, and divinely superintended.\n\nAccordingly, we find that many philosophers, and some divines,\nacknowledge a process of the evolution of God's great idea, and adore\nhim for the growth alike of forests and firmaments, regarding evolution,\nthus conditioned, as profoundly religious. St. Augustine, and St. Thomas\nAquinas, of old, and many modern speculators, have assented to the\ntheory of evolution as perfectly consistent with belief in God, as its\nAuthor. It is utterly illogical to allege that evolution has banished\nfinal causes. Grant it all its facts, and these facts proclaim God.\n\nIt is evident, however, that evolutionists are not confident of the\nability of the facts which they are able to allege to sustain their\ntheory, since they are perpetually postulating assumptions necessary to\ntheir argument, but which are utterly unproved, and incapable of proof.\nMr. Darwin is the most notorious offender against inductive science in\nthis respect. I have now before me a list of eighty-six assumptions of\nthis sort in the Origin of Species alone. Those in his other works are\ntoo numerous to mention. He continually mistakes his own assertions, or\neven his own mere conjectures, for proof, and refers back to them, and\nbuilds further assumptions upon them accordingly; and he assumes facts\nunproven and incapable of proof; and principles which he must know are\ndenied by his opponents. We can only take a few instances at random.\n\nHe assumes that all dogs are developed from wolves (Descent of Man, page\n48); that the instincts of animals are developed (page 38); that\nlanguage was developed (page 53); that there is a wider interval between\nthe lamprey and the ape than between the ape and the man, thus begging\nthe question of man's brutality (page 34); that the savage is the\noriginal state of man (page 63); that parental instincts are the result\nof Natural Selection, after owning utter ignorance of their origin (page\n77); that the ideas of glory and infamy are the workings of sympathy\n(page 82); the heredity of moral tastes (page 98); that the standard of\nmorality has been rising since the giving of the ten commandments (page\n99); that our ancestors were quadrupeds (page 116); that there have been\nthousands of generations (page 125); that breeds have the character of\nspecies (Origin of Species, page 411); that rudimentary organs are\ninherited abortions (page 424); that there are four or five original\nprogenitors, and distant evidence of only one (page 425); he assumes\ndescent to prove his geology (page 428); and perpetual progress toward\nperfection (pages 59, 140, 176, 428), in the face of his own facts of\nretrogression.\n\nThen look at the outrageous character of the assumption that beneficial\nvariations may be added up indefinitely, that is, to infinity. Because a\ngymnast can leap over two horses, can his son leap over three? and his\nson over four? and his son over five? and can we in time breed a man who\nwill leap to the moon? And yet the whole theory is based upon\nforgetfulness of the maxim, that there is a limit to all things, and of\nthe fact, that in creatures of flesh and blood this limit is very soon\nreached.\n\nLook again at the utterly erroneous assumption that the tendency of the\nstruggle for life is to improve the combatants; an assumption\ncontradicted by the whole history of famine, war, pauperism, and\ndisease, among brutes and men. Were the survivors of the Irish famine of\n1847, or those of the Persian, or Bengali famines improved by their\nstruggle for life? It is true the fittest survived; but that was all;\nthey were miserably emaciated and demoralized. Were the peasantry of\nEurope improved by the wars of the French Revolution? On the contrary,\nthough the fittest survived, France was obliged to lower the recruiting\nstandard three inches. In all cases the struggle for life injures all\nconcerned.\n\nAnd yet upon these two fundamental assumptions the theory is built; of\nwhich that of the indefinite accumulation of small profitable variations\nis outrageously impossible and absurd; and the other, of the improvement\nof breeds by starvation and hardships, is contrary to all observation\nand experience! Take away these two assumptions, and the whole theory of\nthe gradual improvement of plants and animals by such agency vanishes.\nThere is no such power of indefinite improvement by Natural Selection,\nas Mr. Darwin asserts. The utmost it can do is to keep breeds up to the\nnatural standard, or near to it, by destroying the weakest; but at the\nsame time it weakens the strongest also. Were there no other objection,\nthis one would be fatal, that Mr. Darwin assigns an elevating power to a\ndepressing agency, and asserts war, famine, hardship, and disease as his\nholy angels perfecting progress.\n\nMr. Darwin presents the most preposterous assumptions with such coolness\nand apparent unconsciousness of their utter improbability to his\nreaders, and with such an entire ignoring of the necessity of any\nfurther attestation than his own _ipse dixit_, as to warrant serious\nsuspicions of his sanity. Take, for instance, his bear and whale story.\nHearne reports having seen in the Arctic regions a bear swimming in the\nwater for hours, with his mouth wide open, catching flies; and Mr.\nDarwin says if the supply of flies were constant (where the winter lasts\neight months of the year 40 deg. below zero) _he can see no difficulty in\nthe production at length of an animal as monstrous as a whale_! M.\nComte's disciples never suspected their master's sanity till he invented\na religion for them.\n\n2. This theory, it should be remembered, is _merely a theory_, _a mere\nnotion_, _a hypothesis_. It is not even alleged that it is based upon\nfacts actually discovered. The alleged facts of the cooling of the\nnebulae, the chemical origin of life upon our globe, and the development\nof the original Ascidian into the fish, and that into the monkey, and of\nthe monkey into the man, never were witnessed by anybody, nor could they\nbe witnessed. La Place was honest enough to call his part of the theory,\nThe Nebular _Hypothesis_. He had no idea of claiming for it the rank of\na fact of science upon which he, or anybody else, might build a system.\nNor are the modern assertors of evolution able to establish a single\ninstance of the chemical origin of life at the present day; though\nthousands of experiments have been made attempting that exploit, by\nEnglish, French, and German chemists during the last forty years. Nor\nhas a single case of the transmutation of species ever been observed in\nwild animals or plants; nor has any change of species been produced in\ntame ones by domestication or culture. No naturalist has seen a\ncommunity of apes in the process of improvement toward manhood; nor has\nany philologist described the first attempts of the monkeys toward the\narticulation of language, or the manufacture of clothing, unless we\nexcept Mr. Lemuel Gulliver's interesting account of the Yahoos. It must\nbe acknowledged that the animals described by that accurate observer,\nand graphic describer, approach more nearly to those required by Mr.\nDarwin's theory than any ever seen before, or since. Hence it is greatly\nto be desired that some scientific evolutionists should thoroughly\nexplore those regions, investigate the manners and customs of the Yahoos\nwith the enthusiasm of a true Darwinian, and minutely describe those\ninteresting features which would enable us to decide whether they are\nmonkeys progressing to manhood, or men brutalizing into apehood; but\nwhich Mr. Gulliver's lack of scientific enthusiasm for evolution\nprevented him from closely examining. But until the scientific standing\nof Mr. Gulliver's Yahoos is determined, the theory of evolution must be\nassigned to the mountains of speculations, big with expectation, but\nwhich yet await the birth of their first fact.\n\nMr. Darwin indeed alleges the results of domestication upon animals and\nplants, as producing permanent varieties as different in appearance as\nmany which are ranked by naturalists as different species, and he\nalleges that Natural Selection carries on a similar process of\nimprovement among wild animals and plants.\n\nBut the facts of domestication are most emphatic in refusing to\nacknowledge any change of species of the most carefully bred animals.\nThe efforts of breeders have been exerted for thousands of years upon\nthe dog, the ox, the goat, the sheep, and the ass, the horse, and the\ncamel, among animals; and upon the goose, the duck, and the pigeon, and\nfor a shorter time, but still for two thousand years, upon the common\nbarn-door poultry. Farmers in all lands, since the deluge, have used\ntheir best exertions to improve the cereals, the fruit trees, the vines,\nand root crops, and vegetables, and the result has been some valuable\nmodifications of size, shape, flavor, and fertility; but in no case\nwhatever has any change of species been effected. All the efforts of\nbreeders have not succeeded in making the horse specifically different\nfrom the noble animal described in the Book of Job four thousand years\nago. The sheep has not become a goat, nor the goat a sheep, by all the\npains of all the shepherds since the days of Abel. The ass displays not\nthe least tendency to become a horse, nor the goat to become a cow. Mr.\nDarwin makes great capital out of pigeons, enumerating all the varieties\nowned by fanciers, and showing how the Indian emperors bred them a\nthousand years before Christ. But it is strange that he does not see\nthat this makes against his theory; since in all that time this most\nvariable of birds has never been transmuted into any other species. The\npigeon has never been changed into a crow, or a magpie, or a woodpecker,\nor a chicken; has never, in fact, become anything else than a pigeon.\nDogs are also somewhat variable in their varieties, and Mr. Darwin\nrelies greatly upon supposed variations from some one assumed ancestral\npair of dogs, into the greyhound, mastiff, terrier, and lapdog. But\ngranting all these unproven variations, no instance is alleged of a dog\never becoming a cat or a lion by any care or culture.\n\nIt will not do to allege, that, for anything we know to the contrary,\nour present breeds of domestic animals and plants may be so different\nfrom those called by the same names in ancient times as to be really\ndifferent species.\n\nWe do know many things to the contrary. In the tombs of the Egyptians,\nand the sculptures of the Assyrians, we have pictures of the various\nplants, birds, and animals, from three to four thousand years old, as\nwell as of man, the most domestic animal of the whole. These paintings\nand sculptures assure us that in all those millenniums domestication has\nnot produced the slightest change in the races of animals, plants, or\nmen. The Ethiopian has not changed his skin, nor the leopard his spots.\nThe negro was then the same black-skinned, woolly-headed, flat-nosed,\nthick-lipped, long-heeled person he is to-day, as pompous, good-humored,\nand fond of finery. The Assyrian statues are good, recognizable\nlikenesses of eminent living Jewish merchants, in London and New\nOrleans. The old Pharaohs of the monuments can be matched for face and\nfigure any day in the bazars of Cairo. The greyhound of the tombs is the\nsame variety now used for coursing hares in the desert. The camel, the\nass, and the Arab, and Assyrian breeds of horses, have not been at all\nimproved in forty centuries. Even Mr. Darwin's favorite pigeons would\nseem to have ceased to vary; for the carrier-pigeons let loose by\nSesostris, to carry the news of his coronation to all the cities of\nEgypt, do not differ a feather from the modern Egyptian carrier-pigeons.\nThe various wild animals, and many of the plants, are represented on\nthese monuments in great variety. Among these I have noted the lotus,\nthe papyrus, the leek, the palm, wheat, barley, and millet; the\ncrocodile, the frog, the crane, the flamingo, the ibis, the goose, the\nowl, the ostrich, the peacock; and of beasts the now famous ancestral\nape, Ptolemy's tame lion, the leopard, the gazelle, the hippopotamus,\nthe giraffe, and the wild boar, and many others. But there is not the\nleast perceptible change in the corresponding species now inhabiting\nEgypt and the desert.\n\nWe can go further than the mere external appearance; for we can actually\ndissect specimens of the various animals, and thus satisfy ourselves\nwhether any physiological change, amounting to a transmutation of\nspecies, has occurred, or was in progress; and the investigation has\nbeen conducted by no less a physiologist and zoologist than Cuvier,\nwhose authority in such matters no naturalist will dispute. And this is\nwhat he says: \"It might seem as if the ancient Egyptians had been\ninspired by nature, for the purpose of transmitting to after ages a\nmonument of her natural history. That strange and whimsical people, by\nembalming with so much care the brutes which were the objects of their\nstupid adoration, have left us in their sacred grottoes cabinets of\nzoology almost complete. Climate has conspired with art to preserve the\nbodies from corruption, and we can now assure ourselves with our own\neyes what was the state of a good number of species three thousand years\nago. * * * I have endeavored to collect all the ancient documents\nrespecting the forms of animals, and there are none equal to those\nfurnished by the Egyptians, both in regard to their antiquity and\nabundance. I have examined with the greatest care the engraved figures\nof quadrupeds and birds upon the obelisks brought from Egypt to ancient\nRome; and all these figures, one with another, have a perfect\nresemblance to their intended objects, such as they still are in our\ndays. My learned friend, Geoffrey St. Hilaire, convinced me of the\nimportance of this research, and carefully collected in the tombs and\ntemples of Upper and Lower Egypt as many mummies of animals as he could\nprocure. He has brought home the mummies of cats, ibises, birds of prey,\ndogs, crocodiles, and the head of a bull. After the most attentive and\ndetailed examination, not the smallest difference is to be perceived\nbetween these animals and those of the same species which we now see,\nany more than between human mummies and skeletons of men of the present\nday.\"[17]\n\nThere is then not the first fact, or appearance of a fact, to be adduced\nin proof of the change of species either by domestication, or Natural\nSelection, or any other process known to man. That any such evolution of\nany animal, or plant, into one of another species ever occurred, is a\nmere empty notion, in support of which no facts can be adduced. All the\nanimals and plants of which we know anything have remained unchanged\nsince the beginning of man's observation of them. The theory endeavors\nto account for a change which never happened. It is a mere empty dream,\nunworthy of a serious consideration by any mind imbued with the first\nprinciple of inductive science--namely, that all science is the orderly\nknowledge of facts; and whose first rule is, _first ascertain your\nfacts_.\n\nBut it is urged, that though such a change has not occurred during the\nbrief period of human history, it may have been practicable in the\nlengthened periods revealed by geology, and while the forces of nature\nwere more vigorous during the youth of our planet. This, in fact, is the\ngrand resource of the modern evolutionists--the almost infinite periods\nand possibilities of geology.\n\nWe refuse, however, to follow Mr. Powell into those unexplored realms of\nthe infinite past and discuss the possibilities of ages, of which \"by\nthe conditions we can not know anything whatever.\" We will go as far as\nthe geological strata furnish us with any facts, any evidences of life,\nany traces of plants or animals of which corresponding species still\nexist, and will unhesitatingly affirm, on the authority of the most\neminent geologists, that such geological representatives of existing\nspecies furnish no evidence whatever of evolution into higher forms. On\nthe contrary, we shall show that many species have existed without the\nslightest change for many thousands, aye, and millions of years,\nsufficiently long to establish the fact of the permanence of species\nduring the geologic ages known to man.\n\nGeologists are generally agreed that the first Florida Coral Reef is at\nleast 30,000 years old; but Agassiz asserts, uncontradicted, that the\ninsect which built it has not altered in the least in that period, and\nhe says regarding it: \"These facts furnish evidence, as direct as we can\nobtain in any branch of physical inquiry, that some at least of the\nspecies of animals now existing have been in existence 30,000 years, and\nhave not undergone the slightest change in that period.\" But we can go\nstill further back, and demonstrate the permanence of vegetable\nstructure. Hugh Miller says: \"The oak, the birch, the hazel, the Scotch\nfir, all lived, I repeat, in what is now Britain, ere the last great\ndepression of the land. The gigantic northern elephant and rhinoceros,\nextinct for untold ages, forced their way through the tangled branches;\nand the British tiger and hyena harbored in their thickets. Cuvier\nframed an argument for the fixity of species on the fact that the birds\nand beasts of the catacombs were identical in every respect with the\nanimals of the same kind that live now. But what, it has been asked, is\na brief period of 3,000 years, when compared with the geologic ages? Or\nhow could any such argument be founded on a basis so little extended? It\nis, however, to no such narrow basis that we can refer in the case of\nthese woods. All human history is comprised in the nearer corner of the\nimmense period they measure out; and yet from their first appearance in\ncreation till now, they have not altered a single fiber. And such on\nthis point is the invariable testimony of Paleontologic science,\ntestimony so invariable that no great Paleontologist was ever yet an\nasserter of the Development Hypothesis.\"[18] To the same purpose let us\nhear Huxley's testimony, since no one will suspect him of undue respect\nfor Moses: \"Obviously if the earliest fossiliferous rocks now known are\ncoeval with the commencement of life, and if their contents give us any\njust conception of the earliest fauna and flora, the insignificant\namount of modification which can be demonstrated to have taken place in\nany one group of animals and plants, is quite incompatible with the\nhypothesis that all living forms are the results of a process of\nnecessary progressive development entirely comprised within the time\nrepresented by the fossiliferous rocks.\"[19]\n\nWe are fully warranted, then, in alleging, that no such transmutation of\nspecies is known to science, as an existing fact, or as having ever\noccurred.\n\nAs to the supposition on which the evolutionists fall back, that such a\nmiracle might have happened thousands of millions of years before the\nformation of the lowest rocks known to us, we might well decline the\ndiscussion of may-be's as facts of science.\n\nBut there is a positive denial of unimaginable periods of time for Mr.\nDarwin's evolution to try its blundering experiments. We are empowered\nto say positively, No! There is no such length of time for you, Mr.\nDarwin, on this little globe at least. This rotating world had a\nbeginning; so had our moon; and our sun, too, began to burn one day. And\nthere are data of the revolution of these bodies, and of the secular\ncooling of the earth, and of the gradual combustion of the sun, and of\nthe retardation of the earth's motions, from which Sir Wm. Thompson (in\nhis Treatise on Geological Time) calculates, that our earth has not been\nin a fit state for plants and animals for more than a hundred millions\nof years; and he demonstrates the absurdity of the demand for unlimited\ntime, as contradictory to the facts of physical astronomy. Hence we deny\nthe possibility of evolution in the infinite ages of the past. There\nnever were any such ages on this world of ours.\n\n4. Failing to find facts, evolutionists fall back upon analogies, and\nsupport their hypothesis by the supposed analogy of the _growth of the\nembryos of all plants and animals from germs alleged to be originally\nperfectly similar_--simple protoplasm cells, which by subsequent\nevolution, differentiate themselves as widely as the moss from the man.\n\nThe subject is too obscure for popular discussion. I can only announce\nthe results of the latest and most authoritative researches.[20]\n\n1. Analogy is a very unsafe guide here, because the differences between\nthe limited life of the individual, and the alleged unlimited life of\nthe race, are precisely those of which we have no analogy.\n\n2. It is not true that \"the original substratum or material is in every\ninstance alike,\" nor that the \"primordial cell is in every instance the\nsame,\" whether of the \"lichen or the man;\"[21] nor as others allege,\n\"that chemical reagents detect no differences between them.\" Chemical\nreagents are very clumsy instruments for the analysis of living beings,\nand their properties and powers; which are the antagonists of chemical\nreactions. Nevertheless, heat is a well-known chemical agent, and the\napplication of heat to a fertilized, and to an unfertilized, germ\ndevelops a whole world of difference between them. The one becomes a\nchicken, the other an addled egg. Moreover, the application of different\ndegrees of heat to different germs produces the most various reactions.\nThe germs of trout are speedily killed by the moderate temperature of\n65 deg. Fahrenheit, while the germs of most animalculae and plants develop\nrapidly at that temperature. Such instances might be multiplied, but\nthese are sufficient to contradict the rash assertion of sameness,\nbecause a hasty observer did not take pains to discover differences.\n\n3. There are four distinct plans of structure in the animal kingdom, and\nat least three, perhaps more, in the vegetable kingdom; and every germ,\nfrom the first instant when its evolution can be seen at all, is seen to\ndevelop only according to its own proper method. There is no more\nconfusion of germs, or embryos, than of plants or animals.\n\n4. No instance has ever been known of a germ producing an animal, or\nplant, of another species, by any process of stopping short of ripening,\nor undue prolongation of it. Every seed breeds true to its kind, or not\nat all, or produces a deformity. Embryology utterly refuses the notion\nof the transmutation of species.\n\nMr. Darwin's various references to rudimentary organs, like the bones of\na hand in the flipper of the whale, or the teats of male animals, and\nthe like, can hardly be called arguments. He tries to account for them\nand fails; acknowledging ignorance of the laws of heredity. Some of them\nhe will have to be young organs in process of evolution, others organs\naborted for want of exercise. In this category he ought to place the\ntail which he ought to have inherited from his ancestors, as he is\ngreatly exercised to know what became of it. But it is evident that his\nattempts to build arguments on such things, and to account for\noccasional variations by atarism, are in contradiction to his\nprinciples. Most of the known instances of the origination of permanent\nvarieties were not the result of infinitesimal improvements, but were\nsudden and complete at once. The Japan peacocks, the short-legged\nsheep, the porcupine man and his family, and the six-fingered men, were\nnot at all the results of a slow process of evolution; on the contrary,\nthey were born so, complete at once, in utter contradiction of the\ntheory.\n\n5. The only other line of argument, which has any show of probability,\nis that based upon _the gradations of the various orders of plants and\nanimals_. Not but that there are many other arguments adduced, but they\nare of too technical a character to be intelligible to any but\nzoologists, and of too little weight to demand consideration after the\nleading arguments are overturned. But this argument from gradation,\nthough logically unsound, is plausibly specious, and therefore demands\nnotice.\n\nBy far the ablest exhibition of this argument is that made by Lamarck,\nand we give it as he presents it: \"The greater the abundance of natural\nobjects assembled together, the more do we discover proofs that\neverything passes by insensible shades into something else; that even\nthe more remarkable differences are evanescent, and that nature has for\nthe most part left us nothing at our disposal for establishing\ndistinctions, save trifling, and in some respects puerile\nparticularities. We find that many genera among plants and animals are\nof such an extent, in consequence of the number of species referred to\nthem, that the study and determination of these last have become almost\nimpracticable. When the species are arranged in a series, and placed\nnear to each other, with a due regard to their natural affinities, they\neach differ in so minute a degree from those next adjoining, that they\nalmost melt into each other, and are in a manner confounded together. If\nwe see isolated species, we may presume the absence of some more closely\nconnected, and which have not yet been discovered. Already there are\ngenera, and even entire orders, nay, whole classes which present this\nstate of things.\" He then goes on to present, \"as a guide to\nconjecture,\" what his successors now assert as a fact: \"In the first\nplace, if we examine the whole series of known animals, from one\nextremity to the other, when they are arranged in the order of their\nnatural relations, we find that we may pass progressively, or at least\nwith very few interruptions, from beings of more simple to those of more\ncompound structure; and in proportion as the complexity of their\norganization increases, the number and dignity of their faculties\nincrease also. Among plants a similar approximation to a graduated scale\nof being is apparent. Secondly, it appears, from geological\nobservations, that plants and animals of more simple organization\nexisted on the globe before the appearance of those of more compound\nstructure, and the latter were successively formed at more modern\nperiods, each new race being more fully developed than the most perfect\nof the preceding one.\"[22]\n\nFrom this gradation of nature, thus stated, the evolutionists go on to\ninfer genealogy, the birth descent of the larger from the smaller, and\nof the more complex from the simpler forms, as the only scientific\nexplanation. But it is by no means the only scientific explanation of\nthe order of nature. The best naturalists, from Moses to Agassiz, have\nregarded the order of nature as the development of the divine idea, have\nprosecuted their researches on that view, and have regarded that as a\nsufficient and scientific explanation of the gradation of plants and\nanimals, as they actually exist.\n\nThe idea of birth descent can not be logically connected with that of\ngradation; especially with a gradation upward. Were the order of nature\nsuch as Lamarck describes, how could any man logically infer the birth\ndescent of each of its classes from the next below? Here is an\nironmonger's sample card of wood screws, beginning with those\none-quarter of an inch long, and proceeding by gradations of\none-sixteenth of an inch to those of four inches. Does the gradation\nshow that the little ones begot the big ones? It may be said the wood\nscrews do not beget progeny. Well, here is a hill containing\ntwenty-three potatoes, weighing from half an ounce to half a pound, and\nquite regularly graded. Did the small potatoes beget the big ones? The\ninference of birth descent from gradation is utterly illogical, and of a\npiece with the incoherency which we have seen in the other parts of the\ntheory. It never could be inferred from the facts stated, even did\nnature correspond to Lamarck's description.\n\nBut nature does not correspond to Lamarck's description. That\ndescription corresponded moderately, perhaps, to the science of his day,\nwhich was based chiefly upon external resemblances; but no scientific\nnaturalist of the present day would accept it as a correct statement of\nthe facts revealed by modern science.\n\nIn the first place there is no such imperceptible blending and shading\noff of species as the description would imply, obliterating all\ndistinctions of species, and rendering it impossible even for a\nnaturalist to distinguish one species from another. Since the time of\nLamarck, structure and physiology have been more studied than mere\nexternal appearances; so that from a tooth or bone Cuvier or Agassiz\ncould reconstruct an animal, and indicate its internal organization, as\nwell as its form and habits. But even in Lamarck's days, and even to the\nmost uneducated, there was no such imperceptible shading and blending as\nthe theory requires. It is well to look here at its requirements, for\nthey are not fully presented by its friends. Mr. Darwin gives us a\ndiagram exhibiting the variation of an original species into a score or\nso of varieties, ending in distinct species. But this is very far,\nindeed, below the necessities of the case. The horse hair worm lays\n8,000,000 of eggs; and the primeval germ, whatever it was, could hardly\nbe less fertile, since fertility increases with simplicity of structure.\nBut, taking 8,000,000 to begin with, here were as many varieties; since\nno two of them, or of any creature, could be exactly alike. The next\ngeneration would give 8,000,000 times as many varieties, and so on till\nNatural Selection began to thin off the feeble. But here we have,\ninstead of a few well-marked varieties, an infinite multitude of\nimperceptible variations, rendering classification impossible. And as\nall these were only varieties of the same breed, they would breed\ntogether, and thus still more confuse the complexity, and render\ndistinction of species impossible. For, in spite of all Mr. Darwin has\nto say about the extinction of the weaker varieties, the fact is, they\nare not at all extinguished, but keep their ground as well as the higher\nclasses, or perhaps better. And if a snail, or a worm, can contrive to\nlive now in an unimproved condition, why should its improving cousin die\noff? Did its improvement kill it? And so of improving mollusks, and\nwell-doing radiates, and aspiring rabbits, and all the rest. The world\nought to be so full of them that no man could sort them off into\nspecies, or tell which was fish, which was flesh, and which red herring;\nand no pork packer could distinguish hog from dog.\n\nBut instead of any such horrible confusion of a world full of mongrels,\nwe discover a clear and well defined distinction of species, known even\nto the poor animals themselves, and by their instincts made known to all\nmankind. The Creator, who created all creatures after their kind,\nimplanted in them an instinct of breeding only with their own species;\nand placed a bar in the way of man's vain attempts to work confusion of\nspecies, by rendering the hybrid offspring of different species sterile,\nor only capable of breeding back to the pure blood. Innumerable attempts\nhave been made by fraud and force to procure cross breeds of different\nspecies of plants and animals, but always with the same result--the\nextinction of the progeny of the hybrid, unless bred back to nature.\nWhile a mingling of various breeds of the same species--horses, sheep,\nor cattle--generally increases fertility, the attempt to mingle\ndifferent species, as the horse and the ass, though so similar, always\nproduces sterile offspring. It is impossible to conceive any form in\nwhich the Creator could more emphatically protest against the attempt to\nconfuse the distinctions of species He established.\n\nGod has fixed a barrier against the mixture or confusion of species by\ncross breeding, by ordaining the sterility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin labors\nin vain to explain away this great fact. It can not be explained into\nconformity with the evolution theory; for in that theory all species are\nonly breeds or varieties of one species, and ought to increase their\nfertility by cross breeding. With all scientific naturalists, as with\nall people of common sense, this proves that species have a distinct\nexistence in nature, and that the Creator has ordained the continuance\nof their distinct existence; which is the denial of evolution.\n\nWhen Mr. Darwin retreats into the geologic ages, and confessing that his\nprinciple has ceased to be operative now in our world, and refers us to\nthem for such evolution of one species from another, he abandons the\nfundamental principle of his school--the uniformity of nature--and falls\nback on Christian ground the necessity for supernatural origins. He\nvirtually admits the death or superannuation of Natural Selection, since\nit has retired from the business of species-making.\n\nBut when we go back to those old geologic ages, we find that species\nwere then not only as distinct as now, but that the distinctions were\neven bolder and more visible. Many of them have ceased to exist, but\nthey have left their shells, their petrified casts, and their bones, by\nwhich we can see that they stood apart in well-defined groups, without\nany such blending and confusion as the evolution theory asserts. Over\nthree thousand species are already classified. Between every two of them\nthere ought to be, on Mr. Darwin's showing, a hundred intermediate\nvariations at the least; and between some of the more widely separated\nforms there ought to be thousands of intermediate varieties; as for\ninstance between the bear and the whale; and a still greater number\nbetween the mollusk with its external shell, and the vertebrate with its\ninternal skeleton. And we ought to find these intermediate forms closely\nconnected with their parents and their children. For intermediate forms\nin another continent could not be the connecting links between the\nmollusks and vertebrates of a distant country, say of England. In the\nsame strata in which we find the two ends of the chain, and lying\nbetween the two ends of the chain, we ought to find the connecting\nlinks. And we ought to find a hundred connecting links for every\nspecimen of distinct species, since Mr. Darwin alleges that they must\nhave lived and died somewhere; and we have seen they must have lived and\ndied right there where they were born, and where they begot their\nprogeny. The geological strata ought to be full of connecting links.\n\nBut when we come to look for them they are not there. Geology knows\nnothing about them. It has plenty of distinct, well-defined\nspecies--trilobites, and ammonites, and echinoderms, palms, ferns, firs,\nand mosses, all sorts of quadrupeds from a mouse to a mastodon, and all\njust as clean-cut and well-defined as the species of existing animals.\nMr. Darwin can not find his connecting links between the species, which\nought to have been a hundred times more plentiful than the species they\nconnected. These connecting links are missing links. He ought to be able\nto overwhelm his opponents, and bury them under mountains of the bones\nof intermediate species. But all his friends can do is to suggest about\nhalf a dozen, while he needs three hundred thousand. He can not pay half\na cent on the dollar. In his grief he turns round and abuses the\ndefectiveness of the geological record, which he says he could never\nhave suspected of being so defective but for this failure to meet his\ndrafts. But he need not blame the geological record for not preserving\nbones of animals which never lived. Geology says there never was any\nsuch confusion of species as evolution asserts.\n\nBut not only does the general structure of the web of nature present a\nclearly striped pattern, instead of the mottled gray of the\ntheory--neither the beginning, nor the middle, nor the end is like what\nthe evolution theory would produce.\n\nThe gradation does not begin, as the theory asserts and demands, with\nthe monads. On the contrary, we find that there are four kingdoms of\nanimal life--in an ascending scale--the radiate, or starfish; the\nmollusk or oyster; the articulate, or insect; and the vertebrate, or\nanimals with backbones. Now the evolution ought to have begun at the\nbottom, with the radiate, the coral, and the starfish; it should have\ngone upward, the coral developing into the oyster, and the oyster into\nthe lobster, and the lobster into the salmon, and so on. But instead of\nthat we discover, away down in the Silurian strata, at the very\nbeginning of life, _all the four kingdoms_--the radiates, the mollusks,\nthe articulates, and the fish! Evidently, then, there was no such\nbeginning of the world as evolutionists suppose.\n\nThen as we work upward along the line of march, and of the development\nof the divine idea, we observe that when new species were introduced,\nthey did not work up slowly from small and weak beginnings; beginning\nwith dwarfs and growing up to giants; but, on the contrary, the giants\nhead the column. The geological books are full of them--sharks forty\nfeet long, frogs as big as oxen, ichthyosaurus and plesiosaurus of\nfabulous proportions--were not their skeletons preserved--pterodactyles,\nor bats, as big as a dog, the mastodon giganteus, beside which an\nordinary modern elephant is like a Shetland pony beside a dray horse,\nferns as big as oak trees, and mosses eighteen inches in diameter, shell\nfish of the nautilus order the size of dinner plates, and crustaceans,\ncousins to the lobster, three feet long. And all this at the very first\nstart in life of these respective families, and in overwhelming\nmultitudes. That was no age of small beginnings, and small progressive\nimprovements. On the contrary, these old families, like some other old\nfamilies, seem to have rather lost rank, and bulk, and influence; at\nleast their modern representatives cut no such figure in the world as\ntheir predecessors.\n\nAs we proceed along the line we meet gaps which slay the theory of\ngenealogical descent altogether. A gap is fatal to it. If a family dies\nout, that is the end of it. You can not resuscitate it after a few\ncenturies, and go on with that breed; much less can you pick up a breed\nquite different, and attach it to your old genealogy. But in the line of\nevolution we meet these fatal gaps; and no evolutionist has bridged\nthem, because they can not possibly be bridged.\n\nThe first great gap is the abyss between death and life. No human power\ncan cross it. How could the chemical actions of dead matter infuse\nvitality into the first germ, or bud of a plant? For chemical actions\nare the antagonists of life, and constantly laboring to destroy the\nliving organism, and finally they succeed. There is no process of\nevolution known to man which can carry evolution across this abyss. But\ntill evolution crosses this gulf it can not even begin to operate. This\nfirst abyss is its grave.\n\nBut, supposing life begun in the plant first, as the theory requires,\nthere is another gap between the life of the plant and that of the\nanimal; for all animal life is sustained by another sort of food than\nthat which feeds the vegetable. The vegetable feeds solely on chemical,\nunorganized matters; the animal solely on matter organized, on some\nplant, or on some other animal which feeds on plants. No animal can live\non the food of plants. Here then is another gap which can not be bridged\nover, nor crossed; for the plant in process of conversion into an animal\nis in process of starvation, and when the process is about to be\ncompleted, it will end like the miser's horse, whose master diminished\nhis oats Darwinianly, a single grain a day, until he had brought him to\nlive on just one grain per day, when, alas! the victim of the experiment\ndied. And so ends evolution experiment No. 2.\n\nThen we come on a multitude of gaps, breaks in the uniformity of nature,\ncalled for by the evolutionists, between the species which will not\nbreed together. There ought to be no such species on the theory; or, if\nthere are, there ought to be a multitude of intervening varieties toning\ndown the interval; for instance, between the horse and the cow, and\nbetween the sheep and the hog. All the ingenuity of all the\nevolutionists has been tasked in vain to produce any instance of the\nconfusion of two such species, or of the production of a new true\nspecies by the intermixture of blood. But they might just as well try to\nconvert iron into gold, or sulphur into carbon. In fact, evolution is\nthe modern physiological form of the old chemical superstition, alchemy,\nsubstituting for the transmutation of metals the problem of the\ntransmutation of animals.\n\nIt were endless to attempt to exhibit the impossibilities of crossing\nthe gaps between the water-breathing fish and the air-breathing animal;\nbetween the flying-bird and the quadruped; between instinct and\neducation; between brute selfishness and maternal affection; between the\nhabits of the solitary and those of the gregarious, and those of the\ncolonial insects and animals. No one of these is accounted for\nsatisfactorily by the theory of evolution. But space forbids the\nattempt.\n\nWe only cite one other gulf which the theory can not cross: the gulf\nbetween the brute and the man. We should rather say the three gulfs; for\nbetween man's body and that of the brute there is a gap which Natural\nSelection can not cross; another between man's intellectual powers and\nthose of brutes; and the third, and widest of all, between his\nconscience and their brutal appetites.\n\nThe gulf between man's body and that of any brute is marked along the\nwhole line, from the solid basis of the feet, enabling him to stand\nerect, look upward and behold the stars; along the line of the stiff\nbackbone, maintaining the dignified posture; to the hands, on which\ntreatises have been written, displaying their wonderful superiority over\nthose of all other creatures, and enabling man to do what no other\nanimal has done, to fill the world with his handiworks, and alter the\nvery face of nature with his ax, and spade, and steam engine. His tongue\nand organs of articulate speech alone, were there no other\ncharacteristic, proclaim him different from all other animals; none of\nthose resembling him in outward form making the slightest attempts\ntoward articulate language or being able to do so.\n\nMan alone, of all the animals, possesses no natural covering, but is\nexposed naked to the inclemency of the elements. What little hair he\npossesses is chiefly on the breast, where it is of little use as a\ncovering, and on the head, which in other animals is never better\nprotected than the body. Mr. Darwin alleges that the first men were\nhairy, like apes. Well, how did they lose their hair? Not by Natural\nSelection, which only perpetuates _profitable_ variations; but the loss\nof hair to an ape would be as unprofitable as the loss of your clothes\nto you. Not by Sexual Selection, for there is not the slightest evidence\nthat nudity was ever popular in apedom. We have undoubted evidence, in\nthe two bone needles found with the bones of the man of Mentone, that\nthe primeval men were naked, and complete proof that Natural Selection\ncould not effect such a disadvantageous change had they been hairy.\nHere, then, we have an _inferiority_ to other animals in the animal\nstructure, strangely at variance with the general superiority, and only\nto be accounted for as an educational provision.\n\nBut chiefly in the human head does the great outward distinction appear.\nThe brain is the great instrument with which the mind works. You can\ngauge the strength of Ulysses by his bow, and the bulk of the giant by\nthe staff of his spear, which was like a weaver's beam. The brain of the\nlargest ape is about thirty two cubic inches. The brains of the wildest\nAustralians are more than double that capacity. They measure from\nseventy-five inches to ninety. Europeans' brains measure from ninety to\none hundred inches. There are instances of Esquimaux measuring over\nninety. Even the brain of an idiot is double the size of that of the\norang-otang. But how did man get this extraordinary development of\nbrain, far beyond his necessities? For the cave man of Mentone, who\nhunted the bison, had as good a head as Bismarck. Natural Selection\ncould not develop an ape's brain in advance of his necessities. But here\nwe have a prophetic structure; man's head developed far in advance of\nhis necessities. Here is a power at work superior to Natural Selection.\n\nWith such an instrument man has gone to work and supplied his\ndeficiencies. Inferior to many animals in strength and speed, he has\nmanufactured weapons, and subdued them all, asserting himself as the\nlord of creation, conquering even the mighty mastodon, and piercing the\nhuge Caledonian whale with his reindeer harpoon. He has remedied his\nwant of hair by the manufacture of clothing from the spoils of his\nvictims. He has rendered himself independent of the weather by the\nshelter of his house. He has ceased to be dependent on the spontaneous\nfruits of the forest by the cultivation of the soil, and so has become a\ncosmopolite, confined to no province of creation. He has constructed\nships, and provisioned them for long voyages, and visited, and colonized\nevery coast of Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australia. He has\nformed civilized societies with laws, government, and religion. He has\nleveled roads, navigated rivers, tunneled mountains, dug navigable\ncanals, constructed steamboats, built railroads, invented electric\ntelegraphs, and steam printing presses; and generally he has developed\nideas of society, nationality, and of the universal brotherhood of man,\nnot only not possible under the laws of Natural Selection, but in the\nmost direct contrariety to those laws, which work only for the benefit\nof the individual. Never under those laws could any great community of\nanimals be formed, never could they obtain the notion of representative\ngovernment, never combine their powers for any national enterprise, nor\ncould the most hairy and muscular-tailed of Mr. Darwin's ancestors\nsecure subscribers sufficient to warrant him in starting even a county\nnewspaper.\n\nBut it is in the moral sense which enables man to distinguish right from\nwrong, the conscience, which forbids and reproves the unbridled\nindulgence of the animal appetites, that we observe the grand\ndistinction between man and the brute. There is nothing in the writings\nof evolutionists more pitiable than their attempts to degrade conscience\ninto a mere gregarious instinct, an outcome of utility to the tribe, and\nto pleasurable sensations, resulting from the exercise of the social\ninstincts. It would appear that these writers had so sophisticated their\nown minds that they have ceased to understand the fundamental,\nworld-wide difference between right and gain, between duty and pleasure.\n\"Do justice, though the heavens fall,\" could never be evolved by Natural\nSelection. That is the law of the sharpest tooth, and the longest claws,\nand the biggest bull; the Napoleonic theology, whose god is always on\nthe side of the strongest battalions; the law of the perdition of the\nweak, and the survival of the strongest. In obedience to its laws the\nbirds forsake their parents as soon as they can shift for themselves;\nthe herd tramples down the wounded deer; the wolves devour their wounded\nbrothers; the queen bee puts her sisters to death, and the neuters\nsacrifice all the males of the hive. In obedience to the laws of Natural\nSelection, the males fight for the most attractive females, and keep as\nmany as they can, and form societies on that basis.\n\nBut man has a sense of justice, and mercy, and gratitude, and love. Here\nis an animal who knows he ought to tell truth, and do right, and honor\nhis parents, and respect and love his brethren. Whether he always does\nhis duty or not, he feels and owns he ought to do it. Justice, and\nmercy, and the fear of God, are not at all the attributes of brutes, and\nnever could have been produced by the evolution of their instincts. No\nanimal possesses any knowledge of God, nor practices any form of\nreligious worship. Religion, then, could not be the evolution of what\nhas no existence.\n\nWe have now considered the theory of the atheistical evolution of man,\nand of all plants and animals from one primeval germ, by the\nunintelligent operation of the powers of nature. We have seen that there\nare as many contradictory applications of the theory as there are\nadvocates of it; that in any shape it is incoherent, illogical, and\nabsurd; that it is destitute of any support from facts; that the alleged\nanalogy of embryology fails to give it countenance; that the order of\nnature in its gradations is contradictory of the theory; that it utterly\nfails to account for the origin of life, for the distinctness of the\nfour classes of the animal kingdom, for the distinctness of species\nwhich refuse to breed together, for the absence of the intermediate\nforms necessary to the theory; and, above all, that it can give no\nsatisfactory account of man's bodily, mental, and moral superiority to\nall other animals, nor for his possession of a knowledge of God.\n\nIts tendency, moreover, is inevitably to degrade man, to destroy that\nsense of his dignity which is the principal security of human life, to\nobliterate a belief in the divine origin and sanction of morality, and\nin the existence of a future life of rewards and punishments, and so to\npromote the disorganization of society, and the degradation of men to\nthe level of brutes, living only under the laws of their brutal\ninstincts. For all these reasons we reject the theory as unscientific,\nabsurd, degrading to man, and offensive to the God who made him.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] The Descent of Man, p. 198, American Edition.\n\n[6] The Descent of Man, p. 191, Am. Ed.\n\n[7] Descent of Man, p. 199, Am. Ed.\n\n[8] Descent of Man, 197, Am. Ed.\n\n[9] The Variations of Animals, etc., Vol. II. page 515.\n\n[10] Lay Sermons, p. 30.\n\n[11] Lay Sermons, 303.\n\n[12] Cited by Hodge in \"What is Darwinism?\" Page 73, etc.\n\n[13] Natural Selection, 372 A., Am. Ed.\n\n[14] From the _Presbyterian_, December 7, 1872.\n\n[15] Origin of Species, 4, 10, 127, 9, 97, 100, 409, 410, 415, 423.\nDescent of Man, 192, 204, and II.--15, 257.\n\n[16] Natural Selection, p. 365. Am. Ed.\n\n[17] Theory of the Earth, 123.\n\n[18] Testimony of the Rocks, 77.\n\n[19] Address at Annual Meeting of the Geological Society, 1862.\n\n[20] Agassiz's Methods of Study.\n\n[21] Draper's Human Physiology, 506.\n\n[22] Lyell's Principles of Geology, Book III., Chapter 33.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nIS GOD EVERYBODY, AND EVERYBODY GOD?\n\n\nPantheism is that perversion of reason and language which denies God's\npersonality, and calls some imaginary soul of the world, or the world\nitself, by his name. While Pantheists are fully agreed upon the\npropriety of getting rid of a God who could note their conduct, and call\nthem to account for it hereafter, and who would claim to exercise any\nauthority over them here, they are by no means agreed, either in India,\nGermany, or America, as to what they shall call by his name. Public\nopinion necessitates them to say they believe in a God, but almost every\none has his own private opinion as to what it is. We shall speak of it\nas we hear it pronounced from the lips of its prophets, here, as well as\nin the writings of its expounders, in Europe, and Asia. Some of them\ndeclare, that it is some absolutely unknown cause of all the phenomena\nof the universe, and others, that it is the universe itself. A large\nclass speak of it as the great soul of the world, while the more\nmaterialistic regard it as the world itself, body and soul; the soul\nbeing the sum of all the imponderable forces, such as gravitation, heat,\nlight, electricity, magnetism, galvanism, vegetable and animal life, and\nespecially the mesmeric influence, of which many of them regard\nintellect as a modification; and the body being the sum of all the\nponderable substances, such as air, water, earth, minerals, vegetables,\nand bodies of animals and men. This creed is popularly expressed in the\nsentence so often heard, \"God is everything, and everything is God.\" But\nthis vast generalization of all things into the higher unity--this\nexalting of monkeys, men, snails, and paving stones to the same level of\ndivinity--by no means meets the views of the more unphilosophical and\naspiring gods and goddesses, for the very reason that it is so\nimpartial. To deify a man and his cat by the same process is not much of\na distinction to the former; and of what advantage is it to be made a\ngod, if he does not thereby obtain some distinction? This leveling\napotheosis is generally confined to the German Pantheists; their more\nambitious American brethren ascribe the contented humility which accepts\nit to the continual influence of the fumes of tobacco and lager beer.\n\nMan is the great deity of the other class. Renan boldly says: \"For\nmyself, I believe there is not in the universe an intelligence superior\nto that of man; the absolute of justice and reason manifests itself only\nin humanity; regarded apart from humanity that absolute exists only as\nan abstraction. The infinite exists only when it clothes itself in\nform.\"[23] And as the soul of man is, rather inconsistently for people\nwho believe everything God, supposed to be superior to the rest of him,\nthey go off into great rhapsodies of adoration of their own souls.\n\n\"The doctrine of the soul--first _soul_, and second _soul_, and evermore\n_soul_\"[24]--is the doctrine which is to regenerate the world. God, in\ntheir view, is nothing till he attains self-consciousness in man. \"The\nuniversal does not attract us till housed in the individual. Who heeds\nthe waste abyss of possibility? Standing on the bare ground, my head\nbathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, all mere\negotism vanishes. The currents of the universal being circulate through\nme. I am part or particle of God.\" \"I stand here to say, 'Let us worship\nthe mighty and transcendent soul.'\" \"God attains to self-consciousness\nonly in the human soul.\" \"Honor yourself.\" \"Reverence your own\nindividuality.\" \"The soul of man is the highest intelligence in the\nuniverse.\" Such are the dogmas which, under the name of Philosophy, are\npoured forth oracularly, unsupported by reason or argument, by the\nprophets of the new dispensation--the last and highest achievement of\nthe human intellect.\n\nIt is very unfortunate, however, for the honor of the prophets of the\nnineteenth century, that this profound discovery was invented, and\nillustrated, patented, and peddled, by the Hindoos, among the people of\nIndia, two thousand years before the divinity had struggled into self\nconsciousness in the mighty and transcendent souls of Schelling, Hegel,\nand Strauss, of Atkinson, Parker, or Emerson. We mean to show in this\nlecture, that it is an _Antiquated, Hypocritical, Demoralizing Atheism_.\n\n1. _Pantheism is an Antiquated Heresy._--It has rotted and putrefied\namong the worshipers of cats, and monkeys, and holy bulls, and bits of\nsticks and stones, on the banks of the Ganges, for more than two\nthousand years; yet it is now hooked up out of its dunghill, and hawked\nabout among Christian people, as a prime new discovery of modern\nphilosophy for getting rid of Almighty God. As the Hindoo Shasters are\nundoubtedly the sources from which French, German, and American\nphilosophers have borrowed their dogmas, and as they have not had time\nto take the whole system, we shall edify the public by a view of this\nsublime theology as exhibited in the writings of the Pantheistic\nphilosophers of India, as follows:\n\n\"When existing in the temporary imperfect state of _Sagun_, Brahm (the\nPantheist deity) wills to manifest the universe. For this purpose he\nputs forth his omnipotent energy, which is variously styled in the\ndifferent systems now under review. He puts forth his energy for what?\nFor the effecting of a creation out of nothing? 'No,' says one of the\nShasters, but to '_produce from his own divine substance a multiform\nuniverse_.' By the spontaneous exertion of this energy he sends forth,\nfrom his own divine substance, a countless host of essences, like\ninnumerable sparks issuing from the blazing fire, or myriads of rays\nfrom the resplendent sun. These detached portions of Brahm--these\nseparated divine essences--soon become individuated systems, destined,\nin time, to occupy different forms prepared for their reception; whether\nthese be fixed or movable, animate or inanimate, forms of gods or men,\nforms of animal, vegetable, or mineral existences.\n\n\"Having been separated from Brahm in his imperfect state of _Sagun_,\nthey carry along with them a share of those principles, qualities, and\nattributes that characterize that state, though predominating in very\ndifferent degrees and proportions; either according to their respective\ncapacities, or the retributive awards of an eternal ordination. Among\nothers it is specially noted, that as Brahm at that time had awakened\ninto a consciousness of his own existence, there does inhere in each\nseparated soul a notion, or a conviction, of its own _distinct_,\nindependent, individual existence. Laboring under this delusive notion,\nor conviction, the soul has lost the knowledge of its own proper\nnature--its divine origin, and ultimate destiny. It ignorantly regards\nitself as an inferior entity, instead of knowing itself to be what it\ntruly is, a consubstantial, though it may be an infinitesimally minute\nportion of the great whole, a universal spirit.\n\n\"Each individual soul being thus a portion of Brahm, even as a spark is\nof fire, it is again and again declared that the relation between them\nis not that of master and servant, ruler and ruled, but that of whole\nand part! The soul is pronounced to be eternal _a parte ante_; in\nitself it has had no beginning or birth, though its separate\nindividuality originated in time. It is eternal _a parte post_; it will\nhave no end--no death; though its separate individuality will terminate\nin time. Its manifestation in time is not a creation; it is an effluence\nfrom the eternal fount of spirit. Its disappearance from the stage of\ntime is not an extinction of essence--a reduction to nonentity; it is\nonly a refluence into its original source. As an emanation from the\nsupreme, eternal spirit, it is from everlasting to everlasting. Neither\ncan it be said to be of finite dimensions; on the contrary, says the\nsacred oracle, 'being identified with the Supreme Brahm, it participates\nin his infinity.'\n\n\"After having enumerated all the elementary principles, atoms, and\nqualities successively evolved from Brahm, one of the sacred writings\nstates, that though each of these had distinct powers, yet they existed\nseparate and disunited, without order or harmonious adaptation of parts;\nthat until they were duly combined together, it was impossible to\nproduce this universe, or animated beings; and that therefore it was\nrequisite to adopt other means than fortuitous chance for giving them an\nappropriate combination, and symmetrical arrangement. The Supreme,\naccordingly, produced an egg, in which the elementary principles might\nbe deposited, and nurtured into maturity.\" \"All the primary atoms,\nqualities, and principles--the seeds of future worlds--that had been\nevolved from the substance of Brahm, were now collected together, and\ndeposited in the newly produced egg. And into it, along with them,\nentered the self-existent himself, under the assumed form of Brahm; and\nthen he sat vivifying, expanding, and combining the elements, a whole\nyear of the creation, or four thousand three hundred millions of solar\nyears! During this amazing period, the wondrous egg floated like a\nbubble on the abyss of primeval waters, increasing in size, and blazing\nrefulgent as a thousand suns. At length the Supreme, who dwelt therein,\nburst the shell of the stupendous egg, and issued forth under a new\nform, with a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand arms. Along\nwith him there issued forth another form, huge and measureless. What\ncould that be? All the elementary principles having now been matured,\nand disposed into an endless variety of orderly collocations, and\ncombined into one harmonious whole, they darted into visible\nmanifestation under the form of the present glorious universe! A\nuniverse now finished, and ready made, with its entire apparatus, of\nearth, sun, moon, and stars. What, then, is this multiform universe? It\nis but a harmoniously arranged expansion of primordial principles and\nqualities. And whence are these? Educed or evolved from the divine\nsubstance of Brahm. Hence it is that the universe is so constantly\nspoken of, even by mythologists, as a manifested form of Brahm himself,\nthe supreme, invisible spirit. Hence, too, under the notion that it is\nthe manifestation of a being who may assume every variety of corporeal\nform, is the universe often personified, or described as if its\ndifferent parts were only the different members of a person, of\nprodigious magnitude, in human form. It is declared that the hairs of\nhis body are the trees of the forest; of his head, the clouds; of his\nbeard, the lightning. His breath is the circling atmosphere; his voice,\nthe thunder; his eyes, the sun and moon; his veins, the rivers; his\nnails, the rocks; his bones, the lofty mountains![25]\n\n\"The substantial fabrics of all worlds having now been framed and fitted\nup as the destined abodes of different orders of being, celestial,\nterrestrial, and infernal, the question next arises, How or by whom were\nproduced the various organized forms which these orders of being were\ndesigned to animate? Though hosts of subtle essences or souls flowed\nforth from Brahm, all of these remain inactive till united to some form\nof materialism. From this necessity the gods themselves are not\nexempted. While the souls of men, and other inferior spirits, must be\nencased in tabernacles fashioned out of the grosser elements, the souls\nof the gods, and all other superior spirits, must be made to inhabit\nmaterial forms, composed of one or other of the infinitely attenuated\nand invisible rudimental atoms that spring direct from the principle of\nconsciousness.\n\n\"Interminable as are the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and\nextravagancies of the Hindoo sacred writings, on no subject, perhaps, is\nthe multiplicity of varying accounts and discrepancies more astonishing\nthan on the present. Volumes could not suffice to retail them all.\nBrahma's first attempts at the production of the forms of animated\nbeings were as eminently unsuccessful as they were various. At one time\nhe is said to have performed a long and severe course of ascetic\ndevotions, to enable him to accomplish his wish; but in vain; at\nanother, inflamed by anger and passion at his repeated failures, he sat\ndown and wept; and from the streaming tear drops sprang into being, as\nhis first boon, a progeny of ghosts and goblins, of an aspect so\nloathsome and dreadful, that he was ready to faint away. At one time,\nafter profound meditation, different beings spring forth: one from his\nthumb, another from his breath, a third from his ear, a fourth from his\nside. But enough of such monstrous legends.\"[26]\n\nThere now, reader, you have the original of the Development Theory, with\nVestiges of Creation enough to make half a dozen new infidel\ncosmogonies, besides the genuine original of Pantheism, from its native\nsoil. Our western Pantheists will doubtless reverence their venerable\nprogenitors; and, should the remainder of the family find their way\nhere in a year or two, via Germany, the public will be better prepared\nto give a fitting reception to such distinguished visitors, including\ntheir suite of divine bulls and holy monkeys, their lustrations of cow\ndung, ecstatic hook swingings, burning of widows, and drowning of\nchildren, and other Pantheistic Philosophies, from the banks of the\nGanges. What an outrage of decency for such men to call themselves\nphilosophers and Christians!\n\nThe relationship of American Pantheism with that of India is\nunblushingly acknowledged by the recent Pantheistic writers: \"When\nancient sages came to believe in the absolute goodness, justice, love,\nand wisdom of the deity, or providence, they fell into that peace which\nneeded nothing, feared nothing, and therefore worshiped nothing. Nothing\nto blame, nothing to praise; the perfect whole became one great\ndivinity. It was so in Magadha and Benares; it is so in Concord and\nBoston.\"[27]\n\n2. _Pantheism is a System of Deception and Hypocrisy._--Has any man a\nright to pervert the English language, by fixing new meanings to words,\nentirely different from and contrary to those in common use? If he knows\nthe meaning of the words he uses, and uses them to convey a contrary\nmeaning, he is a deceiver. The name God, used as a proper name, in the\nEnglish tongue, means \"the Supreme Being; Jehovah; the Eternal and\nInfinite Spirit, the Creator and Sovereign of the Universe.\"[28] If,\nthen, a man says he believes in God, but when forced to explain what he\nmeans by that name, says he means steam, heat, electricity, galvanism,\nmagnetism, mesmeric force, odyle, animal life, the soul of man, or the\nsum of all the intelligences in the universe, he is a deceiver, and vain\ntalker, abusing language to conceal his impiety. Pantheism is simply\nJesuitical Atheism. Willing to dethrone Jehovah, but unable and\nunwilling to place any other being in his stead, as Creator and Ruler of\nthe universe, yet conscious that mankind will never embrace open\nAtheism, Pantheists profess to believe in God, only that they may steal\nhis name to cloak their Atheism. We, in common with all who believe in\nGod, demand, that, as their divinity is, by their own confession,\nessentially different from God, they shall use a different word to\ndescribe it. Let them call it Brahm, as their brethren in India do, or\nany other name not appropriated to any existing being in heaven or\nearth, or under the earth; and let them cease to profane religion, and\ninsult common sense, by affixing the holy name of the Supreme to their\nthousand-headed monster.\n\nBut the very perfection of Jesuitism is reached, when Pantheists profess\ntheir high respect for the Christian religion. They do not generally\nspeak of it as a superstition, though some of the vulgar sort do; nor do\nthey decry its mysteries, as Deists are in the habit of doing; nor, as\nSocinians, and Unitarians, and Rationalists, do they attempt to reduce\nit to a mere code of morals. They grant it to be the highest development\nof humanity yet reached by the majority of the human race. The brute,\nthe savage, the polytheistic idolater, the star worshiper, the\nmonotheist, the Christian, are all, in their scheme, so many successive\ndevelopments of humanity in its upward progress. There is only one step\nhigher than Christianity, and that is Pantheism. Well knowing that\nChristianity is diametrically opposed to their falsehoods, and that the\nBible, everywhere, teaches that the natural progress of man has ever\nbeen down from a state of holiness to idolatry and barbarism, they have\nyet the hardihood to profess respect for it, as a system of concealed\nPantheism, and to clothe their abominations in Scripture language. They\nspeak, for instance, of the \"beauty of holiness in the mind, that has\nsurmounted every idea of a personal God;\" and of \"God dwelling in us,\nand his love perfected in us,\" when they believe that he dwells as\nreally in every creature: in that hog, for instance. Then they will\nreadily acknowledge that the Bible is inspired. They _can accept_--that\nis the phrase--they can accept the Book which denounces death upon those\nfools who, \"professing themselves to be wise, change the truth of God\ninto a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator,\"\nas merely a mystic revelation of the Pantheism which leaves man to\n\"erect everything into a God, provided it is none: sun, moon, stars, a\ncat, a monkey, an onion, uncouth idols, sculptured marble; nay, a\nshapeless trunk, which the devout impatience of the idolater does not\nstay to fashion into the likeness of a man, but gives its apotheosis at\nonce.\" Oh, yes; they accept the Bible as inspired--a God inspired\nBook--inasmuch as _every_ product of the human mind is a development of\nDeity. The Bible, then, when we have the matter fully explained, is\nquite on a level with Gulliver's Travels, or Emerson's Address to a\nSenior Class of Divinity.\n\nThere is nothing, however, in this vast system of monstrosities, which\nfills the soul of a Christian with such loathing and detestation, as to\nhear Pantheists profess their veneration for the Lord Jesus, and claim\nhim as a teacher of Pantheism. If there is one object which they detest\nwith all their hearts, it is the Judge of the quick and dead, and the\nvengeance which he shall take upon them that know not God, and obey not\nthe gospel. Any allusion to the judgment seat of Christ fills them with\nfury, and causes them to pour forth awful blasphemies. They know that\nthe Lord Jesus repeatedly declared himself the Judge of the living and\nthe dead--that \"the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good,\nunto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the\nresurrection of damnation;\" and that the very last sentence of his\npublic discourses is, \"And these\" (the wicked) \"shall go away into\neverlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.\" When they\ndrop the mask for a moment, they can accuse apostles and disciples with\n\"dwelling with noxious exaggeration about the _person_ of Christ.\"[29]\nChrist, as revealed in the gospel, they hate with a perfect hatred. But\nwhen it becomes necessary to address Christians, and beguile them into\nthe deceitfulness of Pantheism, the tune is changed. Christ becomes the\nmodel man--\"one conceived in conditions favorable to the highest\nperfectibility of the individual consciousness; and so possessed of\npowers of generalization far in advance of the age in which he lived.\nThey can listen to and honor one of the best expounders of God and\nnature in the Man of Nazareth.\"[30] The vilest falsehoods of Pantheism\nare ascribed to Jesus, that those who, ignorant of his doctrine, yet\nrespect his name, may be seduced to receive them. Of him who declared,\n\"Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,\nthefts, false witness, blasphemies,\" they have the hardihood to declare,\n\"He saw with open eyes the mystery of the soul; alone, in all history,\nhe estimated the greatness of man.\" Calculating upon that ignorance of\nthe teaching of Christ which is so general among their audiences, they\ndare to represent the only begotten Son of God as teaching Pantheism:\n\"One man was true to what is in you and me; he saw that God incarnates\nhimself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his\nworld. He said in this jubilee of sublime emotion, 'I am divine. Through\nme God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or see thee\nwhen thou also thinkest as I now think.' Because the indwelling Supreme\nSpirit can not wholly be got rid of, the doctrine of it suffers this\nperversion, that the divine nature is attributed to one or two persons,\nand denied to all the rest, and denied with fury.\" Yes, truly, the\ndivine nature is emphatically denied to all unregenerated men, and\ndenied, too, by that divine teacher thus eulogized. Hear him: \"Ye do the\ndeeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of\nfornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God\nwere your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth and came from\nGod; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand\nmy speech? Even because ye can not hear my word. Ye are of your father,\nthe devil; and the works of your father ye will do. He was a murderer\nfrom the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no\ntruth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh it of his own; for he\nis a liar, and the father of it.\"\n\nLet Pantheists, then, cease to wind their serpent coils around\nChristianity, and to defile the Bible with their filthy lickings. The\nLord Jesus will not suffer such persons to bear even a true testimony to\nhim, and his followers will not permit them to ascribe their falsehoods\nto him, without reproof. Let them stand out and avow themselves the\nenemies of Christ and his gospel, as they are, and cease their\nabominable pretenses of giving to the world the ultimate development of\nChristianity. What concord hath Christ with Belial?\n\n3. _Pantheism is a System of Immorality._--It loosens all the sanctions\nof moral law. If there is anything upon which all Pantheists are agreed,\nit is in the denial of the resurrection, the judgment, and the future\npunishment of the wicked. Their whole system, in all its range, from\nSpiritualism to Phrenology, is expressly invented to get rid of God's\nmoral government. If man is the highest intelligence in the universe, to\nwhom should he render an account of his conduct? Or who would have any\nright to call him to account? Then, if we are developments of deity,\ndeity can not offend against itself. Further, if our development, both\nof body and mind, be the inevitable result of the laws of nature--of our\norganization and our position--man is but the creature of circumstances,\nand, therefore, as is abundantly argued, can not be made responsible for\nlaws and their results, over which he has no control. \"I am what I am. I\ncan not alter my will, or be other than what I am, and can not deserve\neither reward or punishment.\"[31] Before hundreds of the citizens of\nCincinnati, a lecturer publicly denied the right of either God or man to\ninvade his individuality, by taking vengeance upon him for any crime\nwhatever. Thousands, who are not yet Pantheists, are so far infected\nwith the poison that they utterly deny any right of vindictive\npunishment to God or man.\n\nBut this is not all. Again and again have we listened with astonishment\nto men, declaring that there was no moral law--no standard of right and\nwrong, but the will of the community. Of course it was quite natural,\nafter such a declaration, to assert that a wife who should remain with a\nhusband of inferior intellectuality, or unsuitable emotions, was\ncommitting adultery; that private property is a legalized robbery; and\nthat when a citizen becomes mentally or physically unfit for the\nbusiness of life, he confers the highest obligation on society, and\nperforms the highest duty to himself, by committing suicide, and thus\nreturning to the great ocean of being!\n\nWe might think that confusion of right and wrong could not be worse\nconfounded than this; yet there is a blacker darkness still. _The\ndistinction between good and evil is absolutely denied._ The Hindoo\nPantheists declare that they can not sin, because they are God, and God\ncan not offend against himself; there is no sin--it is all\n_maya_--delusion. So the American and English school tells us it lives\nonly in the obsolete theology. Evil, we are told, \"is good in another\nway we are not skilled in.\"[32] So says the author of \"Representative\nMen.\" \"Evil,\" according to old philosophers, \"is good in the making;\nthat pure malignity can exist is the extreme proposition of unbelief. It\nis not to be entertained by a rational agent. It is Atheism; it is the\nlast profanation.\" \"The divine effort is never relaxed; the carrion in\nthe sun will convert itself into grass and flowers; and man, though in\nbrothels, or jails, or on gibbets, is on his way to all that is good and\ntrue.\"[33]\n\nEmerson, in a lecture in Cincinnati, is reported by the editor of _The\nCentral Herald_, as saying in his hearing: \"To say that the majority of\nmen are wicked, is only to say that they are young.\" \"Every man is\nindebted to his vices--virtues grow out of them as a thrifty and\nfruitful plant grows out of manure.\" \"There is hope even for the\nreprobate, and the ruffian, in the fullness of time.\"\n\nIf these were only the ravings of lunatics, or the dreamings of\nphilosophers, we should never have hunted them from their hiding-places\nto scare your visions; but these doctrines are weekly propounded in your\nown city, and throughout our land, from platform and press, to thousands\nof your children and their school-teachers, of your work, men and your\nlawgivers, to your wives and daughters. Again and again have our ears\nbeen confounded in the squares of New York, and the streets of\nPhiladelphia, and the market-places of Cincinnati, by the boisterous\ncry, _What is sin? There is no sin. It is all an old story._ Let men who\nfear no God, but who have lives, and wives, and property to lose, look\nto it, and say if they act wisely in giving their influence to a system\nwhich lands in such consequences. Let them devise some religion for the\npeople which will preserve the rights of man, while giving license to\ntrample upon the rights of God; or, failing in the effort, let them\nacknowledge that the enemy of God is, and of necessity must be, the foe\nof all that constitutes the happiness of man. Impiety and immorality are\nwedded in heaven's decree, and man can not sunder them.\n\n4. _Pantheism is Virtually Atheism._--It may scarce seem needful to\nmultiply proofs on this head. How can any one imagine a being composed\nof the sum of all the intelligences of the universe? Such a thing, or\ncombination of things, never was distinctly conceived of by any\nintelligent being. Can intelligences be compounded, or like bricks and\nmortar, piled upon each other? If they could, did these finite\nintelligences create themselves? If the soul of man is the highest\nintelligence in the universe, did the soul of man create, or does the\nsoul of man govern it? Shall we adore his soul? Some Pantheists have got\njust to this length. M. Comte declares, that \"At this present time, for\nminds properly familiarized with true astronomical philosophy, the\nheavens display no other glory than that of Hipparchus, or Kepler, or\nNewton, and of all who have helped to establish these laws.\" _Establish_\nthese laws! Laws by which the heavenly bodies were guided thousands of\nyears before Kepler or Newton were born. Shall we then adore the souls\nof Kepler and Newton? M. Comte has invented a religion, which he is much\ndispleased that the admirers of his Positive Philosophy will not accept,\nin which the children are to be taught to worship idols, the youth to\nbelieve in one God, if they can, after such a training in infancy, and\nthe full-grown men are to adore a Grand Etre, \"the continuous resultant\nof all the forces capable of voluntarily concurring in the universal\nperfectioning of the world, _not forgetting our worthy auxiliaries, the\nanimals_.\"[34] Our Anglo-Saxon Pantheists, however, are not quite\nphilosophical enough yet to adore the mules and oxen, and therefore\nrefuse worship altogether. \"Work is worship,\" constitutes their liturgy.\n\"As soon as the man is as one with God, he will not beg. He will then\nsee prayer in all action.\"[35] \"Labor wide as earth has its summit in\nheaven. Sweat of the brow, and up from that to sweat of the brain, sweat\nof the heart; which includes all Kepler calculations, Newton\nmeditations, all sciences, all spoken epics, all acted heroisms,\nmartyrdoms, up to that agony of bloody sweat, which all men have\naccounted divine! Oh, brother, if this is not worship, then I say, the\nmore pity for worship; for this is the noblest thing yet discovered\nunder God's sky.\" \"No man has worked, or can work, except\nreligiously.\"[36] \"Adieu, O Church! Thy road is that way, mine is this.\nIn God's name, adieu!\"[37]\n\nSuch is the theory. How faithfully acted out, you can learn from the\nthousands who are now, publicly, upon God's holy Sabbath, working\nreligiously upon the bridge that is to span the river, or less\nostentatiously in their shops and workrooms throughout the city. Within\na circle of three miles' radius of the spot you now occupy, one hundred\nthousand intelligent beings in this Christian city worship no God.\n\nThe abstraction, which the Pantheist calls God, is no object of worship.\nIt is not to be loved. If it does good, it could not help it, and did\nnot intend it. It is not to be thanked for benefits. It, the sum of all\nthe intelligence of the universe, can not be collected from the seven\nspheres to receive any such acknowledgment. It can not deviate from its\nfated course of proceeding; therefore, says the Pantheist, why should I\npray? It neither sees his conduct, nor cares for it; and he denies any\nright to call him to account. It did not create him, does not govern\nhim, will not judge him, can not punish him. It is no object of love,\nfear, worship, or obedience. It is no god. He is an Atheist. He believes\nnot in any God.\n\nHEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD. He is distinct from, and\nsupreme over all his works. He now rules, and will hereafter judge all\nintelligent creatures, and will render to every one according to his\nworks.\n\n1. _Reason declares it._ The world did not make itself. The soul of man\ndid not make itself. The body of man did not make itself. They must have\nhad an intelligent Creator, who is God. God is known by his works to be\ndistinct from them, and superior to them. The work is not the workman.\nThe house is not the builder. The watch is not the watchmaker. The sum\nof all the works of any worker is not the agent who produced them. Let\nan architect spend his life in building a city, yet the city is not the\nbuilder. The maker is always distinct from, and superior to, the thing\nmade. You and I, and the universe, are made. Our Maker, then, is\ndistinct from, and superior to us. One plan gives order to the universe;\ntherefore, one mind originated it. The Creator is over all his\ncreatures.\n\n2. _Our consciousness confirms it._ If a blind god could not make a\nseeing man, a god destitute of the principle of self-consciousness (if\nsuch an abuse of language may be tolerated for a moment) could not\nimpart to man the conviction, _I am_,--the ineradicable belief that I am\nnot the world, nor any other person; much less, everybody; but that I am\na person, possessed of powers of knowing, thinking, liking and\ndisliking, judging, approving of right, and disapproving of wrong, and\nchoosing and willing my conduct. My Maker has at least as much common\nsense as he has given me. He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not\nknow?\n\n3. _Our ignorance and weakness demand a Governor of the world wiser than\nourselves._ The soul of man is not the highest intelligence in the\nuniverse. It can not know the mode of its own operation on the body it\ninhabits, much less the plan of the world's management. Man may know\nmuch about what does not concern him, and about things over which he has\nno control; but it is the will of God that his pride should feel the\ncurb of ignorance and impotence where his dearest interests are\nconcerned, that so he may be compelled to acknowledge that God is\ngreater than man. He may be able to tell the place of the distant\nplanets a thousand years hence, but he can not tell where himself shall\nbe next year. He can calculate for years to come the motions of the\ntides, which he can not control, but can not tell how his own pulse\nshall beat, or whether it shall beat at all, to-morrow. Ever as his\nknowledge of the laws by which God governs the world increases, his\nconviction of his impotence grows; and he sees and feels that a wiser\nhead and stronger hand than that of any creature, planned and\nadministered them. Ever as he reaches some ultimate truth, such as the\nmystery of electricity, of light, of life, of gravitation, which he can\nnot explain, and beyond which he can not penetrate, he hears the voice\nof God therein, demanding him to acknowledge his impotence.\n\n     \"Where is the way where light dwelleth,\n     And as for darkness, what is the place thereof?\n     Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades,\n     Or loose the bands of Orion?\n     Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his seasons?\n     Or canst thou guide Arcturus, with his sons?\n     Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?\n     Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?\n     Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds,\n     That abundance of waters may cover thee?\n     Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go\n     And say unto thee, 'Here we are?'\"\n\n4. _Our consciences convince us that God is a Moral Governor._ The\ndistinction between brutes and men is, that man has a sense of the\ndistinction between right and wrong. If we find a tribe of savages, or\nindividuals who indulge their appetites without rule, and who do wrong\nwithout any apparent remorse or shame, we designate them brutes. Even\nthose who in words deny any difference between right and wrong, do in\nfact admit its existence, by their attempts to justify that opinion.\nThough weaker, or less regarded in some than in others, every man is\nconscious of a faculty in himself which sits in judgment on his own\nconduct, and that of others, approving or condemning it as right or\nwrong. In all lands, and in all ages, the common sense of mankind has\nacknowledged the existence and moral authority of conscience, as\ndistinct from and superior to mere intellect. No language of man is\ndestitute of words conveying the ideas of virtue and vice, of goodness\nand wickedness. When one attempts to deceive you by a willful lie, you\nare sensible not only of an intellectual process of reason detecting the\nerror, but of a distinct judgment of disapprobation of the crime. When\none who has received kindness from a benefactor, neglects to make any\nacknowledgment of it, cherishes no feelings of gratitude, and insults\nand abuses the friend who succored him, we are conscious, not merely of\nthe facts, as phenomena to be observed, but of the ingratitude, as a\ncrime to be detested. And we are irresistibly constrained to believe\nthat he who taught us this knowledge of a difference between right and\nwrong, does himself know such a distinction; and that he who implanted\nthis feeling of approval of right, and condemnation of wrong, in us,\ndoes himself approve the right, and condemn the wrong. And as we can\nform no notion of right or wrong unconnected with the idea that\napprobation of right conduct should be suitably expressed, and that\ndisapprobation of wrong conduct ought also to be suitably expressed--in\nother words, that right ought to be rewarded, and wrong ought to be\npunished--so we are constrained to trace such a connection from our\nminds to the mind of him who framed them. This conviction is God's law,\nwritten in our hearts. When we do wrong, we become conscious of a\nfeeling of remorse in our consciences, as truly as the eye becomes\nconscious of the darkness. We may blind the eye, and we may sear the\nconscience, that the one shall not see, nor the other feel; but light\nand darkness, right and wrong, will exist. The awful fact which\nconscience reveals to us, that we sin against God, that we know the\nright, and do the wrong, and are conscious of it, and of God's\ndisapprobation of it, is conclusive proof that we are not only distinct\nfrom God, but separate from him--that we oppose our wills against his.\nAnd every pang of remorse is a premonition of God's judgment, and every\nsorrow and suffering which the Governor of the world has connected with\nsin--as the drunkard's loss of character and property, of peace and\nhappiness, the frenzy of his soul, and the destruction of his body--is a\ntype and teaching of the curse which he has denounced against sin.\n\n5. _The World's History is the record of man's crimes, and God's\npunishments._ Once God swept the human race from earth with a flood of\nwater, because the wickedness of man was great on the earth. Again, he\ntestified his displeasure against the ungodly sinners of Sodom and\nGomorrah, by consuming their cities with fire from heaven, and leaving\nthe Dead Sea to roll its solemn waves of warning to all ungodly sinners,\nto the end of time.\n\nBy the ordinary course of his providence, he has ever secured the\ndestruction of ungodly nations. No learning, commerce, arms,\nterritories, or skill, has ever secured a rebellious nation against the\nsword of God's justice. Ask the black record of a rebel world's history\nfor an instance. Egypt, Canaan, Nineveh, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome.\nWhere are they now? Tyre had ships, colonies, and commerce; Rome an\nempire on which the sun never set; Greece had philosophy, arts, and\nliberty secured by a confederation of republics; Spain the treasures of\nearth's gold and silver, and the possession of half the globe. Did these\nsecure them against the moral government of God?\n\nNo! God's law sways the universe; that law which, with the brazen\nfetters of eternal justice, binds together sin and misery, crime and\npunishment, and lays the burden on the backs of all ungodly nations,\nirresistibly forcing them down--down--down the road to ruin. The vain\nimagination that refuses to glorify God as God, leads to darkness of\nheart, thence to Atheism, thence to gross idolatry, onward to selfish\ngratification, violent rapacity, lust of conquest, and luxury,\nlicentiousness, and effeminacy begotten of its spoils; then military\ntyranny, civil war, servile revolt, anarchy, famine and pestilence, and\nthe sword of less debauched neighbors, Christ's iron scepter, hurl them\ndown from the pinnacle of greatness, to dash them in pieces against each\nother, in the valley of destruction; and there they lie, wrecks of\nnations, ruins of empires, naught remaining, save some shivered\npotsherds of former greatness, to show that once they were, and were the\nenemies of God.\n\nOh, America, take warning ere it be too late! God rules the nations. \"He\nthat chastiseth the heathen, shall he not correct you?\"\n\nA day of retribution, reader, comes to you, as an individual. Neither\nyour insignificance nor your unbelief can hide you from his eye, nor can\nyour puny arm shield you from his righteous judgment. His hand shall\nfind out his enemies. Oh, fly from the wrath to come! \"Seek the Lord\nwhile he may be found.\" He is not far from every one of us. His breath\nis in our nostrils. His Word is in our hands. \"Whosoever shall call on\nthe name of the Lord shall be saved.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] Cited in Pressense's _Jesus Christ, His Life and Times_. Page 10.\n\n[24] Emerson.\n\n[25] Duff's India, pages 99-114.\n\n[26] Duff's India, page 119.\n\n[27] Man's Origin and Destiny, 293.\n\n[28] Webster's Dictionary.\n\n[29] Emerson's Address to a Senior Class in Divinity.\n\n[30] Hennell's Christian Theism, which shows how Theists of every\nnation--Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or Chinese--can meet upon common\nground.\n\n[31] Atkinson's Letters, page 190.\n\n[32] Festus, page 48.\n\n[33] Swedenborg, or the Mystic (quoted by Pierson, 41), p. 68.\n\n[34] Politique Positive, Vol. II. page 60.\n\n[35] Emerson.\n\n[36] Carlyle--Past and Present.\n\n[37] Carlyle--Life of Sterling.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nHAVE WE ANY NEED OF THE BIBLE?\n\n\nReligion consists of the knowledge of a number of great facts, and of a\ncourse of life suitable to them. We have seen three of these: that God\ncreated the world; that he governs it; and that he is able to conquer\nhis enemies. There are others of the same sort as needful to be known.\nOur knowledge of these facts, or our ignorance of them, makes not the\nslightest difference in the facts themselves. God is, and heaven is, and\nhell is, and sin leads to it, whether anybody believes these things or\nnot. It makes no sort of difference in the beetling cliff and swollen\nflood that sweeps below it, that the drunken man declares there is no\ndanger, and, refusing the proffered lantern, gallops on toward it in the\ndarkness of the night. But when the mangled corpse is washed ashore,\nevery one sees how foolish this man was, to be so confident in his\nignorance as to refuse the lantern, which would have shown him his\ndanger, and guided him to the bridge where he might have crossed in\nsafety. Some of the facts of religion lie at the evening end of life's\njourney; the darkness of death's night hides them from mortal eye; and\nliving men might guide their steps the better by asking counsel of one\nwho knows the way. If they get along no better by their own counsel in\nthe next world than most of them do in this, they will have small cause\nto bless their teacher. Who can tell that ignorance, and wickedness, and\nwretchedness are not as tightly tied together in the world to come, as\nwe see them here?\n\nSolomon was a knowing man and wise; and better than that, in the esteem\nof most people, he made money, and tells you how to make it, and keep\nit. You will make a hundred dollars by reading his Proverbs and acting\non them. They would have saved some of you many a thousand. Of course\nsuch a man knew something of the world. He was a wide-awake trader. His\nships coasted the shores of Asia, and Africa, from Madagascar to Japan;\nand the overland mail caravans from India and China drew up in the\ndepots he built for them in the heart of the desert. He knew the\nwell-doing people with whom trade was profitable, and the savages who\ncould only send apes and peacocks. He was a philosopher as well as a\ntrader, and could not help being deeply impressed with _the great fact_,\nthat there was a wide difference among the nations of the world. Some\nwere enlightened, enterprising, civilized, and flourishing; others were\nnaked savages, living in ignorance, poverty, vice, and starvation,\nperpetually murdering one another, and dying out of the earth.\n\nSolomon noticed _another great fact_. In his own country, and in\nChaldea, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and some others, God had revealed his will\nto certain persons for the benefit of their neighbors. He did so\ngenerally by opening the eyes of these prophets to see future events,\nand the great facts of the unseen world, and by giving them messages of\nwarning and instruction to the nations. From this mode of revelation, by\nopening the prophets eyes to see realities invisible to others, they\nwere called seers, and the revelations they were commissioned to make\nwere called visions; and revelation from God was called, in general,\nvision. Solomon was struck with the fact that some nations were thus\nfavored by God, and other nations were not. The question would naturally\narise, What difference does it make, or does it make any difference,\nwhether men have any revelation of God's will or not?\n\nSolomon was led to observe a _third great fact_. The nations which were\nfavored with these revelations were the civilized, enterprising, and\ncomparatively prosperous nations. In proportion to the amount of divine\nrevelation they had, and their obedience to it, they prospered. The\nnations that had no revelation from God were the idolatrous savages, who\nwere sinking down to the level of brutes, and perishing off the face of\nthe earth. He daguerreotypes these three great facts in the proverb:\n\"Where there is no vision the people perish; but he that keepeth the\nlaw, happy is he.\"\n\nOh, says the Rationalist, the world is wiser now than it was in\nSolomon's days. He lived in the old mythological period, when men\nattributed everything extraordinary to the gods. But the world is too\nwise now to believe in any supernatural revelation. \"The Hebrew and\nChristian religions like all others have their myths.\" \"The fact is, the\npure historic idea was never developed among the Hebrews during the\nwhole of their political existence.\" \"When, therefore, we meet with an\naccount of certain phenomena, or events of which it is expressly stated\nor implied that they were produced immediately by God himself (such as\ndivine apparitions, voices from heaven, and the like), or by human\nbeings possessed of supernatural powers (miracles, prophecies, etc.),\nsuch an account is so far to be considered not historical.\" \"Indeed, no\njust notion of the true nature of history is possible without a\nperception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and of\nthe impossibility of miracles.\"[38] A narrative is to be deemed\nmythical, 1st. \"When it proceeds from an age in which there were no\nwritten records, but events were transmitted by tradition; 2d. When it\npresents, as historical, accounts of events which were beyond the reach\nof experience, as occurrences connected with the spiritual world; or 3d.\nWhen it deals in the marvelous, and is couched in symbolical\nlanguage.\"[39] So also a host of others, who pass for biblical\nexpositors, lay it down as an axiom, that all records of supernatural\nevents are mythical, viz: fables, falsehoods, because miracles are\nimpossible. Of course, from such premises the conclusion is easy. A\nrevelation from God to man is a supernatural event, and supernatural\nevents are impossible; therefore, a revelation from God is impossible.\nBut it would have been much easier, and quite as logical, to have laid\ndown the axiom in plain words at first, that a revelation from God is\nimpossible, as to argue it from such premises; for it is just as easy to\n_say_, that a revelation from God is impossible, as to _say_ that\nmiracles are impossible; and as for _proof_ of either one or the other,\nwe must just take their word for it.\n\nOne can not help being amazed at the cool impudence with which these men\ntake for granted the very point to be proved, and set aside, as unworthy\nof serious examination, the most authentic records of history, simply\nbecause they do not coincide with their so-called philosophy; and at the\ncredulity with which their followers swallow this arrogant dogmatism, as\nif it were self-evident truth. Let us look at it for a moment. Other\nreligions have their myths, or fables, therefore, the Hebrew and\nChristian records are fables, says the Rationalist. Profundity of logic!\nCounterfeit bank bills are common, therefore none are genuine. \"The fact\nis, the pure historic idea was never developed among the Hebrews,\" _i.\ne._, Moses and the prophets were all liars. That is the fact, you may\ntake my word for it. \"Indeed, no just notion of the true nature of\nhistory is possible without a perception of the inviolability of the\nchain of finite causes, and of the impossibility of miracles\" which\ntranslated into plain words is simply this: No man can understand\nhistory who believes in God Almighty. \"A narrative is to be deemed\nfabulous when it proceeds from an age in which there were no written\nrecords,\" such, for instance, as any account of the creation of the\nfirst man--for no event could possibly happen unless there was a scribe\nthere to write it. Or, of the fall of man--we do not know that Adam was\nable to write, and no man can tell truth unless he writes a history. \"A\nnarrative is to be deemed fabulous when it presents, as historical,\naccounts of events which were beyond the reach of experience, as events\nconnected with the spiritual world.\" Is it not self-evident that you and\nI have had experience of everything in the whole universe, and whoever\ntells us anything which we have never seen is a liar. \"When a narrative\ndeals in the marvelous,\" such as Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand,\nHerodotus' History, or Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\ndealing as it does in such marvelous accounts as the death of half the\ninhabitants of the empire in the reign of Galerius, or any other history\nof wonderful occurrence--it is of course a myth. Does not every one know\nthat nothing marvelous ever happened, or, if it did, would any historian\ntrouble himself to record a prodigy? \"Or, if it is couched in symbolical\nlanguage,\" as is every eloquent passage in Thucydides, Robertson,\nGibbon, or Guizot, the records of China, and of India, the\npicture-writing of the Peruvians, and especially the Egyptian\nhieroglyphics, which were fondly expected to do such good service\nagainst the Bible--it must be at once rejected, without further\nexamination, as mythological and unworthy of any credit whatever. Thus\nwe are conclusively rid forever of the Bible, for sure enough it is\ncouched in symbolical language. Blessed deliverance to the world! But\nthen, alas! this great deliverance is accompanied with several little\ninconveniences. All poetry, three-fourths of the world's history, and\nthe largest part of its philosophy, is couched in symbolical language,\nand especially the whole of the science of metaphysics, from which\nthese very learned writers have deduced such edifying conclusions, is,\nfrom the beginning to the end, nothing but a symbolical application of\nthe terms which describe material objects, to the phenomena of mind.\nAlas! we must forever relinquish \"the absolute,\" and \"the infinite,\" and\n\"the conditioned,\" with all their \"affinities and potencies,\" up to\n\"higher unity,\" and \"the rhythm of universal existence,\" and all the\nrest of those perspicuous German hieroglyphics, whether entombed in\ntheir native pyramids for the amazement of succeeding generations, by\nFichte, Schelling, or Hegel, or \"worshiping in the great cathedral of\nthe immensities,\" \"with their heads uplifted into infinite space,\" or\n\"lying on the plane of their own consciousness,\" in the writings of\nCarlyle, Emerson, and Parker. They are myths, the whole of them, for\nthey \"are couched in symbolical language;\" and Bauer, De Wette, and\nStrauss have pronounced every thing couched in symbolical language to be\nmythical. Let us henceforth deliver our minds from all anxiety about\nhistory, philosophy, or religion, and stick to the price current and the\nmultiplication table, the only accounts that are not \"couched in\nsymbolical language.\"\n\nSuch is the sort of trash that passes for profound philosophy when once\nit is made unintelligible, and such are the canons of interpretation\nwith which men calling themselves philosophers and Christians sit down\nto investigate the claims of the Bible as a revelation from God. If they\nwould speak out their true sentiments, they would say, \"There can not be\nany revelation from God, because there is no God.\" But they could not\ncall themselves professors of Christian colleges, and pastors of\nChristian churches, and reap the emoluments of such situations, if they\nwould honestly avow their Atheism. Besides, the world would see too\nplainly the drift of their teaching; therefore it is cloaked under a\nprofession of belief in God, the Creator, who however is to be\ncarefully prevented from ever showing himself again in the world he has\nmade.\n\nNo proof is attempted for the declaration that miracles are impossible.\nYet, surely, if it implies a contradiction to say so, that contradiction\ncould be shown. That it is not self-evident is shown by the general\nbelief of mankind that miracles have occurred. No man who believes in a\nsupernatural being can deny the possibility of supernatural actings. The\ncreation of the world is the most stupendous of all miracles, utterly\nbeyond the power of any finite causes, and entirely beyond the reach of\nour experience, yet some of these men admit that this miracle occurred.\nSupernatural events then are not impossible, nor unprecedented.\n\nThe vain notion that God, having created the world at first, left it for\never after to the operation of natural laws, is conclusively demolished\nby the discoveries of geology. These discoveries established the fact\nrecorded in Scripture, that in bringing the world into its present form\nthere were several distinct and successive interpositions of\nsupernatural power, in the distinct and successive creations of\ndifferent species of vegetable and animal life. In former periods, they\ntell us, the earth was so warm that the present races of men and animals\ncould not have lived on it, and the plants and animals of that age could\nnot live now. These very men are profuse in proving that the earth\nexisted for ages before _man_ made his appearance upon it. This being\nthe case, we are compelled to acknowledge the creating power of God\nabove the laws of nature, for there is no law of nature which can either\ncreate a new species of plants or animals, nor yet change one kind into\nanother, make an oak into a larch, or an ox into a sheep, or a goose\ninto a turkey, or a megatherium into an elephant, much less into a man.\nSome men have dreamed of such changes as these, but no instance of such\na change has ever been alleged in proof of the notion. The most\ndistinguished anatomists and geologists are fully agreed that no such\nchange of one animal into another ever took place; much less that any\nanimal ever was changed into a man. Cuvier, from his comprehensive\nsurvey of the fossils of former periods, establishes the fact, \"that the\nspecies now living are not mere varieties of the species which are\nlost.\" And Agassiz says, \"I have the conviction that species have been\ncreated successively, at distinct intervals.\"[40] Revelations of God's\nspecial interpositions in the affairs of this world are thus written by\nhis own finger in the fossils and coal, and engraved on the everlasting\ngranite of the earth's foundation stones. Dumb beasts and dead reptiles\nstart forward to give their irrefutable testimony to the repeated\nsupernatural acts of their Creator in this world which he had made.\nEvery distinct species of plants and animals is proof of a distinct\nsupernatural overruling of the present laws of nature. The experience of\nman is not the limit of knowledge. His own existence is a proof that the\nchain of finite causes is not inviolable. Geology sweeps away the very\nfoundations of skepticism, by demonstrating that certain phenomena\nproduced immediately by God himself--the phenomena of the creation of\nlife--have occurred repeatedly in the history of our globe. Revelation\nis not impossible because supernatural. The world is just as full of\nsupernatural works as of natural. Nor is it incredible because it\nrecords miracles. The miracles recorded in the coal measures are as\nastonishing as any recorded in the Bible.\n\nThe Rationalist next assures us, however, that any external revelation\nfrom God to man is _useless_, because man is wise enough without it. The\nvulgar exposition of this sentiment is familiar to every reader. \"You\nneed not begin to preach Bible to me. I know my duty well enough without\nthe Bible.\" The more educated attempt to reason the matter after this\nfashion: \"Miraculous phenomena will never prove the goodness and\nveracity of God, if we do not know these qualities in him without a\nmiracle.\"[41] We may remark, in passing, that there are some other\nattributes of God besides goodness and veracity--holiness and justice\nfor instance--which are proved by miracles. \"Can thunder from the\nthirty-two azimuths, repeated daily for centuries, make God's laws more\ngodlike to me? Brother, no. Perhaps I am grown to be a man now, and do\nnot need the thunder and the terror any longer. Perhaps I am above being\nfrightened. Perhaps it is not fear but reverence that shall now lead me!\nRevelation! Inspirations! And thy own god-created soul, dost thou not\ncall that a revelation?\"[42] It is manifest, however, that if Mr.\nCarlyle needs not the Sinai thunder to assure him that the law given on\nSinai was from God, there were then, and are now, many who do, and some\nof his own sect who doubt in spite of it. If he is above the weakness of\nfearing God, all the world is not so.\n\nThe claims of a divine teacher are as unceremoniously rejected as those\nof a divine revelation. \"If it depends on Jesus it is not eternally\ntrue, and if it is not eternally true it is no truth at all,\" says\nParker. As if eternally true, and sufficiently known, were just the same\nthing; or as if because vaccination would always have prevented the\nsmallpox, the world is under no obligation to Jenner for informing us of\nthe fact. In the same tone Emerson despises instruction: \"It is not\ninstruction but provocation that I can receive from another soul. What\nhe announces, I must find true in me, or wholly reject; and on his word,\nor as his second, be he who he may, I can accept nothing.\" Again says\nParker, \"Christianity is dependent on no outside authority. We verify\nits eternal truth in our soul.\"[43] His aim is \"to separate religion\nfrom whatever is finite--Church, book, person--and let it rest on its\nabsolute truth.\"[44] \"It bows to no idols, neither the Church, nor the\nBible, nor yet Jesus, but God only; its Redeemer is within; its\nsalvation within; its heaven and its oracle of God.\"[45] The whole\nstrain of this school of writers and their disciples is one of\ndepreciation of external revelation, and of exaltation of the inner\nlight which every man is supposed to carry within him. Religion is \"no\nMorrison's pill from without,\" but a \"clearing of the inner light,\" a\n\"reawakening of our own selves from within.\"[46] So Mr. Newman[47]\nabundantly argues that an authoritative book revelation of moral and\nspiritual truth is impossible, that God reveals himself within us and\nnot without us, and that a revelation of all moral and religious truth\nnecessary for us to know is to be obtained by _insight_, or gazing into\nthe depths of our own consciousness. The sum of the whole business is,\nthat neither God nor man can reveal any religious truth to our minds, or\nas Parker felicitously expresses it, \"on his word, or as his second, be\nhe who he may, I can accept nothing.\"\n\nNow, we are tempted to ask, Who are these wonderful prodigies, so\nincapable of receiving instruction from anybody? And to our amazement we\nlearn, that some forty odd years ago they made their appearance among\nmankind as little squalling babies, without insight enough to know their\nown names, or where they came from, and were actually dependent on an\nexternal revelation, from their nurses, for sense enough to find their\nmothers' breasts. And as they grew a little larger, they obtained the\npower of speaking articulate sounds by external revelation, hearing and\nimitating the sounds made by others. Further, upon a memorable day,\nthey had a \"book revelation\" made to them, in the shape of a penny\nprimer, and were initiated into the mysteries of A, B, C, by \"the\ninstructions of another, be he who he may.\" There was absolutely not the\nleast \"insight,\" or \"spiritual faculty,\" or \"self-consciousness\" in one\nof them, by which they then could, or ever to this hour did, \"find true\nwithin them\" any sort of necessary connection between the signs, c, a,\nt--d, o, g--and the sounds _cat_, _dog_, or any other sounds represented\nby any other letters of the alphabet. Faith in the word of their\nteachers is absolutely the sole foundation and only source of their\nability to read and write. On \"the word of another, and as his second,\nbe he who he may,\" every one of them has accepted every intelligible\nword he speaks or writes.\n\nThere is living on Martha's Vineyard an old man who has never been off\nthe island, and the extent of his knowledge is bounded by the confines\nof his home. He has been told of a war between the North and South, but\nas he had never heard the din of battle, nor seen any soldiers, he\nconsidered it a hoax. He is utterly unable to read, and is ignorant to\nthe last degree. A good story is told of his first and only day at\nschool. He was quite a lad when a lady came to the district, where his\nfather lived, to teach school. He was sent, and as the teacher was\nclassifying the school, he was called upon in turn and interrogated as\nto his studies. Of course he had to say he had never been to school, and\nknew none of his letters. The schoolmistress gave him a seat on one side\nuntil she had finished the preliminary examination of the rest of the\nscholars. She then called him to her and drew on the blackboard the\nletter A, and told him what it was, and asked him to remember how it\nlooked. He looked at it a moment, and then inquired:\n\n\"H-h-how do you know it's A?\"\n\nThe teacher replied that when she was a little girl she had been to\nschool to an old gentleman, who told her so.\n\nThe boy eyed the A for a moment and then asked:\n\n\"H-h-how do you know but he l-l-lied?\"\n\nThe teacher could not get over this obstacle, and the poor boy was sent\nhome as incorrigible.\n\nMr. Emerson, and the whole school of those who despise instruction, had\nbetter appoint this man their prophet of the inner light, and endow\nMartha's Vineyard as the Penikese of skepticism.\n\nBut the knowledge of letters is not half of their indebtedness to\nexternal revelation. For they will not deny that a Fiji cannibal has\njust the same \"insight,\" \"spiritual faculty,\" \"mighty and transcendent\nsoul,\" \"self-consciousness,\" or any other name by which they may dignify\nour common humanity, which they themselves possess. How does it happen,\nthen, that these writers are not assembled around the cannibal's oven,\nsmearing their faces with the blood, and feasting themselves on the\nlimbs of women and children? The inner nature of the cannibal and of the\nRationalist is the same--whence comes the difference of character and\nconduct? And the inner light, too, is the same; for they assure us that\n\"inspiration, like God's omnipresence, is coextensive with the race.\" Is\nit not, after all, mere external revelation, in the shape of\neducation--aye, moral and religious teaching that makes the whole\ndifference between the civilized American and his inspired Fiji brother?\n\nThese gentlemen not only acknowledge, but try to repay their obligations\nto external revelation. As it is impossible for God to give the world a\nbook revelation of moral and religious truth, they modestly propose to\ncome to his assistance, it being quite possible for some men to do what\nis impossible for God. Accordingly, we have a book revelation of moral\nand religious truth, from one, in his treatise on \"The Soul,\" an\n\"external revelation\" from another, in his \"Discourse Concerning\nReligion,\" a \"Morrison's pill from the outside,\" from a third, in his\n\"Past and Present,\" and \"announcements\" from a fourth, which assuredly\nthe great mass of mankind never \"found true within them,\" else his\norations and publications had not been needed to convert them. It is to\nbe understood, then, that an \"external revelation,\" or a \"book\nrevelation\" of spiritual truth is impossible, only when it comes from\nGod, but that these gentlemen have proved it quite possible for\nthemselves to deliver one.\n\nIn so doing they have undoubtedly attempted to meet the wishes of the\ngreater part of mankind, who have in all lands and in all ages longed\nfor some outward revelation from God, and testified their desire by\nrunning after all sorts of omens, auguries, and oracles, consulting\nwitches, and treasuring Sibylline leaves, employing writing mediums, and\nlistening to spirit-rappers. The \"inspiration which is limited to no\nsect, age, or nation--which is wide as the world, and common as\nGod,\"[48] has never produced a nation of Rationalists; a fact very\nunaccountable, if Rationalism be true; and one which might well lead\nthese writers to acknowledge at least one kind of total depravity,\nnamely, that inspired men should love the darkness of external\nrevelations, and even of book revelations, and read Bibles, and Korans,\nand Vedas, and \"Discourses Concerning Religion,\" and \"Phases of Faith,\"\nwhile yet \"everything that is of use to man lies in the plane of our own\nconsciousness.\" Surely, such a universal craving after an external\nrevelation testifies to a felt necessity for it, and renders it\nprobable, or at least desirable, that God would supply the deficiency.\nIs the religious appetite the only one for which God has provided no\nsupply?\n\nThe fact is undeniable, that the grand distinction between man and the\nbrutes presents itself right at this point. God guides animals by direct\nrevelation--by their instincts; but having given man reason, and free\nwill, he gives him the whole field of life for their exercise upon the\nindirect revelations he makes to us through the mediation of others. For\nall that we know of history, geography, politics, mechanics,\nagriculture, poetry, philosophy, or any of the common business of life,\nfrom the baking of a loaf of bread, or the sewing of a shirt, to the\nfollowing of a funeral, and the digging of a grave, we are indebted to\neducation, not to inspiration. All analogy then induces the belief that\nreligion also will be taught to mankind by the ministry of human\nteachers, rather than by the direct inspiration of every individual.\n\nBut we are instructed, that, \"as we have bodily senses to lay hold on\nmatter, and supply bodily wants, through which we obtain naturally all\nneeded material things, so we have spiritual faculties to lay hold on\nGod, and supply spiritual wants; through them we obtain all needed\nspiritual things.\" That we have both bodily senses and spiritual\nfaculties is doubtless true; but whether either the one or the other\nobtain all needed things is somewhat doubtful. I can not tell how it is\nwith mankind in Boston, for I am not there; and this being a matter in\nwhich religious truth is concerned, Mr. Emerson will not allow me to\nreceive instruction about it from any other soul; but I see from my\nwindow a poor widow, with five children, who has bodily senses to lay\nhold on matter, and supply bodily wants; yet in my opinion she has not\nobtained naturally all needed material things; and if there be a truth\nwhich lies emphatically in the plane of her own consciousness, it is,\nthat she is in great need of a cord of wood, and a barrel of flour, for\nher starving children. I know, also, a man, to whom God gave bodily\nsenses to lay hold on matter, and supply bodily wants, who, by his\ndrunkenness, has destroyed these bodily senses, and brought his family\nto utter destitution of all needed material things. From one cause or\nanother, I find multitudes here in poverty and destitution,\nnotwithstanding they have bodily senses. It is reported, also, that\nthere is a poor-house in Boston, and poverty in Ireland, and starvation\nin Madeira, and famine in the inundated provinces of France, and misery\nand destitution in London; which, if true, completely overturns this\nbeautiful theory. For, if, notwithstanding the possession of bodily\nsenses, men do starve in this world for want of needful food and\nclothing, it is very possible that they may have spiritual faculties\nalso, and yet not obtain through them all needed spiritual things.\n\nThe second part of the theory is as baseless as the first. All men have\nspiritual faculties, and have not obtained by them all needed spiritual\nthings. They have not in their own opinion, and surely they are\ncompetent judges of \"what lies wholly in the plane of their own\nconsciousness.\" In proof of the fact that mankind have not, in their own\nopinion, obtained all needed spiritual things by the use of their\nspiritual faculties, without the aid of external revelation, we appeal\nto all the religions of mankind, Heathen, Mohammedan, and Christian.\nEvery one of these appeals to revelations from God. Every lawgiver of\nnote professed to have communication with heaven, Zoroaster, Minos,\nPythagoras, Solon, Lycurgus, Numa, Mohammed, down to the chief of the\nrecent revolution in China. \"Whatever becomes of the real truth of these\nrelations,\" says Strabo of those before his day, \"_it is certain that\nmen did believe and think them true_.\" If mankind has found the supply\nof all their spiritual wants within themselves, would they have clung in\nthis way to the pretense of external revelations? Is not the abundance\nof quack doctors conclusive proof of the existence of disease, and of\nthe need of physicians?\n\nNot only was the need of an external revelation of some sort\nacknowledged by all mankind, but the insufficiency of the pretended\noracles which they enjoyed was deplored by the wisest part of them. We\nnever find men amidst the dim moonlight of tradition, and the light of\nnature, vaunting the sufficiency of their inward light; it is only\namidst the full blaze of noonday Christianity that philosophers can\nstand up and declare that they have no need of God's teaching. Had such\nmen lived in Athens of old, they would have found men possessed of\nspiritual faculties, and those of no mean order, engaged in erecting an\naltar with this inscription, \"_To the Unknown God._\" One of the wisest\nof the heathen (Socrates) acknowledged that he could attain to no\ncertainty respecting religious truth or moral duty, in these memorable\nwords, \"We must of necessity wait, till some one from him who careth for\nus, shall come and instruct us how we ought to behave toward God and\ntoward man.\" The chief of the Academy, whose philosophy concerning the\neternity of matter occupies a conspicuous place in the creed of American\nheathens, had no such confidence in the sufficiency of his own powers of\ndiscovering religious truth. \"We can not know of ourselves what petition\nwill be pleasing to God, or what worship we should pay to him; but it is\nnecessary that a lawgiver should be sent from heaven to instruct us.\"\n\"Oh how greatly do I long to see that man!\" He further declares that\n\"_this lawgiver must be more than man, that he may teach us the things\nman can not know by his own nature_.\"[49] Whether this want of a\nrevelation from God was real, or merely imaginary, will appear by a\nbrief review of the opinions and practices of those who never enjoyed,\nand of those who reject the light of God's revelation.\n\n_They knew not God._ If there is any article of religion fundamental,\nand indispensable to its very existence, it is the knowledge of God. It\nis admitted by Rationalists that the spiritual faculties are designed to\nlay hold on God. It has been proved in the previous chapter, and it will\nbe admitted by all but Atheists, that God is an Intelligent Being. And\nfurther it has been proved that God is not everything and everybody,\nbut distinct from and supreme over all his works. Besides, in this\ncountry at least, there will not be much difference of opinion as to the\npropriety of a rational being adoring a brute, or a log of wood, or a\nlump of stone. It will be allowed that such stupidity shows both\nignorance and folly. Now let us inquire into the knowledge of God\npossessed by the people who have no vision.\n\nThe Chaldeans, the most ancient people of whom we have any account, and\nwho had among them the immediate descendants of Noah, and whatever\ntraditions of Noah's prophecies they preserved, were probably the best\ninstructed of the heathen. Yet we find that they gave up the worship of\nGod, adored the sun, and moon, and stars of heaven, and in process of\ntime degenerated still further, and worshiped dumb idols. From this rock\nwe were hewn; the common names of the days of the week, and especially\nof the first day of the week, will forever keep up a testimony to the\nnecessity of that revelation which delivered our forefathers and us from\nburning our children upon the devil's altars on Sun-days.\n\nThe Egyptians were reputed the most learned of mankind, and Egypt was\nconsidered the cradle of the arts and sciences. In her existing\nmonuments, hieroglyphic inscriptions, and tomb paintings, we have\npresented to us the materials for forming a more correct opinion of the\nreligion and life of the Egyptians than of any other ancient people; and\nthe investigation of these monuments is still adding to our information.\nInfidel writers and lecturers have not hesitated to allege that Moses\nmerely taught the Israelites the religion of Egypt; and some have had\nthe hardihood to allege that the ten commandments are found written on\nthe pyramids, as an argument against the necessity of a revelation. If\nthe statement were true, it would by no means prove the conclusion.\nEgypt was favored with divine revelations to several of her kings, and\nenjoyed occasional visits from, or the permanent teachings of, such\nprophets as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, for four hundred years; a\nfact quite sufficient to account for her superiority to other heathen\nnations, as well as for the existence of some traces of true religion on\nher monuments. But the alleged fact is a falsehood. Some good moral\nprecepts are found on the Egyptian monuments, but the ten commandments\nare not there. It may be charitably supposed that those who allege the\ncontrary never learned the ten commandments, or have forgotten them,\nelse they would have remembered that the first commandment is, \"Thou\nshalt have no other gods before me;\" and that Pharaoh indignantly asks,\n\"Who is Jehovah that I should obey his voice? I know not God:\" and that\nthe second is, \"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,\" etc.,\nand would have paused before alleging that these commands were engraved\non the very temples of idols, and by the priests of the birds, and\nbeasts, and images of creeping things which they adored. It is very\ndoubtful if they believed in the existence of one supreme God, as most\nof the heathen did; but if they did, \"they did not under any form,\nsymbol, or hieroglyphic, represent the idea of the unity of God,\" as is\nfully proved by Wilkinson.[50] On the contrary, the monuments confirm\nthe satirical sketch of the poet,[51] as to the \"monsters mad Egypt\nworshiped; here a sea-fish, there a river-fish; whole towns adore a dog.\nThis place fears an ibis saturated with serpents; that adores a\ncrocodile. It is a sin to violate a leek or onion, or break them with a\nbite.\" Cruel wars were waged between different towns, as Plutarch tells\nus, because the people of Cynopolis would eat a fish held sacred by the\ncitizens of Latopolis. Bulls, and dogs, and cats, and rats, and\nreptiles, and dung beetles, were devoutly adored by the learned\nEgyptians. A Roman soldier, who had accidentally killed one of their\ngods, a cat, was put to death for sacrilege.[52] Whenever a dog died,\nevery person in the house went into mourning, and fasted till night. So\nlow had the \"great, the mighty and transcendent soul,\" been degraded\nthat there is a picture extant of one of the kings of Egypt worshiping\nhis own coffin! Such is man's knowledge of God without a revelation from\nhim.\n\nThe Greeks, from their early intercourse with Egypt, borrowed from them\nmost of their religion; but by later connections with the Hebrews, about\nthe time of Aristotle and Alexander, they gathered a few grains of truth\nto throw into the heap of error. After the translation of the Scriptures\ninto Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, any of their\nphilosophers who desired might easily have learned the knowledge of the\ntrue God. But before this period we find little or no sense or truth in\ntheir religion. And the same remarks will apply to the Romans. Their\ngods were as detestable as they were numerous. Hesiod tells us they had\nthirty thousand. Temples were erected to all the passions, fears, and\ndiseases to which humanity is subject. Their supreme god, Jupiter, was\nan adulterer, Mars a murderer, Mercury a thief, Bacchus a drunkard,\nVenus a harlot; and they attributed other crimes to their gods too\nhorrible to be mentioned. Such gods were worshiped, with appropriate\nceremonies, of lust, drunkenness, and bloodshed. Their most sacred\nmysteries, carried on under the patronage of these licentious deities,\nwere so abominable and infamous, that it was found necessary, for the\npreservation of any remnant of good order, to prohibit them.\n\nIt may be supposed that the human race is grown wiser now than in the\ndays of Socrates and Cicero, and that such abominations are no longer\npossible. Turn your eyes, then, to India, and behold one hundred and\nfifty millions of rational beings, possessed of \"spiritual faculties,\"\n\"insight,\" and \"the religious sentiment,\" worshiping three hundred and\nthirty millions of gods, in the forms of hills, and trees, and rivers,\nand rocks, elephants, tigers, monkeys, and rats, crocodiles, serpents,\nbeetles, and ants, and monsters like to nothing in heaven or earth, or\nunder the earth. Take one specimen of all. There is \"the lord of the\nworld,\" Juggernath. \"When you think of the monster block of the idol,\nwith its frightfully grim and distorted visage, so justly styled the\nMoloch of the East, sitting enthroned amid thousands of massive\nsculptures, the representative emblems of that cruelty and vice which\nconstitute the very essence of his worship; when you think of the\ncountless multitudes that annually congregate there, from all parts of\nIndia, many of them measuring the whole distance of their weary\npilgrimage with their own bodies; when you think of the merit-earning\nassiduities constantly practiced by crowds of devotees and religious\nmendicants, around the holy city, some remaining all day with their head\non the ground, and their feet in the air; others with their bodies\nentirely covered with earth; some cramming their eyes with mud, and\ntheir mouths with straw, while others lie extended in a puddle of water;\nhere one man lying with his foot tied to his neck, another with a pot of\nfire on his breast, a third enveloped in a network of ropes; when,\nbesides these self-inflicted torments, you think of the frightful amount\nof involuntary suffering and wretchedness arising from the exhaustion of\ntoilsome pilgrimages, the cravings of famine, and the scourgings of\npestilence; when you think of the day of the high festival--how the\nhorrid king is dragged forth from his temple, and mounted on his lofty\ncar, in the presence of hundreds of thousands, that cause the very earth\nto shake with shouts of 'Victory to Juggernath, our Lord;' how the\nofficiating high priest, stationed in front of the elevated idol,\ncommences the public service by a loathsome pantomimic exhibition,\naccompanied with the utterance of filthy, blasphemous songs, to which\nthe vast multitude at intervals respond, not in the strains of tuneful\nmelody, but in loud yells of approbation, united with a kind of hissing\napplause; when you think of the carnage that ensues, in the name of\nsacred offering--how, as the ponderous machine rolls on, grating harsh\nthunder, one and another of the more enthusiastic devotees throw\nthemselves beneath the wheels, and are instantly crushed to pieces, the\ninfatuated victims of hellish superstition; when you think of the\nnumerous Golgothas that bestud the neighboring plain, where the dogs,\njackals and vultures seem to live on human prey; and of those bleak and\nbarren sands that are forever whitened with the skulls and bones of\ndeluded pilgrims which lie bleaching in the sun,\"[53] you will be able\nto see an awful force of meaning in the words of our text, and to\nrealize more fully the necessity of a revelation from God, for the\npreservation of animal life to man. Literally, where there is no vision\nthe people _perish_. Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word\nwhich proceedeth from the mouth of God.\n\nTake one other illustration of ignorance of God in the minds of those\nwho close their eyes against the light of revelation--the heathen of\nEurope and America, possessing that inspiration which is wide as the\nworld, looking abroad upon all the glorious works of the great Creator,\nand declaring there is no God. On the other hand, we have men, possessed\nof this same inspiration, deifying everything, and outrunning even the\nHindoos in the multitude of their divinities, declaring that every\nstick, and stone, and serpent, and snail that crawls on the earth is\nGod, and making professions of holding spiritual communings with them\nall. To crown the monument of folly, the chief of the Positive\nPhilosophy comes forth with a revelation from his spiritual faculties,\nin which by way of improving on the proverb \"both are best,\" and of\nbeing sure of the truth, he unites Atheism, and Pantheism, and\nIdolatry--teaches his child to worship idols, the youth to believe in\none God, and himself and other full-grown men to adore the \"resultant of\nall the forces capable of voluntarily contributing to the perfectioning\nof the universe, _not forgetting his worthy friends, the animals_.\" To\nsuch darkness are men justly condemned who shut their eyes against the\nlight of God's revelation. Where there is no vision the people perish\nintellectually. He who turns away his ears from the truth must be turned\nunto fables. \"Hear ye and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord hath\nspoken. Give glory to the Lord your God before he cause darkness, and\nbefore your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and while ye look for\nlight, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.\"\n\n_Without a revelation from God, the mind of man can attain to no\ncertainty regarding the most important of all his interests, the destiny\nof his immortal soul._ He knows well--for every sickness, and sorrow,\nand calamity declares it, and quick returning troubles will not allow\nhim to forget--that the Ruler of the world is offended with him; and\nconscience tells him why. The sense of guilt is common to the human\nrace. This is, indeed, \"the inspiration which knows no sect, no country,\nno religion, no age; which is as wide as humanity.\" Reason asks herself,\nWill God be always thus angry with me? Shall I always feel these pangs\nof remorse for my sins? Will misery follow me forever, as I see and feel\nthat it does here? Or shall my soul exist under God's frowns, or perish\nunder his just sentence, even as my body perishes? Does the grave hide\nforever all that I loved? Have they ceased to be? Shall we ever meet\nagain? Or must I say, \"Farewell, farewell! An eternal farewell!\" And in\na few days myself also cease to be? The only answer Reason gives\nis--solemn silence.\n\nThe wisest of men could not tell. Who has not dropped a tear over the\ndying words of Socrates, \"I am going out of the world, and you are to\ncontinue in it, but which of us has the better part is a secret to every\none but God.\" Cicero contended for the immortality of the soul against\nthe multitudes of philosophers who denied it in his day; yet, after\nrecounting their various opinions, he is obliged to say, \"Which of these\nis true, God alone knows; and which is most probable, a very great\nquestion.\"[54] And Seneca, on a review of this subject, says:\n\"Immortality, however desirable, was rather promised than proved by\nthese great men.\"[55]\n\nThe multitude had but two ideas on the subject. Either their ghosts\nwould wander eternally in the land of shadows, or else they would pass\ninto a succession of other bodies, of animals or men. From the nakedness\nand desolation of unclothed spirit, and the possibility which this\nnotion held out of some close contact with a holy and just judge, the\nsoul shrank back to the hope of the metempsychosis, and hoped rather to\ndwell in the body of a brute, than be utterly unclothed and mingle with\nspirits. This is the delusion cherished by the people of India and many\nother lands to this day. How unsatisfactory to the dying sinner this\nuncertainty. \"Tell me,\" said a wealthy Hindoo, who had given all his\nwealth to the Brahmins who surrounded his dying bed, that they might\nobtain pardon for his sins, \"Tell me what will become of my soul when I\ndie?\" \"Your soul will go into the body of a holy cow.\" \"And after that?\"\n\"It will pass into the body of the divine peacock.\" \"And after that?\"\n\"It will pass into a flower.\" \"Tell me, oh! tell me,\" cried the dying\nman, \"where will it go last of all?\" Where will it go last of all? Aye,\nthat is the question Reason can not answer.\n\nThe rejectors of the Bible here are as uncertain on this all-important\nsubject as the heathen of India. They have every variety of oracles, and\nconjectures, and suppositions about the other world; but for their\nguesses they offer no proof. When they give us their oracles as if they\nwere known truths, we are compelled to ask, How do you know? The only\nthing in which they are agreed among themselves is in denying the\nresurrection of the body; a point which they gathered from their heathen\nclassics. A poor, empty, naked, shivering, table-rapping spirit, obliged\nto fly over the world at the sigh of any silly sewing girl, or the\nbidding of some brazen-faced strumpet, is all that ever shall exist of\nWashington, or Newton, in the scheme of one class of Bible rejectors. To\nobtain rest from such a doom, others fly to the eternal tomb, and inform\nus that the soul is simply an acting of the brain, and when the brain\nceases to act, the soul ceases also. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow\nwe die. But even this hog philosophy is reasonable, compared with the\ndogma of the large majority, that a man may blaspheme, swear, lie,\nsteal, murder, and commit adultery, and go straight to heaven--that\n\"many a swarthy Indian who bowed down to wood and stone--many a\ngrim-faced Calmuck who worshiped the great god of storms--many a Grecian\npeasant who did homage to Phoebus Apollo when the sun rose or went\ndown--many a savage, his hands smeared all over with human\nsacrifice--shall sit down with Moses and Jesus in the kingdom of\nGod.\"[56] To such wild unreason does the mind of man descend when it\nrejects the Bible.\n\nLife and immortality are brought to light by the gospel. Where there is\nno vision, hope perishes. The only plausible creed for him who rejects\nit is the eternal tomb, and the heart-chilling inscription: \"Death is an\neternal sleep!\"\n\n_Without a revelation from God, men are as ignorant how to live, as how\nto die._ They have no rule of life having either truth or authority to\ndirect them. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, of the purity of whose blood we\nare so proud, trusted to their magical incantations for the cure of\ndiseases, for the success of their tillage, for the discovery of lost\nproperty, for uncharming cattle and the prevention of casualties. One\nday was useful for all things; another, though good to tame animals, was\nbaleful to sow seed. One day was favorable to the commencement of\nbusiness, another to let blood, and others wore a forbidding aspect to\nthese and other things. On this day they were to buy, on a second to\nsell, on a third to hunt, on a fourth to do nothing. If a child was born\non such a day, it would live; if on another, its life would be sickly;\nif on another, it would perish early.[57] Their descendants who reject\nthe Bible are fully as superstitious. Astrologers, and Mediums, and\nClairvoyants, in multitudes, find a profitable trade among them; and one\nprominent anti-Bible lecturer will cure you of any disease you have, if\nyou will only inclose, in a letter, a lock of hair from the right\ntemple, and--a--five dollar bill.\n\nThe precepts of even the wisest men, and the laws of the best regulated\nStates, commanded or approved of vice. In Babylon prostitution was\ncompulsory on every female. The Carthaginian law required human\nsacrifices. When Agathoclas besieged Carthage, two hundred children, of\nthe most noble families, were murdered by the command of the senate, and\nthree hundred citizens voluntarily sacrificed themselves to Saturn.[58]\nThe laws of Sparta required theft, and the murder of unhealthy\nchildren. Those of ancient Rome allowed parents the power of killing\ntheir children, if they pleased. At Athens, the capital of heathen\nliterature and philosophy, it was enacted \"that infants which appeared\nto be maimed should either be killed or exposed.\"[59]\n\nPlato, dissatisfied with the constitution, made a scheme of one much\nbetter, which he has left us in his Republic. In this great advance of\nsociety, this heathen millennium, we find that there was to be a\ncommunity of women and of property, just as among our modern heathens.\nWomen's rights were to be maintained by having the women trained to war.\nChildren were still to be murdered, if convenience called for it. And\nthe young children were to be led to battle at a safe distance, \"that\nthe young whelps might early scent carnage, and be inured to slaughter.\"\n\nThe teachings of all these philosophers were immoral. He may lie, says\nPlato, who knows how to do it. Pride and the love of popular applause\nwere esteemed the best motives to virtue. Profane swearing was commanded\nby the example of all their best writers and moralists. Oaths are\nfrequent in the writings of Plato and Seneca. The gratification of the\nsensual appetites was openly taught. Aristippus taught that a wise man\nmight steal and commit adultery when he could. Unnatural crimes were\nvindicated. The last dread crime--suicide--was pleaded for by Cicero and\nSeneca as the mark of a hero; and Demosthenes, Cato, Brutus, and\nCassius, carried the means of self-destruction about them, that they\nmight not fall alive into the hands of their enemies.\n\nThe daily lives of these wisest of the heathen corresponded to their\nteachings, so far at least as vice was concerned. The most notorious\nvices, and even unnatural crimes, were practiced by them. The reader of\nthe classics does not need to be reminded that such vices are lauded in\nthe poems of Ovid, and Horace, and Virgil; that the poets were rewarded\nand honored for songs which would not be tolerated for a moment in the\nvilest theater of New York.\n\nRecently some daily papers and broad-church preachers have taken to the\ncanonization of heathen saints; they denounce vigorously the bigotry of\nany who will not open to them the gates of heaven, or who will, in\ngeneral, deny salvation to good heathens. But we do not deny salvation\nto good heathens, or to good Jews, or to good Mohammedans, or to anybody\nwho is good. God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he\nthat feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. Nor are\nwe about to usurp Peter's keys, and lock anybody out of heaven, or into\nit either; we are only acting as jurymen upon the life and conduct of\nmen held up to our children as noble examples of a good life, in their\nclassics, by heathens like themselves, and recommended now by Christian\nclergymen, as fitter for the kingdom of God, than bad Christians; which\nlast may be very true, and so much the worse for the bad Christians. But\nthe question is not to be thus decided by comparisons, or by\ngeneralities; we must have specified individual heathen saints. When,\nhowever, we come to look for them, these saints and heroes prove to be\nonly fit for the penitentiary, according to the laws of any of our\nStates; and were they living now, and behaving themselves according to\ntheir accustomed habits, the best of them would be fortunate if they got\nthere before they were tarred and feathered by an outraged public.\nSocrates, Seneca, and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, form the stock\nspecimens trotted out of the stables of heathen morality, for the\nadmiration and reverence of Christians in this nineteenth century. But\nit has been well remarked of Socrates, that no American lady would live\nwith him a year without applying for a divorce, and getting it, too,\nupon very sufficient grounds. Seneca, who wrote so beautifully upon\nmorals, was an adulterer; and, moreover, prostituted his pen to write a\ndefense of a man who murdered his mother. And Marcus Aurelius directed\nthe murder of thousands of innocent men and women, causing young ladies\nto be stripped naked and torn to pieces by wild beasts, in the public\namphitheater, and others to be roasted alive in red-hot iron chairs, for\nno other offense but that they avowed themselves Christians. Such are\nthese boasted saints and heroes of heathendom.\n\nWhat, then, must the lives of the vulgar have been? In the very height\nof Roman civilization, Trajan caused ten thousand men to hew each other\nto pieces for the amusement of the Roman people; and noble ladies\nfeasted their eyes on the spectacle. In the Augustan age, when the\ninvincible armies of Rome gave law to half the world, fathers were in\nthe habit of mutilating their sons rather than see them subjected to the\nslavery and terrible despotism of their officers. What, then, must the\nstate of the people of the vanquished countries have been? Whole\nprovinces were frequently given over to fire and sword by generals not\nreputed inhuman; and such was the progress of war and anarchy, and their\nnever-failing accompaniments, famine and pestilence, that, in the reign\nof Gallienus, large cities were left utterly desolate, the public roads\nbecame unsafe from immense packs of wolves, _and it was computed that\none-half of the human race perished_. This was just before the\ntoleration of Christianity. God would allow the wisest and bravest of\nmankind to try the experiment of neglecting his gospel and living\nwithout his revelation, until all mankind might be convinced that such a\ncourse is suicidal to nations. \"Where there is no vision, the people\nperish.\"\n\nA brief reference to the codes of morals which the modern opposers of\nthe Bible would substitute for it in Christian lands shall conclude our\nproof of the necessity of such a revelation of God's law to man, as\nshall guide his life to peace and happiness.\n\nThe family is the basis of the commonwealth. Destroy family confidence\nand family government, and you destroy society, subvert civil\ngovernment, and bring destruction on the human race. Mankind are so\ngenerally agreed on this subject, that adultery, even among heathens, is\nregarded and punished as a crime. The whole school of Infidel writers\nand anti-Bible lecturers, male and female, apologize for, and vindicate\nthis crime. Lord Herbert, the first of the English Deists, taught that\nthe indulgence of lust and anger is no more to be blamed than the thirst\noccasioned by the dropsy, or the drowsiness produced by lethargy. Mr.\nHobbes asserted that every man has a right to all things, and may\nlawfully get them if he can. Bolingbroke taught that man is merely a\nsuperior animal, which is just the modern development theory, and that\nhis chief end is to gratify the appetites and inclinations of the flesh.\nHume, whose argument against miracles is so frequently in the mouths of\nAmerican Infidels, taught that adultery must be practiced, if men would\nobtain all the advantages of life, and that if practiced frequently, it\nwould by degrees come to be thought no crime at all--a prediction as\ntrue as Holy Writ; the fulfillment of which hundreds of the citizens of\nCincinnati can attest, who have heard a lecturer publicly denounce the\nBible as an immoral book, and in the same address declare that if a\nwoman was married to a man, in her opinion of inferior development, it\nwas her duty to leave him and live with another. This duty is by no\nmeans neglected, as the numerous divorces, spiritual marriages,\nseparations, and elopements among this class of persons, testify.\nVoltaire held that it was not agreeable to policy to regard it as a vice\nin a moral sense. Rousseau, a liar, a thief, and a debauched profligate,\naccording to his own printed \"Confessions,\" held the same high opinion\nof the inner light as our American Spiritualists. \"_I have only to\nconsult myself_,\" said he, \"_concerning what I do. All that I feel to be\nright, is right._\"[60]\n\nIn fact, the purport of this inner light doctrine is exactly as Rousseau\nexpressed it, and amounts simply to this, _Do what you like._\n\nOn this lawless principle these men acted. Take, for example, the chief\nsaint on the calendar of American Infidelity, whose birthday is annually\ncelebrated by a festival in this city, and in whose honor hundreds of\nmen, who would like to be reputed decent citizens, parade the streets of\nCincinnati in solemn procession--Thomas Paine--the author of \"The Age of\nReason,\" as his character is depicted by one who was his helper in the\nwork of blaspheming God and seducing men, and whose testimony,\ntherefore, in the eyes of an Infidel, is unimpeachable--William Carver.\n\n     \"MR. THOMAS PAINE: I received your letter, dated the 25th\n     ult., in answer to mine, dated November 21, and after minutely\n     examining its contents, I found that you had taken to the\n     pitiful subterfuge of _lying_ for your defense. You say that\n     you paid me four dollars per week for your board and lodging,\n     during the time you were with me, prior to the first of June\n     last; which was the day that I went up, by your order, to\n     bring you to York, from New Rochelle. It is fortunate for me\n     that I have a living evidence that saw you give me five\n     guineas, and no more, in my shop, at your departure at that\n     time; but you said you would have given me more, but that you\n     had no more with you at present. You say, also, that you found\n     your own liquors during the time you boarded with me; but you\n     should have said, 'I found only a small part of the liquor I\n     drank during my stay with you; this part I purchased of John\n     Fellows, which was a demi-john of brandy, containing four\n     gallons,' and this did not serve you three weeks. This can be\n     proved, and I mean not to say anything I can not prove, for I\n     hold truth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact that\n     you drank one quart of brandy per day, at my expense, during\n     the different times you boarded with me; the demi-john above\n     mentioned excepted, and the last fourteen weeks you were sick.\n     Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner and supper.\" * * *\n     \"I have often wondered that a French woman and three children\n     should leave France and all their connections, to follow\n     Thomas Paine to America. Suppose I were to go to my native\n     country, England, and take another man's wife and three\n     children of his, and leave my wife and children in this\n     country, what would be the natural conclusion in the minds of\n     the people, but that there was some criminal connection\n     between the woman and myself?\"[61]\n\nThe death of this man was horrible.\n\nThe Philadelphia _Presbyterian_ says: \"There is now in Philadelphia a\nlady who saw Paine on his dying-bed. She informs us that Paine's\nphysician also attended her father's family in the city of New York,\nwhere in her youth she resided, and that on one occasion whilst at their\nhouse, he proposed to her to accompany him to the Infidel's dwelling,\nwhich she did. It was a miserable hovel in what was then Raisin Street.\nShe had often seen Paine before, a drunken profligate, wandering about\nthe streets, from whom the children always fled in terror. On entering\nhis room she found him stretched on his miserable bed. His visage was\nlean and haggard, and wore the expression of great agony. He expressed\nhimself without reserve as to his fears of death, and repeatedly called\non the name of Jesus, begging for mercy. The scene was appalling, and so\ndeeply engraven on her mind, that nothing could obliterate\nit.\"--_Philadelphia Presbyterian_, March 17, 1857.\n\nThe physician's statement has been common, many years, and corresponds\nwith the above. So do Grant Thorburn's representations agree with both.\nAnd the piece published by Rev. Jas. Inglis in his \"Waymarks in the\nWilderness,\" which has proved so distasteful to the Paineites here,\nsubstantially agrees with all the others. It is only the truthfulness of\nit which is so offensive. It may be of interest to state, that the\nfacts therein named are the recollections of old Dr. McClay, a Baptist\nminister of known power and veracity. The fact of Paine's miserable, and\ncowardly, and man-forsaken end is too true. Let no one be foolhardy\nenough to follow them, rejecting to do it, a fourfold cord of strong\ntestimony; nay, we may add, a stronger cord of fivefold testimony, as\nPaine's nurse testifies like the rest.\n\nIn the East these facts are so notorious that even Infidels disown\nallegiance or attachment to Paine, if they wish to be considered\nrespectable. Some of the severest denunciations against him, which we\never heard, have been from Infidels. Indeed this is more than plain from\nthe very fact of all the Infidels having forsaken Paine on his\ndeath-bed. Who was his doctor? A Christian. Who was his nurse? A\nChristian? Who were his most constant visitors and sympathizers?\nThorburn, McClay, etc., Christians. They went, for mercy's sake;\nInfidels, having no \"bowels of mercies,\" kept away. Carver, Jefferson,\netc., were far from him in his extreme hour.\n\nThe testimony of Mons. Tronchin, a Protestant physician from Geneva, who\nattended Voltaire on his death-bed, was: That to see all the furies of\nOrestes, one only had to be present at the death of Voltaire. (\"_Pour\nvoir toutes les furies d'Oreste, il n'y avait qu'a se trouver a la mort\nde Voltaire._\") \"Such a spectacle,\" he adds, \"would benefit the young,\nwho are in danger of losing the precious helps of religion.\" The\nMarechal de Richelieu, too, was so terrified at what he saw that he left\nthe bedside of Voltaire, declaring that \"the sight was too horrible for\nendurance.\"[62]\n\nAnd these are the saints, and apostles, and heroes of Infidelity, to\nwhose memories Infidels make orations and festivals, and whose writings\nare reprinted in scores of editions, not only over Christendom, but\neven in India, to teach mankind how to live and how to die!\n\nSuch are the lives and deaths of those who denounce the Bible as an\nimmoral Book, and blaspheme the God of the Bible as too unholy to be\nreverenced or adored! \"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were\nspoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they\ntold you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after\ntheir own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual,\nhaving not the Spirit.\" In the Free Love Institute about to be\nestablished in our vicinity, we shall have the full development of these\nfilthy principles and practices.\n\nLet fathers and husbands look to this matter. Especially let ungodly men\nset to work and devise some law of man capable of binding those who\nrenounce the law of God, and with it all human authority. For there can\nbe no law of man, unless there is a revealed law of God. \"What right,\"\nsays the Pantheist, the Fourierist, the Spiritualist, the Atheist, \"what\nright have you to command me? Right and wrong are only matters of\nfeeling, and your feelings are no rule to me. The will of the majority\nis only the law of might, and if I can evade it, or overcome it, my will\nis as good as theirs. Oaths are only an idle superstition; there is no\njudge, no judgment, no punishment for the false swearer.\" Take away the\nmoral sanction of law, and the sacredness of oaths, and what basis have\nyou left for any government, save the point of the bayonet? Take away\nthe revealed law of God, and you leave not a vestige of any authority to\nany human law. \"We hold these truths to be self-evident,\" said the\nimmortal framers of the basis of the American Confederation, \"that all\nmen are created equal; that they are _endowed by their Creator_ with\ncertain unalienable rights.\" It was well said. The rights of God are the\nonly basis of the rights of man. One of the most sagacious of modern\nstatesmen has borne his testimony to this fundamental truth--that\nreligion is the only basis of social order--in words as trenchant as the\nguillotine which suggested them. \"It is not,\" says Napoleon, \"the\nmystery of incarnation which I perceive in religion, but the mystery of\nsocial order. It attaches to heaven an idea of equality which prevents\nthe rich from being massacred by the poor.\"[63]\n\nOnce in modern times, the rejectors of the Bible had opportunity to try\nthe experiment of ruling a people on a large scale, and giving the world\na specimen of an Infidel Republic. You have heard one of them here\nexpress his admiration of that government, and declare his intention to\npresent a public vindication of it. Of course, as soon as practicable,\nthat which they admire they will imitate, and the scenes of Paris and\nLyons will be re-enacted in Louisville and Cincinnati. Our Bibles will\nbe collected and burned on a dung-heap. Death will be declared an\neternal sleep. God will be declared a fiction. Religious worship will be\nrenounced; the Sabbath abolished; and a prostitute, crowned with\ngarlands, will receive the adorations of the mayors and councilmen of\nCincinnati and Newport. The reign of terror will commence. The\nguillotine shall take its place on the Fifth Street Market place.\nProscription will follow proscription. Women will denounce their\nhusbands, and children their parents, as bad citizens, and lead them to\nthe ax; and well-dressed ladies, filled with savage ferocity, will seize\nthe mangled bodies of their murdered countrymen between their teeth. The\nLicking will be choked with the bodies of men, and the Ohio dyed with\ntheir blood; and those whose infancy has sheltered them from the fire of\nthe rabble soldiery will be bayoneted as they cling to the knees of\ntheir destroyers.[64] The common doom of man commuted for the violence\nof the sword, the bayonet, the sucking boat, and the guillotine, the\nknell of the nation tolled, and the world summoned to its execution and\nfuneral, will need no preacher to expound the text, _Where there is no\nvision, the people perish._\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[38] Strauss' Life of Jesus, 64, 74, 87.\n\n[39] Bauer's Hebrew Mythology.\n\n[40] See Pearson on Infidelity, page 93, 40th edition; and Agassiz's\nPenikese lectures.\n\n[41] Newman's Phases of Faith, 157.\n\n[42] Carlyle's Past and Present, 307.\n\n[43] Discourse on Religion, p. 209.\n\n[44] Carlyle's Past and Present, p. 312.\n\n[45] Ib. p. 37.\n\n[46] The Soul, p. 342.\n\n[47] Ib. p. 359.\n\n[48] Parker's Discourses, 171, 33.\n\n[49] Plato. Republic. Books IV. and VI., and Alcibiades II.\n\n[50] Manners and Customs of Ancient Egyptians, Second Series, Vol. II.\npage 176, et passim.\n\n[51] Juvenal, Satire XV.\n\n[52] Diodorus Siculus, Book I.\n\n[53] Duff's India, page 222.\n\n[54] Tusc. Quaest. lib. 1.\n\n[55] Seneca, Ep. 102.\n\n[56] Parker's Discourse, 83.\n\n[57] Turner's Anglo-Saxons, b. vii. chap. 13.\n\n[58] Diodorus Siculus, b. xx. chap. 14.\n\n[59] Aristotle, Polit. lib. vii. chap. 17.\n\n[60] Horne's Introduction of the Scriptures, Vol. I. page 25.\n\n[61] Printed repeatedly in New York newspapers, and given entire in the\nreport of the discussion between Dr. Berg and Mr. Barker. W. S. Young,\nPhiladelphia, 1854.\n\n[62] _The Occident_, 20th August, 1874, San Francisco.\n\n[63] Ardeches' Life of Napoleon I. 222.\n\n[64] Horne's Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. I. page 26, where\nample references to contemporary French writers are given.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nWHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT?\n\n     \"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token\n     in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus\n     Christ be with you all. Amen.\"--2 Thess. iii. 17.\n\n\nReligion rests not on dogmas, but on a number of great facts. In a\nprevious chapter we found one of these to be, that people destitute of a\nrevelation of God's will ever have been, and now are, ignorant,\nmiserable, and wicked. If it were at all needful, we might go on to show\nthat there are people in the world, who have decent clothing and\ncomfortable houses, who work well-tilled farms and sub-soil plows, and\nreaping machinery, who yoke powerful streams to the mill wheel, and\nharness the iron horse to the market wagon, who career their floating\npalaces up the opposing floods, line their coasts with flocks of\nwhite-winged schooners, and show their flags on every coast of earth,\nwho invent and make everything that man will buy, from the brass button,\ndear to the barbarian, to the folio of the philosopher, erect churches\nin all their towns, and schools in every village, who make their\nblacksmiths more learned than the priests of Egypt, their Sabbath\nscholars wiser than the philosophers of Greece, and even the criminals\nin their jails more decent characters than the sages, heroes, and gods\nof the lands without the Bible; and that these people are the people who\npossess a Book, which they think contains a revelation from God,\nteaching them how to live well; which Book they call the Bible. This is\nthe book about which we make our present inquiry, Who wrote it?\n\nThe fact being utterly undeniable, that these blessings are found among\nthe people who possess the Bible, and only among them, we at once, and\nsummarily, dismiss the arrogant falsehood presented to prevent any\ninquiry about the Book, namely, that \"Christianity is just like any\nother superstition, and its sacred books like the impositions of\nChinese, Indian, or Mohammedan impostors. They, too, are religious, and\nhave their sacred books, which they believe to be divine.\" A profound\ngeneralization indeed! Is a peach-tree just like a horse-chestnut, or a\nscrub-oak, or a honey-locust? They are all trees, and have leaves on\nthem. The Bible is just as like the Yi King, or the Vedas, or the Koran,\nas a Christian American is like a Chinaman, a Turk, or a Hindoo. But it\nis too absurd to begin any discussion with these learned Thebans of the\nrelative merits of the Bible as compared with the Vedas, and the Chinese\nClassics, of which they have never read a single page. Let them stick to\nwhat they pretend to know.\n\nThe Bible is a great fact in the world's history, known alike to the\nprince and the peasant, the simple and the sage. It is perused with\npleasure by the child, and pondered with patience by the philosopher.\nIts psalms are caroled on the school green, cheer the chamber of\nsickness, and are chanted by the mother over her cradle, by the orphan\nover the tomb. Here, thousands of miles away from the land of its birth,\nin a world undiscovered for centuries after it was finished, in a\nlanguage unknown alike at Athens and Jerusalem, it rules as lovingly and\nas powerfully as in its native soil. To show that its power is not\nderived from race or clime, it converts the Sandwich Islands into a\ncivilized nation, and transforms the New Zealand cannibal into a British\nshipowner, the Indian warrior into an American editor, and the Negro\nslave into the President of a free African Republic. It has inspired the\nCaffirs of Africa to build telegraphs, and to print associated press\ndispatches in their newspapers; while the Zulus, one of whom would have\nconverted Bishop Colenso from Christianity, if he had been a Christian,\nare importing steel plows by hundreds every year. It has captured the\nenemy's fortresses, and turned his guns. Lord Chesterfield's parlor,\nwhere an infidel club met to sneer at religion, is now a vestry, where\nthe prayers of the penitent are offered to Christ. Gibbon's house, at\nLake Lemon, is now a hotel; one room of which is devoted to the sale of\nBibles. Voltaire's printing press, from which he issued his infidel\ntracts, has been appropriated to printing the Word of God.[65] It does\nnot look as if it had finished its course and ceased from its triumphs.\nTranslated into the hundred and fifty languages spoken by nine hundred\nmillions of men, carried by ten thousand heralds to every corner of the\nglobe, sustained by the cheerful contributions and fervent prayers of\nhundreds of thousands of ardent disciples, it is still going forth\nconquering and to conquer. Is there any other book so generally read, so\ngreatly loved, so zealously propagated, so widely diffused, so uniform\nin its results, and so powerful and blessed in its influences? Do you\nknow any? If you can not name any book, no, nor any thousand books,\nwhich in these respects equal the Bible--then it stands out clear and\ndistinct, and separate from all other authorship; and with an increased\nemphasis comes our question, Who wrote it?\n\nWith all these palpable facts in view, to come to the examination of\nthis question as if we knew nothing about them, or as if knowing them\nwell, we cared nothing at all about them, and were determined to deny\nthem their natural influence in begetting within us a very strong\npresumption in favor of its divine origin, were to declare that our\nheads and hearts were alike closed against light and love. But to enter\non this inquiry into the origin of the Book which has produced such\nresults, with a preconceived opinion that it must be a forgery, and an\nimposition, the fruit of a depraved heart, and a lying tongue, implies\nso much home-born deceit that, till the heart capable of such a\nprejudice be completely changed, no reasoning can have any solid fulcrum\nof truth or goodness to rest on. It is sheer folly to talk of one's\nbeing wholly unprejudiced in such an inquiry. No man ever was, or could\nbe so. As his sympathies are toward goodness and virtue, and the\nhappiness of mankind, or toward pride and deceit, and selfishness and\nsavageness, so will his prejudices be for or against the Bible.\n\nOn looking at the Bible, we find it composed of a number of separate\ntreatises, written by different writers, at various times; some parts\nfifteen hundred years before the others. We find, also, that it treats\nof the very beginning of the world, before man was made, and of other\nmatters of which we have no other authentic history to compare with it.\nAgain, we find portions which treat of events connected in a thousand\nplaces with the affairs of the Roman Empire, of which we have several\ncredible histories. Now, there are two modes of investigation open to\nus, the dogmatic and the inductive. We may take either. We may construct\nfor ourselves, from the most flimsy suppositions, a metaphysical\nballoon, inflated with self-conceit into the rotundity of a cosmogony,\naccording to which, in our opinion, the world should have been made, and\nwe may paint it over with the figures of the various animals and noble\nsavages which ought to have sprung up out of its fornea, and we may\nstripe its history to suit our notions of the progress of such a world,\nand soaring high into the clouds, after a little preliminary amusement\nin the discovery of eternal red-hot fire-mists, and condensing comets,\nand so forth, we may come down upon the summit of some of this earth's\nmountains, say Ararat, and take a survey of the Bible process of\nworld-making. Finding that the Creator of the world had to make his\nmaterials--a business in which no other world-maker ever did\nengage--and, further, that God's plan of making it by no means\ncorresponds to our patent process and that the article is not at all\nlike what we intend to produce when we go into the business, and that it\ndoes not work according to our expectations, we can denounce the whole\nas a very mean affair, and the Book which describes it as not worth\nreading. If one wants some new subject for merriment, and does not mind\nmaking a fool of himself, and is not to be terrified by old-fashioned\nnotions about God Almighty, and is perfectly confident that God can tell\nhim nothing that he does not know better already, and merely wants to\nsee whether he is not trying to pass off old fables upon wide-awake\npeople for facts--this dogmatic plan will suit him.\n\nOn the other hand, if one is tolerably convinced that he does not know\neverything, not much of the world he lives in, less of its history, and\nnothing at all about the best way of making it, and that when it needs\nmending it will not be sent to his workshop; that he knows nothing about\nwhat happened before he was born unless what other people tell him, and\nthat, though men do err, yet all men are not liars, that all the\nblessings of education, civilization, law and liberty, from the penny\nprimer to the Constitution of the United States, came to him solely\nthrough the channel of abundant, reliable testimony; that the only way\nin which he can ever know anything beyond his eyesight with certainty,\nis to gather testimony about it, and compare the evidence, and inquire\ninto the character of the witnesses; that when one has done so, he\nbecomes so satisfied of the truth of the report that he would rather\nrisk his life upon it than upon the certainty of any mathematical\nproblem, or of any scientific truth, whatever--that ninety-nine out of\nevery hundred citizens of the United States are a thousand times more\ncertain that the Yankees whipped the British in 1776, declared the\nColonies free and independent States, and made Washington President,\nthan they ever will be that all bodies attract each other directly as\ntheir mass, and inversely as the squares of their distances, that the\nsum of the angles of any triangle is equal to two right angles, or that\nthe earth is nearer the sun in winter than in summer--and that certainty\nabout the Bible history is just as attainable, and just as reliable, as\ncertainty about American history, if he will seek it in the same\nway--and if he is really desirous to know how this Book was written,\nwhich alone in the world teaches men how to obtain peace with God, how\nto live well, and how to die with a firm and joyful hope of a\nresurrection to life eternal, and what part of it is easiest to prove\neither true or false--then he will take the inductive mode. He will\nbegin at the present time, and trace the history up to the times in\nwhich the Book was written. He will ascertain what he can about that\npart of it which was last written--the New Testament--and begin with\nthat part of it which lies nearest him--the Epistles.\n\nBy the comparison of the documents themselves, with all kinds of history\nand monuments which throw light on the period, he will try to ascertain\nwhether they are genuine or not. And from one well-ascertained position\nhe will proceed to another, until he has traversed the whole ground of\nthe genuineness of the writings, the truth of the story, and the divine\nauthority of the doctrine.\n\nThis is my plan of investigation; one thing at a time, and the nearest\nfirst. It is not worth while to inquire whether it be inspired by God,\nif it be really a forgery of impostors; nor whether the gospel story is\nworthy of credit, if the only book which contains it be a religious\nnovel of the third or fourth century. We dismiss then the questions of\nthe inspiration, or even the truth of the New Testament, till we have\nascertained its authors. We take up the Book, and find that it purports\nto be a relation of the planting of the Church of Christ, of its laws\nand ordinances, and of the life, death and resurrection of its Founder,\nwritten by eight of his companions, at various periods and places,\ntoward the close of the first century. There is a general opinion among\nall Christians that the Book was composed then, and by these persons. We\nwant to know why they think so? In short, is it a genuine book, or\nmerely a collection of myths with the apostles' names appended to them\nby some lying monks? Is it a fact, or a forgery?\n\nIn any historical inquiry, we want some fixed point of time from which\nto take our departure; and in this case we want to know if there is any\nperiod of antiquity in which undeniably this Book was in existence, and\nreceived as genuine by Christian societies. For I will not suppose my\nreaders as ignorant as some of those Infidels who allege that it was\nmade by the Bible Society. It used to be the fashion with those of them\nwho pretended to learning, to affirm that it was made by the Council of\nLaodicea, in A. D. 364; because, in order to guard the churches against\nspurious epistles and gospels, that Council published a list of those\nwhich the apostles did actually write, which thenceforth were generally\nbound in one volume.\n\nBefore that time, the four Gospels were always bound in one volume and\ncalled \"The Gospel.\" The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles\nuniversally and undoubtedly known to be written by Paul, to the churches\nof Thessalonica, Galatia, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and\nto Philemon, a well-known resident of that city, and those to Timothy\nand Titus, missionaries of world-wide celebrity, the First General\nEpistle of Peter, and the First General Epistle of John, which were at\nonce widely circulated to check prevailing heresies--were bound in\nanother volume and called \"The Apostle.\" The Epistle to the Hebrews,\nbeing general, and anonymous, _i. e._, not bearing the name of any\nparticular church, or person, to whom anybody who merely looked at it\ncould refer for proof of its genuineness, as in the case of the other\nEpistles--was not so soon known by the European churches to be written\nby Paul. The General Epistles of James, Jude, and the Second General\nEpistle of Peter, lying under the same difficulty, and besides being\nvery disagreeable to easy-going Christians, from their sharp rebukes of\nhypocrisy, and the Second and Third Epistles of John, from their\nbrevity, and the Revelation of John, being one of the last written of\nall the books of the New Testament, and the most mysterious--were not so\ngenerally known beyond the churches where the originals were deposited,\nuntil the other two collections had been formed. They were accordingly\nkept as separate books, and sometimes bound up in a third volume of\napostolical writings. Besides these, at the time of the Council of\nLaodicea, and for a long time before, other books, written by Barnabas,\nClement, Polycarp, and other companions and disciples of the apostles,\nand forged gospels and epistles attributed by heretics to the apostles,\nwere circulated through the churches, and read by Christians. The\nCouncil of Laodicea did, what many learned men had done before them; it\ninvestigated the evidence upon which any of these books was attributed\nto an apostle; and finding evidence to satisfy them, that the Gospel\nwritten by Luke had the sanction of the Apostle Paul, that the Gospel of\nMark was revised by the Apostle Peter, that the Epistle to the Hebrews\nwas written by Paul, and the other Epistles by John, Jude, James, and\nPeter, respectively, and not finding evidence to satisfy them about the\nRevelation of John, they expressed their opinion, and the grounds of it,\nfor the information of the world.[66] Into these reasons we will\nhereafter inquire, for our faith in Holy Scripture does not rest on\ntheir canons. We are not now asking what they _thought_, but what they\n_did_; and we find that they did criticise certain books, reported to be\nwritten by the apostles of Jesus Christ some three hundred years before,\napprove some, and reject others as spurious, and publish a list of those\nthey thought genuine. Infidels admit this, and on the strength of it\nlong asserted that the Council of Laodicea made the New Testament. At\nlength they became ashamed of the stupid absurdity of alleging that men\ncould criticise the claims, and catalogue the names of books before they\nwere written; and they now shift back the writing--or the authentication\nof the New Testament--for they are not quite sure which, though the\nmajority incline to the former--to the Emperor Constantine, and the\nCouncil of Nice which met in the year 325. Why they have fixed on the\nCouncil of Nice is more than I can tell. They might as well say the\nCouncil of Trent, or the Westminster Assembly, either of which had just\nas much to do with the Canon of Scripture. However, on some vague\nhearsay that the Council of Nice and the Emperor Constantine made the\nBible, hundreds in this city are now risking the salvation of their\nsouls.\n\nWe have in this assertion, nevertheless, as many facts admitted as will\nserve our present purpose. There did exist, then, undeniably, in the\nyear 325, large numbers of Christian churches in the Roman Empire,\nsufficiently numerous to make it politic, in the opinion of Infidels,\nfor a candidate for the empire to profess Christianity; sufficiently\npowerful to secure his success, notwithstanding the desperate struggles\nof the heathen party; and sufficiently religious, or if you like\nsuperstitious, to make it politic for an emperor and his politicians to\ngive up the senate, the court, the camp, the chase, and the theater,\nand weary themselves with long prayers, and longer speeches, of\npreachers about Bible religion. Now that is certainly a remarkable fact,\nand all the more remarkable if we inquire, How came it so? For these\nmen, preachers, prince, and people, were brought up to worship Jupiter\nand the thirty thousand gods of Olympus, after the heathen fashion, and\nto leave the care of religion to heathen priests, who never troubled\ntheir heads about books or doctrines after they had offered their\nsacrifices. In all the records of the world there is no instance of a\ngeneral council of heathen priests to settle the religion of their\npeople. How happens it then that the human race has of a sudden waked up\nto such a strange sense of the folly of idolatry and the value of\nreligion? The Council of Nice, and the Emperor Constantine, and his\ncounselors, making a Bible is a proof of a wonderful revolution in the\nworld's religion; a phenomenon far more surprising than if the\nSecretaries of State, and the Senate, and President Grant should leave\nthe Capital to post off to London, to attend the meetings of a Methodist\nConference, assembled to make a hymn book. Now what is the cause of this\nremarkable conversion of prince, priests, and people? How did they all\nget religion? How did they get it so suddenly? How did they get so much\nof it?\n\nThe Infidel gives no answer, except to tell us[67] that the austerity,\npurity, and zeal of the first Christians, their good discipline, their\nbelief in the resurrection of the body and the general judgment, and\ntheir persuasion that Christ and his apostles wrought miracles, had made\na great many converts. This is just as if I inquired how a great fire\noriginated, and you should tell me that it burned fast because it was\nvery hot. What I want to know is, how it happened that these licentious\nGreeks, and Romans, and Asiatics, became austere and pure; how these\nfrivolous philosophers suddenly became so zealous about religion; what\nimplanted the belief of the resurrection of the body and of the judgment\nto come in the skeptical minds of these heathen scoffers; and how did\nthe pagans of Italy, Egypt, Spain, Germany, Britain, come to believe in\nthe miracles of one who lived hundreds of years before, and thousands of\nmiles away, or to care a straw whether the written accounts of them were\ntrue or false? According to the Infidel account, the Council of Nice,\nand the Emperor Constantine's Bible-making, is a most extraordinary\nbusiness--a phenomenon without any natural cause, and they will allow no\nsupernatural--a greater miracle than any recorded in the Bible.\n\nIf we inquire, however, of the parties attending that Council, what the\nstate of the case is, we shall learn that they believed--whether truly\nor erroneously we are not now inquiring--but they believed, that a\nteacher sent from God, had appeared in Palestine two hundred and ninety\nyears before, and had taught this religion which they had embraced; had\nperformed wonderful miracles, such as opening the eyes of the blind,\nhealing lepers, and raising the dead; that he had been put to death by\nthe Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, had risen again from the dead, had\nspoken to hundreds of people, and had gone out and in among them for six\nweeks after his resurrection; that he had ascended up through the air,\nto heaven, in the sight of numbers of witnesses, and had promised that\nhe would come again in the clouds of heaven, to raise the dead, and to\njudge every man according to his works; that before he went away he\nappointed twelve of his intimate companions to teach his religion to the\nworld, giving them power to work miracles in proof of their divine\ncommission, and requiring mankind to hear them as they would hear him;\nthat they and their followers did so, in spite of persecutions,\nsufferings, and death, with so much success, that immense numbers were\npersuaded to give up idolatry and its filthiness, and to profess\nChristianity and its holiness, and to brave the fury of the heathen mob,\nand the vengeance of the Roman law; that a difference of opinion having\narisen among them as to whether this teacher was an angel from heaven,\nor God, whether they should pray and sing psalms to Him, as Athanasius\nand his party believed, or only give Him some lesser honor as Arius and\nhis party believed, and this difference making all the difference\nbetween idolatry on the one hand, and impiety on the other, and so\ninvolving their everlasting salvation or damnation, they had embraced\nthe first opportunity after the cessation of persecution, and the\naccession of the first Christian Emperor, to assemble three hundred and\neighteen of their most learned clergymen, of both sides, and from all\ncountries between Spain and Persia, to discuss these solemn questions;\nand that, through the whole of the discussions, both sides appealed to\nthe writings of the apostles, as being then well known, and of\nunquestioned authority with every one who held the Christian name. These\nfacts, being utterly indisputable, are acknowledged by all persons,\nInfidel or Christian, at all acquainted with history.[68]\n\nHere, then, we have the books of the New Testament at the Council of\nNice well known to the whole world; and the Council, so far from\n_giving_ any authority to them, _bowing to theirs_--both Arian and\nOrthodox with one consent acknowledging that the whole Christian world\nreceived them as the writings of the apostles of Christ. There were\nvenerable men of fourscore and ten at that Council; if these books had\nbeen first introduced in their lifetime, they must have known it. There\nwere men there whose parents had heard the Scriptures read in church\nfrom their childhood, and so could not be imposed upon with a new Bible.\nThe New Testament could not be less than three generations old, else one\nor other of the disputants would have exposed the novelty of its\nintroduction, from his own information. The Council of Nice, then, did\nnot make the New Testament. It was a book well known, ancient, and of\nundoubted authority among all Christians, ages before that Council. _The\nexistence of the New Testament Scriptures, then, ages before the Council\nof Nice, is a great fact._\n\nWe next take up the assertions, propounded with a show of learning, that\nthe books of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels, were not in\nuse, and were not known till the third century; that they are not the\nproductions of contemporary writers; that the alleged ocular testimony\nor proximity in point of time of the sacred historians to the events\nrecorded is mere assumption, originating in the titles which Biblical\nbooks bear in our canon; that we stand here (in the gospel history),\nupon purely mythical and poetical ground; and that the Gospels and\nEpistles are a gradually formed collection of myths, having little or no\nhistoric reality. So Strauss, Eichorn, De Wette, and their disciples\nhere, attempt to set aside the New Testament. In plain English, it is a\ncollection of forgeries.\n\nThese assertions are absurd. In the hundred years between the death of\nthe apostles, and the beginning of the third century, there was not time\nto form a mythology. The times of Trajan's persecution, and that of the\nphilosophic Aurelius, and the busy bustling age of Severus, were not the\ntimes for such a business. Bigoted Jews would not, and could not, have\nmade such a character as Jesus of Nazareth; and the philosophers of that\nday, Celsus and Porphyry, for instance, hated it when presented to them\nas heartily as either Strauss or Paine. There were not wanting thousands\nof enemies, able and willing, to expose such a forgery.\n\nThe aspect and character of the gospel narrative are totally unlike\nthose of mythologies. Hear the verdict of one who confessedly stands at\nthe head of the roll of oriental historians: \"In no single respect--if\nwe except the fact that it is miraculous--has that story a mythical\ncharacter. It is a single story, told without variations; whereas myths\nare fluctuating and multiform: it is blended inextricably with the civil\nhistory of the times, which it everywhere reports with extraordinary\naccuracy; whereas myths distort or supersede civil history: it is full\nof prosaic detail, which myths studiously eschew: it abounds with\npractical instruction of the simplest and purest kind; whereas myths\nteach by allegory. Even in its miraculous element it stands to some\nextent in contrast with all mythologies, where the marvelous has ever a\npredominant character of grotesqueness which is absent from New\nTestament miracles. (This Strauss himself admits, _Leben Jesu_, 1-67.)\nSimple earnestness, fidelity, painstaking accuracy, pure love of truth,\nare the most patent characteristics of the New Testament writers, who\nevidently deal with facts, not with fancies, and are employed in\nrelating a history, not in developing an idea. They write that 'we may\nknow the certainty of the things which are most surely believed' in\ntheir day. They 'bear record of what they have seen and heard.' I know\nnot how stronger words could have been used to prevent the notion of\nthat plastic, growing myth which Strauss conceives to have been in\napostolic times.\"[69]\n\nThe character of Christ exhibited in the Gospels is the contrary of that\nof the heroes of mythology; as contrary as holiness is to sin. The\ninvention of such a character by any man, or by the wisest set of men\nwho ever lived, would have been a miracle nearly as great as the\nexistence of such a person. When the character of Christ was presented\nto the wisest men of the Greeks, and Romans, and Hebrews, so far from\nadmiring him as a hero, they crucified him as an impostor, and\npersecuted the preachers of his gospel. There was nothing mythical in\nthe ten persecutions; these at least were hard historical facts. Every\nline of examination of time, place, and circumstances proves the\nfalsehood of the mythical theory, and establishes the truth of the\ngospel history.\n\nThe authenticity of the gospel history, and of the Apostolic Epistles is\nconfirmed by the testimony of their enemies. It is a well-authenticated\nand undeniable fact, that, in the close of the second century, Celsus,\nan Epicurean philosopher, wrote a work against Christianity, entitled,\n\"The Word of Truth,\" in which he quotes passages from the New Testament,\nand so many of them, that from the fragments of his work which remain,\nwe could gather all the principal facts of the birth, teaching,\nmiracles, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, if the New Testament\nshould be lost. If Paine quotes the New Testament to ridicule it, no man\ncan deny that such a book was in existence at the time he wrote. If he\ntakes the pains to write a book to confute it, it is self-evident that\nit is in circulation, and possessed of influence. So Celsus' attempt to\nreply to the Gospels, and his quotations from them, are conclusive\nproofs that these books were generally circulated and believed, and held\nto be of authority at the time he wrote. Further, he shows every\ndisposition to present every argument which could possibly damage the\nChristian cause. In fact, our modern Infidels have done little more than\nserve up his old objections. Now nothing could have served his purpose\nbetter than to prove that the records of the history of Christ were\nforgeries of a late date. This would have saved him all further trouble,\nand settled the fate of Christianity conclusively. He had every\nopportunity of ascertaining the fact, living, as he did, so near the\ntimes and scenes of the gospel history, and surrounded by heretics and\nfalse Christians, who would gladly have given him every information. But\nhe never once intimates the least suspicion of such a thing--never\nquestions the Gospels as books of history--nor denies the miracles\nrecorded in them, but attributes them to magic.[70] Here, then, we have\ntestimony as acceptable to an Infidel as that of Strauss or Voltaire--in\nfact, utterly undeniable by any man of common sense--that the New\nTestament was well known and generally received by Christians as\nauthoritative, when Celsus wrote his reply to it, in the end of the\nsecond century. If it was a forgery, it was undoubtedly a forgery of old\nstanding, if he could not detect it.\n\nBut we will go back a step farther, and prove the antiquity of the New\nTestament by the testimony of another enemy, two generations older than\nCelsus. The celebrated heretic, Marcion, lived in the beginning of the\nsecond century, when he had the best opportunity of discovering a\nforgery in the writings of the New Testament, if any such existed; he\nwas excommunicated by the Church, and being greatly enraged thereat, had\nevery disposition to say the worst he could about it. He traveled all\nthe way from Sinope on the Black Sea, to Rome, and through Galatia,\nBithynia, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, the countries where the\napostles preached, and the churches to which they wrote, but never found\nany one to suggest the idea of a forgery to him. He affirmed that the\nGospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of James and Peter,\nand the whole of the Old Testament, were books only for Jews, and\npublished a new and altered edition of the Gospel of Luke, and ten\nEpistles of Paul, for the use of his sect.[71] We have thus the most\nundoubted evidence, even the testimony of an enemy, that these books\nwere in existence, and generally received as apostolical and\nauthoritative by Christians, at the beginning of the second century, or\nwithin twenty years of the last of the apostles, and by the churches to\nwhich they had preached and written.\n\nThe only remaining conceivable cavil against the genuineness of the\nbooks of the New Testament is: \"That they bear internal evidence of\nbeing collections of fragments written by different persons--and are\nprobably merely traditions committed to writing by various unknown\nwriters, and afterward collected and issued to the churches under the\nnames of the apostles, for the sake of greater authority.\" This theory\nbeing received as gospel by several learned men, has furnished matter\nfor lengthy discussions as to the sources of the four Gospels.\nTranslated into English, it amounts to this, that Brown, Smith, and\nJones wrote out a number of essays and anecdotes, and persuaded the\nchurches of Ephesus, Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and the rest, to\nreceive them as the writings of their ministers, who had lived for\nyears, or were then living, among them; and on the strength of that\nnotion of their being the writings of the apostles, to govern their\nwhole lives by these essays, and lay down their lives and peril their\nsouls' salvation on the truth of these anecdotes. As though they could\nnot tell whether such documents were forgeries or not!\n\nIt is almost incredible how ignorant dreaming book-worms are of the\ncommon business of life. Most of my readers will laugh at the idea of a\nserious answer to such a quibble. Nevertheless, for the sake of those\nwhose inexperience may be abused by the authority of learned names, I\nwill show them that the primitive Christians, supposing them able to\nread, could know whether their ministers did really write the books and\nletters which they received from them.\n\nIf you go into the Citizens' Bank, you will find a large folio volume\nlying on the counter, and on looking at it you will see that it is\nfilled with men's names, in their own handwriting, and that no two of\nthem are exactly alike. Every person who has any business to transact\nwith the bank is requested to write his name in the book; and when his\ncheck comes afterward for payment, the clerk can tell at a glance if the\nsignature is the same as that of which he has a single specimen. If\nthere has been no opportunity for him to become personally acquainted\nwith the bank, as in case of a foreigner newly arrived, he brings\nletters of introduction from some well-known mutual friend, or is\naccompanied by some respectable citizen, who attests his identity.\nBusiness men have no difficulty whatever in ascertaining the genuineness\nof documents. It is only when people want to dispute Holy Scripture that\nthey give up common sense.\n\nHoly Scripture was known to be the genuine writing of the apostles, just\nin the same way as any other writing was known to be genuine; only the\nchurches who received the writings of the apostles had ten thousand\ntimes better security against forgery than any bank in the Union. In one\nof the first letters Paul writes to the churches--the second letter to\nthe Thessalonians--to whom he had been preaching only a few weeks\nbefore, sent from Athens, distant only some two days' journey, full of\nallusions to their affairs, commands how to conduct themselves in the\nbusiness of their workshops, as well as in the devotions of the church,\nand explanations of some misunderstood parts of a former letter sent by\nthe hand of a mutual friend--he formally gives them his signature, for\nthe purpose of future reference, and comparison of any document which\nmight purport to come from him, with that specimen of his autograph. He\ngives not the name merely, but his apostolic benediction also, in his\nown handwriting: _The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is\nthe token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus\nChrist be with you all. Amen._ It shows the heart of an apostle of\nChrist; but what concerns the present question is the remark, which\nevery business man will in a moment appreciate, how immensely the\naddition of these two lines adds to the security against forgery. It is\na very hard thing to forge a signature, but give a business man two\nlines of any man's writing besides that, and he is perfectly secure\nagainst imposition.[72]\n\nThe churches to which the Epistles were written, and to which the\nGospels were delivered, consisted largely of business men, of merchants\nand traders, tent makers and coppersmiths, city chamberlains, and\nofficers of Caesar's household, and the like. Does any one think such men\ncould not tell the handwriting of their minister, who had lived among\nthem for years; or that men who were risking their lives for the\ninstructions he wrote them, would care less about the genuineness of the\ndocuments, than you do about the genuineness of a ten dollar check? I am\nnot as long in this city as Paul was in Ephesus, nor one fourth of the\ntime that John lived there, yet I defy all the advocates of the mythical\ntheory of Germany, and all their disciples here, to write a myth half as\nlong as this essay, and impose it on the elders and members of my church\nas my writing. Let it only be presented in manuscript to the\ncongregation--there was no printing in Paul's days--and in five minutes\na dozen members of the church will detect the forgery, even if I should\nhold my peace. And were I to leave on a mission to China or India, and\nwrite letters to the church, would any of these business men, who have\nseen my writing, have the least hesitation in recognizing it again? Do\nyou think anybody could forge a letter as from me, and impose it on\nthem? What an absurdity, then, to suppose that anybody could write a\ngospel or epistle, and get all the members of a large church to believe\nthat an Apostle wrote it. The first Christians, then, were absolutely\ncertain that the documents which they received as apostolic, were\nreally so. The Church of Rome could attest the Epistle to them, and the\nGospels of Mark and Luke written there. The Church of Ephesus could\nattest the Epistle to them, and the Gospel, and Letters, and Revelation\nof John written there. And so on of all the other churches; and these\nveritable autographs were long preserved. Says Tertullian, who was\nordained A. D. 192: \"Well, if you be willing to exercise your curiosity\nprofitably in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolical\nchurches in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside--in\nwhich their authentic letters themselves are recited (apud quae _ipsae\nauthenticae literae_ eorum recitantur), sounding forth the voice and\nrepresenting the countenance of each one of them. Is Achaia near you,\nyou have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi,\nyou have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus; but if\nyou are near to Italy, you have Rome.\" There can not be the least doubt\nabout the preservation of documents for a far longer time than from Paul\nto Tertullian--one hundred and fifty years. I hold in my hand a Bible,\nthe family Bible of the Gibsons--printed in 1599--two hundred and\nfifty-seven years old, in perfect preservation; and we have manuscripts\nof the Scriptures twelve to fourteen hundred years old, like the\nSinaitic Codex, perfectly legible.\n\nThey were moreover directed to be publicly read in the churches, and\nthey were publicly read every Lord's day. Is it credible that an\nimpostor would direct his forgery to be publicly read? If the epistle\nwas publicly read during Paul's lifetime, that public reading in the\nhearing of the men who could so easily disprove its genuineness, was\nconclusive proof to all who heard it, that they knew it to be the\ngenuine writing of the Apostle. The primitive churches then had\nconclusive proof of the genuineness of the Apostolic Epistles and\nGospels.\n\nThe only difficulty which now remains is the objection that they might\nhave been corrupted by alterations and interpolations by monks, in later\ntimes. We have two securities against such corruptions, in the way these\ndocuments were given, and the nature of their contents. They were sacred\nheirlooms, and they were public documents. Could you, or could any man,\nhave permission to alter the original copy of Washington's Farewell\nAddress? Would not the man who should attempt such sacrilege be torn in\na thousand pieces? But Washington will never be an object of such\nveneration as John, nor will his Farewell Address ever compare in\nimportance with Paul's Farewell Letter to the Philippians. Besides,\nthese Gospels and Letters were public documents, containing the records\nof laws, in obedience to which men are daily crossing their\ninclinations, enduring the mockery of their neighbors, losing their\nmoney, and endangering their lives. They contained the proofs and\npromises of that religious faith in God and hope of heaven, for the sake\nof which they suffered such things. Is it credible that they would allow\nthem to be altered and corrupted? You might far more rationally talk of\naltering the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the\nUnited States. Translated into different languages--transported into\nBritain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Carthage, Egypt,\nParthia, Persia, India, and China--committed to memory by children, and\nquoted in the writings of Christian authors of the first three\ncenturies, to such an extent, that we can gather the whole of the New\nTestament, except twenty-six verses, from their writings--appealed to as\nauthority by heretics and orthodox in controversy--and publicly read in\nthe hearing of tens of hundreds of thousands every Sabbath day in\nworship--we are a thousand times more certain that the New Testament has\nnot been corrupted, than we are that the Declaration of Independence is\ngenuine.\n\nOn this ground then we plant ourselves. The whole story of a late and\ngradual formation of the New Testament, or, in plain English, of its\nforgery, stands out as an unmitigated falsehood in the eyes of every man\ncapable of writing his own name. The first churches could not be\ndeceived with forgeries for apostolic writings. Nor could they, if they\nwould, allow these writings to be corrupted. Be they true or false, fact\nor fiction, the books of the New Testament are the words of the Apostles\nof our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In the next chapter we will inquire\ninto the truth of their story.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[65] The Family Christian Almanac for 1859, p. 57, American Tract\nSociety, New York.\n\n[66] Acta Concitia, sub voce Laodicea, Canon iv. Lardner vi. p. 368.\n\n[67] Gibbon's Decline and Fall, II. p. 267.\n\n[68] The original authorities may be found collected in the fourth\nvolume of Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History; abstracts of\nthem, with ample references, in Mosheim and Neander's Ecclesiastical\nHistories, and in Stanley's Eastern Church.\n\n[69] Rawlinson's _Historical Evidences_, page 227.\n\n[70] Origen Contra Celsum, passim.\n\n[71] Lardner, Vol. IX. page 358.\n\n[72] In fact, some persons were trying to impose a letter, \"as from us,\"\ncontaining declarations, that the day of Christ was upon them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nIS THE GOSPEL FACT OR FABLE?\n\n     \"For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we\n     had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols, to serve\n     the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven,\n     whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us\n     from the wrath to come.\"--1 Thess. i. 9, 10.\n\n\nIn the last chapter we ascertained that the Gospels and Epistles were\nnot forgeries of some nameless monks of the third century--that the\nshopkeepers, silversmiths, tent-makers, coppersmiths, tanners,\nphysicians, senators, town councilors, officers of customs, city\ntreasurers, and nobles of Caesar's household, in Rome, Antioch, Ephesus,\nCorinth, Athens, and Alexandria, could no more be imposed upon in the\nmatter of documents, attested by the well-known signatures of their\nbeloved ministers, than you could by forged letters or sermons\npurporting to come from your own pastor--and that the documents which\nthey believed to contain the directory of their lives, and the charter\nof that salvation which they valued more than their lives, which they\nread in their churches, recited at their tables, quoted in their\nwritings, appealed to in their controversies, translated into many\nlanguages, and dispersed into every part of the known world, they\nneither would, nor could, corrupt or falsify.\n\nThe genuineness of the copies of the New Testament, which we now\npossess, is abundantly proved by the comparison of over two thousand\nmanuscripts, from all parts of the world; scrutinized during a period of\nnearly a hundred years, by the most critical scholars, so accurately\nthat the variations of such things as would correspond to the crossing\nof a t, or the dotting of an i, in English, have been carefully\nenumerated; yet the result of the whole of this searching scrutiny has\nbeen merely the suggestion of a score of unimportant alterations in the\nreceived text of the seven thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine verses\nof the New Testament. This is a fact utterly unexampled in the history\nof manuscripts. There are but six manuscripts of the Comedies of\nTerence, and these have not been copied once for every thousand times\nthe New Testament has been transcribed, yet there are thirty thousand\nvariations found in these six manuscripts, or an average of five\nthousand for each, and many of them seriously affect the sense. The\naverage number of variations in the manuscripts of the New Testament\nexamined, is not quite thirty for each, including all the trivialities\nalready noticed.\n\nWe are, then, by the special providence of God, now as undoubtedly in\npossession of genuine copies of the Gospels and Epistles, written by the\ncompanions of Jesus, as we are of genuine copies of the Constitution of\nthe United States, and of the Declaration of Independence. These are\nhistoric documents, of well-established genuineness and antiquity, which\nwe now proceed to examine as to their truthfulness.\n\nThere is no history so trustworthy as that prepared by contemporary\nwriters, especially by those who have themselves been actively engaged\nin the events which they relate. Such history never loses its interest,\nnor does the lapse of ages, in the least degree, impair its credibility.\nWhile the documents can be preserved, Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten\nThousand, Caesar's Gallic War, and the Dispatches of the Duke of\nWellington, will be as trustworthy as on the day they were written. Yet\nsome suspicion may arise in our minds, that these commanders and\nhistorians might have kept back some important events which would have\ndimmed their reputation with posterity, or might have colored those they\nhave related, so as to add to their fame. Of the great facts related in\nmemoirs addressed to their companions in arms, able at a glance to\ndetect a falsehood, we never entertain the least suspicion.\n\nIf, to this be added, the correspondence of monuments, architecture,\npainting, statuary, coins, heraldry, and a thousand changes in the\nmanners and customs of a people, we become as absolutely convinced of\nthe truth of the narrative thus confirmed by these silent witnesses as\nif we had seen the events described. No man who visits the disinterred\ncity of Pompeii, and sees the pavements marked by the wheel ruts, has\nany doubt that the Romans used wheeled carriages. When he sees the\ncourt-yards adorned with mosaic figures, and the walls with paintings of\nthe gods, and of the manners of the people who worshiped them, he is\nprofoundly impressed with the conviction that they excelled in the fine\narts, and in the coarse vices of heathenism. When he visits the\nColiseum, that vast ruin declares that the wealth of an empire, once\ndevoted to the gratification of the most savage passions, has been\ndiverted into some other channel. When he visits the catacombs, and\nreads long lines of heathen epitaphs, with their despairing symbols of\nbroken columns, extinguished torches, and their heart-breaking\n\"Farewell! an eternal farewell!\" and then turns to the monuments of only\ntwo centuries later, and reads, \"He sleeps in the Lord,\" \"He waits the\nresurrection to life eternal,\" recording the hopes of whole generations\nof survivors, he can not doubt the truth of the written records of the\nconversion of the Roman Empire.\n\nThere is, moreover, another kind of contemporary history not so\nconnected and regular as the formal diary or journal, which does not\neven propose to relate history at all, but is for that very reason\nentirely removed from the suspicion of giving a coloring to it; which,\nat the cost of a little patience and industry, gives us the most\nconvincing confirmations of the truth, or exposures of the mistakes of\nhistorians, by the undesigned and incidental way in which the use of a\nname, a date, a proverb, a jest, an expletive, a quotation, an allusion,\nflashes conviction upon the reader's mind. I mean contemporary\ncorrespondence. If we have the private letters of celebrated men laid\nbefore us, we are enabled to look right into them, and see their true\ncharacter. Thus Macaulay exhibits to the world the proud, lying, stupid\ntyrant, James, displayed in his own letters. Thus Voltaire records\nhimself an adulterer, and begs his friend, D'Alembert, to lie for him;\nhis friend replies that he has done so. Thus the correspondence of the\ngreat American herald of the Age of Reason exhibits him drinking a quart\nof brandy daily at his friend's expense, and refusing to pay his bill\nfor boarding. In the unguarded freedom of confidential correspondence\nthe vail is taken from the heart. We see men as they are. The true man\nstands out in his native dignity, and the gilding is rubbed off the\nhypocrite. Give the world their letters, and let the grave silence the\nplaudits and the clamors which deafened the generation among whom they\nlived, and no man will hesitate whether or not to pronounce Hume a\nsensualist, or Washington the noblest work of God--an honest man.\n\nIf we add another test of truthfulness, by increasing the number of the\nwitnesses, comparing a number of letters referring to the same events,\nwritten by persons of various degrees of education, and of different\noccupations and ranks of life, resident in different countries, acting\nindependently of each other, and find them all agree in their allusions\nto, or direct mention of, some central facts concerning which they are\nall interested, no one can rightfully doubt that this undesigned\nagreement declares the truth. But if, in addition to all these\nundesigned coincidences, we happen upon the correspondence of persons\nwhose interests and passions were diametrically opposed to those of our\ncorrespondents, and find that, when they have occasion to refer to them,\nthey also confirm the great facts already ascertained, then our belief\nbecomes conviction which can not be overturned by any sophistry, that\nthese things did occur. If Whig and Tory agree in relating the facts of\nJames' flight, and William's accession, if the letters of his Jacobite\nfriends and those of the French ambassador confirm the statements of the\nEnglish historian, and if we are put in possession of the letters which\nJames himself wrote from France and Ireland to his friends in England,\ndoes any man in his common sense doubt that the Revolution of 1688 did\nactually occur?\n\nWhen, in addition to all this concentration and convergence of\ntestimony, one finds that the matters related, being of public concern,\nand the changes effected for the public weal, the people have ever since\nobserved, and do to this day celebrate, by religious worship and public\nrejoicings, the anniversaries of the principal events of that\nRevolution, and that he himself has been present, and has heard the\nthanksgivings, and witnessed the rejoicings on those anniversaries, the\nfacts of the history come out from the domains of learned curiosity, and\ntake their stand on the market-place of the busy world's engagements. We\nbecome at once conscious that this is a practical question--a great fact\nwhich concerns us--that the whole of the law and government of a vast\nempire has felt its impress--that our ancestors and ourselves have been\nmolded under its influence, and that the religion of Europe and America,\nunder whose guardianship we have grown to a prominent place among the\npeople of earth, and may arrive at a better prominence among the nations\nof the saved, has been secured by that Revolution. We could scarcely\nknow whether most to pity or contemn the man who should labor to\npersuade us that such a Revolution had never occurred, or that the\nfacts had been essentially misrepresented.\n\nNow it is precisely on this kind of evidence that we believe the great\nfacts of the Christian Revolution. We have contemporary histories,\nformal and informal; letters, public and private, from the principal\nagents in it, and opposers of it, dispersed from Babylon to Rome, and\naddressed to Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Asiatics, written by physicians,\nfishermen, proconsuls, emperors, and apostles. We have miles of\nmonuments, paintings, statuary, cabinets of coins, and all the heraldry\nof Christendom. And these great facts stand out more prominently on the\ntheater of the world's business as effecting changes on our laws and\nlives, and their introduction as authenticated by public commemorations,\nmore solemn and more numerous than those resulting from the English or\nthe American Revolution. Our main difficulty lies in selecting, from the\nvast mass of materials, a portion sufficiently distinct and manageable\nto be handled in a single essay.\n\nWe shall be guided by the motto already announced as the rule of\ninductive research. One thing at a time; and the nearest first. The\nEpistles, being nearer our own times than the Gospels, claim our first\nnotice, and first among these, those which stand latest on the page of\nsacred history, the letters of John; two from Peter to the Christians of\nAsia; and those which Paul, in chains for the gospel, dictated from\nimperial Rome.\n\nFrom the abundant notices of the early Christians by historians and\nphilosophers, satirists and comedians, martyrs and magistrates, Jewish,\nChristian, and heathen, I shall select only two for comparison with the\nEpistles and of the apostles; and both those heathen--the celebrated\nletter of Pliny to Trajan, and the well-established history of Tacitus;\nboth utterly undeniable, and admitted by the most skeptical to be above\nsuspicion. Not that I suppose that the testimony of men who do not take\nthe trouble of making any inquiry into the reality of the facts of the\nChristian religion is more accurate than that of those whose lives were\ndevoted to its study; or that we have any just reason to attach as much\nweight to the assertions of persons, who, by their own showing, tortured\nand murdered men and women convicted of no crime but that of bearing the\nname of Christ, as to those of these martyrs, whose characters they\nacknowledged to be blameless, and who sealed their testimony with the\nlast and highest attestation of sincerity--their blood. Considered\nmerely as a historian, whether, as regards means of knowledge, or tests\nof truthfulness, by every unprejudiced mind, Peter will always be\npreferred to Pliny. But because the world will ever love its own, and\nhate the disciples of the Lord, there will always be a large class to\nwhom the history of Tacitus will seem more veritable than that of Luke,\nand the letters of Pliny more reliable than those of Peter. For their\nsakes we avail ourselves of that most convincing of all\nattestations--the testimony of an enemy. What friends and foes unite in\nattesting must be accepted as true.\n\nThe facts which we shall thus establish are not, in the first instance,\nthose called miraculous. We are now ascertaining the general character\nfor truthfulness of our letter writers and historians. If we find that\ntheir general historic narrative is contradicted by that of other\ncredible historians, then we suspect their story. But if we find that,\nin all essential matters of public notoriety, they are supported by the\nconcurred testimony of their foes, and that the narrative of the\nmiracles they relate bears the seals of thousands who from foes became\nfriends, from conviction of its truth, then we receive their witness as\ntrue. Even in Paul's day, heathen Greek writers bore testimony to the\napostles, what manner of entering in they had unto the converts of\nThessalonica; and how they turned to God from idols, to serve the\nliving and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised\nfrom the dead--even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.\nPliny wrote forty years later.\n\nPliny, the younger, was born A. D. 61, was praetor under Domitian, consul\nin the third year of Trajan, A. D. 100, was exceedingly desirous to add\nto his other honors that of the priesthood; was accordingly consecrated\nan augur, and built temples, bought images, and consecrated them on his\nestates; was, in A. D. 106, appointed Governor of the Roman Provinces of\nPontus and Bithynia[73]--a vast tract of Asia Minor, lying along the\nshores of the Black Sea and the Propontis; and including the province\nanciently called Mysia, in which were situated Pergamos and Thyatira,\nand in the immediate vicinity of Sardis and Philadelphia. Pliny reached\nhis province by the usual route, the port of Ephesus; where John had\nlived for many years, and indited his letters, A. D. 96, scarcely ten\nyears before. The letters of Peter to the strangers scattered through\nPontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, bring us to the same\nmountainous region, eight hundred miles distant from Judea; whence, in\nearlier days, our savage ancestors received those Phoenician priests\nof Baal, whose round towers mark the coasts of Ireland nearest to the\nsetting sun; and whence, about the period under consideration, came the\nheralds of the Sun of Righteousness, who brought the \"_Leabhar\nEoin_\"[74] which tells their children of him in whom is the life and the\nlight of men. Natives of these countries had been in Jerusalem during\nthe crucifixion of Jesus, and, though only strangers, had witnessed the\ndarkness, and the earthquake, and had heard the rumors of what had come\nto pass in those days; and on the day of Pentecost had mingled with the\ncurious crowd around the apostles, and heard them speak, in their own\nmother tongues, of the wonderful works of God. The remainder of the\nstory of their conversion we gather from the letters of Peter, John, and\nPliny.\n\n     \"Pliny, to the Emperor Trajan, wisheth health and\n     happiness:[75]\n\n     \"It is my constant custom, Sire, to refer myself to you in all\n     matters concerning which I have any doubt. For who can better\n     direct me when I hesitate, or instruct me when I am ignorant?\n\n     \"I have never been present at any trials of Christians, so\n     that I know not well what is the subject matter of punishment,\n     or of inquiry, or what strictures ought to be used in either.\n     Nor have I been a little perplexed to determine whether any\n     difference ought to be made upon account of age, or whether\n     the young and tender, and the full grown and robust, ought to\n     be treated all alike; whether repentance should entitle to\n     pardon, or whether all who have once been Christians ought to\n     be punished, though they are now no longer so; whether the\n     name itself, although no crimes be detected, or crimes only\n     belonging to the name ought to be punished.\n\n     \"In the meantime, I have taken this course with all who have\n     been brought before me, and have been accused as Christians. I\n     have put the question to them, whether they were Christians.\n     Upon their confessing to me that they were, I repeated the\n     question a second and a third time, threatening also to punish\n     them with death. Such as still persisted, I ordered away to be\n     punished; for it was no doubt with me, whatever might be the\n     nature of their opinion, that contumacy and inflexible\n     obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others of the same\n     infatuation, whom, because they are Roman citizens, I have\n     noted down to be sent to the city.\n\n     \"In a short time the crime spreading itself, even whilst under\n     persecution, as is usual in such cases, divers sorts of people\n     came in my way. An information was presented to me, without\n     mentioning the author, containing the names of many persons,\n     who, upon examination, denied that they were Christians, or\n     had even been so; who repeated after me an invocation of the\n     gods, and with wine and frankincense made supplication to your\n     image, which, for that purpose, I have caused to be brought\n     and set before them, together with the statues of the deities.\n     Moreover, they reviled the name of Christ. None of which\n     things, as is said, they who are really Christians can by any\n     means be compelled to do. These, therefore, I thought proper\n     to discharge.\n\n     \"Others were named by an informer, who at first confessed\n     themselves Christians, and afterward denied it. The rest said\n     they had been Christians, but had left them; some three years\n     ago, some longer, and one or more above twenty years. They all\n     worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods; these also\n     reviled Christ. They affirmed that the whole of their fault or\n     error lay in this: that they were wont to meet together, on a\n     stated day, before it was light, and sing among themselves\n     alternately, a hymn to Christ as a God, and bind themselves by\n     a sacrament, not to the commission of any wickedness, but not\n     to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery; never to\n     falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them,\n     when called upon to return it. When these things were\n     performed, it was their custom to separate, and then to come\n     together again to a meal, which they ate in common, without\n     any disorder; but this they had forborne since the publication\n     of my edict, by which, according to your command, I prohibited\n     assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it the more\n     necessary to examine two maid servants, which were called\n     ministers, by torture. But I have discovered nothing besides a\n     bad and excessive superstition.\n\n     \"Suspending, therefore, all judicial proceedings, I have\n     recourse to you for advice; for it has appeared to me a matter\n     highly deserving consideration, especially upon account of the\n     great number of persons who are in danger of suffering. For\n     many of all ages, and every rank, of both sexes likewise, are\n     accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this\n     superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also,\n     and the open country. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it may\n     be restrained and arrested. It is certain that the temples,\n     which were almost forsaken, begin to be frequented. And the\n     sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived.\n     Victims, likewise, are everywhere brought up, whereas, for\n     some time, there were few purchasers. Whence, it is easy to\n     imagine, what numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon\n     were granted to those who shall repent.\"\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n     \"Trajan to Pliny, wisheth health and happiness:[76]\n\n     \"You have taken the right course, my Pliny, in your\n     proceedings with those who have been brought before you as\n     Christians; for it is impossible to establish any one rule\n     that shall hold universally. They are not to be sought after.\n     If any are brought before you, and are convicted, they ought\n     to be punished. However, he that denies his being a Christian,\n     and makes it evident in fact, that is, by supplicating to our\n     gods, though he be suspected to have been so formerly, let him\n     be pardoned upon repentance. But in no case, of any crime\n     whatever, may a bill of information be received without being\n     signed by him who presents it, for that would be a dangerous\n     precedent, and unworthy of my government.\"\n\nI must request my reader now to procure a New Testament, and read, at\none reading, the First General Epistle of Peter, the First General\nEpistle of John, and the Seven Epistles to the Churches in Ephesus,\nSmyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea--only\nabout as much matter as four pages of _Harper's Magazine_, or half a\npage of the _Commercial_--that he may be able to do the same justice to\nthe apostles as to the governor. He will thus be able to see the force\nof the various allusions to the numbers, doctrines, morals,\npersecutions, and perseverance of the Christians, contained in those\nletters; the object which I have in view being, to establish their\nauthenticity by proving the truthfulness of their allusions to these\nthings. If you think this too much trouble, please lay down the book,\nand dismiss the consideration of religion from your thoughts. If the\nletters of the apostles are not worth a careful reading, it is of no\nconsequence whether they are true or false.\n\n1. These letters take for granted, that the fact of the existence of\nlarge numbers of Christians, organized into churches, and meeting\nregularly for religious worship, at the close of the first century, is a\nmatter of public notoriety to the world. Here, in countries eight\nhundred miles distant from its birthplace, in the lifetime of those who\nhad seen its founder crucified, we find Christians scattered over\nPontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia--churches in seven\nprovincial cities, the sect well known to Pliny, before he left Italy,\nas a proscribed and persecuted religion, the professors of which were\ncustomarily brought before courts for trial and punishment--though he\nhad not himself been present at such trials--and now so numerous in his\nprovinces, that a great number of persons, of both sexes, young and old,\nof all ranks, natives and Roman citizens, professed Christianity.\nOthers, influenced by their example and instruction, renounced idolatry;\nvictims were not led to sacrifice; the sacred rites of the gods were\nsuspended, and their temples forsaken. The existence, then, of churches\nof Christ, consisting of vast numbers of converted heathens, at the\nclose of the first century, is in no wise mythological or dubious. It is\nan established historical fact. The Epistles of the apostles stand\nconfirmed by the Epistles of the governor and the emperor.\n\n2. The second great fact presented in the Epistles, and confirmed by the\nletters of the governor and the emperor, is, that the worship of the\nChristian Church then was essentially the same which it is now. We find\nthese Christians of the first century commemorating the death and\nresurrection of Christ, and rendering divine honors to him; the \"stated\nday\" on which they assembled for worship, and the \"common meal,\" are as\nplain a description of the \"disciples coming together upon the first day\nof the week, to break bread,\" as a heathen could give in few words.\nTheir terms of communion too, to which they pledged their members by a\nsacrament, \"not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to\nfalsify their word, or deny a pledge committed to them,\" find their\ncounterpart in every well-regulated church at this day.\n\nThe articles of the Christian faith, then, are not the \"gradual\naccretions of centuries,\" nor is the \"redemptive idea, as attaching to\nChrist, a dogma of the post-Augustine period.\" The churches of the\nfirst century commemorated the death and resurrection of Jesus, as that\nof a divine person, \"singing the hymn to him as a God,\" which their\ndescendants sing at this day around his table:\n\n     \"Forever and forever is, O God, thy throne of might,\n     The scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter that is right,\n     Thou lovest right, and hatest ill; for God, thy God, Most High,\n     Above thy fellows hath with th' oil of joy anointed thee.\"\n\nAnd the question will force itself upon our minds, and can not be\nevaded, How did these apostles persuade such multitudes of heathens to\nbelieve their repeated assertions of the death, resurrection, and glory\nof Jesus? In the space of three octavo pages, Peter refers to these\nfacts eighteen times. John, in like manner, repeatedly affirms them. The\nChristian religion consists in the belief of these facts, and a life\ncorresponding to them. Now, how did the apostles persuade such\nmultitudes of heathens to believe a report so wonderful, profess a\nreligion so novel, renounce the gods they had worshiped from their\nchildhood, and all the ceremonies of an attractive, sensual religion;\n\"temples of splendid architecture, statues of exquisite sculpture,\npriests and victims superbly adorned, attendant beauteous youth of both\nsexes, performing all the sacred rites with gracefulness; religious\ndances, illuminations, concerts of the sweetest music, perfumes of the\nrarest fragrance,\" and other more licentious enjoyments, inseparable\nfrom heathen worship. How did they persuade them to exchange all this\nfor the assembly before daybreak, the frugal common meal, the psalm to\nChrist, and the commemoration of the death of a crucified malefactor? If\nwe add, that they commemorated his resurrection, by observing the Lord's\nday, the question comes up, How did they come to believe that he was\nrisen from the dead? Could a few despised strangers, or a few citizens\nif you will, persuade such a community, purely by natural means, to\nbelieve such a report, to care whether the Syrian Jew died or rose, or\nto commemorate weekly, by a solemn religious service, either his death\nor resurrection? It is evident they believed what they commemorated. How\ndid they come to do so?\n\nBut whether we can answer the question or not, the fact stands out as\nindisputable, that not merely the writers of the Epistles and Gospels,\nand a few enthusiasts, but an immense multitude of all ages, of both\nsexes, and of every rank--the whole membership of the primitive\nchurches--did believe in the death, resurrection, and glory of the Lord\nJesus, and did render to him divine worship. The second great fact,\naffirmed in the Epistles, stands confirmed by the testimony of the\nheathen governor, and of the Roman emperor.\n\n3. A mere theory of a new religion, unconnected with practice, may be\neasily received by those who care little about any, so long as it brings\nno suffering or inconvenience. But the religion of these Christians was,\nas you see, a practical religion. If their new worship required a great\ndeparture from the worship of their childhood, their Christian morals\nrequired a still greater departure from their former mode of life. I\nneed not remind you of the moral codes of Socrates, Plato, and\nAristides, who taught that lying, thieving, adultery, and murder were\nlawful; nor how much worse than the theory of the best of the heathen\nwere the lives of the worst; nor how unpopular to persons so educated\nwould be such teaching as this--\"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered\nfor us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind: for he that\nhath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin: that he no longer\nshould live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but\nto the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have\nwrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness,\nlusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable\nidolatries; wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to\nthe same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: who shall give account to\nhim that is ready to judge the living and the dead.\" \"Lay aside all\nmalice, and guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings.\"\n\"Whosoever abideth in Christ sinneth not. Whosoever sinneth hath not\nseen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He\nthat doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that\ncommitteth sin is of the devil.\" So sharp, and stern, and strictly\nvirtuous is apostolic religion, as displayed in these letters. Is it\npossible then that these converted heathens did really even approach\nthis standard of morality? Did this gospel of Christ actually produce\nany such reformation of their lives?\n\nYou have the testimony of apostates, eager to save their lives by giving\nsuch information as they knew would be acceptable to the persecutor; you\nhave the testimony of the two aged deaconesses, under torture; you have\nthe unwilling, but yet express, testimony of their torturer and\nmurderer, that all his cruel ingenuity could discover nothing worse than\nan excessive superstition and culpable obstinacy. What, then, does this\nphilosophic inspector of entrails, and adorer of idols, call an\nexcessive superstition and culpable obstinacy? Why, they bound\nthemselves by the most solemn religious services, not to be guilty of\ntheft, robbery, or adultery; not to falsify their word, nor deny a\npledge committed to them; and when some senseless blocks of brass were\ncarried on men's shoulders, into the court-house, to represent a mortal\nman, they would not adore them, nor pray to them; no, not though this\nphilosopher compiled the liturgy, and set the example. For this refusal,\nand this alone, he ordered them away to death. Doubtless they heard, in\ntheir hearts, the well-known words, \"Let none of you suffer as a\nmurderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other\nmen's matters. But if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be\nashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf.\"\n\nThe morality of the Epistles, then, was not a merely a fine theory, but\nan actual rule of life. The moral codes of the apostles were received as\nactually binding on the members of the churches of the first century. In\nthis all-important matter of the rule of a good life--the fruits by\nwhich the tree is known--the integrity, authority, and success of the\napostles, in turning licentious heathens into moral Christians, is\nauthenticated by the unwilling testimony of their persecutors. The\nEpistles of the apostles stand confirmed, as to their ethics, by the\nletters of Trajan and Pliny.\n\n4. The only other fact to which I call your attention, from among the\nmultitude alluded to in these letters, is the cost at which these\nconverts from heathenism embraced this new religion. Every one who\nrenounced heathenism, and professed the name of Christ, knew very well\nthat he must suffer for it. \"Beloved, think it not strange concerning\nthe fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing\nhappened unto you, but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's\nsufferings, that when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad with\nexceeding joy;\" this was the welcome of the Bithynian convert into the\nChurch of Christ. Persecution by fire and sword was then the common lot\nof the Church. \"I have never been present at any trials of the\nChristians,\" says the governor. Such trials were well known to him it\nseems. He was not sure whether he should murder all who ever had borne\nthe name of Christ, or only those who proved themselves to be really his\ndisciples, by refusing to revile him, and return to idolatry; and the\nmerciful emperor commands him to spare the apostates. Above twenty years\nbefore--in A. D. 86--there were apostates from the persecuted religion.\nIn A. D. 90, John had written, \"they went out from us, that it might be\nmade manifest they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they\nwould no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that it might\nbe made manifest that they were not all of us.\" So it seems Pliny\nthought: \"They all worshiped your image, and other statues of the gods;\nthese also reviled Christ. None of which things, as is said, they who\nare really Christians can by any means be compelled to do.\" What these\nmeans were he tells us: \"I put the question to them, whether they were\nChristians. Upon their confessing to me that they were, I repeated the\nquestion a second and a third time, threatening, also, to punish them\nwith death. Such as still persisted, I ordered away to be punished.\"\nWhat is very remarkable, it was, it seems, \"usual in such cases, for the\ncrime to spread itself, even whilst under persecution.\" In the face of\nsuch dangers, these heathen would still profess faith in Christ, and\nwhen they might have saved their lives by reviling him, refused to do\nso. From the published rescript of the emperor, approving of Pliny's\ncourse, and condemning to death all who were convicted of being really\nChristians; from the public circulars of the apostles, warning them of\n\"fiery trials,\" \"Satan casting some of them into prison,\" and exhorting\nthem to \"be faithful unto death;\" and from such comments on these as the\ntorture and public execution of aged women as well as men--the terms of\ndiscipleship were well known to the whole world. Yet we see that in the\nface of all this, \"great numbers of persons, of both sexes, and of all\nages, and of every rank,\" in Pliny's opinion, were so steadfast in their\nfaith, that \"they were in great danger of suffering.\"\n\nHere, then, is another well-attested fact, in which the testimony of the\napostles stands confirmed by the signatures of the Bithynian governor,\nand the Roman emperor--a fact which stands forth clear, prominent, most\nundoubted, without the smallest trace of anything mythological or misty\nabout it--that, in A. D. 106, great numbers of converted heathens did\nsuffer exile, torture, and death itself, rather than renounce Christ;\nand that it was well known that the Christian faith enabled its\nprofessor to overcome the world.\n\nThese four great facts of the later Epistles, being thus established\nbeyond dispute, in pursuance of our plan, we ascend the stream of\nhistory some forty years, to the time of the earlier Epistles, when Paul\nlay in the Praetorian prison, and his faithful companion, Luke, wrote the\ncontinuation of his narrative of the things most surely believed among\nthe Christians; when \"apostles were made as the filth of the world, and\nthe offscouring of all things;\" and Christians \"were made a gazing stock\nboth by reproaches and afflictions;\" \"were brought before kings and\nrulers, and hated of all nations for Christ's name sake;\" \"endured a\ngreat fight of afflictions;\" were \"for his sake killed all the day long,\nand accounted as sheep for the slaughter;\" \"were made a spectacle to the\nworld, to angels, and to men.\" We remove the field of our investigation\nfrom a remote province of Asia, to one equally remote from Judea, and\nfar more unfavorable for the growth of the religion of a crucified Jew,\nto the proud capital of the world, imperial Rome. The time shall be\nshortly after the burning of the city, in A. D. 64, and during the\nraging of the first of those systematic, imperial, and savage\npersecutions through which the Church of Christ waded, in the bloody\nfootsteps of her Lord, to world-wide influence, and undying fame. Our\nhistorian shall be the well-known Tacitus; and the single extract from\nhis history, one of which the infidel Gibbon says:[77] \"The most\nskeptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this important\nfact, and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus.\" I shall\nnot insert quotations from Paul or Luke; that were merely to transcribe\nlarge portions of the Epistles and Gospels, which whoever will not\ncarefully peruse, disqualifies himself for forming a judgment of their\nveracity. The confirmation of the four facts already established, of\nthe existence, worship, morals, and sufferings of the disciples of\nChrist; and these facts as well known within thirty years after his\ndeath, will sufficiently appear by the perusal of the following\ntestimony of Tacitus.[78]\n\nAfter relating the burning of the city, and Nero's attempt to transfer\nthe odium of it to the sect \"commonly known by the name of Christians,\"\nhe says:\n\n     \"The author of that name was Christ, who, in the reign of\n     Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal, under the\n     procurator, Pontius Pilate. But this pestilent superstition,\n     checked for a while, broke out afresh, and spread not only\n     over Judea, where the evil originated, but also in Rome, where\n     all that is evil on the earth finds its way, and is practiced.\n     At first, those only were apprehended who confessed themselves\n     of that sect; afterward, _a vast multitude_ discovered by\n     them; all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of\n     burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their\n     executions were so contrived, as to expose them to derision\n     and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild\n     beasts, that they might be torn to pieces by dogs; some were\n     crucified; while others, having been daubed over with\n     combustible materials, were set up for lights in the night\n     time, and thus burned to death. For these spectacles Nero gave\n     his own gardens, and, at the same time, exhibited there the\n     diversions of the circus; sometimes standing in the crowd as a\n     spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; and, at other times,\n     driving a chariot himself; until at length these men, though\n     really criminal, and deserving of exemplary punishment, began\n     to be commiserated, as people who were destroyed, not out of\n     regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty\n     of one man.\"\n\nWe add no comment on this remarkable passage. Take up your New Testament\nand read the contemporary history--Acts xxii. to the end of the\nbook--and the letters of Paul from Rome, to Philemon, Titus, the\nEphesians, Philippians, Colossians, and the Second to Timothy, written\nwhen the aged prisoner was ready to be offered, and the time of his\ndeparture, amidst such scenes and sufferings, was at hand. Then form\nyour own opinion as to the origin and nature of that faith in Jesus\nwhich enabled him to say: \"None of these things move me, neither count I\nmy life dear unto me, that I may finish my course with joy, and the\ntestimony which I have received of the Lord Jesus.\" \"I know in whom I\nhave believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I\nhave committed to him against that day.\"\n\nWhatever may be your opinion of the apostle's hope for the future, you\nmust acknowledge that we have ascertained, beyond contradiction, these\nfour facts of the past:\n\n1. That without the power of force, or the help of governments, and in\nspite of them, the apostles did convert vast multitudes of idolaters\nfrom a senseless worship of stocks and stones, to the worship of the one\nliving and true God; a thing never done by the preachers of any other\nreligion before or since.\n\n2. That without the help of power or civil law, and solely by moral and\nspiritual means, they did persuade multitudes of licentious heathens to\ngive up their vices, and obey the pure precepts of the morality\ncontained in their Epistles; a thing never done by the preachers of any\nother religion before or since.\n\n3. That these converts were so firmly persuaded of the truth of their\nnew religion, that, with the choice of life and worldly honor, or a\ndeath of infamy and torture before them, multitudes deliberately chose\nto suffer torture and death rather than renounce the belief in one God,\nobedience to his laws, and the hope of eternal life through Jesus\nChrist, which they had learned from the sermons and letters of these\napostles; a thing never done by the professors of any other religion\nbefore or since.[79]\n\n4. The faith which produced such an illumination of their minds; which\ncaused such a blessed change in their lives; which filled them with joy\nand hope, and enabled them even to despise torture and death, was\nbriefly this: \"That Christ died for our sins, according to the\nScriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third\nday, according to the Scriptures; that he ascended up into heaven, and\nwill come again to judge the world, and reward every man according to\nhis works; and that whosoever believes these things in his heart, and\nconfesses them with his mouth, shall be saved; and he that believeth\nthem not shall be damned.\"\n\nIt is a fact, then, indisputably proven by history, that the New\nTestament does teach a religion which can enlighten men's minds, reform\ntheir lives, give peace to their consciences, and enable them to meet\ndeath with a joyful hope of life eternal. It has done these things in\ntimes past, and is doing them now. These are its undoubted fruits.\nReader, this faith may be yours. It will work the same results in you as\nit has done in others. Like causes ever produce like effects. Jesus\nwaits to deliver you from your sins, to fill you with joy and peace in\nbelieving, and make you abound in hope, by the power of the Holy Ghost.\nHe has promised, if you will ask it, \"I will give them a heart to know\nme, that I am the Lord.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[73] Lardner VII. page 18, _et seq._\n\n[74] Pronounced Laar Owen--John's Book.\n\n[75] Lib. X. Ep. 97, Lardner VII. 22.\n\n[76] Lib. X. Ep. 98, Lardner VII. 24.\n\n[77] Decline and Fall, Vol. II. page 407.\n\n[78] Lib. XV. chap. 44.\n\n[79] The sufferings of the Jews, under Antiochus, are no exception. They\nsuffered for their faith in the true God, the Messiah to come, and a\nresurrection to life eternal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCAN WE BELIEVE CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES?\n\n     \"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which\n     we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our\n     hands have handled of the Word of life * * * that which we\n     have seen and heard declare we unto you.\"--1 John i. 1.\n\n\nWe have seen that the companions of Jesus wrote the books of the New\nTestament; that their statements of the existence, worship, morals, and\nfaith of the Christian Church are confirmed by their enemies, and that\nmultitudes of heathens were turned from vice to virtue by the belief of\nthe testimony of these men. They testified that Jesus Christ did many\nwonderful miracles, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead;\nthat they saw, and felt his body, and ate, and drank, and conversed with\nhim for forty days after his resurrection; that he ascended up to heaven\nin their sight; that he sent them to tell the world that he will come\nagain in the clouds of heaven, with his mighty angels, to judge the\nliving and the dead; that he who believes these things and is baptized\nshall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. This is their\nstatement. The question is, Can we believe them?\n\n1. The first thing which strikes us in their testimony is, that it\nstands out utterly different from all other religions. There is nothing\nin the world like it, not even its counterfeits. The great central fact\nof Christianity--that Christ died for our sins, and rose again from the\ndead--stands absolutely alone in the history of religions. The priests\nof Baal, Brahma, or Jupiter, never dreamed of such a thing. The prophets\nof Mohammedanism, Mormonism, or Pantheism, have never attempted to\nimitate it. The great object of all counterfeit Christianity is to deny\nit.\n\nThere is no instance in the whole world's history of any other religion\never producing the same effects. We demand an instance of men destitute\nof wealth, arms, power, and learning, converting multitudes of lying,\nlustful, murdering idolaters, into honest, peaceable, virtuous men\nsimply by prayer and preaching. When the Infidel tells us of the rapid\nspread of Mohammedanism and Mormonism--impostures which enlist disciples\nby promising free license to lust, robbery, and murder, and retain them\nby the terror of the scimeter and the rifle ball; which reduce mankind\nto the most abject servitude, and womanhood to the most debasing\nconcubinage; which have turned the fairest regions of the earth to a\nwilderness, and under whose blighting influence commerce, arts, science,\nindustry, comfort, and the human race itself, have withered away--he\nsimply insults our common sense, by ignoring the difference between\nbackgoing vice and ongoing virtue; or acknowledges that he knows as\nlittle about Mohammedanism, as he does about Christianity. The gospel\nstands alone in its doctrines, singular in its operation, unequaled in\nits success.\n\n2. The next important point for consideration is, that the Christianity\npreached by Christ and his apostles is a whole--a single system, which\nwe must either take or leave--believe entirely, or entirely reject it as\nan imposture. There is no middle ground for you to occupy. It is all\ntrue, or all false. For instance, you can not take one of Paul's\nEpistles and say, \"this is true,\" and take another of the same man's\nletters, containing the very same religion, and say, \"this is false.\" If\nyou accept the very briefest of Paul's Letters, that to Philemon,\ncontaining only thirteen sentences on private business, you accept\neleven distinct assertions of the authority, grace, love, and divinity\nof our Lord. Nor can you say you will accept Peter's Letters and reject\nPaul's; for you will find the very same facts asserted by the one as by\nthe other; and moreover, Peter indorses \"all the epistles of our beloved\nbrother Paul\" as on the same pedestal of authority with the other\nScriptures. You can not say, \"I will accept the letters and reject the\nhistory,\" for the letters have no meaning without the history. They are\nfounded upon it, and assume or allege its facts on every page. Were the\ngospels lost, we could collect a good account of the birth, teaching,\ndeath, resurrection, ascension, and almighty power of the Lord Christ\nfrom Paul's Epistles; and these letters are just as confident in\nalleging the miraculous part of the history as the gospels themselves.\nNeither can you gain any advantage by saying, \"I accept the gospels, but\nreject the letters,\" for there is not a doctrine of the New Testament\nwhich is not taught in the very first of them, the Gospel by Matthew.\nFurther, the gospels contain the most solemn authentication of the\ncommissions of the apostles, so that whoever rejects their teaching,\nbrings upon himself guilt equal to that of rejecting Christ himself.\n\"Lo, I am with you alway\"--\"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he\nthat receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me\"--\"Whosoever will not\nreceive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or\ncity, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall\nbe more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of\njudgment, than for that city.\"\n\nIt is, if possible, more absurd to attempt to dissect the morality of\nthe gospel from its history, and to say, \"We are willing to receive the\nChristian code of morals as a very excellent rule of life, and to regard\nJesus as a rare example of almost superhuman virtue, but we must\nconsider the narrative of supernatural events interwoven with it as\nmythological,\" _i. e._, false. Which is much the same as to say, \"We\nwill be very happy to receive your friend if he will only cut his head\noff.\" Of what possible use would the Christian code of morals be without\nthe authority of Christ, the lawgiver? If he possessed no divine\nauthority, what right has he to control your inclination or mine? And if\nhe will never return to inquire whether men obey or disobey his law, who\nwill regard it? Do you suppose the world will be turned upside down, and\nreformed, by a little good advice? Nay, verily, the world has had trial\nof that vanity long enough. \"We must all appear before the judgment seat\nof Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body,\naccording to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing,\ntherefore, _the terrors of the Lord_, we persuade men.\"\n\nTake away the miraculous and supernatural from the gospel history, and\nthere is nothing left for you to accept. There is no political economy\nnor worldly morality in it. It is wholly the history of a supernatural\nperson, and every precept of his morality comes with a divine sanction.\nFurther, you know nothing of either his life or his morality but from\nthe gospel history, and if the record of the miracles which occupy\nthree-fourths of the gospels be false, what reason have you to give any\ncredit to the remainder? For, as the German commentator, De Wette, well\nsays, \"The only means of acquaintance with a history is the narrative we\npossess concerning it, and beyond that narrative the interpreter can not\ngo. In these Bible records, the narrative reports to us only a\nsupernatural course of events, which we must either receive or reject.\nIf we reject the narrative, we know nothing at all about the event, and\nwe are not justified in allowing ourselves to invent a natural course of\nevents of which the narrative is totally silent.\" So, you see, you can\nnot make a Christ to suit your taste, but must just take the Christ of\nthe gospel, or reject him.\n\nIf you reject the testimony of Christ and his apostles as false, and say\nyou can not believe them in matters of fact, how can you respect their\nmorality? Of all the absurdities of modern Infidelity, the respectful\nlanguage generally used by its advocates in speaking of Christ and his\napostles is the most inconsistent. He claimed to be a Divine Person, and\nprofessed to work miracles. The Infidel says he was not a Divine Person,\nand wrought no miracles. The consequence is unavoidable--such a\npretender is a blasphemous impostor. And yet they speak of him as a\n\"model man,\" an \"exemplar of every virtue.\" What! an impostor a model\nman? A blasphemer and liar an exemplar of every virtue? Is that the\nInfidel's notion of virtue? Why, the devils were more consistent in\ntheir commendations of his character, \"We know thee who thou art, THE\nHOLY ONE OF GOD.\" Let our modern enemies of Christ learn consistency\nfrom their ancient allies. We have also learned from our Master to\nrefuse all hypocritical, half-way professions of respect for his\ncharacter and teachings from those whose business is to prove him a\ndeceiver, and whose object in speaking respectfully of such a One can\nonly be to gain a larger audience, and a readier entrance for their\nblasphemy among his professed disciples. From every man who professes\nrespect for Christ's character, and for the morality which he and his\napostles taught, we demand a straightforward answer to the questions:\n\"When he declared himself the Son of God, the Judge of the living and\nthe dead, did he tell the truth, or did he lie? When he promised to\nattest his divine commission by rising from the dead on the third day,\nhad he any such power, or did he only mean to play a juggling imposture?\nIs Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God, or a deceiver?\" There is\nno middle ground. He that is not with him is against him.\n\nThe case is just the same with regard to the witnesses of his miracles,\ndeath, and resurrection. They either give a true relation of these\nthings, or they have manufactured a series of falsehoods. How can we\nbelieve anything from persons so habituated to lying as the narrators of\nthe mighty works of Jesus must be, if those mighty works never were\nperformed? How can we accept their code of morals if we refuse to\nbelieve them when they speak of matters of fact? Is it possible to\nrespect men as moral teachers, whom we have convicted of forging stories\nof miracles that never occurred, and confederating together to impose a\nlying superstition on the world? For this is plainly the very point and\ncenter of the question about the truth of the Bible, and I am anxious\nyou should see it clearly. A fair statement of this question is half the\nargument. The question then is simply this, Was Jesus really the Divine\nPerson he claimed to be, or was he a blasphemous impostor? When the\napostles unitedly and solemnly testified that they had seen him after he\nwas risen from the dead, that they ate and drank with him, that their\nhands had handled his body, that they conversed with him for forty days,\nand that they saw him go up to heaven, did they tell the truth or were\nthey a confederated band of liars? There is no reason for any other\nsupposition. They could not possibly be deceived themselves in the\nmatters they relate. They knew perfectly whether they were true or not.\nWe are not talking about matters of dogma, about which there might be\nroom for difference of opinion, but about matters of fact--about what\nmen say they saw, and heard, and felt--about which no man of common\nsense could possibly be mistaken. \"That which we have seen with our\neyes, which we have heard, which we have looked upon, and our hands have\nhandled of the Word of life * * * that which we have seen and heard\ndeclare we unto you.\" Such is their language. We must either take it as\ntruth, or reject it as falsehood. It is utter nonsense to talk of the\nintense subjectivity of the Jewish mind, and the belief of the apostles\nthat the Messiah would do wonders when he came, and the powerful\nimpressions produced by the teaching of Jesus on their minds. We are not\ntalking about impressions on their minds, but about impressions produced\non their eyes, and ears, and hands. Did these men tell the truth when\nthey told the world that they did eat and drink with Jesus after he rose\nfrom the dead, or did they lie? That is the question.\n\n3. It is a hard matter to lie well. A liar has need of a good memory,\nelse he will contradict himself before he writes far. And he needs to be\nvery well posted up in the matters of names, dates, places, manners and\ncustoms, else he will contradict some well-known facts, and so expose\nhis forgery to the world. Therefore writers of forgeries avoid all such\nthings as much as possible, and as surely as they venture on\nspecifications of that sort they are detected. A man who is conscious of\nwriting a book of falsehoods does not begin on this wise: \"Now in the\nfifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being\nGovernor of Judea, and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother\nPhilip Tetrarch of Iturea and of the regions of Trachonitis, and\nLysanias Tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiphas being high priests, the\nWord of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.\"\nHere in one sentence are twenty historical, geographical, political, and\ngenealogical references, every one of which we can confirm by references\nto secular historians. The enemies of the Lord have utterly failed in\ntheir attempts to disprove one out of the hundreds of such statements in\nthe New Testament. The only instance of any _public political event_\nrecorded in the gospel, said not to be confirmed by the fragments of\nsecular history we possess, is Luke's account of a census of the Roman\nEmpire, ordered by Augustus Caesar. Were it so that Luke stood alone in\nhis mention of this, surely his credit as a historian would be as good\nfor this fact, as the credit of Tacitus, when he states matters of which\nSuetonius makes no mention, or of Pliny, when he relates things not\nrecorded by Tacitus. But we can account for the want of corroborative\nhistory in this instance, when we know that all the history of Dion\nCassius, from the consulships of Antistius and Balbus to those of\nMessala and Cinna--that is, for five years before and five years after\nthe birth of Christ--is lost; as also Livy's history of the same period.\nIt is certain that some one did record the fact, for Suidas, in his\nlexicon upon the word _apographe_, says, \"that Augustus sent twenty\nselect men into all the provinces of the empire to take a census, both\nof men and property, and commanded that a just proportion of the latter\nshould be brought into the imperial treasury. And this was the first\ncensus.\"\n\nTo object to the gospel history, that everything contained in it of the\ndoings of Christ and his apostles in Judea, is not recorded by the\nhistorians of Greece and Italy, is much the same as to say that there\nare a multitude of facts recorded in D'Aubigne's History of the\nReformation in Germany, of which Hume and Macaulay make no mention in\ntheir histories of England. How should they?--treating of different\ncountries, and for the most part of different periods, and writing civil\nand not church history? Does anybody go to Macaulay to look for the\nhistory of the Westminster Assembly, or to Bancroft for an account of\nthe Great Revival in New England? Or is the veracity of Baillie, or\nEdwards suspected, because political history does not concern itself\nmuch about religion? It is enough that not a single statement of the\ngospel history has ever been disproved.\n\nI might give you quotations from the enemies of the Christian faith,\nfrom Josephus the Jew, and Celsus, and Porphyry, heathen philosophers,\nand from the Emperor Julian, the apostate--who, having been raised a\nChristian, became a heathen, and used all his ingenuity to overturn the\nreligion of Christ--expressly admitting the principal miracles recorded\nin the gospel. But I attach no such importance to the testimony of this\nclass of persons as to suppose that it should be placed, for one moment,\non a level with the testimony of the apostles, or that their testimony\nto the facts of the life and death of Christ needs any confirmation from\nsuch witnesses. We have such overwhelming evidence of the sincerity and\ntruth of the witnesses chosen by God to bear testimony to the\nresurrection of Christ, as we never can have of the credibility of any\nsecular historian whatever.\n\nYou will remember that these are the writers whose accounts of the\nexistence, the faith and worship, the numbers and morals of the\nChristian Church, we have seen so strikingly confirmed by their enemies;\nand we now inquire, Can we believe the other part of their history to be\nas true? These are the men who taught the heathen a pure Christian\nmorality, one principal article of which was, \"Lie not one to another,\nseeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds\"--\"All liars shall\nhave their portion in the lake that burneth with fire and\nbrimstone\"--and we are to inquire if they themselves lied; lied\npublicly, lied repeatedly, if the very business of their lives was to\npropagate falsehood, and if they died with a lie in their right hands.\nYou will remember that we proved conclusively that the belief of the\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus did turn immense multitudes of wicked\nmen to a life of virtue, and now we are to inquire if the belief of a\nlie produced this blessed result, and whether, if so, there be any such\nthing as truth in the world, or any use in it?\n\n4. Of no other series of events of ancient history do we possess the\nsame number of records by contemporary historians, as of the life,\ndeath, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. We have four direct\nsystematic memoirs of him by four of his companions; and we have a\ncollection of letters by four others, in which the events of the memoirs\nare continually referred to. At the mouth of two or three witnesses any\nman's property and life will be disposed of in a court of justice, but\nhere we have the testimony of eight eye-witnesses of the facts they\nrelate, and they refer to five hundred other persons, the greater part\nof whom were then alive, who had also seen and heard Christ after his\nresurrection. These eight persons give us their separate and independent\nstatements of those things they deemed worthy of record in the life and\ndeath of Christ, and of the sayings and doings of several of his friends\nand enemies. Now every person knows that it is impossible to make two\ncrooked boughs tally, or two false witnesses agree. You never saw two\nlying reports of any considerable number of transactions agree, unless\nthe one was copied from the other.\n\nIt is evident that the gospels were not copied from each other, for they\noften relate different events, and when they relate the same occurrence,\neach man relates those parts of it which he saw himself, and which\nimpressed him most. Yet the utmost ingenuity of infidelity has utterly\nfailed to make them contradict each other in any particular. Here are\neight witnesses to the truth of the same story, four of whom in their\nletters make occasional allusions to the facts of the history as being\nperfectly well known, and therefore needing only to be alluded to, yet\nthese cursory references fit into the history with every mark of\ntruthfulness. Does the history of Matthew, written at Jerusalem, tell us\nthat Jesus took Peter, and James, and John up into a high mountain\napart, and was transfigured before them? Peter, in his letter, written\nfrom Babylon, says, \"We were eye-witnesses of his majesty. We were with\nhim in the holy mount.\"--2 Peter ii. 10. If the history tells how Paul\nwas beaten and cast into prison at Philippi, and his feet made fast in\nthe stocks, and that, nevertheless, he manfully defended his birthright\nas a Roman citizen, and made the tyrannical magistrates humble\nthemselves, and apologize for their illegal conduct, we find Paul\nhimself, in a letter to a neighboring church, appealing to their\nknowledge of the facts, \"that after we had suffered before, and were\nshamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God\nto speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention. For our\nexhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile. For\nneither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak\nfor covetousness.\"--1 Thessalonians ii. 2. Hundreds of such undesigned\ncoincidences may be found in the New Testament, confirming the veracity\nof the several historians and letter writers, and giving that impression\nof the naturalness and truth of the story, which can neither be\ndescribed nor disputed. The reader who desires to prosecute this\ninteresting branch of the evidences of Christianity will find an ample\ncollection of these coincidences in Paley's Horae Paulinae.\n\nThis agreement of independent writers is the more remarkable, as the\nwriters were persons of very various degrees of education, of different\nprofessions and ranks of life, born in different countries, and writing\nfrom various places in Italy, Greece, Palestine, and Assyria, without\nany communication with each other. Matthew was an officer of customs in\nGalilee; Mark a Hebrew citizen of Jerusalem; Luke a Greek physician of\nAntioch; James and John owned and sailed a fishing smack on Lake\nTiberias; Jude left his thirty-nine acres of land, worth nine thousand\ndenarii, to be farmed by his children when he went forth to preach the\ngospel; and college-bred Paul carried his sturdy independence in his\nbreast, and his sail needles in his pocket, and dictated epistles, and\ncut out marquees and lug-sails in the tent factory of Aquila, Paul &\nCo., at Corinth. Several of his letters were written in a dungeon in\nRome; the last of Peter's is dated at Babylon; Matthew's Gospel was\npenned at Jerusalem, and John's Gospel and Epistles were written at\nEphesus. The agreement of eight such witnesses, of such different\npursuits, and so scattered over the world, in the relation of the same\nstory, in all its leading particulars, together with their variety of\nstyle and manner, and their various relations of minor incidents, yet\nwithout a single contradiction, are most convincing proofs that they all\ntell truth. Nothing but truth could be thus told without contradiction.\n\nThe fact that some considerable difficulties and many minor obscurities\nin these brief though pregnant narratives, prevent the combination of\neight accounts so independent in their sources, and various in their\nstyle, and design, and auditors, into a flowing historical novel, a\nhomogeneous mass, rounded and squared to our ideas of mathematical\nprecision, is only an additional proof of their truth to nature, which\nabhors mathematical, as much as truth does rhetorical figures. Like the\nvariety of expression used by American, German, French, and Polish\nwitnesses in our courts of justice, testifying the same facts in their\nnative idioms, though in English words, the apparent discrepancy, but\nactual harmony, becomes the most decisive test of the absence of any\ncollusion, and consequently of the verity of the facts which such\nvarious witnesses unite in testifying. Especially will any such apparent\ndiscrepancy resolve itself into our own unskillfulness or ignorance,\nwhen we remember that the mists of ages, and the drapery of a strange\nlanguage, and world-wide removal of residence, and the turning of the\nworld upside down by the progress of Christian civilization, and our\nconsequent ignorance of the thousand little details of every-day life,\nwell known to the writer and his immediate readers, and of the force of\nexpressive idioms, perfectly familiar to them--have rendered us not near\nso capable of detecting inaccuracies, as those contemporary writers and\nopponents, who allowed them--if they existed--to pass unchallenged. Like\nthose antique coins, whose rust-dimmed and abbreviated inscriptions\nexercise the patience and historic lore of the antiquarian, though\nneither are needed to declare the precious material, this very rust of\nantiquity, through which his patience has penetrated, becomes one of the\ninimitable marks of historic verity. Every year throws some new light on\ntexts difficult to us from our ignorance of those manners, customs,\nnames, and places, which Infidel malice and Christian piety have\ncombined to explore; and from the ruins of Nineveh and the sepulchers of\nEgypt we receive unlooked-for testimonies to the minute accuracy of the\npenmen of the Bible.\n\n5. The manner in which the apostles published their testimony to the\nworld bears every mark of truthfulness. Deception and forgery skulk, and\ntry to spread themselves at first in holes and corners, but he that\ndoeth truth cometh to the light. Had the apostles been conscious of\nfalsehood, would they have dared to assert that Jesus was risen from the\ndead in the very streets of the city where he was crucified? in the\ntemple, the most public place of resort of the Jews who saw him\ncrucified? and to the teeth of the very men who put him to death? If\nconscious of falsehood, would they have dared, before the chief priests,\nand the council, and all the senate of Israel, to assert that \"The God\nof our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him\nhath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to\ngive repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are his\nwitnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost which God hath\ngiven to them that obey him.\"--Acts v. 30. Would Paul, had he been\nconscious that he was relating falsehood, have dared to appeal to the\njudge, before whom he was on trial for his life, as to one who knew the\nnotoriety of these facts, \"For the king knoweth of these things, before\nwhom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things\nare hidden from him: for this thing was not done in a corner.\"--Acts\nxxvi. 26. Would such appeals have been suffered to pass uncontradicted\nhad the statements of the apostles been false?\n\nThe boldness of their manner, however, of telling their story, is\nlittle, compared with the boldness of the design which they had in view\nin telling it; which was nothing less than to convert the world. Now the\nidea of proselyting other nations to a new religion was absolutely\nunknown to the world at that time. The Greeks and Romans never dreamed\nof any such thing. They would sometimes add a new god to their old\nPantheon, but the idea of turning a nation to the worship of new deities\nwas never before heard of. The Jews were so indignant at the project,\nthat when Paul hinted it to them, they cried, \"Away with such a fellow\nfrom the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.\" And this new and\nstrange idea, of conquering the world for a crucified man, is taken up\nby a few private citizens, who resolve to overturn the craft by which\npriests have their wealth, and to bring the kingdoms of the world to\nbecome the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.\n\nImpostors would never have appealed to their power of working miracles\nas the apostles did; nor could enthusiasts have done so without instant\nexposure. It is remarkable, that while in addressing those who believed\ntheir divine commission, they rarely allude to it (fourteen of the\nepistles make no allusion to apostolic miracles), but dwell on a subject\nof far greater importance--a holy life--they never hesitate to confront\na Simon Magus, or a schismatical church at Corinth, or a persecuting\nhigh priest and sanhedrim with this power of the Holy Ghost. \"Tongues,\"\nsays Paul, \"are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that\nbelieve not;\" and this is true of all other miracles. This marks the\ndifference between real miracles and those of pretenders; who have\nnever attempted to establish a new religion by them, or to convert\nunbelievers hostile to their claims and able to examine them, without\nimmediate exposure. But you never heard of an impostor standing up\nbefore the tribunal of his judges and alleging the miraculous cure of a\nwell-known public beggar, lame from his mother's womb, whom they had\nseen at the church gate every Sabbath for forty years, and bringing the\nman into court after such a fashion as this, \"If we this day be examined\nof the good deed done unto the impotent man, by what means he is made\nwhole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that\nby the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God\nraised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole.\"\nSuch an appeal was unanswerable. \"Beholding the man that was healed\nstanding with them, they could say nothing against it.\" Nay, they were\ncompelled to acknowledge \"that indeed a notable miracle hath been done\nby them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem--we can not deny\nit.\"--Acts iv.\n\nThe denial of the miracles of the gospel is a modern invention of the\nenemy. The scribes, and priests, emperors, and philosophers of the first\ncenturies, who had the best opportunity of proving their falsehood, were\nunable to do so. The persecutors and apostates, whose malice against the\nChurch knew no bounds, never dared to utter a charge of deception\nagainst the apostles. Why, then, you ask, did they not all become\nChristians? Because miracles can not convert any man against his will.\nChristianity is not merely a belief in miracles, but the love of Christ,\nand a life of holiness. There are many readers of this book who would\nnot turn from their sins if all the dead in Spring Grove Cemetery would\nrise to-morrow to warn them from hell. God does not intend to force any\nman to become a Christian. He just gives evidence enough to try you,\nwhether you will deal honestly and fairly with your own soul and your\nGod, and if you are determined to hate Christ and his holy religion, you\nshall never want a plausible excuse for unbelief; as it is written,\n\"Unto them which are disobedient, Christ is a stone of stumbling and a\nrock of offense.\" These ancient enemies of Christ acknowledged the\nreality of his miracles, but attributed them to magical power, or the\nhelp of Satan. The Jews said that he had acquired the power of miracles\nby learning to pronounce the incommunicable name of God. Modern Infidels\ndeny all his miracles save the greatest--the turning of men from their\nsins. They can not deny that; they can not ascribe it to the power of\nSatan or of magic, for they do not believe in either; but they follow as\nnearly in the footsteps of their fathers as possible, when they tell us\nthat multitudes of men, in every age, and in every land, have been\nturned from falsehood to truth by the belief of a lie, and from vice to\nvirtue by the example of an impostor!\n\n6. But the strongest proof of the truth of the facts of the gospel is\nthe existence, the labors and sufferings of the apostles themselves.\nNobody denies that such men lived, and preached, and were persecuted on\naccount of their preaching that Jesus died and rose again. Now, if this\nwas a falsehood, what motive had they to tell it? It was very\ndispleasing to their rulers who had crucified him, and who had every\ninclination to give them the same treatment. To preach another king, one\nJesus, to the Romans, was to bring down the power of the empire upon\nthem. Nothing could be more absurd in the eyes of the Grecian\nphilosophers than to speak of the resurrection of the body. Nor could\nany plan be devised more certain to arouse the fury of the pagan\npriesthood, than to denounce the craft by which they had their wealth,\nand to preach that they are no gods which are made by hands. The most\ndegraded wretch, who perishes by the hand of the hangman is not so\ncontemptible in our eyes, as the crucified malefactor was in the eyes of\nthe Roman people; nor could anything more disagreeable to the Jewish\nnation be invented than the declaration, that the Gentiles should become\npartakers of the kingdom of God. What then should induce any man in his\nsenses to provoke such an opposition to a new religion, and to make it\nso contemptible and disagreeable to those whom he sought to convert, if\nhe were manufacturing a lie to gain power and popularity?\n\nThe religion they preached was not adapted to please sensual men, nor to\nallow its preachers in sensual gratifications. \"Our exhortation,\" says\nPaul--and every reader of the New Testament knows that he says\ntruth--\"Our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor of\nguile.\" Infidels admit that they preached a pure morality. But it is a\nlong time since men learned the proverb, \"Physician, heal thyself.\"\n\"Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that\nsayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou\nthat abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?\" It could not, then,\nbe to obtain license for lust that these men preached holiness.\n\nThere is only one other conceivable motive which should induce men to\nconfederate together for the propagation of falsehood--the design of\nmaking money by it. But their new religion made no provision for any\nsuch thing. One of their first acts was to desire the church to elect\ndeacons who might manage its money matters, and allow them to give\nthemselves wholly to prayer and to the ministry of the word. Twenty-five\nyears after that they could appeal to the world that \"Even to this\npresent hour, we\" (the Apostles) \"both hunger and thirst, and are naked,\nand are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place, and labor working\nwith our hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:\nwe are counted as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all\nthings to this day.\" Their book opens with the story of their Master's\nbirth in a stable, with the manger for his cradle, and one of its last\npictures is that of his venerable apostle chained in a dungeon, and\nbegging his friend to bring his old cloak from Troas, and to do his\ndiligence to come before winter.\n\nUnpopular, pure, and penniless, if the gospel story were not true, how\ncould it have had preachers? They at least believed it.\n\nThe last and most convincing testimony which any man can give to the\ntruth of a statement of fact is to suffer rather than deny it. Many have\nwondered why God allowed his dear servants to suffer so much persecution\nin the first ages of the Church. One principal reason was to give future\nages an irresistible proof of the sincerity and faithfulness of the\nwitnesses for Christ. The apostles lived lives of persecution and\nsuffering for the name of Jesus; sufferings which they might have\navoided if they had only abstained from preaching any more in this name.\nBut, said they, \"We can not but speak of the things which we have seen\nand heard.\" One who had no personal acquaintance with Jesus, and whose\nfirst interview with him was while he was breathing out threatening and\nslaughter against the disciples of the Lord, is converted and called to\nbe an apostle; and behold the prospect Jesus presents to him, \"I will\nshow him _how great things he must suffer for my name_.\" \"The Holy Ghost\ntestifieth,\" says Paul, \"that in every city bonds and afflictions abide\nme. Yet none of these things move me.\" That at least was a true\nprophecy. \"Seven times,\" says Clement, \"he was in bonds, he was whipt,\nhe was stoned; he preached both in the East and West, leaving behind him\nthe glorious report of his faith, and so having taught the whole world\nrighteousness, and for that end traveled even to the utmost bounds of\nthe West, he at last suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors,\nand went to his holy place, having become a most eminent pattern of\npatience to all ages.\"[80] Hear his own appeal to those who envied his\nauthority in the church, \"Are they ministers of Christ, I am more: in\nlabors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more\nfrequent, in deaths often. Of the Jews five times received I forty\nstripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned,\nthrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep:\nin journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in\nperils by my own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the\ncity, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among\nfalse brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in\nhunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness.\"--1 Corinthians ii. 23.\n\nMan can give no higher proof of his veracity, than a life such as this,\nunless it is to seal it with his blood; and this crowning testimony to\nthe truth the apostles gave. Save the aged disciple, who, after torments\nworse than death, survived to address the persecuted church as, \"Your\ncompanion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus\nChrist,\" they all suffered martyrdom for the truth of the gospel\nhistory.\n\nLet me again remind you that the gospel is not a collection of dogmas,\nbut a relation of facts; that these twelve men did not preach the death\nand resurrection of Jesus, because they had read them in a creed, but\nbecause they had seen them with their own eyes; that they lived holy\nlives of toil, and hardship, and poverty, and suffering, in preaching\nthese facts to the world; and that they died painful and shameful deaths\nas martyrs for their truth. You admit these things. Then I demand of\nyou, \"What more could either God or man do to convince you of their\ntruthfulness?\"\n\nThe faithful and true witness himself has given you this last,\nundeniable test of veracity. With the certainty of an ignominious death\nbefore him, he solemnly swears to the truth of this fact, and dies for\nit. \"And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by\nthe living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of\nGod? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said. Hereafter ye shall see the\nSon of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds\nof heaven.\"\n\nUnbeliever, are you prepared to meet him there, and prove him a perjured\nimpostor?\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[80] Wake's Trans. of Clement, Ep. ad Cor. v.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nPROPHECY.\n\n\n\"In fifty years all Europe will be either Cossack, or Republican.\" So\nprophesied the most sagacious of modern politicians, by the inspiration\nof genius, calculating the prospects of the future by the light of his\npast experience. This prediction of Napoleon's is a very fair specimen\nof the oracles of human sagacity; which always overlooks the most\nstupendous facts--such as the conversion of an empire--and the commonest\nexperiences--such as the birth of a brace of conflicting twins from the\nwomb of the Rachel of revolution, when history happens to predict the\nfailure of the self-elected conquering savior. Man learns to believe\nwhatever he fondly desires, to expect what he believes, and to predict\nwhat he expects. His predictions are the mirrors which photograph his\nown moods of mind, rather than views through a telescope directed to the\ndistant cloud-capped mountains of futurity.\n\nBut it is confidently asserted that the science of party politics is\nsimply the exercise of the gift of prophetic vision on the theater of\ncivil life; and that a sagacious politician is, within his own sphere, a\nprophet. He applies the conditions of the past, so far as he knows them,\nto the calculation of the future. His success proves his sagacity, not\nhis supernatural inspiration. Why should religious predictions be\nattributed to a different power?\n\nFor the very simple and satisfactory reason, that the great majority of\nthe calculations of party politicians are failures, while the\npredictions of the Bible are verified by the event. Name a dozen leaders\nof American politics during the last half century, and you name half a\nscore of disappointed presidential candidates, whose unfinished\nmonuments prevent the kindly green sward of oblivion from vailing their\ndisappointments, and check the prayer of the passing pilgrim that they\nmay rest in peace; while of the last half dozen who have occupied the\npresidential chair, and guided the destinies of the most progressive\nhalf of the world, not a single man had been suggested by the political\nleaders even ten years before his election. No wonder politicians become\nshy of prediction.\n\nBut it is alleged, that while on a field so contracted as to become the\narena of mere personal partialities it is confessedly difficult to\npredict the future, on the wider field of the world's great interests,\nthe well-known uniformity of human passions and interests render their\nresults calculable to the sagacious statesman.\n\nThus Draper argues, that nations, like the individuals composing them,\nhave fixed periods of growth, manhood, decay, decrepitude, and\ndeath--more or less rapid, according to the stock and situation. Those\nwho accept that dogma argue that all that is necessary in order to\npredict the fate of a nation is a correct calculation of its present\nage; whether of childhood, manhood, or senility.\n\nIt is wonderful how rashly men will risk their reputation for common\nsense on the sound of a plausible analogy, which, even were it valid,\nwould not justify the inference drawn from it. For, suppose that there\nwere as fixed laws of national as of individual life, can any man\npredict the period of the life of any individual, much less his destiny?\nMay not the life of the nation be as liable to accidents and diseases as\nthat of the individual?\n\nBut the claim has been actually made, that the skillful statesman, or\nphilosophic observer, is able to foresee, and foretell, even such\naccidents. Dean Stanley quotes Mill as suggesting an ordinary sign of\nstatesmanship in modern times: \"To have made predictions often verified\nby the event, seldom or never falsified by it.\"\n\nOthers give a still wider range to prophetic inspiration. They tell us\nthat all genius is prophetic, inasmuch as it grasps general laws,\nuniversal in their range, and unvariable in their operation, the\napplication of which to particular events constitutes prediction. The\nHebrew prophets were sagacious observers of human nature, and made very\nshrewd calculations of the future progress of events by a careful\ninduction of the invariable laws of nature from the history of the past.\nBut there was nothing supernatural in that. Every poet, philosopher, and\nstatesman is more or less of a prophet. Indeed foresight, like insight,\nis common to all men: a superior degree of this common possession\nconstitutes the prophet. Men of profound insight, or of extensive\nforesight, are equally rare in all departments of science. Ignorance\nascribes to supernatural inspiration the sagacity derived from extensive\nobservation of nature and history; while philosophy traces to the same\nsource the inspiration of Moses and Mohammed, of Isaiah and Apollo, of\nthe Principia, Paradise Lost, and the Apocalypse, of Rothschild,\nNapoleon, and Bismarck. Some geniuses expend themselves in poems, some\nin paintings, others in predictions. All are alike imperfect and\nfallible. Once in centuries, perhaps, we are astonished by the advent of\na master, while occasional less perfect attempts and shrewd guesses keep\nthe fires of ambition alive in the human breast.\n\nBut if this were a correct account of the case we should have our best\nprophets as the result of our widest observations of nature and history;\nthe best should come last. The prophets of this nineteenth century\nshould be far ahead of Moses in prophetic foresight, standing as they do\non the summit of the observatory built by the experience of forty\ncenturies. Whereas, as a matter of fact, the world knows nothing about\nthese modern prophets, or their predictions. The instances alleged by\nRationalists are contemptibly trivial when compared with the Bible\npredictions. Contrast, for instance, Cayotte's alleged prediction, that\nthe fate of Charles would befall Louis XVI., and that the rabble would\nfill Paris with anarchy--with Daniel's grand historic outline of the\nfour great empires; or with our Savior's detailed prediction of the\nsiege of Jerusalem. Cayotte's guess commanded no respect, even while the\ncoming event cast its shadow before it; nor did he profess to utter it\nin the name of the Great Disposer of all events as the seal and\nauthentication of a revelation of moral duty to man; and so it was of no\nvalue to those threatened by the calamity. But our Lord's predictions\nwere so authoritative in their tone, and so definite in their details,\nthat they enabled his disciples to escape the impending destruction at\nthat time; and their fulfillment has furnished a decisive proof of his\ndivine foresight to all generations.\n\nWe are told by men who could not read one of Apollo's oracles to save\ntheir lives, nor recite one of Isaiah's prophecies to save their souls,\nthat Apollo's oracles, no less than Isaiah's, were inspired. Could such\npersons be prevailed upon to read carefully any single prophetic book of\nScripture, with the historic facts to which it refers, or even the\nbriefest abridgment of these facts, such as that contained in The\nComprehensive Commentary, they would not thus expose their ignorance\nalike of heathen and Christian oracles.\n\nThe differences between them are too numerous to be easily enumerated.\nThe oracles of the heathen are always sources of gain to their prophets.\nThe ancient Pythoness must have a hecatomb, the writing medium a dollar,\nand the modern Pythoness of the platform a dime. But under the\ninspiration of God even a Balaam becomes honest, and the leprosy of\nNaaman marks the sordid Gehazi and his seed forever.\n\nThe oracles of the heathen are always immoral in their tendency. From\nthe first spiritual communication through the serpent medium in the tree\nof knowledge, down to the last spiritual marriage rapped out by the\noracle, they are all in favor of pride, ambition, lying, lust, and\nmurder. The oracles of God begin with a prohibition of curiosity, pride,\ncovetousness, and theft: \"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt\nsurely die.\" And they are uniformly of the same tenor, forbidding,\nreproving, threatening vice, and encouraging virtue, down to the last:\n\"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to\nthe tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city; for\nwithout are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and\nidolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.\"\n\nThis last mark--falsehood--belongs to all heathen oracles, from the\nfirst utterance by the serpent, down to the last response rapped out by\nthe medium. Take any one heathen oracle of which we have any definite\naccount--and the number is very small--and you will find that, if it is\nnot \"as equivocal as Apollo,\" _it is false_.\n\nFor instance, Dean Stanley very confidently refers to certain heathen\noracles, \"the fulfillment of which, according to Cicero, could not be\ndenied without a perversion of all history. Such was the foreshadowing\nof the twelve centuries of Roman dominion, by the legend of the\napparition of the twelve vultures to Romulus, which was so understood\n400 years before its accomplishment.\" Comparing the prophetic\npredictions with such fables, he says: \"_It is not that they are more\nexact in particulars of time and place_; none can be more so than that\nof the twelve centuries of the Roman Empire.\"[81]\n\nThe oracle thus exalted to a level with the predictions of our Lord and\nhis apostles is quoted by Censorinus,[82] A. D. 238, from Varro, who\ndied B. C. 28. Varro stated that he had heard Vettius, no common augur,\nof great genius in disputing, a match with any of the most learned, say,\n\"If it was so, as the historians related, as to the auguries of the\nfounding of the city of Romulus and the twelve vultures, since the Roman\npeople had passed 120 years safe, it would reach 1,200.\"\n\nDean Stanley misquotes the oracle, and does injustice to the old heathen\nprophet. He spake no word whatever about _dominion_; all he dared\nconjecture for his city was _safety_. Even that is put in a highly\nhypothetical mood. The augury begins with an \"if,\" regarding the\napocryphal story of Romulus and the twelve vultures. But whether the\nfable of the vultures be true or not, the augury of twelve centuries of\nsafety deduced from it is undeniably false, whether it refers to the\nmaterial city, or to the political constitution then established. The\ncity then built was burnt by Brennus, the Gaul. Its successor was taken\nand plundered by Alaric, in A. D. 410; again by Genseric, and the\nVandals, in 455; and again by the Ostrogoths, in 546. Thus the material\ncity was repeatedly taken and destroyed during the twelve centuries\nsucceeding its founding. If the augury referred to the duration of the\npolitical constitution then instituted, every school-boy knows that half\na dozen revolutions falsified the prediction. If, however, it be alleged\nthat it referred to the ultimate fate of the city of Rome, that it\nshould cease to exist after twelve centuries, it is self-evidently\nfalse; for now, after the lapse of twenty-six centuries, Rome is larger,\nits people more numerous, and its territory wider than it was for\ncenturies after Romulus saw the twelve vultures. Thus God \"frustrateth\nthe tokens of the liars.\" Yet men who have read Roman history, and\nwhose business it is to read their Bibles, continue to cite Vettius\nValens as a prophet, and to compare his false auguries with the\npredictions of the Scriptures of truth!\n\nThis is only one of a number of such secular predictions confidently\ncited by the learned Dean as having been as minute and specific as those\nof Scripture, and undeniably fulfilled. But a scholar of his own church\nhas examined his references and alleged facts, and the result is, that\nnot a single instance remains of the fulfillment of any definite\nprediction given by the original writers; and where the transcriber and\nthe Dean have helped them out to a more definite prediction, it has\nproved a false prophecy, as in the case of Sterling's and Spence's\nprediction of the year of the disruption of the Union of the United\nStates. Dr. Pusey summarizes this discussion in his work on Daniel (p.\n637), from which we extract and condense the following paragraphs on\nthis subject:\n\n\"Dean Stanley produces a certain number of alleged predictions in\nsecular history, as counterparts of the predictions of _the political\nevents_ of their own, and the surrounding nations,\" in the Hebrew\nprophets, _i. e._ (in religious language), \"of God's judgments upon both\nfor their sins against himself and their fellow-men.\" He says, \"Every\none knows instances, both in ancient and modern times, of predictions\nwhich have been uttered, and fulfilled, in regard to events of this\nkind. Sometimes such predictions have been the results of political\nforesight. Many instances will occur to students of history. Even within\nour own memory the great catastrophe of the disruption of the United\nStates of America _was foretold, even with the exact date, several years\nbeforehand_. Sometimes there has been an anticipation of some future\nepoch in the pregnant sayings of eminent philosophers and poets; as for\nexample the intimation of the discovery of America by Seneca; or of\nShakespeare by Plato; or the Reformation by Dante. Sometimes the result\nhas been produced by the power of divination, granted in some\ninexplicable manner to ordinary men. Of such a kind were many of the\nancient oracles, the fulfillment of which, according to Cicero, could\nnot be denied without a perversion of history. Such was the\nforeshadowing of the twelve centuries of Roman dominion by the legend of\nthe apparition of the twelve vultures to Romulus, which was so\nunderstood 400 years before its actual accomplishment. Such, but with\nless certainty, was the traditional prediction of the conquest of\nConstantinople by the Mussulmans; the alleged predictions by Archbishop\nMalachi, whether composed in the eleventh or sixteenth centuries, of the\nseries of popes down to the present time; not to speak of the well-known\ninstances which are recorded both in French and English history. But\nthere are several points which at once place the prophetic predictions\non a different level from any of these. _It is not that they are more\nexact in particulars of time and place_; none can be more so than that\nof the twelve centuries of the Roman Empire; and our Lord himself has\nexcluded the precise knowledge of times and seasons from the widest and\nhighest range of prophetic vision.\" (Jewish Church, 463. The Bible: its\nForm and Substance, pages 80, 82.)\n\n\"It might safely be admitted,\" says Dr. Pusey, \"that the outward\npredictions of time and place are of the body, rather than of the soul\nof prophecy, yet as indications that he revealed himself, who alone\ncould know long before what he willed to bring to pass by his\nProvidence, the predictions of the Hebrew prophets are not to be\nparalleled by any human history.\n\n\"Definite predictions of the Hebrew prophets have been instanced above.\nDr. Stanley's instances of secular fulfillment are unhappy.\" He then\nproceeds to examine in their turn the political, poetic, Popish,\nMohammedan, and heathen oracles quoted by Dean Stanley.\n\n\n_I. The Political Predictions._\n\nSterling, as quoted by Mr. Spence, so far from predicting the great\ncatastrophe of the disruption of the United States _at the end_ of the\nfour years, says that no wise man would predict anything even within\nthose four years. \"It appears to me that amid so many elements of\nuncertainty as to the future, both from the excited state of men's minds\nin the States themselves, and the complication of surrounding\ncircumstances, no wise man would venture to foretell the probable issue\nof American affairs during the next four years.\" (On the American Union,\npage 14.) And this was written amid all the heavings which preceded the\nbursting of the volcano. It followed, after statesmen had, one after\nanother, seen the elements of that disruption. The probability of the\nseverance of the North and South has been a speculation to which the\nolder of us have long been familiar. And now [1864] who would venture to\npredict the time of the close of that sad war? (First edition.) Now\n[1865] that it has come to an end Americans taunt Europeans with their\nwant of foresight in their anticipations as to its issue. The _Times_\ncorrespondent retorts as to false anticipations of Americans--(1) that\nthe issue would not interfere with slavery; (2) that there would be\nseparation without bloodshed; (3) that the war would last only some\nninety days; (4) that the United States would break up into fragments\n(Northern); (5) they contemplated that the interests of trade would\nsuffice for the harmony of North and South when separated, etc., etc.\nJune 6, 1865. Europeans almost universally anticipated the success of\nthe South. So little did the human sagacity of men really sagacious,\nwith intimate knowledge of the strength of the different parties, their\nnumbers, resources, and all the calculations as to modern warfare,\nenable them to anticipate within half a year the result of a war, which,\nthrough the vivid description of it, and clear knowledge, was carried\non almost under their eyes. And these men would have us to suppose that\nHebrew prophets, living in the center of a small people, could, with\nmere human knowledge, foretell with absolute certainty the overthrow of\nflourishing empires, when at the acme of their power!\n\n\n_II. The So-called Prophecies of S. Malachi._\n\nThese have long been recognized to be a forgery, unmeaning except for\nthe immediate purpose for which they were \"forged by the partisans of\nthe Cardinal Simoncelli, one of the candidates for the tiara, who was\ndesignated by the words 'de antiquitate orbis,' because he was of\nOrvieto, in Latin, 'orbs vetus.'\" (Biog. Unv'l v. Wion.) Menestrier\npublished a refutation of the pretended prophecies of S. Malachi, Paris,\n1689, written with much solidity. Don Feijoo also refuted these\npretended prophecies in his _Teatro Critico_. The Noveau Dictionnaire\nHistorique, by MM. Chaudon and Delaudine, speaks of the \"errors and\nanachronisms with which this impertinent list swarms.\" \"The\nforgetfulness of common sense makes itself felt in a few pages. Those\nwho have set themselves to explain these too noted insipidities, always\nfind some allusion, forced or probable, in the country, name, arms,\nbirth, talents of the popes, the cardinalatory dignities they had borne,\netc.; _e. g._, the prophecy which related to Urban the Eighth was,\n_Lilium et Rosae_.\" It was fulfilled to the very letter, say these absurd\ninterpreters, for that pope had in his coat of arms bees, which suck\nlilies and roses. (Art. Malachi and Wion.)\n\n\nIII. Dr. Pusey proceeds to examine the process by which a prediction of\n_the conquest of Constantinople_ has been manufactured for the false\nprophet, Mohammed.\n\n\"In the mosque of Sultan Mohammed the Second,\" says V. Hammer, \"which\nwas finished A. D. 1469, there stands, to the right of the main door, on\na marble slab, on an azure field, in gold raised characters, the\ntradition of the prophet relating to Constantinople. 'They _will\nconquer_ Constantinople; and blessed the prince, blessed the army which\nshall fulfill this.'\" (Constant v. d. Bosporos I. 393.) Or (as he\nrenders more exactly in Gesch d. Osm. Reich, p. 523), \"the best prince\nis he who conquers it, and the best army, his army.\" This tradition,\nbeing above eight centuries after Mohammed, has, of course, no value. It\nreappears in a different form in Ockley, the conquest being presupposed,\nrather than prophesied. Ockley says (History of Saracens, II. 128),\n\"Mohammed having said, 'The sins of the first army which takes the city\nof the Caesar are forgiven.'\" Ockley referring only vaguely to Bokhari,\nwho, early in the third century, after Mohammed selected 7,000\ntraditions which he held to be genuine, out of some 267,000, I applied\nto my friend, M. Reinaud, professor of Arabic at Paris, and member of\nthe Institute, not doubting that with his large knowledge he would be\nable to point out to me the passage in the _Sahih_. This, with his\nwell-known kindness, he has done, amid his many labors. It puts an end\nto all questions about prophecy. The passage is this: As Omm Heram has\nrelated to us that she heard the prophet say, \"The first army of my\npeople which shall war by sea will acquire merits with God, Omm Heram\nsaid, 'I said, O Apostle of God, I will be among them.' He said, 'Thou\nshalt be among them.' Then the prophet said, 'The first army of my\npeople which shall attack the city of the Caesar, their sins shall be\nforgiven them.' Then I said, 'I will be with them, O Apostle of God.' He\nsaid, 'No!'\" M. Reinaud adds, \"There is no question but that Mohammed\nconceived the idea of the invasion of the Roman Empire, and of the\nkingdom of Persia by his disciples. He himself shortly before his death\ntried his strength against the Roman forces in Syria. But the passage\ndoes not say what Ockley makes him say. It does not say that\nConstantinople would be taken.\"\n\nThe other prophecy referred to by Von Hammer is as follows: \"Have you\nheard of a city of which one side is land, the two others sea? They\nsaid, 'Yea, O Apostle of God.' He said, 'The last hour will not come\nwithout its being conquered by 70,000 sons of Isaac. When they come to\nit they will not fight against it with weapons and engines of war, but\nwith the word, There is no god but God, and God is great!' Then will one\nside of the sea walls fall; and at the second time the second; and at\nthe third time the wall on the land side; and they will enter in with\ngladness.\"\n\nThe framer of this prophesy expected the walls of Constantinople to fall\nlike those of Jericho, which he must have had in mind. He expected it to\nfall before Arabs, \"sons of Isaac,\" not before Turks. * * * Yet,\ncontrary to the expectation, and the prophecy, it did fall before the\nTurks, after having been seven times besieged by the Arabs, and four\ntimes by the Turks; by whom it was taken A. D. 1453. The framer of the\nprediction anticipated that the representatives of the followers of the\nprophet would be Arabs to some indefinite period, near the last hour; he\nexpected a miraculous destruction of Constantinople; it was besieged\nseven times by those before whose war-cry he expected it to fall. It did\nnot fall before those before whom he said it would fall; it fell in an\nordinary way, not in that predicted; it was besieged in the way in which\nhe said it would not be besieged; lastly, it fell, but its walls fell\nnot. _Every detail of the prediction is contrary to the fact._ As for\nthe mere capture, it befalls all great cities in turn; so that a\nprediction of the capture of any great city would be the safest of all\nprophecies. But the prediction did not anticipate, what is now certain,\nthat as soon as Christian jealousies permit, before the end of the\nworld, it will be wrested from its captors.\n\n\nIV. The legend of Romulus and the vultures, and the falsehood of the\nprediction based upon it, have been exposed on a previous page.\n\n\nV. In regard to Seneca's alleged prediction of the discovery of America,\nit was exceedingly vague; and was wholly based on the undoubted\nknowledge of its existence by the ancient Egyptians, and by Plato,\nProclus, Marcellus, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Diodorus, Aristotle, and\nPlutarch; whose assertions influenced Columbus to undertake the search\nfor it. Nothing could be more certain than that such a continent would\nbe rediscovered. But in the only indication which Seneca gives us of its\nlocation he erred; for Thule is still the utmost land northward, no new\ncontinent having been discovered, nor remaining to be discovered, toward\nthe North Pole.\n\n\nVI. As to the heathen oracles we have already spoken enough.\n\n\nVII. \"The anticipation of Shakespeare by Plato amounts to this, that he\nmakes Socrates compel his friends to admit, 'that it belongs to the same\nman, how to compose comedy and tragedy, and that he who is by skill a\ncomposer of tragedies is also a composer of comedies.' (Sympos fin.)\n* * * But it is mere confusion to speak of this as _anticipation_. Plato\ndoes not say that there would be any greater combination of the two\ntalents than there had been; he does not even say that the highest\nexcellence in one involved excellence in the other; he simply says that\nthe two faculties belonged to the same mind. According to his maxims, if\ntrue, it would be rather marvelous that they were not more frequently\ncombined than that they were remarkably in one mind.\"\n\n\nVIII. \"Those best read in Dante are at a loss to find in him any trace\nof a prediction of the Reformation. Dante, with his firm faith in all\nRoman doctrine, could not have imagined or anticipated such a disruption\nas Luther's. Dean Stanley corrects an unimportant misprint or two in the\nsecond edition of his book, on the ground of the above statements. He\ndoes not even attempt to supply a passage from Dante. I have looked for\none in vain.\"\n\nYet such a collection of errors, absurdities, falsehoods, and impostures\nis gravely presented, in this nineteenth century, by a learned\nclergyman, as comparable in regard to exact fulfillment with the oracles\nof God.\n\nIt is not intended here to discuss the question of the continuance of\nprophetic powers in the Church. If, as many believe, the promise in Joel\nii. 28--\"It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that your\nsons and your daughters shall prophesy,\" etc.--is a promise not yet\nexhausted, predictions given by the Holy Spirit may have been given\nthrough Christians in former times, and may still be given. But if such\nbe the fact, these are not secular predictions; but spiritual and\nsupernatural, and of the same class with those of Scripture; they are\ntherefore not to be cited by Rationalists as examples of secular\nprediction.\n\nBut it is objected that \"the prophecies of Scripture are as obscure as\nthe oracles; are all wrapped up in symbolical language; that many of\nthem have a double meaning; that no two interpreters are agreed as to\nthe meaning of the unfulfilled predictions; and that no man can\ncertainly foretell any future event by means of them.\"\n\nThe objection proceeds on a total mistake of the nature and design of\nprophecy, which is not to unvail the future for the gratification of\nyour curiosity, but to give you direction in your present duty;\nprecisely the reverse of the oracles referred to, which proposed to tell\ntheir votaries what should happen, but rarely condescended to direct\nthem how to behave themselves so that things might happen well. The\nlarger part of the prophecies of Scripture is taken up with directions\nto men how to regulate their conduct, rather than with information how\nGod means to regulate his. There is just as much of the latter as is\nsufficient to show us that the God who gave the Bible governs the world,\nand even that always urges the same moral lesson: \"Say ye to the\nrighteous that it shall be well with him, for he shall eat the fruit of\nhis doings.\" \"Woe to the wicked; it shall be ill with him, for the\nreward of his hands shall be given him.\" Whenever a vision relates to\nwhat God will do in the distant future, it is dark and mysterious; but\nwhenever any directions are given necessary for our immediate duty, then\nthe \"vision is written and made plain on tables, _that he may run that\nreadeth it_.\" The possessors of a clearly engrossed title-deed have\nsurely no reason to complain that the president has chosen that his seal\nappended to it shall consist of a device, which, by reason of its being\nhard to read, and harder to imitate, secures both himself and them\nagainst forgery. The double meaning of some prophecies is a double\ncheck. So far from resembling the equivocations of heathen oracles, by\ntaking either of two opposite events for a fulfillment, they require\nboth of two corresponding ones; and some prophecies, like a master key,\nopen several successive events, and thus show that the same mind planned\nboth locks and key. When the prediction is fulfilled all mystery\nvanishes, and men see plainly that thus it was written; that is to say,\nmen who look; for the man who will not open his eyes will never see\nanything that it concerns him to know. But the man who thinks that it\nconcerns him so much to know what God will do with the world a hundred\nyears after he is dead, that unless the prophecies of the Bible are all\nmade plain to him, he will neither read God's word, nor obey his law,\nmay go on his own way. We expound no mysteries to such persons; for it\nis written, \"None of the wicked shall understand.\"\n\nAs to the objection taken from the symbolical language of prophecy, and\nwhich seems to a number of our modern critics so weighty that they\nremove to the purely mythologic ground everything \"couched in symbolical\nlanguage,\" and account nothing to be prediction unless \"literal history\nwritten in advance\"--I would merely ask, How is it possible to reveal\nheavenly things to earth-born men but by earthly figures? Do you know a\nsingle word in your own, or any other language to express a spiritual\nstate, or mental operation, that is not the name of some material state,\nor physical operation, used symbolically? Heart, soul, spirit, idea,\nmemory, imagination, inclination, etc., every one of them a figure of\nspeech--a symbol. Nay, is there a letter in your own, or in any other\nalphabet, that was not originally a picture of something? I demand to\nknow in what way God or man could teach you to know anything you have\nnever seen, but by either showing you a picture of it, or telling you\nwhat it is like? That is simply by type or symbol; these are the only\npossible media of conveying heavenly truth, or future history to our\nminds. When, therefore, the skeptic insists that prophecy be given\nliterally, in the style of history written in advance, he simply\nrequires that God would make it utterly unintelligible. We can gather\nclear and definite ideas from the significant hieroglyphics of\nsymbolical language, but the literalities of history written in advance\nwould be worse to decipher than the arrow-headed inscriptions of\nNineveh. Just imagine to yourself Alexander the Great reading Guizot,\ninstead of Daniel; or Hildreth, as being less mysterious than Ezekiel;\nand meeting, for instance, such a record as this: \"In the year of\nChrist, 1847, the United States conquered Mexico and annexed\nCalifornia.\" \"In the year of Christ--what new Olympiad may be that?\" he\nwould say. \"The United States of course means the States of the Achaen\nLeague, but on what shore of the Euxine may Mexico and California be\nfound?\" What information could Aristotle gather from the record that,\n\"In 1857, the Transatlantic Telegraph was in operation?\" Could all the\naugurs in the seven-hilled city have expounded to Julius Caesar the\nfamous dispatch, if intercepted in prophetic vision, \"Sebastopol was\nevacuated last night, after enduring for three days an infernal fire of\nshot and shell?\" Nay, to diminish the vista to even two or three\ncenturies, what could Oliver Cromwell, aided by the whole Westminster\nAssembly, have made of a prophetic vision of a single newspaper\nparagraph of history written in advance, to inform them that, \"Three\ncompanies of dragoons came down last night from Berwick to Southampton,\nby a special train, traveling 54-1/2 miles an hour, including stoppages,\nand embarked immediately on arrival. The fleet put to sea at noon, in\nthe face of a full gale from the S. W.?\" Why, the intelligible part of\nthis single paragraph would seem to them more impossible, and the\nunintelligible part more absurd, than all the mysterious symbols of the\nApocalypse.\n\nThe world has accepted God's symbols thousands of years ago, and it is\ntoo late in the day for our reformers to propose new laws of thought,\nand forms of speech, to the human race. David's prophetic lyrics,\nChrist's graphic parables, Isaiah's celestial anthems, Ezekiel's\nglorious symbols, and Solomon's terse proverbs, will be recited and\nadmired, ages after the foggy abstractions of mystified metaphysicians\nhave vanished from the earth. The Thirst of Passion, the Cup of\nPleasure, the Fountain of the Water of Life, the Blood of Murder, the\nRod of Chastisement, the Iron Scepter, the Fire of Wrath, the Balance of\nRighteousness, the Sword of Justice, the Wheels of Providence, the\nConservative Mountains, the Raging Seas of Anarchy, and the Golden,\nBrazen, and Iron Ages, will reflect their images in truth's mirror, and\nphotograph their lessons on memory's tablet, while the mists of the\n\"positive philosophy,\" \"the absolute,\" and \"the conditioned,\" float past\nunheeded, to the land of forgetfulness. God's prophetic symbols are the\nglorious embodiments of living truths, while man's philosophic\nabstractions are the melancholy ghosts of expiring nonsense.\n\nThe prophetic symbols are sufficiently plain to be distinctly\nintelligible _after_ the fulfillment, as we shall presently see;\nsufficiently obscure to baffle presumptuous curiosity before it. Had\nthey been so written as to be fully intelligible beforehand, they must\nhave interfered with man's free agency, by causing their own\nfulfillment. They hide the future sufficiently to make man feel his\nignorance; they reveal enough to encourage faith in the God who rules\nfuturity.\n\nThe revelation of future events, however, is not the principal design of\nthe prophecies of the Bible; they bear witness to God's powerful present\ninfluence over the world now. For God's prophecy is not merely his\nforetelling something which will certainly happen at some future time,\nbut over which he has no control--as an astronomer foretells an eclipse\nof the sun, but can neither hasten nor hinder it--but it is his\nrevealing of a part of his plan of this world's affairs, to show that\nGod, and not man, is the sovereign of this world. For this purpose he\ntells beforehand the actions which wicked men, of their own free will,\nwill commit, contrary to his law, and the measures he will take to\nthwart their designs, and fulfill his own. Nay, he declares he will so\nmanage matters that, without their knowledge, and even contrary to their\nintentions, heathen armies, and infidel scoffers shall serve his\npurposes, and show his power; while yet they are as perfectly voluntary\nin all their movements as if they, and not God, governed the world.\nEvery fulfilled prophecy thus becomes an instance and evidence of a\nsupernatural government; and is, to a thinking mind, a greater miracle\nthan casting mountains into the sea. The style of prophecy corresponds\nto this design. It is not by any means apologetic, or supplicating;\nbut, on the contrary, majestic, convincing, and terrifying to the\nungodly.\n\n     \"_Remember this and show yourselves men.\n     Bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.\n     For I am God, and there is none else.\n     I am God, and there is none like me.\n     Declaring the end from the beginning,\n     And from, ancient times the things that are not yet done,\n     Saying_, 'MY COUNSEL SHALL STAND, AND I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE.'\"[83]\n\nInfidels feel the power of this manifestation of God in his word; and\nare driven to every possible denial of the fact, and evasion of the\nargument drawn from it. They feel instinctively that Bible prophecies\nare far more than mere predictions. They would rather endow every human\nbeing on earth with the power of predicting the future than allow the\nGod of heaven that power of ruling the present which these prophecies\nassert. Hence the attempt to admit their predictive truth, and yet deny\ntheir divine authority, by ascribing them to human sagacity.\n\nTransatlantic steam navigation has produced a remarkable change in the\ntone of Infidel writers and speakers in regard to the prophecies of the\nBible. You could not converse long with an Infidel on this subject, a\nfew years ago, until he would assure you, with all confidence, that the\nprophecies were all written after their fulfillment, and so were not\nprophecies at all. But now that travelers of all classes, scoffers,\nsailors, and doctors in divinity, scientific expeditions, and\ncorrespondents of daily papers, have flooded the world with undeniable\nattestations that many of them are receiving their fulfillment at this\nday, none but the most grossly ignorant and stupid attempt to deny that\nthe prophecies of the Bible were written thousands of years since, and\nthat many of them have since been accomplished; and that so many have\nbeen fulfilled that their accomplishment can not be ascribed to chance.\nBut the force of the argument for the divine inspiration of the prophets\nis met by the assertion, that there is nothing supernatural in prophecy,\nand that it is only one form of the inspiration of genius applying the\ngeneral laws of nature.\n\nCalculating securely on that profound ignorance of the Bible which\ncharacterizes their followers, modern writers inform them that \"none of\nthe prophets ever uttered any distinct, definite, unambiguous prediction\nof any future event which has since taken place, which a man without a\nmiracle could not equally well predict.\" It is alleged that the\nprophecies, in predicting the overthrow of the nations of antiquity,\npredicted nothing beyond the ken of human sagacity, enlightened by a\ncareful study of the experience of the past, and the invariable laws of\nnature; that it requires no inspiration to foretell the decay of\nperishing things; that the invariable progress of all things, empires as\nwell as individuals, is first upward, through a period of youthful vigor\nand energy, then onward through a period of ripe maturity, and then\ndownward, through a gradual decay, and final dissolution, to the\ninevitable grave. The world's history is but a history of the decline\nand fall of nations.\n\n1. Now, if this be true, it is an awful truth for the Infidel, for _it\nsweeps away the last vestige of a foundation of his hope for eternity_.\nThe only reason any unbeliever in Revelation could ever give, or that\nmodern Rationalists do give, for their hope of a happy eternity, is the\nanalogy of nature--the alleged constant progress of all things toward\nperfection in this world. It is an awkward truth that individually we\nmust die, and the worms crawl over us; but then the wretched fate of the\nindividual was to be compensated by the glorious progress of the race\nonward and ever onward and upward; from the fungus to the frog, and from\nthe frog to the monkey, from the monkey to the man, from the noble\nsavage wild in woods, to the pastoral tribe, thence to the empire and\nthe federal republic, and finally to the reign of individual and\npassional attraction, and union with the sum of all the intelligences of\nthe universe, through a constant progress toward infinite perfection.\n\nBut, alas! it seems it was a false analogy, an ill-observed fact, a\ndelusion; the course of nature is all the other way. The tendency of all\nperishing things is not to perfection, but to perdition; and it needs no\ninspiration to tell that man's loftiest towers, and strongest cities,\nand proudest empires will come to ruin; or that the most polished,\npowerful, and populous nations of antiquity will dwindle down into\nTurks, Moors, and Egyptians. Here is a fact of awful omen. Death reigns\nin this world of ours; death moral, social, political, and physical, has\never trampled upon man, proud man, learned man, civilized man, over all\nthe plans of man, over every man, and over every association of men,\neven the largest, the widest, the mightiest. And now the Infidel, having\ntaken away our hope of help from heaven, comes with the serpent's hiss,\nand fiendish sneer, to taunt the perishing world with this miserable\ntruism--that the tendency of everything on earth is to perdition, and\nthat it needs no inspiration to tell it. Truly it does not. Were that\nall the prophets of God had to tell us--as it is all the prophets of\nInfidelity can prophecy--we had as little need for the one as for the\nother. Earthquake and hurricane, volcano and valley flood, autumn frosts\nand winter blasts, fever, consumption, war, and pestilence, the\ngrave-yard and the charnel-house, the Parthenon and the Pyramids, the\nsilent cities of Colorado, and the buried palaces of Assyria, unite to\nattest this awful doom.\n\nBut what reason has the skeptic to believe that this invariable law of\nnature shall ever be repealed, and this inevitable progress of all\nthings to perdition be arrested? Why may not men be as selfish, and\nfilthy, and grasping, and murderous in the other world, as they are in\nthis? Why may not the course of nature be as fatal to the sinner's\nprosperity there as it is here? Why may not the progress of the proud\nempires and spheres of futurity be such as the skeptic declares the\nprogress of the past to have been, so invariably toward dissolution and\ndeath, that it shall need no inspiration to predict its course downward,\ndownward, ever downward, to endless perdition? Stand forward, skeptic,\nand point the world to an instance in which an ungodly nation has\nstemmed this all-destroying torrent of ruin; or acknowledge that all you\ncan promise the nations of the world to come, from your experience of\nthe invariable laws of nature, is _perdition, endless perdition_.\n\n2. It is manifest, however, that this destruction of nations and\ndesolation of empires must have had a beginning some time or other.\nNations could not perish before they had grown, nor empires be destroyed\ntill they had accumulated; and during all this period of their growth\nand vigor the experience of mankind would never lead them to predict\ntheir ruin. The sagacious observer, beholding Babylon, Nineveh,\nDamascus, and Tyre, growing and flourishing during a period of a\nthousand years past, could have had no reason from such an experience to\nexpect anything else than a thousand years of prosperity to come.\nEspecially impossible is it for human sagacity, enlightened by\nexperience, to predict _unexampled_ desolations, destructions such as\nthe world had never witnessed.\n\n_Now the predictions of the Bible are predictions of unexampled\ndesolations, and unparalleled ruin of empires._ The desolation of any\nextensive region of the earth, or the overthrow of any great nation, was\nan event absolutely unknown to the world when the prophets of the Bible\nbegan to utter their predictions; unless the skeptic will allow the\ntruth of the Bible record of the prediction and execution of the\ndeluge, and the destruction of Sodom. War and conquest had indeed caused\nsome provinces to change masters; one nation had made marauding\ninvasions on others, and carried off cattle and slaves; but the result\nof the greatest military operation of which we have any record, at the\ncommencement of the prophetic era--the conquest of Palestine by the\nIsraelites--so far from desolating the region, or exterminating the\npeople, had been merely to increase its productiveness, and to drive its\nformer occupants to new settlements, where at that era they were fully\nable to cope with their former conquerors. Whatever the experience of\nthirty centuries may have since taught the nations concerning the\ncertainty of the connection between national crime and national ruin, a\nlong-suffering God had not then given any such signal examples of it, as\nthose of which he gave warning by the prophets.\n\nThe course of the nations and cities founded after the deluge had been\nregularly onward and prosperous, and they were just rising to the\nmaturity of their power and splendor when Jonah, Micah, Hosea, and\nIsaiah, began to pronounce their sentences. They denounced desolation\nand solitude against nations more populous than this continent, one of\nwhose cities enumerated more citizens than some of our proud\ncommonwealths, and displayed buildings, a sight of whose crumbling ruins\nis deemed sufficient recompense for the perils of a journey of six\nthousand miles. The hundred churches of Cincinnati could all have been\nconveniently arranged in the basement of the temple of Belus; on the\nfirst floor our hundred thousand non-church-going citizens might have\nassembled to listen to a lecture on spiritualism from some eloquent\nChaldean soothsayer; and the remaining seven stories would have still\nbeen open for the accommodation of the natives of the original Queen\nCity. Every product of earth was trafficked in the markets of Tyre; a\nsingle Jewish house imported annually more gold than all the banks of\nthis continent possess; and the whole coinage of the United States since\n1793 would want a hundred millions of dollars of the value of the golden\nfurniture of a single temple in Babylon. In fact, in the suburbs of\nBabylon or Nineveh, Washington or Cincinnati would have been\ninsignificant villages; and the stone-fronted brick palaces of Broadway\nand the Fifth Avenue would make passable stables and haylofts for the\nmansions of Thebes or Petra.\n\nSo far, therefore, from being the teaching of experience, there was\nnothing more utterly unexampled and unparalleled than the complete\ndesolation of any nation at the time the prophets of Israel predicted\nsuch things. If the world has grown wiser since regarding the decline\nand fall of empires, it has gathered the best part of its sagacity from\nthe prophecies.\n\nThe degradation of the seed of Ham, and the colonization of Asia by the\ndescendants of Japhet, were however undeniably predicted by Noah long\nbefore any examples or experiences of such things had occurred.\nCenturies after the degradation of Canaan had been predicted, his\ndescendants were powerful, prosperous, and colonizing the shores of the\nworld. But God foresaw, and compelled their ancestor to foretell, the\ncorruption of the blood which would reduce his descendants to be\nservants of servants to their brethren; and now the ruins of their\ncities, and of the people descended from Canaan, are proverbial alike in\nthe libraries and slave markets of the world.\n\nBut on the other hand, the colonization of the world by the descendants\nof Japhet was as particularly predicted by Noah as the degradation of\nthe Canaanites; and this can not be called a prediction of destruction,\nbut rather of great prosperity: \"God shall enlarge Japhet.\" Every\nemigrant ship which discharges its cargo at New York, and every new\nprairie farm in America, and every sheep ranch in Australia, and every\nnew cattle kraal in South Africa fulfills the prediction: \"He shall\ndwell in the tents of Shem.\" The various Greek, Roman, English, and\nRussian Empires of Asia attest the truth. From the Volga to the Amour,\nand from Hong Kong to Singapore, and from the Ganges to the Indus,\nJaphet to-day dwells in the tents of Shem.\n\n3. The prophecies of the Bible are not vague general denunciations of\nnatural decline and extinction to all the nations of the world, which,\nif they were merely the exposition of a universal _natural_ law of\nnational death, they would be; nor yet the application of any such\nnatural and inevitable law to some particular nation, denouncing its\ndestruction, without any specification of time, manner, instrument, or\ncause of its infliction. They are all the applications of _moral\nlaw_--sentences pronounced on account of national wickedness. In every\ncase the prophecy charges the crimes, and specifies the punishment,\nselected by the Judge of all the earth. The nations selected as examples\nof divine justice are as various as their sentences are different;\ncovering a space as long as from Eastport to San Francisco, and climes\nas various as those between Canada and Cuba; peopled by men of every\nshade of color and degree of capacity, from the negro servant of\nservants, to the builders of the Coliseum, and the Pyramids. They\nminutely describe, in their own expressive symbols, the nations yet\nunfounded, and kings unborn, who should ignorantly execute the judgments\nof the Lord. They predict the futures of over thirty States, _no two of\nwhich are alike_; each prediction embracing a large number of minute\nparticulars, any one of which was utterly beyond the range of human\nsagacity. To predict that a man will die may require no great sagacity;\nbut to tell the year of his death, that he will die as a criminal,\nallege the crime for which he will be sentenced, the time, place, and\nmanner of his execution, and the name of the sheriff who will execute\nthe sentence, is plainly beyond the skill of man. Such is the character\nof Bible predictions. Zedekiah's sentence was thus pronounced; and thus,\ntoo, the sentences of nations doomed to ruin for their crimes are\nrecorded in the Bible, that men may know that the mouth of the Lord hath\nspoken them. If, for instance, a prophet should declare that New York\nshould be overturned, and become a little fishing village, and that her\nstones and timber, and her very dust, should be scraped off and thrown\ninto the East River; that Philadelphia should become a swamp, and never\nbe inhabited, from generation to generation; that Columbus should be\ndeserted, and become a hog-pen; that Louisville should become a dry,\nbarren desert; and New Orleans be utterly consumed with fire, and never\nbe built again; that learning should depart from Boston, and no\ntravelers ever pass through it any more; that New England should become\nthe basest of the nations, and no native American ever be President of\nthe Union, but that it should be a spoil and a prey to the most savage\ntribes; and that the Russians should tread Washington under foot for a\nthousand years; but that God would preserve Pittsburg in the midst of\ndestruction--and if all these things should come to pass, would any man\ndare to deny that the prophet spake not the dictates of human sagacity,\nor the calculations of genius, but the words of God?\n\nTo attempt to illustrate the divine wisdom displayed in a system of\nconnected predictions, covering the destiny of the nations of the world,\nand extending from the dawn of history to the end of time, by presenting\ntwo or three instances of the fulfillment of specific predictions, would\nbe something like exhibiting a fragment of a column as a monument of the\nskill of the architect of a temple; yet, as such a fragment may excite\nthe curiosity of the traveler to visit the structure whence it was\ntaken, I shall present two or three prophecies in which specific\npredictions are given, concerning the _geographical, political, social,\nand religious condition_ of three of the great nations of\nantiquity--_Egypt, Judea, and Babylon_--the fulfillment of which is\nspread over the surface of empires and the ruins of cities, patent to\nall travelers at the present hour, and abundantly attested in many\nvolumes.[84]\n\nCould human sagacity have calculated that Egypt--the most defensible\ncountry in the world, bounded on the south by inaccessible mountains, on\nthe east by the Red Sea, on the west by the trackless, burning desert;\nable to defend the mouths of her river with a powerful navy, and to\ndrown an invading army every year by the inundation of the Nile; which\nhad not only maintained her independence, but extended her conquests for\na thousand years past, whose victorious king, Apries, had just sent an\nexpedition against Cyprus, besieged and taken Gaza and Sidon, vanquished\nthe Tyrians by sea, mastered Phoenicia and Palestine, and boasted that\nnot even a god could deprive him of his possessions--Egypt, which had\ngiven arts, sciences, and idolatry to half the world, and which had not\nrisen to the full height of its world-wide fame, or the extent of its\ninfluence for twenty-five years after the prediction[85]--that Egypt\nshould be invaded, conquered, spoiled, become a prey to strangers and\nevermore to strangers, never have a native prince, sink into barbarism,\nrenounce idolatry, and become famous for her desolations? Yet the Bible\npredictions are specific on all these matters: \"_I will make the rivers\ndry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the\nland waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the\nLord have spoken it. Thus saith the Lord God; I will also destroy the\nidols, and I will cause the images to cease out of Noph; and there shall\nbe no more a prince of the land of Egypt._\"[86]\n\nLet Infidels read the fulfillment of these predictions, as described by\nInfidels: \"Such is the state of Egypt. Deprived twenty-three centuries\nago of her natural proprietors, she has seen her fertile fields\nsuccessively a prey to the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the\nGreeks, the Arabs, the Georgians, and at length the race of Tartars\ndistinguished by the name of the Ottoman Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased\nas slaves and introduced as soldiers, soon usurped the power and\nselected a leader. If their first establishment was a singular event,\ntheir continuance is not less extraordinary; they are replaced by slaves\nbrought from their original country.\"[87] Says Gibbon: \"A more unjust\nand absurd constitution can not be devised than that which condemns the\nnatives of the country to perpetual servitude under the arbitrary\ndominion of strangers and slaves. Yet such has been the state of Egypt\nabout five hundred years. The most illustrious sultans of the Baharite\nand Beyite dynasties were themselves promoted from the Tartar and\nCircassian bands; and the four and twenty beys, or military chiefs, have\never been succeeded, not by their sons, but by their servants.\"[88]\nMehemet Ali cut off the Mamelukes, but still Egypt is ruled by the\nTurks, and the present ruler (Ibrahim Pasha) is a foreigner. It is\nneedless to remind the reader that the idols are cut off. Neither the\nnominal Christians of Egypt, nor the iconoclastic Moslem, allow images\nto appear among them. The rivers, too, are drying up. In one day's\ntravel forty dry water-courses will be crossed in the Delta; and\nwater-skins are needed now around the ruined cities whose walls were\nblockaded by Greek and Roman navies.\n\n\"_It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself\nany more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no\nmore bear rule over the nations._\"[89] Every traveler will attest the\ntruth of this prediction. The wretched peasantry are rejoiced to labor\nfor any who will pay them five cents a day, and eager to hide the\ntreasure in the ground from the rapacious tax-gatherer. I have seen\nBritish horses refuse to eat the meal ground from the mixture of wheat,\nbarley, oats, lentiles, millet, and a hundred unknown seeds of weeds and\ncollections of filth, which forms the produce of their fields. For\npoverty, vermin, and disease, Egypt is proverbial. Let us hear a\nscoffer's testimony, however: \"In Egypt there is no middle class,\nneither nobility, clergy, merchants, nor landholders. A universal air of\nmisery in all the traveler meets points out to him the rapacity of\noppression, and the distrust attendant upon slavery. The profound\nignorance of the inhabitants equally prevents them from perceiving the\ncauses of their evils, or applying the necessary remedies. Ignorance,\ndiffused through every class, extends its effects to every species of\nmoral and physical knowledge. Nothing is talked of but intestine\ntroubles, the public misery, pecuniary extortions, and bastinadoes.\"[90]\n\nThe objector perhaps will allege in extenuation the modern improvements\nnow in progress, the Suez Canal, the railroads, the steamboats on the\nNile, the bridge across the Nile at Cairo, and the sugar and cotton\nplantations.\n\nBut if these were as evident tokens of progress in Egypt, as they would\nbe in America, they would not in the least invalidate the facts of the\npast degradation of Egypt for centuries. But these speculations of the\nKhedive are of no advantage to the people; rather, on the contrary, do\nthey afford him additional opportunities of exacting forced labor from\nthe miserable peasants. I have seen the population of several villages,\nforced to leave their own fields in the spring, to march down to an old,\nfilthy canal, near Cairo, and almost within sight of the gate of the\npalace, men, and women, and little boys, and girls, like those of our\nSabbath-schools, scooping up the stinking mud and water with their\nhands, into baskets, carrying them on their heads up the steep bank,\nbeaten with long sticks by the taskmasters to hasten their steps; while\nsteam dredges lay unused within sight. Egypt is still the basest of the\nnations.\n\nHere, then, we have conclusive proof of the fulfillment at this day of\nfour distinct, specific, and improbable Bible predictions: concerning\nthe country, the rulers, the religion, and the people of Egypt.\n\nLet us note now a distinct and totally different judgment pronounced\nagainst the transgressors of another land. Pre-eminent in inflicting\ndestruction on others, her retribution was to be extreme. Degradation\nand slavery were to be the portion of the learned Egyptians, but utter\nextinction is the doom of mighty Babylon. It is written in the Bible\nconcerning the land where the farmer was accustomed to reap two\nhundred-fold: \"_Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth\nthe sickle in the time of harvest. * * * Every purpose of the Lord shall\nbe performed against Babylon, to make the land of Babylon a desolation\nwithout an inhabitant. * * * Behold the hindermost of the nations shall\nbe a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert. * * * Because of the wrath of\nthe Lord it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly\ndesolate._\"[91]\n\nProofs in abundance of the fulfillment of these predictions present\nthemselves in every volume of travels in Assyria and Chaldea. \"Those\nsplendid accounts of the Babylonian lands yielding crops of grain of two\nand three hundred fold, compared with the modern face of the country,\nafford a remarkable proof of the _singular desolation_ to which it has\nbeen subjected. The canals at present can only be traced by their\ndecayed banks. The soil of this desert consists of a hard clay, mixed\nwith mud, which at noon becomes so heated with the sun's rays, that I\nfound it too hot to walk over it with any degree of comfort.\"[92] \"That\nit was at some former period in a far different state is evident from\nthe number of canals by which it is traversed, now dry and neglected;\nand the quantity of heaps of earth, covered with fragments of brick and\nbroken tiles, which are seen in every direction--the indisputable traces\nof former cultivation.\"[93] \"The abundance of the country has vanished\nas clean away as if the besom of desolation had swept it from north to\nsouth; the whole land, from the outskirts of Babylon to the farthest\nstretch of sight, lying a melancholy waste. _Not a habitable spot\nappears for countless miles._\"[94]\n\nAs the desolation of the country was to be extraordinary, so the\ndesolation of the city of Babylon was to be remarkable. When the prophet\nwrote, its walls had been raised to the height of three hundred and\nfifty feet, and made broad enough for six chariots to drive upon them\nabreast. From its hundred brazen gates issued the armies which trampled\nunder foot the liberties of mankind, and presented their lives to the\nnod of a despot, who slew whom he would, and whom he would allowed to\nlive. Twenty years' provisions were collected within its walls, and the\nworld would not believe that an enemy could enter its gates.\nNevertheless, the prophets of God pronounced against it a doom of\ndestruction as extraordinary as the pride and wickedness which procured\nit. Tyre, the London of Asia, was to _become a place for the spreading\nof nets_,[95] and the Infidel Volney tells us its commerce had declined\nto _a trifling fishery_; but even that implies some few resident\ninhabitants. Rabbah, of Ammon, was to become _a stable for camels and a\ncouching place for flocks_.[96] Lord Lindsay reports that \"he could not\nsleep amidst its ruins for the bleating of sheep, that the dung of\ncamels covers the ruins of its palaces, and that the only building left\nentire in its Acropolis is used as a sheepfold.\"[97] Yet sheepfolds\nimply that the tents of their Arab owners are near, and that some human\nbeings would occasionally reside near its ruins. But desolation,\nsolitude, and utter abandonment to the wild beasts of the desert is the\nspecific and clearly predicted doom of the world's proud capital. The\nmost expressive symbols are selected from the desert to portray its\ndesertion.\n\n\"_Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees'\nexcellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall\nnever be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to\ngeneration: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall\nthe shepherds make their fold there: but wild beasts of the desert shall\nlie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls\nshall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of\nthe islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their\npleasant palaces._\"[98]\n\nEvery traveler attests the fulfillment of this strange prediction. \"It\nis a tenantless and desolate metropolis,\" says Mignon; who, though\nfully armed, and attended by six Arabs, could not induce them by any\nreward to pass the night among its ruins, from the apprehension of evil\nspirits. So completely fulfilled is the prophecy, \"_The Arabian shall\nnot pitch his tent there._\" The same voice which called camels and\nflocks to the palaces of Rabbah, summoned a very different class of\ntenants for the palaces of Babylon. Rabbah was to be a sheepfold,\nBabylon a menagerie of wild beasts; a very specific difference, and very\nimprobable. One of the later Persian kings, however, after it was\ndestroyed and deserted, repaired its walls, converted it into a vast\nhunting-ground, and stocked it with all manner of wild beasts; and to\nthis day the apes of the Spice Islands, and the lions of the African\ndeserts, meet in its palaces, and howl their testimony to the truth of\nGod's Word. Sir R. K. Porter saw two majestic lions in the Mujelibe (the\nruins of the palace), and Fraser thus describes the chambers of fallen\nBabylon: \"There were dens of wild beasts in various places, and Mr. Rich\nperceived in some a strong smell, like that of a lion. Bones of sheep\nand other animals were seen in the cavities, with numbers of bats and\nowls.\"\n\nVarious destructions were predicted for Babylon. \"_I will make it a\nhabitation for the bittern, and pools of water_,\"[99] says one prophecy.\n\"_Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness_,\"[100] says\nanother. How can such contradictions be true? says the scoffer.\n\nBut the scoffer's contradiction is a fact. God can cause the most\ndiscordant agencies to agree in effecting his purpose. Babylon is\nalternately an overflowed swamp, from the inundations of the obstructed\nEuphrates, and an arid desert, under the scorching rays of an Eastern\nsun. Says Mignon: \"Morasses and ponds tracked the ground in various\nplaces. For a long time after the subsiding of the Euphrates great part\nof this place is little better than a swamp.\" At another season it was\n\"a dry waste and burning plain.\" Even at the same period, \"one part on\nthe western side is low and marshy, and another an arid desert.\"[101]\n\nAnother, and widely different agent, to be employed in the destruction\nof the great center of tyranny and idolatry, is thus specifically and\ndefinitely indicated in the prediction: \"_Behold, I am against thee, O\ndestroying mountain, saith the Lord, which destroyest all the earth: and\nI will stretch out my hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks,\nand will make thee a burnt mountain. And they shall not take of thee a\nstone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be\ndesolate forever, saith the Lord._\"[102]\n\n\"There is one fact,\" says Fraser, \"in connection with the most\nremarkable of these relics (the Birs Nimrod), which we can not dismiss\nwithout a few more observations. All travelers who have ascended the\nBirs have taken notice of the singular heaps of brick-work scattered on\nthe summit of this mound, at the foot of the remnant of the wall still\nstanding. To the writer they appeared the most striking of all the\nruins. That they have undergone the most violent action of fire is\nevident from the complete vitrification which has taken place in many of\nthe masses. Yet how a heat sufficient to produce such an effect could\nhave been applied at such a height from the ground is unaccountable.\nThey now lie on a spot elevated two hundred feet above the plain, and\nmust have fallen from some much more lofty position, for the structure\nwhich still remains, and of which they may be supposed originally to\nhave formed a part, bears no marks of fire. The building originally can\nnot have contained any great proportion of combustible materials, and to\nproduce so intense a heat by substances carried to such an elevation\nwould have been almost impossible, for want of space to pile them on.\nNothing, we should be inclined to say, short of the most powerful action\nof electric fire, could have produced the complete, yet circumscribed,\nfusion which is here observed. Although fused into a solid mass, the\ncourses of bricks are still visible, identifying them with the standing\npile above, but so hardened by the power of heat, that it is almost\nimpossible to break off the smallest piece; and, though porous in\ntexture, and full of air-holes and cavities, like other bricks, they\nrequire, on being submitted to the stone-cutter's lathe, the same\nmachinery as is used to dress the hardest pebbles.\"[103]\n\nThe doom of Nineveh, the great rival and predecessor of Babylon, was\nalso predicted as the result of two apparently contradictory\nagencies--an overrunning flood and a consuming fire. But both these\nantagonistic elements conspired to devour her. The river, with an\noverrunning flood, swept away a large portion of the walls. The\nbesiegers entered through the breach, and set the city on fire. The\ncharcoal, burnt beans, and slabs of half-calcined alabaster, in the\nBritish Museum, demonstrate the fulfillment of the prediction.\n\nEgypt was to be reduced to slavery and degradation. Babylonia to utter\nbarrenness and desolation; but a different and still more incredible\ndoom is pronounced in the Bible upon Judea and its people. The land was\nto be emptied of its people, and remain uncultivated, retaining all its\nformer fertility, while the people were to be scattered over all the\nearth, yet never to lose their distinct nationality, nor be amalgamated\nwith their neighbors: \"_I will make your cities waste, and bring your\nsanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savor of your\nsweet odors. And I will bring the land into desolation: and your\nenemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And I will\nscatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and\nyour land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then shall the land\nenjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your\nenemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her\nSabbaths._\"[104] \"_Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and\nthe houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, and the Lord\nhave removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst\nof the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and\nshall be eaten: as a teil-tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in\nthem, when they cast their leaves._\"[105] \"_The generation to come, of\nyour children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall\ncome from a far land, shall say, * * * Wherefore hath the Lord done thus\nunto this land? What meaneth the heat of this great anger?_\"[106]\n\nIt is superfluous to adduce proof of the undeniable and acknowledged\nfulfillment of these predictions, but as an example of the way in which\nGod causes scoffers to fulfill the prophecies, let us again hear Volney:\n\"I journeyed in the empire of the Ottomans, and traversed the provinces\nwhich were formerly the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria. I enumerated the\nkingdoms of Damascus and Idumea, of Jerusalem and Samaria. This Syria,\nsaid I to myself, now almost depopulated, then contained a hundred\nflourishing cities, and abounded with towns, villages, and hamlets. What\nhas become of so many productions of the hand of man? What has become of\nthose ages of abundance and of life? _Great God! from whence proceed\nsuch melancholy revolutions? For what cause is the fortune of these\ncountries so strikingly changed? Why are so many cities destroyed?_ Why\nis not that ancient population reproduced and perpetuated? A mysterious\nGod exercises his incomprehensible judgments. He has doubtless\npronounced a secret malediction against the earth. He has struck with a\ncurse the present race of men in revenge of past generations.\"[107] The\nmalediction is no secret to any who will read the twenty ninth chapter\nof Deuteronomy; nor is the avenging of the quarrel of God's covenant\nconfined to the sins of past generations. The philosopher who would\nunderstand the fates of cities and empires should read the prophecies.\n\nThe Word of God specifies no less distinctly and definitely the destiny\nof the Jewish than of the Babylonian capital, but fixes on a widely\ndifferent kind of destruction. Babylon was never to be built again, but\ndevoted to solitude; busy Tyre to become a place for spreading nets; the\ncaravans, which once brought the wealth of India through Petra, were to\ncease, and the doom was to \"cut off him that passeth by and him that\nreturneth.\" But Jerusalem, it was predicted, should long feel the\nmiseries of a multitude of oppressors, should never enjoy the luxury of\na solitary woe, but \"_be trodden down of the Gentiles_.\"[108] Saracens,\nTartars, Turks, and Crusaders, Gentiles from every nation of the earth,\nfulfilled the prediction of old, even as hosts of pilgrims from all\nparts of the earth do at this day.\n\nSo minute and specific are the predictions of Scripture, that the fate\nof particular buildings is accurately defined. One temple to the living\nGod, and only one, raised its walls in this world, which he had made for\nhis worship. Its frequenters perverted it from its proper use of leading\nthem to confess their sinfulness, to seek pardon through the promised\nSavior to whom its ceremonies pointed, and to learn to be holy, as the\nGod of that temple was holy. They hoped that the holiness of the place\nwould screen them in the indulgence of pride, formality, and wickedness.\nThe temple of the Lord, instead of the Lord of the temple, was the\nobject of their veneration. But the doom went forth. \"_Therefore for\nyour sakes shall Zion be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become\nas heaps, and the mountain of the house like the high places of the\nforest._\" History has preserved, and the Jews to this day curse the name\nof the soldier, Terentius Rufus, who plowed up the foundations of the\ntemple. It long continued in this state. But the Emperor Julian the\nApostate conceived the idea of falsifying the prediction of Jesus,\n\"_Behold your house is left unto you desolate_,\"[109] and sent his\nfriend Alypius, with a Roman army, and abundant treasure, to rebuild it.\nThe Jews flocked from all parts to assist in the work. Spades and\npickaxes of silver were provided by the vanity of the rich, and the\nrubbish was transported in mantles of silk and purple. But they were\nobliged to desist from the attempt, for \"horrible balls of fire breaking\nout from the foundations with repeated attacks, rendered the place\ninaccessible to the scorched workmen, and the element driving them to a\ndistance from time to time, the enterprise was dropped.\"[110] Such is\nthe testimony of a heathen, confirmed by Jews and Christians. The\ninclosures of the mosque of Omar, forbidding them all access to the spot\non which it stood, leave it desolate to the Jews to this day. I have\nseen them (in 1872) kissing a few large stones, supposed to belong to\nits foundations or sub-structures, from the outside; for which miserable\nprivilege they were obliged to pay their oppressors. On approaching the\nspot from the Zion gate, right across Mount Zion to the temple ruins,\nour way lay through a plowed field of young barley, and gardens of\ncauliflowers hedged with enormous rows of cactus. To this day Zion is\nplowed as a field.\n\n4. No sane man can believe that such minute and accurate predictions of\nvarious and improbable events could be the result of human calculations;\nyet there is another feature of the Bible prophesies still farther\nremoved beyond the reach of human sagacity, and that is, remarkable and\nunaccountable _preservation amidst the general ruin_. If, as skeptics\nallege, destruction is the natural and inevitable doom, then\npreservation is supernatural and miraculous--a miracle of divine power\ncontrolling nature; and its prediction is a miracle of divine wisdom.\nNow the prophecies of the Bible contain several very definite, and\nwidely different predictions of the preservation of people and cities\nfrom the general destruction. We shall refer in this case also to those\nof whose fulfillment there can be no manner of doubt, for the facts are\npalpable and undeniable at the present day.\n\nThe prediction of the character and fate of the Arabs stands out a\nremarkable contrast to the predictions of the destruction of the\nsurrounding nations. Of their ancestor, Ishmael, it was predicted: \"He\nwill be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's\nhand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his\nbrethren.\"[111] The nomad and warlike habits of the sons of Ishmael are\nhere distinctly predicted; and the singular anomaly which exempts them\nalone, of all the people of the earth, from the law, \"They that take the\nsword, shall perish by the sword.\" The unconquered Arab laughs alike at\nthe Persian, Greek, Roman, Turkish, and French invaders of his deserts,\nlevies tribute on all who enter his territory, and dwells to-day, a free\nman, in the presence of all his brethren, as God foretold.\n\nOf the Israelitish nation God predicted, that it should be a peculiar,\ndistinct people, separate from the other nations of the world: \"_Lo, the\npeople shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the\nnations._\"[112] In apparent contradiction to this separation, he further\nthreatened to punish them for their sins, by dispersing them over the\nworld: \"_I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword\nafter you._\"[113] \"_For lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of\nIsrael among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall\nnot the last grain fall upon the earth._\"[114] It was further\nthreatened, as if to make sure of their national destruction: \"_And\namong these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of\nthy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling\nheart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: and thy life shall hang\nin doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shall have\nnone assurance of thy life._\"[115] Contrary to all appearances, and in\nspite of all this dispersion and persecution, it is predicted that\nIsrael shall still exist as a nation, and be restored to the favor of\nGod, and that prosperity which ever accompanies it: \"_And yet for all\nthat, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them\naway, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break\nmy covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God._\"[116]\n\nHere are four distinct predictions, of national peculiarity, universal\ndispersion, grievous oppression, and remarkable preservation. The\nfulfillment is obvious, and undeniable. You need no commentary to\nexplain it. Go into any clothing-store on Western Row, or into the\nsynagogue in Broadway, and you will see it. The Infidel is sorely\nperplexed to give any account of this great phenomenon. How does it\nhappen that this singular people is dispersed over all the earth, and\nyet distinct and unamalgamated with any other? How does it happen that\nfor eighteen hundred years they have resisted all the influences of\nnature, and all the customs of society, and all the powers of\npersecution, driving them toward amalgamation, and irresistible in all\nother instances? In the face of the power of the Chinese Empire, in\nspite of the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, amid the chaos of\nAfrican nationalities, and the fusion of American democracy, in the\nplains of Australia, and in the streets of San Francisco, the religion,\ncustoms, and physiognomy of the children of Israel are as distinct this\nday as they were three thousand years ago, when Moses wrote them in the\nPentateuch, and Shishak painted them on the tombs of Medinet Abou. How\ndoes the Infidel account for it? It will not do to allege the favorite\nstory about purity of blood and Caucasian race; for the question is, How\ndoes it happen that this people, and this people alone, have kept the\nblood pure; while all other races are so mingled that no other race can\nbe found pure on earth? Besides, lest any should suppose such a cause\nsufficient for their preservation, another nation, descended from the\nsame father and the same mother--the children of Jacob's twin\nbrother--has utterly perished, and there is not any remaining of the\nhouse of Esau.\n\nHuman sagacity, with all the facts before its face, can not give any\nrational account of the causes of this anomaly. It can not tell to-day\nwhy this people exists separate from, and scattered through all nations,\nfrom Kamschatka to New Zealand; how, then, could it foretell, three\nthousand years ago, this singular exception to all the laws of national\nexistence? While the sun and moon endure, the nation of Israel shall\nexist as God's witness to God's word, an undeniable proof that the mouth\nof the Lord hath spoken it.\n\nA very peculiar feature of the desolation of Israel was the\n_desolation_, but not the _destruction_ of the cities. In most cases of\nthe desolations of war, the cities have been burned and the buildings\ndestroyed. There is no shelter for man or beast in the mounds of rubbish\nwhich cover the ruined cities of Assyria. Where the buildings have not\nbeen destroyed, or have been rebuilt, they have again been inhabited; as\nwe see in the cases of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and many others.\nBut on the cities of Israel it was written that God's curse should go\nforth \"till the cities should be wasted without inhabitant, and the\nhouses without man, and the land be left utterly desolate.\" But for a\nlong time the literal fulfillment of this prediction was not witnessed,\nas the cities on this side the Jordan had been mostly reduced to ruins.\nThe richest and most populous part of the land, however, was the land of\nBashan; where, in a territory of about thirty miles by twenty, sixty\ncities still remain standing to attest the wonderful fertility of the\nsoil and industry of the people. \"And though the vast majority of them\nare deserted, _they are not ruined_. * * * Many of the houses in the\nancient cities of Bashan are perfect, as if only finished yesterday. The\nwalls are sound, the roofs unbroken, the doors, and even the window\nshutters in their places.\"[117] From two hundred to five hundred houses\nhave been found perfect in some of these cities; and from the roof of\nthe Castle of Salcah, Dr. Porter counted thirty towns and villages\ndotting the plain, many of them perfect as when first built; \"yet for\nmore than five centuries there has not been an inhabitant in one of\nthem.\" So sure is every word of God.\n\nTake another instance of preservation, so remarkable amid the\nsurrounding destruction, that it arrested the attention and admiration\nof the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, skeptic and\nscoffer though he was.\n\nThe seven churches of seven of the most considerable cities of Asia\nwere then, as the churches of Christ still are, the salt of the earth.\nTen righteous men would have averted God's judgments from Sodom. Jesus\npronounced the sentences of these churches seventeen hundred and sixty\nyears ago, and the present condition of the cities attests the divine\nauthority of the record containing them. They are various and specific.\nThree were to be utterly destroyed. Against two no special threatening\nis denounced. To the remaining two promises of life and blessing are\ngiven.\n\nEphesus, famous for its magnificence, the busy avenue of travel, the\nseat of the temple of Diana, long the residence of an apostle, and\nafterward of Christian bishops--\"one of the eyes of Asia\"--as it stood\nfirst on the roll of cities, first receives the doom of abused\nprivileges: \"_I will remove thy candlestick out of its place, unless\nthou repent._\"\n\nSays Gibbon: \"The captivity and ruin of the seven churches of Asia was\nconsummated (by the Ottomans) A. D. 1312; and the barbarous lords of\nIonia and Lydia still trample on the monuments of classic and Christian\nantiquity. In the loss of Ephesus the Christians deplored the fall of\nthe first angel, and the extinction of the first candlestick of the\nRevelation. _The desolation is complete_, and the temple of Diana or the\nchurch of Mary will equally elude the search of the curious\ntraveler.\"[118]\n\nSince Gibbon's day the foundations of the temple have been discovered\ntwelve to fourteen feet below the soil; but no church of Christ remains\nto illuminate the minds of the few squalid and lazy dwellers in the\nvillage of Aisayalouk. One cobbler's stall represented the whole\nmanufacturing industry of Ephesus; and four boys playing a game like\ndrafts, with pebbles, in front of it seemed the only public likely to\npatronize its theater, as I took note of its people and their\noccupations, in 1872. Then leaving the storks in their nests, on the\ntop of the ruined arches of its great aqueduct, to proceed toward the\nruins of the great theater, we tried in vain to procure horses or asses\nfor the ladies; found the only road so filled with water from the recent\nrains as to be impassable, and were fain to plunge on foot through the\nplowed fields till we reached the elevation on which it was erected.\nHere we surveyed its rock-hewn seats, capable of accommodating an\naudience larger than that of all the theaters of New York; but there was\nno longer a voice to cry, \"Great is Diana of the Ephesians!\" The sea has\nforsaken the harbor, which is now a pestilential morass. We passed\nthrough the ruins of the custom-house, now miles inland, and found a\nsingle Turkish soldier on guard. The peasants who cultivate some parts\nof the plain come from distant villages, and fever, filth, and beggary\nreign in Ephesus.\n\nHad the twenty thousand patrons of the drama, in the thirty-one theaters\nof New York, honored the theater of Laodicea with their presence, its\npolite citizens would have accommodated them all on the reserved seats,\nretiring themselves to ten thousand less commodious sittings, and to two\nless gigantic theaters. While yet busy in the erection of their splendid\nplaces of public amusement, Jesus said, \"_I will spew thee out of my\nmouth._\" \"The circus, and three stately theaters of Laodicea, are\npeopled with wolves and foxes,\" says Gibbon.\n\nThe church was spewed out of Christ's mouth, and the city too. It has\nbeen overturned by earthquakes, and is now nothing but a series of\nmagnificent ruins, from which, however, ample evidence may be collected\nof its former magnificence. Those of the aqueduct, the theater, and the\namphitheater, are remarkable; in the latter an inscription has been\nfound showing that it was in course of erection when the Lord dictated\nthe warning to its people. But the warning was unheeded, and now the\nwhole space inside the city walls is strewn with fragments of columns\nand pedestals.\n\nA Lydian capitalist once deposited in the vaults of Sardis more specie\nthan is now in circulation in this whole continent. But Jesus said,\n\"_Thou hast a name that thou livest and art dead. If, therefore, thou\nshalt not watch, I will come upon thee as a thief, and thou shalt not\nknow what hour I will come upon thee._\"\n\n\"Sardis,\" says Gibbon, \"is a miserable village.\" A later writer (Durbin)\ntells us that the Turks say, \"Every one who builds a house in Sardis\ndies soon, and avoid the spot.\" Arundell, in his account of his visit to\nthe seven churches, says: \"If I were asked what impresses the mind most\nstrongly on beholding Sardis, I should say, its indescribable\n_solitude_, like the darkness of Egypt, that could be felt. So deep the\nsolitude of the spot, once the lady of kingdoms, produces a feeling of\ndesolate abandonment in the mind which can never be forgotten.\" Connect\nthis feeling with the message of the Apocalypse to the church of Sardis,\n\"Thou hast a name that thou livest, and _art dead_, and then look around\nand ask, Where are the churches? Where are the Christians of Sardis? The\ntumuli beyond the Hermus reply, '_All dead!_'--suffering the infliction\nof the threatened judgment of God for the abuse of their privileges. Let\nthe unbeliever, then, be asked, Is there no truth in prophecy?--no\nreality in religion?\"\n\nOnly twenty-seven miles north of this desolate metropolis, the\nmanufactories of Thyatira dispatch weekly to Smyrna, cloths, as famous\nover Asia for the brilliancy and durability of their hues as those which\nLydia displayed to the admiration of the ladies of Philippi. Two\nthousand two hundred Greek Christians, two hundred Armenian, and a\nProtestant Church under the care of the missionaries of the American\nBoard of Commissioners of Foreign Missions, assemble every Sabbath to\ncommemorate the resurrection of Him who said to the church of Thyatira:\n\"_I will put upon you no other burden; but that which ye have already\nhold fast till I come._\"\n\nThe fragrant citron (_Bergamot_) still flourishes around the birthplace\nof Galen; but the ruins of the famous library of 200,000 manuscripts are\nfar less durable memorials of the city of booksellers than those\nbeautifully dressed skins, which, taking their name (_Pergamena_) from\nthe place of their manufacture, will preserve the name and fame of\nPergamos as long as parchment can preserve man's memorials, or God's\npredictions. Though famous for fragrance, physic, and philosophy,\nPergamos was infamous for idolatry, licentiousness, and persecution; yet\nstill endeared to Jesus as the scene of the martyrdom of faithful\nAntipas, and the dwelling-place of a hidden church; and widely different\nsentences are recorded against those opposite classes. The public\nmemorials are to perish, but the hidden word to endure. \"The fanes of\nJupiter and Diana, and Venus and Esculapius (worshiped under the symbol\nof a live snake), were prostrate in the dust, and where they had not\nbeen carried away by the Turks to cut up into tombstones or pounded into\nmortar, the Corinthian columns and the Ionic, the splendid capitals, the\ncornices and the pediments, all in the highest ornament, were thrown in\nunsightly heaps,\"[119] is the comment on the threatening of Jesus, \"_I\nwill fight against them_--the idolaters--_with the sword of my mouth_.\"\nThe 3,000 Greek and 300 Armenian Christians, and even the 10,000 Turkish\ninhabitants of the modern Pergamos, have received hundreds of copies of\nthe promise, \"_To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden\nmanna, and will give him a white stone and in the stone a new name\nwritten, which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it._\" But\nwhether the hidden church of Pergamos shine forth or not, Gibbon was\ninaccurate in stating, in the face of facts, that \"the god of Mohammed\nwithout a rival is invoked in the mosques of Pergamos and Thyatira.\"\nGod's providence is as discriminating as his prophecy, though unbelief\nmay overlook both.\n\nWe have noted here instances of the prediction of remarkable destruction\nto Sardis, Ephesus, and Laodicea; of continued existence to Pergamos and\nThyatira; let us now note a prediction of remarkable escape and\npreservation from the universal doom. If it requires no inspiration to\nprophecy destruction--the universal fate of humanity, according to the\nInfidel--surely it requires more than human skill to say that any city\nshall escape this universal fate, and more than human power to avert\nthis destruction. Of Philadelphia, but twenty-five miles distant from\nthe ruins of Sardis, Jesus said, and the Bible records the prophecy: \"_I\nknow thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man\ncan shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and\nhast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of\nSatan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will\nmake them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have\nloved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also\nkeep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the\nworld, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly:\nhold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that\novercometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go\nno more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name\nof the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of\nheaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name._\"\n\n\"Philadelphia alone,\" says Gibbon, \"has been saved by prophecy, or\ncourage. At a distance from the sea, forgotten by the emperors,\nencompassed on all sides by the Turks, her valiant sons defended their\nreligion and their freedom alone for fourscore years, and at length\ncapitulated with the proudest of the Ottomans. Among the Greek colonies\nand churches of Asia, Philadelphia is still erect--_a column in a scene\nof ruins_--a pleasing example that the paths of honor and safety may be\nthe same.\"\n\nIn the pages of this eloquent writer it would be hard to discover\nanother instance of unqualified hearty commendation of soldiers or\nsufferers for Christianity and liberty, such as Gibbon here bestows on\nPhiladelphia's valiant sons. But it was written, \"_I will make them come\nand worship before thy feet_,\" and the skeptic and scoffer must fulfill\nthe word of Jesus; even as the unbelieving Mohammedan also does, when he\nwrites upon it the modern name, Allah Sehr--_The City of God._ _A\nmajestic solitary pillar_, of high antiquity, arrests the eye of the\ntraveler, and reminds the worshipers in the six modern churches of\nPhiladelphia of the beauty and faithfulness of the prophetic symbol.\nHeaven and earth shall pass away, but Jesus' word shall not pass away.\n\nImprobable to human sagacity as this preservation must have seemed, the\nresurrection of a fallen city is more utterly beyond man's vision. In\nthe Bible, however, tribulation and recovery were foretold to Smyrna:\n\"_Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil\nshall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tried; and ye shall\nhave tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give\nthee a crown of life._\" \"The populousness of Smyrna is owing to the\nforeign trade of the Franks and Armenians,\" says the scoffer. No matter\nto what it is owing, he who dictated the Bible foresaw it, and made no\nmistake in foretelling it. Says Arundell: This, the other eye of Asia,\nis still a very flourishing commercial city, one of the very first in\nthe present Turkish empire in wealth and population, containing 130,000\ninhabitants. The continued importance of Smyrna may be estimated from\nthe fact that it is the seat of a consul from every nation in Europe.\nThe prosperity of Smyrna is now rather on the increase than the decline,\nand the houses of painted wood, which were most unworthy of its ancient\nfame and present importance, are rapidly giving way to palaces of stone\nrising in all directions; and, probably, ere many years have passed, the\nmodern town may not unworthily represent the ancient city, which the\nancients delighted to call the crown of Ionia. Commercial activity and\narchitectural beauty, however, are but a small part of the glorious\ndestiny of the community to which Jesus says, \"I will give thee a crown\nof life.\"\n\nMark Twain suggests that the prophecy refers to the church, rather than\nto the city; but forgets to remind us that the Church of Christ is well\nrepresented and crowned with life in Smyrna. God's predictions regard\nthe vital part of communities, the spiritual forces; these, vigorous and\noutspreading, secure the material progress. Close the Bible House,\nprinting presses, and schools of America, and real estate would not be\nworth much more than in Asia. The Lord Christ rules this world. His\nblessing has revived both the church and the city of Smyrna, according\nto his promise. In 1872 I found its harbor busy with coasting craft and\nocean steamers, and its railroad doing a brisk business. Smyrna is a\nlive city.\n\nDeliverance from the curse of sin, and communion with the Lord of Life,\nalone can secure either a nation's or an individual's immortality.\nSmyrna possesses the gospel of salvation. Several devoted English and\nAmerican missionaries proclaim salvation to its citizens. From its\nprinting presses thousands of copies of the Word of Life issue to all\nthe various populations of the Turkish Empire. A living Church of Christ\nin Smyrna holds forth, for the acceptance of the dying nations around\nher, that crown of life promised and granted by the Word of God, not to\nher only, but to all who love his appearing and his kingdom.\n\n5. This is the grand distinction of God's word of prophecy, _that it is\nthe Word of Life_. It is the only word which promises life, the only\nword which bestows it on fallen humanity. Recognizing no inevitable law\nof destruction but the sentence of God, no invariable law of nature\nsuperior to the counsel of Jehovah, nor any progress of events which his\nAlmighty arm can not arrest and reverse, it points a despairing world to\nsin as the cause of all destruction, to Satan as the author of sin, to\nungodly men in league with him as the foes of God and man, and to Christ\npledged to perpetual warfare with such until the last enemy be\ndestroyed. This word of prophecy tells us, that the battle-fields\nMessiah has won are earnests of that great victory; points to the\ncolumns which he has preserved erect amid scenes of ruin, as assurances\nthat he is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him;\ngoes to the graveyards where fallen Smyrnas, idolatrous Saxons, debased\nSandwich Islanders, and cannibal New Zealanders have buried the image of\nthe living God, and in Jesus' name proclaims, \"_I am the resurrection\nand the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he\nlive_;\" and, amid the very ruins of destroyed cities, and the crumbling\nheaps of their perished memorials, beholds the assurances that Satan's\nrule of ruin shall not be perpetual, anticipates the day when the course\nof sin and misery shall be reversed, and teaches Adam's sons to face the\nfoe, and chant forth that heaven-born note of victorious faith, \"_Oh,\nthou enemy! destructions are come to a perpetual end._\"\n\nCome forth, trembling skeptic, from the cave of thy dark invariable\nexperience of death and destruction, and from the vain sparks of thy\nmisgiving hopes of an ungodly eternity to come less miserable than the\npast, and lift thine eyes to this heavenly sunrising on the dark\nmountain tops of futurity, the like of which thou didst never dream of\nin all thy Pantheistic reveries. Search over all the religions of the\nworld--the hieroglyphics of Egypt, the arrow-headed inscriptions of\nAssyria, the classic mythologies of graceful Greece and iron Rome, the\nmonstrous shasters of thine Indian Pundits, or the more chaotic clouds\nof thy German philosophies--in none of them wilt thou ever find this\ndivine thought, _an end of destructions--a perpetual end_. Cycles of\nruin and renovation, and of renovation and ruin, vast cycles, if you\nwill, but evermore ending in dire catastrophies to gods and men--an\neverlasting succession of death and destructions--is the fearful vista\nwhich all the religions of man, and thine own irreligion, present to thy\nterrified vision. But thou wast created in the image of the living God,\nand durst not rest satisfied with any such prospect. Now I come in the\nname of the Lord to tell thee, that \"God so loved the world that he gave\nhis only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him _should not\nperish, but have everlasting life_;\" and I demand of thee that thou\nacknowledge this promise of life everlasting to be the word of that\nliving God, and to show cause, if any thou hast, why thou dost\nrelinquish thy birthright, and spurn the gift of everlasting life which\nis in Christ Jesus our Lord?\n\nBut, if thou hast no sufficient cause why thou shouldest choose death\nrather than life, then hear, and your soul shall live, while I relate\nthe promise which God hath made of old to our fathers, and hath\nfulfilled to us, their children, by raising up his Son, Jesus Christ,\nfrom the dead, and sending him to bless you, by turning away every one\nof you from your iniquities. For there can be no deliverance from misery\nand destruction but by means of delivery from sin and Satan.\n\nIt is quite in agreement with the manner of our deliverance from any of\nthe evils of our fallen condition, that our deliverance from the power\nof sin and Satan be effected by the agency of a deliverer. Our\nignorance is removed by the knowledge of a teacher, our sickness by the\nskill of a physician, the oppressed nation hails the advent of a\npatriotic leader, and oppressed humanity acknowledges the fitness and\nneed of a divine Deliverer, even by the ready welcome it has given to\npretenders to this character, and by the longing desire of the wisest\nand best of men for a divinely commissioned Savior; a desire implanted\nby the great prophecy, which stands at the portal of hope for mankind,\nin the very earliest period of our history, that \"_the seed of the woman\nshould bruise the serpent's head_,\" and so leave man triumphant over the\ngreat destroyer.\n\nThe prophecies regarding the Messiah are so numerous, pointed, various,\nand improbable, as to set human sagacity utterly at defiance; while they\nare also connected so as to form a scheme of prophecy, which gradually\nunrolls before us the advent, the ministry, the death, resurrection, and\nascension of the Lord, the progress of his gospel over all the world,\nand the blessed effects it should produce on individuals, families, and\nnations. It closes with a view of the second coming of Jesus to conquer\nthe last of his enemies, and take possession of the earth as his\ninheritance. I can only lop off a twig or two from this blessed tree of\nlife, in the hope that the fragrance of the leaves may allure you to\ntake up the Bible, and eat abundantly of its life-giving promises. As I\nhave in the previous chapters abundantly proved the veracity of the New\nTestament history, I shall now with all confidence refer to its account\nof the birth, life, and death of Jesus, as illustrating the prophecies.\n\nThe time, the place, the manner of his birth, his parentage and\nreception, were plainly declared, hundreds of years before he appeared.\n\nWhen Herod had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people\ntogether, he demanded of them where Christ should be born, and they said\nunto him, \"In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the\nprophet: _And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least\namong the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that\nshall rule my people Israel._\" The first verse of this chapter records\nthe fact, \"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.\"\n\nThe throne of Judah was to be occupied by strangers, and the line of\nnative princes was to cease upon the coming of this Governor, and not\ntill his coming: \"_The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a\nlawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh shall come; and unto him\nshall the gathering of the people be._\" On the day of his crucifixion\nthe rulers of the Jews made this formal and public announcement of the\nfact, \"We have no king but Caesar.\"\n\nHe was to address a class of people whom no other religious teacher had\ncondescended to notice before, and very few save those sent by Him ever\nsince: \"_The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek: he hath sent me to\nbind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the\nopening of the prison to them that are bound._\" Hear Jesus' words: \"Come\nunto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you\nrest. Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The\nblind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,\nand the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, _and the poor have the gospel\npreached to them_. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in\nme.\"\n\nYet, notwithstanding his feeding of thousands, and healing of\nmultitudes, and teaching of the lowest of the people, it was foretold he\nshould be unpopular: \"_He is despised and rejected of men; a man of\nsorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from\nhim; he was despised, and we esteemed him not._\" The brief records are:\n\"Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.\" \"Then began Peter to\ncurse and to swear, saying, I know not the man.\" \"Pilate saith unto\nthem, Ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the\npassover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the\nJews? Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now\nBarabbas was a robber.\"\n\nAll the prophets agree in predicting that for the sins of his people,\nand to atone for their guilt, he should be put to death by a shameful\npublic execution: \"_In the midst of the week Messiah shall be cut off,\nbut not for himself. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was\nbruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;\nand with his stripes we are healed. He was numbered with the\ntransgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for\nthe transgressors. They pierced my hands and my feet._\" The record says:\n\"The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to\ngive his life a ransom for many.\" \"And when they were come to the place\nwhich is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors,\none on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus,\n_Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do._\"\n\nThe one grand unparalleled fact, one which demands the hope of dying men\nfor a victory over the great destroyer, and a resurrection from the\ntomb--the fact that one man born of a woman died, and did not see\ncorruption, but rose again from the dead and went up into heaven, and\ndieth no more--forms the theme of many a prophetic psalm of triumph:\n\"_Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou give thine Holy One\nto see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life. Thou wilt make me\nfull of joy with thy countenance. Thou hast ascended on high. Thou hast\nled captivity captive._\" Often did Jesus predict this prodigy before\nfriend and foe: \"_Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, when he was\nyet alive, After three days I will rise again._\" The last chapters of\nthe gospels relate the proofs by which he convinced his incredulous\ndisciples that the prophecy was fulfilled: \"Behold my hands and my feet,\nthat it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and\nbones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them\nhis hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and\nwondered, he saith unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a\npiece of broiled fish, and of an honey comb. And he took it and did eat\nbefore them; and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it\nbehooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and\nthat repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name\namong all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these\nthings. And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry\nye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.\nAnd he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and\nblessed them. And while he was blessing them he was parted from them,\nand carried up into heaven. And while they looked steadfastly toward\nheaven, as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel,\nwhich said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This\nsame Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in\nlike manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.\"\n\nWith your own eyes you shall see the fulfillment of this prophecy. Every\neye shall see him. The clouds of heaven shall then reveal the vision now\nsketched on the page of revelation: \"And I saw a great white throne, and\nHim that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away,\nand there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and\ngreat, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was\nopened, which is the Book of Life; and the dead were judged out of those\nthings which were written in the books, according to their works. And\nthe sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered\nup the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according\nto their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This\nis the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the Book of\nLife was cast into the lake of fire. And I saw a new heaven and a new\nearth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and\nthere was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,\ncoming down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her\nhusband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold the\ntabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they\nshall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their\nGod. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall\nbe no more death, neither sorrow nor crying: neither shall there be any\nmore pain; for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon\nthe throne said, _Behold, I make all things new._ And he said unto me,\nWRITE, FOR THESE WORDS ARE TRUE AND FAITHFUL.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[81] Jewish Church, 463, 4. The Bible, 80.\n\n[82] De Die Natali, c. 17, cited in Pusey on Daniel, 642.\n\n[83] Isaiah, chap. xlvi. 8-11.\n\n[84] Newton on the Prophecies, and Keith on the Prophecies, are to be\nfound in all respectable libraries. The former contains valuable\nextracts from ancient historians; the latter from the journals and\nengravings of travelers.\n\n[85] Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, I. 169. Herodotus, II. 169.\n\n[86] Ezekiel, chap. xxx.\n\n[87] Volney's Travels, I. 74, 103.\n\n[88] Decline and Fall, chap. lix.\n\n[89] Ezekiel, chap. xxix.\n\n[90] Volney, I. 190.\n\n[91] Jeremiah, chaps. l. and li.\n\n[92] Mignon's Travels, 31.\n\n[93] Trans. Bombay Lit. Soc. I. 123.\n\n[94] Porter's Babylonia, II. 285.\n\n[95] Ezekiel, chap. xxvi.\n\n[96] Ezekiel, chap. xxv.\n\n[97] Lindsay's Travels, II. 78, 117.\n\n[98] Isaiah, chap. xiii.\n\n[99] Isaiah, chap. xiv.\n\n[100] Jeremiah, chap. li.\n\n[101] Mignon, 139.\n\n[102] Jeremiah, chap. li.\n\n[103] Fraser's Mesopotamia, page 145.\n\n[104] Leviticus, chap. xxvi.\n\n[105] Isaiah, chap. vi.\n\n[106] Deuteronomy, chap. xxix.\n\n[107] Volney's Ruins of Empires, Book I.\n\n[108] Luke, chap. xxi.\n\n[109] Micah, chap. iii. Matthew, chap. xxii.\n\n[110] Ammianus Marcellus, 23d chap. I.\n\n[111] Genesis, chap. xvi. 12.\n\n[112] Numbers, chap. xxiii.\n\n[113] Leviticus, chap. xxvi.\n\n[114] Amos, chap. ix.\n\n[115] Deuteronomy, chap. xxviii.\n\n[116] Leviticus, chap. xxvi.\n\n[117] Porter's Giant Cities of Bashan, passim.\n\n[118] Decline and Fall, chap. lxiv.\n\n[119] Macfarlane's Seven Apocalyptic Churches.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nMOSES AND THE PROPHETS.\n\n\nIn the foregoing chapters we have found, that we have great need of\nGod's teaching; that he has sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to show us the\nway of life; that the gospel preached by him and his apostles has proved\nitself the power of God, by saving men from their sins; and that this\ngospel is truly recorded in the New Testament. From these facts, already\nsettled, we proceed, according to our plan of investigation, to examine\nthose which may be more obscure; to examine the Old Testament by the\nlight of the New.\n\nThe great majority of Jews and Christians have always believed, that the\nworld was in as great need of God's teaching before the coming of Christ\nas it has been since; that God did put his words into the mouths of\ncertain persons, called prophets; and that he caused them to tell them\ntruly to their neighbors; that he enabled these prophets to make\npredictions of future events beyond the skill of man to calculate, and\nto do miracles which the power of man could not perform, as proofs that\nthey spake the Word of God; that he caused them truly to record in\nwriting a great many of these revelations, and so much of the history of\nthe times in which, and of the people to whom, they were given, as was\nneedful for a right understanding of them; that he has so managed\nmatters since, as that these revelations and narratives have been\nfaithfully preserved in the books of the Old Testament; that we are\nbound to believe these revelations to be true, not because we can\notherwise demonstrate their truth, but because God, who can not lie,\nhas declared it; and that we are bound to do the things they command,\nnot merely because we see them to be right, but because God commands us.\n\nIt is needful to consider the divine authority of the Old Testament\ndistinctly from that of the New, not only because it is a distinct\nsubject in itself, and because our plan of investigation leads us\nbackward from the known and established fact of the divine authority of\nthe New Testament to the discovery or disproof of the like character in\nthe Old; but because a great many persons admit, in words at least, that\nChrist was a teacher sent from God, who, either in so many words, or in\neffect, deny the divine authority of the Old Testament. Some of the\nmodern Rationalists have revived the creed of the Gnostics of the first\ncentury--that the Hebrew Jehovah was a being of very different character\nfrom the Deity revealed by Jesus Christ. They will extol to the skies\nthe world-wide benevolence, compassion and kindness of the gospel of\nChrist, in contrast with the alleged national pride, bigotry, and\nexclusiveness of the Hebrew prophets. Others are desirous of appearing\nremarkably candid in bestowing on the Old Testament a liberal\ncommendation as a collection of religious tracts of merely human origin,\nand of various degrees of merit; some of them of extraordinary literary\nexcellence, well suited to the infancy of the human intellect, and\nhighly useful in their time in raising men from fetichism and idolatry\nto the worship of one God; but which, containing many errors along with\nthis grand truth, have been set aside by the more perfect teachings of\nChrist and his apostles, much in the same way as the old Ptolemaic\nastronomy was displaced by the discoveries of Newton. Others still are\nwilling to acknowledge the Old Testament as inspired, provided we will\nallow Shakespeare and the Koran to be inspired also. Besides all these,\nthere are several scores of scholars anxious to conceal its nakedness\nunder theories of inspiration made and trimmed in a great many styles,\nbut all cut from the same doctrine, to wit, that God revealed his truth\naright to Moses and the prophets, but they went wrong in the telling of\nit. Now, all these notions are refuted by the fact, that God is the\nAuthor of the Bible.\n\nWhen we say that God is the Author of the Bible, and that it carries\nwith it a divine authority because it is the Word of God, we do not mean\nthat God is the Author of every saying in it, and that every sentiment\nrecorded in it is God's mind, any more than we mean to make D'Aubigne\nresponsible for every sentiment of priests, popes and monks which he has\nfaithfully recorded in his History of the Reformation. On the contrary,\nwe find, in the very beginning of the Bible, a very full expression of\nthe devil's sentiments recorded in the devil's own words--_Ye shall not\nsurely die_--and they are not one whit less devilish and lying, though\nrecorded in the Bible, than when expounded by any modern Universalist\npreacher. But we mean that it is very true that the devil was the\npreacher of that first Universalist sermon: and that God thought it\nneedful to let mankind know the shape of the doctrine, the character of\nthe preacher, and the consequences of listening to error; and therefore\ndirected Moses to record it truly for the information of all whom it may\nconcern. So there are many other sayings of wicked men, and even of good\nmen, recorded in the Bible, which are very false; but the Bible gives a\ntrue record of them, by God's direction, that we may not be ignorant of\nSatan's devices.\n\nNor, when we say that God directed the prophets what to write, and how\nto write it, so that they did not go wrong in the writing of his word,\ndo we mean that he also so guided every piece of their behavior, as that\nthey never went wrong in doing their own actions; nor that the sins of\nthe saints, recorded in the Bible, are anything the less sinful for\nbeing recorded there, or for being performed by men who ought to have\nknown better. There is not a perfect man upon the earth, that doeth\ngood, and sinneth not. If the Bible had left the faults of its writers\nundiscovered it would not have been a true history. But these very\nwriters of the Bible tell us their own transgressions, under the\ndirection of the Spirit of God; a thing writers in general are very shy\nabout. Moses tells us how he spake unadvisedly with his lips, and was\npunished for it. David's penitential psalms record the bitter tears he\nwept over his transgression; tears which could not wash out the sentence\nagainst the man after God's own heart--_the sword shall never depart\nfrom thy house_. An overburdened people, a rotten court, a falling\nempire, continual strife, a family of scolding women, and a foolish\nson--might have been considered sufficient marks of God's displeasure,\nwithout causing the wisest of men to pen, and publish to the world, such\na minute record of his madness, folly and misery, as we find in\nEcclesiastes. But these shipwrecked mariners were divinely directed to\npile up the sad memorials of their errors on the reefs where they were\nwrecked, as beacons of warning to all inexperienced voyagers on life's\ntreacherous sea. The light-house is built by the same authority as the\ncustom-house, and is even more necessary.\n\nNow let us take note of the objects of our investigation. We are not in\nsearch of the literary beauty or poetic inspiration of the Bible; but we\ninquire by what right does it command our obedience? Nor are we about to\ninquire whether, when we have tried the Bible at the tribunal of our\nreason, we shall give it a diploma to commend it to the patronage of\nother critics; but whether it comes to us attested by such evidence of\nbeing the Word of God, that our reason shall reverently bow down before\nit as a higher authority, and seek light from it by which to judge of\nall spiritual and moral matters.\n\nAttempts are continually made to confuse these great questions, by\nconcessions of the literary excellence of the Bible, on the part of\nthose who deny its divine authority. For instance, one of the modern\noracles of infidelity says, and his admirers incessantly repeat the\ngrand discovery: \"The writings of the Prophets contain nothing above the\nreach of the human faculties. Here are noble and spirit-stirring appeals\nto men's conscience, patriotism, honor and religion; beautiful poetic\ndescriptions, odes, hymns, expressions of faith almost beyond praise.\nBut the mark of human infirmity is on them all, and proofs or signs of\nmiraculous inspiration are not found in them.\"[120]\n\nBut what do the toiling millions of earth care about beautiful poetic\ndescriptions of a heaven and a hell that have no reality? Or what does\nit signify to you or me, reader, that the Bible raises its head far\nabove the other cedars of earthly literature? If its top reaches not to\nheaven, can it make a ladder long enough to carry us there? The Bible\ncontains predictions beyond the reach of the human faculties, as we have\nfully proved. These predictions at least are from God, and have no mark\nof human infirmity on them.\n\nIt does not at all meet this question to grant that the Bible is\ninspired, just as every work of genius is inspired; nor to profess that\nthey believe the Bible to be from God, just as every pure and holy\nthought, and every good work, proceed from him. When the assertors of\nthe divine authority of the Bible speak of it as inspired, they mean\nthat it is so as no other book is; and when they speak of it as coming\nfrom God, they mean that it does not come simply as a gift of God's\nbounty, as the soldier's land-warrant comes from the government; but\nthat it comes like the laws of Congress, carrying authority with it to\ncommand our obedience.\n\nWe feel no interest whatever in the discussion of an inspiration, \"like\nGod's omnipotence, not limited to the few writers claimed by the Jews,\nChristians and Mohammedans, but as extensive as the race;\"[121] or\nperhaps as extensive as all creation, and leading us to regard even \"the\nsolemn notes of the screech owl\" as inspired.[122] What manner of use\ncould the Bible be to an ignorant soul groping its way to truth and\nholiness, or to a dying sinner hastening to the judgment seat of God, if\nit were true, that \"the Bible's own teaching on the subject is that\neverything good in any book, person or thing, is inspired? Milton and\nShakespeare, and Bacon and the Canticles, the Apocalypse and the Sermon\non the Mount, and the Eighth Chapter of the Romans are all inspired. How\nmuch inspiration they respectively contain must be gathered from their\nresults.\"[123]\n\nThis liberal grant of inspiration, alike to Moses and Mohammed, to\nChrist and to Shakespeare, is evidently a denial of divine authority to\nany of them. If Hamlet, and the Sermon on the Mount, and the Koran, are\nall of a like divine authority, or all alike without any, it is merely a\nmatter of taste whether I worship at Niblo's or the Tabernacle, or keep\na harem in my house or a prayer-meeting. Most men, however, find it hard\nto believe that Christ and Mohammed taught exactly the same religion, or\nthat the church and the theater are precisely equal and alike in their\ninfluences on the heart and life; and so they reject several of these\ninspired men, and cleave to the one they like best. Whereas, if this\ntheory be true, they ought not to act in such a disrespectful way toward\nany inspired man; but ought to attend the church, the theater and the\nharem with equal regularity, and serve God, Mammon and Belial with\nequal diligence.\n\n\"Oh,\" it is replied, \"they are not all inspired in the same degree. It\ndoes not follow that because Byron, and Shakespeare, and Paul are all\ninspired, that their writings will produce exactly the same results, or\nthat they are alike suitable for every constitution and temper. How much\ninspiration they severally possess must be determined by their results.\nThe tree is known by its fruits; and experience is the price of truth.\"\n\nBut truth may be bought too dear. I am sick and need some medicine, but\nknow not exactly what kind, or how much to take. \"Here,\" says my\nRationalist friend, \"is a whole drug store for you. Every drawer, and\npot, and bottle is full of medicine. Help yourself.\" But, my good sir,\nhow am I to know what kind will suit me? There are poisons here, as well\nas medicines; and I can not tell the difference between arsenic and\ncalomel. One of my neighbors died the other day from swallowing oxalic\nacid instead of Glauber's salts. Be kind enough to put the poisons on\none shelf, and the medicines on the other, or, at least, to label them,\nso that I may know which to choose and which to refuse. \"Oh,\" says my\nRationalist friend, \"this distinction between medicines and poisons is\nall an antiquated, vulgar prejudice. What you call poisons are really\nmedicines. Medical virtue is not confined to the few specifics\nrecognized by the Homeopathics, the Regular Faculty, or the\nHydropathics, but is as extensive as the world. Everything on earth has\na medical virtue; but how much, and of what sort, must be determined by\nexperience. In fact, you must try for yourself whether any particular\ndrug will kill you, or cure you. So here is the whole drug store to\nbegin your cure with.\" A valuable gift, truly! \"In the day we eat\nthereof, our eyes will be opened, and we shall be as gods, knowing good\nand evil.\" I think, reader, you and I will let somebody else try that\nexperiment.\n\n\"Why should men throw away their common sense, and swallow everything as\ninspired?\" says another friend of the Rationalistic school. \"God has\ngiven us reason to discern between good and evil, and commanded us to\nuse it. _Prove the spirits, whether they be of God._ _I spake as to wise\nmen._ _Judge ye what I say_, is the language of Scripture. The right of\nprivate judgment is the inalienable inheritance of Protestants. I am for\nexamining the Bible according to the principles of reason and truth.\n'That only is to be regarded as true and valid which is matter of\npersonal conviction.' The Old Testament is in many places contrary to my\nconvictions of truth and reason. I find that it consists of a great\nvariety of treatises of various degrees of merit. Even in the same book\nit presents often strange contrasts--sublime moral precepts on one page;\non the next, solemn requirements of frivolous ceremonies, utterly\nunworthy of God; or solemn narrations of miraculous interferences with\nthe established course of nature, which, taken literally, are absolutely\nincredible. The judicious reader must therefore discriminate between\nthose divine precepts of morality which were infused into the minds of\nthe Hebrew sages, and those Jewish prejudices which their education and\ncharacter inclined them to regard as equally important; and he must\ndivest the narrative of facts as they actually occurred, from the\nnational legends and traditions which the compilers of the Pentateuch\nadded to adorn the history.\"\n\nThis, it will be seen, at once raises another and very important\nquestion, namely: By what standard are the writings of the Old Testament\nto be judged? Or rather it settles the question by taking it for\ngranted, that every inquirer is to judge them according to his own\nnotions of reason and truth. But this does not help me out of my\ndifficulty; for it supposes me already to possess the knowledge, and\nthe virtue, which a revelation from God is needed to communicate. If I\nam able, by my own reason, to construct a perfect standard of morals to\njudge the Bible by, what need have I for the Bible revelation? And if I\nhave the right to refuse obedience to any commands I may judge frivolous\nor unreasonable, before I know whether they came from God or not, and am\nbound to obey only those which agree with my notions of right, what\nauthority has the law of God? A revelation from God which should submit\nits truths to be judged by the ignorance, and its commands by the\ninclinations, of sinful men, would by that very submission declare its\nworthlessness. The use of a divine revelation is either to tell us some\ntruth of which we are ignorant, or to enjoin some duty to which we are\ndisinclined.\n\nBesides, it is not possible to make any such dissection of the moral\nprecepts of the Bible, from the miraculous history which forms their\nskeleton, as will leave them either truth or authority. It is the\nmiraculous history that gives sanction to the divine morality, and\nwithout it the ten commandments would have no more hold on any man's\nconscience than the wise saws which Poor Richard says. Take, for\ninstance, one of the first and most important of the Bible\nmoralities--the sacredness of marriage--which is wholly based upon a\nnarrative of events utterly unparalleled; and, if judged by the usual\ncourse of nature, perfectly incredible. The original difference in the\nformation of man and woman, and God's making at first one man and one\nwoman, and joining them together with his blessing, constitute the\nreasons, and consecrate the pledge of marriage. \"_For this cause shall a\nman leave his father and mother_--although the claims of the parental\nrelation are very strong--_and cleave to his wife_--with whom it may be\nhe has but a few weeks' acquaintance--_and they two shall be one flesh_.\n_What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder._\" But\nif the cause had no existence, save in the brain of some antediluvian\nnovel-writer, and God did not so unite them, the consequence is only a\nnotion also, and any man may leave his wife whenever he likes.\n\nBy far the most incredible narrative in the Bible is contained in the\nfirst verse: \"_In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth._\"\nAll the other miracles recorded in it sink into familiarity compared\nwith this stupendous display of the supernatural. To the believer of\nthis first great miracle none of its subsequent narratives can seem\nincredible. But it is precisely upon this unexampled and incredible\nnarrative that the whole structure of Bible morality is built. If this\nextraordinary narrative be rejected as false, all the moral precepts of\nthe Bible are not worth a feather. The morality of the Bible, then,\nstands or falls with its history of God's supernatural works among men.\n\nIt has been argued, that no amount of testimony can authenticate\naccounts of miracles; since a miracle, being a violation of the laws of\nnature, is contradicted by an unalterable experience, but only supported\nby fallible human testimony.\n\nBut every step of this sophism is in error. A miracle can not be proven\nto be any more a violation of the laws of nature, than the existence of\nthe nature regulated by laws. It may be more unusual, but not more\nsupernatural. The restoration of life to a dead man is no greater\nviolation of the laws of nature than the first bestowal of life on dead\nmatter. Were the resurrections as common as childbirths nobody would\nconsider them violations of the laws of nature.\n\nMoreover, our knowledge of the laws of nature is not based upon my\nexperience, or yours, but upon the testimony of our teachers; which, so\nfar from being uniform and invariable as to the supremacy of the\ncommonplace in nature, is perfectly conclusive as to the repeated\noccurrence of the miraculous. The miracles of Scripture are better\nauthenticated than the facts of science.\n\nScientific men talk a great deal of nonsense about the laws of nature,\nas if they were the only agents known in this world. But every man knows\nthat he himself possesses the power to control the laws of nature, by\nbringing a higher law to arrest a lower; as when the power of vegetation\narrests the law of gravitation, and sends the drop of rain which had\ntrickled down the outside of the bark of the pine, climbing up again a\nhundred feet; or as when the power of animal life converts a hundred\nweight of grass into a leg of mutton; or as when the power of the human\nintellect transforms a pound of zinc into telegrams, or a ton of niter\nand sulphur into death and destruction. Now if man can thus control and\nuse the laws of nature for human purposes, why can not the God who made\nhim so cunning do as much? Aye, and as much more as God is greater than\nman?\n\nBut we are told that no testimony can prove that any wonderful work has\nbeen wrought by God. \"No testimony can reach to the supernatural;\ntestimony can apply only to apparent sensible facts; testimony can only\nprove an extraordinary, and perhaps inexplicable, phenomenon or\noccurrence; that it is due to supernatural causes is entirely dependent\non the previous belief or assumption of the parties.\"[124]\n\nBut when Christ said, \"If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then\nthe kingdom of God is come unto you;\" or when he said, at the grave of\nLazarus, to Martha, \"Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldest believe\nthou shouldest see the glory of God?\" can we not believe our Lord's\ntestimony, that he cast out devils, and raised the dead, by the direct\nintervention of God? He appeals to his miracles as evidences of his\ndivine authority: \"The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear\nwitness of me.\" \"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But\nif I do though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know\nand believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.\"[125] Now I demand\nto know whether this testimony of our Lord is not to be believed? And\nwhether he does not directly claim to work miracles by the immediate\npower of God? The testimony of the man whom God authenticates, by\nenabling him to do such miracles as those of Moses and of Christ, is\nconclusive as to the power by which they are wrought. So you read in\nExodus iii. that God commissioned Moses to work miracles as signs of his\ndivine commission, and seals of his testimony recorded in the Bible.\n\nIf we proceed now to examine the facts of this history, it is evident,\nthat neither your reason or mine, nor our personal convictions, can be\nany rule of what is true and valid. The most that reason can say about\nhistory is, that the story seems probable; but so does any well-written\nnovel; or that it is improbable; but truth is often stranger than\nfiction; and every genuine history relates wonderful events. Neither\ndoes our personal knowledge enable us to tell what was the original\nhistorical fact, how much was added by the Hebrew prejudices of Moses,\nand which are the legends with which it was afterward adorned; for\nneither you nor I were there to see. Nor can any two of those critics,\nwho have undertaken to divide the facts from the fables according to\ntheir personal convictions of what is true and valid, agree upon any\ncommon principle of gleaning, or in gathering in their results. And if\nthey could, the crop would not be worth barn-room; for the only\nconclusion in which they seem at all likely to agree is, that the story\nof creation in the beginning of the Book is a myth, like one of Ovid's\nMetamorphoses; and that the prophecy of the resurrection, at the end, is\nanother; and that there are a great many legends in the middle. Now, if\nso, why winnow such chaff?\n\nBut while the Jewish people exist as a distinct race, it is impossible\nrationally to deny some extraordinary origin of their extraordinary\ncharacter and customs; and the Bible is the only history which pretends\nto tell it. The utter failure of Rationalistic criticism to give any\nrational account of the facts which must be admitted to account for the\nexistence of the Jews as a distinct people, is ludicrously apparent in\nthe attempts generally made to explain the miraculous narratives of the\nBible. The tree of good and evil was a poisonous plant, like the poison\noak, or the machineal tree, under which our first parents fell asleep,\nand dreamed about the temptation, and the fall. The shining face of\nMoses was the natural effect of electricity. Zechariah's vision was the\nsmoke of the lamps of the golden candlestick in the temple. The wise men\nof the East were some peddlers who presented toys to the child Jesus;\nand the star which went before, their servant carrying a torch. The\nangels who ministered to Christ in his temptation were a caravan bearing\nprovisions. The transfiguration was an electric storm. The plagues of\nEgypt, the passage of the Red Sea, and the miracles of the desert, were\nmerely natural phenomena, dextrously used by Moses and Aaron to suit\ntheir purpose.\n\nIt is alleged that these enthusiastic patriots, full of the\nsuperstitions of an early age, which attributed all prodigies to God,\nand placed all heroes under his guidance, succeeded by their fiery\neloquence in inspiring their captive countrymen with the love of\nliberty; and had political dexterity enough to create a faction in their\nfavor in the Egypt cabinet. Then taking advantage of a fortunate\nsuccession of calamities arising from natural causes--such as an\nextraordinary rising of the Nile, in consequence of which it was more\ndeeply colored than usual with the red mud of Nubia, and overflowed the\ncountry to a greater extent than usual, leaving on its retreat numerous\nponds, which, of course, bred swarms of frogs and gnats, and raised\nmalaria, spreading various sicknesses over the land, both to man and\nbeast; a devastating visit of locusts, the well-known scourge of Africa;\na remarkable thunder-storm, accompanied with hail, causing great havoc\nof growing crops, as such hail-storms always do; followed by the\nchamsin, or dust-storm from the desert, darkening the air with clouds of\ndust and sand; and by an extraordinary mortality, the natural result of\nthese various causes--they persuaded the superstitious Egyptians that\nthese calamities were tokens of the displeasure of the God of the\nHebrews, and improved the opportunity to escape, while the resources of\nthe Egyptians were exhausted, and their minds confounded by these\nvarious misfortunes. Leading them to that part of the Red Sea south of\nSuez, where a succession of shoals stretch across from the Egyptian to\nthe Arabian side, they crossed safely at low water, while the Egyptian\narmy perished by the rising of the tide; and the Israelites betaking\nthemselves to a wandering, pastoral life in the wilderness of Arabia,\nlived, as the Bedouins do at this day, on the milk of their flocks and\nthe manna which was spontaneously produced by the tamarisk trees of\nSinai; where they remained until they had framed a civil and religious\ncode, and whence they prosecuted their conquests in various directions\nfor fifty years, until their invasion of Palestine. This is the sum of\nwhat, with various modifications, Rationalist writers and preachers\npresent us, as the genuine historic basis of the Mosaic narrative.\n\nIt really does seem to have been very fortunate for the Israelites that\nso many misfortunes should happen to fall upon their oppressors, all in\none season, and just at the time that men of such cleverness as Moses\nand Aaron were among them; and that the Egyptians should luckily have\nimbibed the superstition, that all nature was under the direction of a\nSupreme Moral Governor, who was able and willing to wield all the\nelements for the punishment of oppressors.\n\nIt was also very lucky for these poor, overworked, and oppressed\nslaves--the class which in all other ages and countries suffers most\nfrom hard times--that they should have escaped unhurt by these\ncalamities; for if they had suffered by them as well as the Egyptians,\nthey could not have persuaded them that God favored Israel.\n\nHere one can not but wonder that these learned Egyptians, whose colleges\nof priests were planted on the banks of the Nile, and who had made the\nclimate, soil, and productions of their native land their constant\nstudy, should have been so ignorant of these natural causes of the\nplagues--so easily discovered nowadays by anybody who makes a summer\ntrip to Egypt--as to be terrified into emancipating their slaves by a\nstormy season. Just imagine to yourself a couple of abolitionist\nlecturers proceeding to Lexington and commanding the slaveholders of\nKentucky to liberate their slaves immediately, on pain of the Ohio being\nmuddy during high water, and the swamps of the river-bottom being full\nof frogs and musquitoes! But this interpretation does not reach the\nclimax of absurdity till our Rationalist Punch, by way of signalizing\nhis deliverance from Egyptian bondage, makes Pharaoh and his army forget\nthat the tide ebbs and flows in the Red Sea, raises the tide over a\nshoal faster than cavalry could gallop from it, gathers an annual crop\nof twenty millions of bushels of manna from the thorn-bushes of Sinai,\nand feeds three millions of men, women, and children for forty years\nupon purgative medicine!!!\n\n\"We must then give up the problem as insoluble; for if reason be\ninsufficient to give authority to the Bible, and criticism fails to\ndiscover its truth, how are we to know that it possesses either?\"\n\nJust as you would discover the truth of any other history, or the\nauthority of any other law. You do not say, \"The tale of the successive\nswellings of the Catawba, the Yadkin, and the Dan--three times in a\nfortnight, in February, 1781, immediately after the American army had\nretreated across these rivers, preventing Cornwallis and the British\nforces from crossing till the little handful of weary and famished\npatriots had escaped--savors of the marvelous and leans so much toward\nthe superstition of a special providence, that it must be rejected as\nnot historical.\" You inquire if there be sufficient testimony to the\nfact. You do not say, \"The Revised Statutes present internal evidence of\nbeing a collection of political tracts by various authors, written at\ndifferent times, differing also in style, and of various degrees of\nmerit, many of them contrary to my inmost personal convictions;\ntherefore I can not acknowledge them as true and valid.\" You simply ask\nif this be a true copy of the laws passed by the legislature and signed\nby the governor? Our inquiry about the truth of the history, and the\nauthority of the laws of the Bible, must be of the same kind--an inquiry\nafter testimony. Is this Book genuine or a forgery? Is it a true history\nor a lying romance? Have we any testimony on the subject?\n\nBut it is alleged that the Book contains in itself evidence of having\nbeen written in an unscientific age, and in an unhistorical manner; and,\nparticularly, that its statements of the creation of the world, and of\nmankind, only six thousand years ago, are refuted by the discoveries of\ngeology; which show us, that the world is many millions of years old,\nand that man has been on this world at least one hundred thousand years.\nIn support of this last assertion, geologists refer to the remains of\nthe lake dwellings in Switzerland; to skeletons of men found in caves,\nwith bones of animals now extinct; to flint tools and weapons found in\ngravel beds, said to be of remote antiquity; to bones found deep in the\nMississippi bottom; and to the monuments of Egypt.\n\nIn replying to this objection, we have first to say that we have\nelsewhere, in this volume, shown that the Bible nowhere alleges that\nGod created the earth only six thousand years ago, but in many places\nemphatically affirms the contrary.\n\nIn the second place, as to the antiquity of man, the Bible nowhere says,\nthat Adam was the first human being whom God created; nor that he and\nhis posterity were the only intelligent beings occupying this world\nbefore our tenancy of it; nor that we are even now the exclusive\noccupants. On the contrary, it makes very distinct allusions to other\nraces, capable of assuming serpentine, swinish, and human bodies, and of\nmeddling disastrously in earthly affairs in former times; though, as it\ndoes not profess to teach us truths which do not concern us, it gives us\nno narration of the creation or history of pre-Adamite animals or men.\nBut there is no more ground of objection against the Bible for\nneglecting to give us a history of pre-Adamite men, if there were such\nmen, than for neglecting to describe the pre-Adamite animals, or the\ncoal measures, or the nebulae, or the climate, soil, population, and\npolitics of Jupiter. The Bible has one great object--to teach men how to\nbe holy and happy; and it can not be shown that the chronicles of the\npre-Adamites, if they kept chronicles of their alleged savage state,\nwould help us in the acquisition of holiness.\n\nNo discoveries, then, which geologists may make of pre-Adamite races of\nmen, can at all affect the credit of Moses' account of the creation of\nAdam, and of the history of his family. They may fill museums, if they\nplease, with their flint arrow-heads and axes, they may pile up pyramids\nof stone mortars, they may perhaps some day discover an old-world bronze\nrailroad, and bronze-clad or copper-bottomed steamboats, they may\nproduce pre-Adamic electric, aeronautic engines, and magnetic sewing\nmachines, or bone needles, we care not which; and we will admire them,\nand confess that they are very curious, and perhaps very old; but\nunless they can show that Adam was descended from these old-world\nfolks, we have no biblical quarrel with them. Like Moses, we will let\nthem rest in peace.\n\nBut we would remark, thirdly, that no such discoveries have yet been\nmade. No human bone, implement, or monument, has yet been discovered\nwhich can be proved to be more ancient than Adam, or nearly so ancient.\nThere is not a single indisputable fact to show, that any of the tools,\nbones, or monuments; alleged in this discussion, is of any specific date\nwhatever, save that the Danish bogs came down to the date of the Danish\ninvasion of Ireland in the eleventh century; the burnt corn of the Swiss\nlake dwellings was probably that which Julius Caesar describes the\nHelvetians as burning preparatory to their invasion of Gaul; and the\nmonuments of Egypt, for which Bunsen claimed twenty thousand years, are\nnow acknowledged by the best Egyptologists to reach not quite to 3000 B.\nC. As to the bone found at the base of the bluff at Memphis, it was not\nfound _in situ_, and probably was washed out of some Indian grave at the\ntop, and buried in the _debris_. The Abbeville skull[126] _had a fresh\ntooth in it_, for which thirty-five thousand years was claimed, until\nexamination by a competent committee exposed the deception. Where there\nis a good paying demand for pre-Adamite skulls, there will always be a\ngood supply. Dr. Dowler calculates the age of a skeleton of an Indian,\nfound at the depth of sixteen feet in digging the gas works at New\nOrleans, at fifty thousand years; while the U. S. Coast Surveying\nDepartment show that the whole Delta is not more than four thousand four\nhundred years old.\n\nThese gross errors, which affront our common sense, wherever we are able\nto test geological calculations, fill us with mistrust of their\nallegations of evidence, which, from the nature of the case, we can not\ntest.\n\nOf this class is the discovery of human bones in caves containing the\nbones of cave bears, rhinocerii, mammoths, and other extinct animals.\nThe argument is that man and these animals lived at the same time. Very\nwell, what time was that? There is no evidence to show that it was a\nhundred thousand years ago. The Siberian hunters fed their dogs on the\nflesh of a mammoth they found frozen in mud bluffs at the mouth of the\nLena, and its hair and wool are now in the museum of St. Petersburg. Dr.\nWarren's _mastodon giganteus_ had some bushels of pine and maple twigs,\nin excellent preservation, in its stomach, when exhumed in Orange\nCounty, New York; and you may see for yourself the vegetable fiber found\nin its teeth in his museum in Boston.[127] Does any one believe that the\nvegetable fiber and maple twigs have kept their shape one hundred\nthousand years? The mammoth found in the ditch of the Tezcucoco road\nmust have fallen in after the Incas had dug that ditch. The Indians have\na tradition that their fathers hunted a huge deer with a hand on his\nface, which slept leaning against the trees. And there is good\ngeological reason for believing that the final extinction of the\nmammoth, the European rhinoceros, and their contemporaries, was caused\nby the change of climate in Northern Europe, Asia, and America, caused\nby the elevation of these northern lands, which has been going on since\nthe tenth century, and which, about three centuries ago, closed the\nPolar Sea, rendering Greenland uninhabitable. The juxtaposition, then,\nof the bones of man and extinct animals is no proof of the remote\nantiquity of either. And no proof has been made from the nature or depth\nof the overlying deposits.\n\nThe shape, size, and general character of the skulls alleged to be of\nsuch remote antiquity give no countenance to the theory of man's brutal\norigin; which is the great thing to be gained by giving him a remote\nantiquity. The Enghis skull is in no way inferior to many good modern\nIndian skulls; and the man of Mentone stood six feet one in his stocking\nsoles (if he wore stockings), having a good John Bull head between his\nshoulders, with a facial angle equal to that of Generals Grant or Von\nMoltke; and in fact being a fine old Gallic gentleman, all of the good\nold times.\n\nGeologists, however, lay stress on the cumulative character of the\nevidence they produce; owning that no single fact is conclusive, but\nclaiming that credence should be given to the accumulation of facts. But\nno accumulation of ciphers will amount to anything. All the alleged\nfacts are found to be fatally defective either in authenticity or\ndefiniteness. No multitude of doubts can assure us of the certainty of a\nfact or assertion. The evidence for the pre-Adamite antiquity of man is\nonly a gathering of facts doubtful, and wholly indeterminate, without\nany element of proof of remote antiquity.[128]\n\nBut there is a source of evidence of the most undeniable character, to\nwhich we may appeal for a decision of the subject. The law of population\nis as certain as any other law of nature; and it tends to the regular\nincrease of mankind. Population tends to double itself every twenty-five\nyears, as we see in the United States. In less favored countries the\nrate is not so rapid. In Europe it doubles every fifty years; and\nnowhere in less than two centuries. And the result is, that if the human\nrace had existed on this earth under existing laws of nature, as the\nevolutionists allege, for one hundred thousand years, not only must they\nhave multiplied until their bones would have covered the earth, and\nfilled the sea, but, as Sir John Herschel shows, they would have formed\na vertical column, having for its base the whole surface of the earth,\nand for its height three thousand six hundred and seventy-four times the\nsun's distance from the earth![129]\n\nThe existing population of the globe corresponds pretty well to the\nnatural increase of three pairs in forty centuries, which is something\nnear to the Bible chronology. The laws of population, then, inexorably\nrefuse the indefinite, or even the remote antiquity of mankind, and\nvindicate Moses as a writer of truthful history.\n\nThe alleged anachronisms of the Pentateuch have been adduced as\ntestimony that it could not have been written till long after the time\nof Moses. These alleged anachronisms are generally the insertion of a\nmodern name of a city instead of the ancient name, or an explanatory\naddition which would not have been necessary in the days of Moses. Now\nif all these cases could be proved, they would at most only show that\nthe scribes who copied the manuscripts in later ages had inserted these\nexplanatory changes or additions, under proper authority. Everybody's\ncommon sense will tell him, that Moses did not narrate his own death in\nthe last chapter of Deuteronomy; but it is none the less true though\nJoshua, or some other prophet, added that postscript.\n\nBut Hengstenberg has[130] examined these alleged anachronisms in detail,\nand shown that the objectors allow themselves to interpolate into the\ntext a meaning of their own in order to show the inaccuracy of the\nBible. For instance, Genesis xii. 6, \"The Canaanite was then in the\nland,\" they maintain could only be written after the Canaanites had been\ndriven out. They interpolate _still_, which is not in the text. But they\nentirely mistake the meaning of the passage, which refers to an earlier\nstatement of the same fact, chapter x. 15, to show that Abraham, the\nheir of the promise, came as a stranger and a pilgrim to a land\npreoccupied by a powerful people, who are again mentioned, chapter xiii.\n7, for the purpose of showing how Lot and Abraham came to be so crowded\nas to separate.\n\nAnother of the prominent instances is the name of the ancient city of\nHebron, which, in the book of Joshua, is said to have been anciently\ncalled Kirjath-arba. But Numbers xiii. 22, which states that Hebron was\nbuilt seven years before Zoan in Egypt, and was the residence of Ahiman,\nSheshai, and Talmai, the sons of Anak, shows that the writer was well\nacquainted with the history of the place, and Genesis xxxv. 27 shows\nthat Hebron was the first name, and that it had two other names added to\nit, both after the time of Abraham, since Mamre was his contemporary,\nand the Anakim lived centuries later. This may stand for a specimen of\nthe alleged anachronisms of the Pentateuch.\n\nBut now comes Bishop Colenso with his slate and pencil to demonstrate to\nus that, no matter who wrote it, or by what external authority it is\ncommended, the Pentateuch is so full of arithmetical errors, and of\nimpossible narratives, in its accounts of common affairs, as well as in\nits miraculous stories, that not only is it not the Word of God, but\nthat it is not even a truthful history, and stands self-convicted of\nbeing a collection of fables. Of course, if that can be proved, there is\nan end of the matter, though it would still seem strange that it should\nhave been left for the bishop to discover Moses' ignorance of\narithmetic, and of camp-life among the Arabs. Nevertheless the very\nnovelty of a bishop assaulting the Bible in such a style has secured\nfor him a large number of readers, many of them ignorant enough to\nbelieve his assertions, though too indolent to test his calculations, or\neven to read the passages he criticises. This renders some notice of his\ncriticisms necessary according to our plan of considering objections\naccording to their popularity, rather than according to their merit.\nFor, on examining the bishop's objections to the Bible, they are all\nfound to arise from want of science, want of sense, or ignorance of\nScripture--an inability to read the Scriptures in their original Hebrew,\nor even to cite them correctly in English. In some criticisms he\ncontrives to compile these three kind of blunders into a single chapter,\nmaking a mosaic of very amusing reading indeed.\n\nOf course we can only give specimens of his peculiar style of attack on\nthe Bible; for to expose all his blunders would require some volumes as\nlarge as his own. But we shall select illustrative instances of the\nbishop's blunders from each of the departments indicated above.\n\nAs a specimen of the bishop's blunders in science, let us take the first\nwhich he offers--his attempt to convict Moses of a contradiction to\ngeology in his account of the deluge.\n\nBishop Colenso declares that the Bible teaches that the deluge was\nuniversal, and that this is contradicted, among other things, by certain\ngeological discoveries, in Auvergne, of volcanic cones of light cinders,\nwhich would have been swept away by any such flood.\n\nAye, if they had only been there at that time! But Eli de Beaumont, a\nlearned geologist, not convicted of so many blunders as the bishop,\nalleges that the whole of the system of Teanarus, including the\nelevation of Stromboli, and AEtna, has been formed since the catastrophe\nof the principal Alps; and that the volcanoes of Auvergne and the\nVivarrus are of post-Adamic origin.[131] So the bishop's geology does\nnot contradict what he thinks the Bible says after all. On the contrary,\nso far from geology contradicting a universal deluge, the best\ngeologists speak of every part of the earth having been repeatedly under\nthe sea, and they collect its fossils on the tops of the mountains.\n\nBut the bishop ought to know that hundreds of years ago, before geology\nwas born, some of the most learned bishops and theologians of his own\nChurch, as well as some of the chief scholars of the dissenters,\nfollowing the most learned of the Hebrew rabbis, did not believe that\nthe Bible taught that the deluge was universal. For instance, Bishop\nStillingfleet, in his great work, _Origines Sacra_, says: \"I can not see\nany urgent necessity from the Scriptures to assert that the flood did\nspread over all the surface of the earth. That all mankind, those in the\nark excepted, were destroyed by it, is most certain, according to the\nScriptures. The flood was universal as to mankind, but from thence\nfollows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to\nthe globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole\nearth was peopled before the flood; which I despair of ever seeing\nproved.\" Matthew Poole says: \"Where was the need of overwhelming those\nregions of the earth in which there were no human beings? It would be\nhighly unreasonable to suppose that mankind had so increased before the\ndeluge as to have penetrated to all the corners of the earth. It is\nindeed not probable that they had extended themselves beyond the limits\nof Syria and Mesopotamia. Absurd it would be to affirm that the effects\nof the punishment, inflicted upon men alone, applied to those places in\nwhich there were no men. If, then, we should entertain the belief that\nnot so much as the hundredth part of the globe was overspread with\nwater, still the deluge would be universal; because the extirpation took\neffect upon all the part of the globe then inhabited.\"\n\nNor does the language of the Bible necessarily convey the idea that the\nwhole surface of the globe was covered with water. Dathe, professor of\nHebrew (in his _Opuscala ad Crisin_, edited by Rosenmuller, 1795), says:\n\"Interpreters do not agree whether the deluge inundated the whole earth\nor only the regions then inhabited. I adopt the latter opinion. The\nphrase _all_ does not prove the inundation to have been universal. It\nappears that in many places _kol_ is to be understood as limited to the\nthing or place spoken of. Hence all the animals introduced into the ark\nwere only those of the region inundated.\"\n\nBut the most literal rendering of the language of Moses does not\nnecessitate our belief that when he says that the waters covered the\nwhole earth, _arets_, he meant the whole globe. The common Bible meaning\nof this word is land, country, or region, as the perpetually recurring\nphrases, the land, _arets_, of Havilah, the land of Nod, the land of\nEthiopia, the land of Goshen, the land of Egypt, the land of Canaan,\nwhich occurs three hundred and ninety times, may convince every reader\nbeyond the possibility of mistake. How now, from this word being used by\nMoses, could this learned bishop conclude that he necessarily meant to\ndescribe the globe? Moses says, \"The waters prevailed upon and covered\nthe whole country.\" The bishop translates, \"covered the whole globe;\"\nevidently in order to make Moses commit a blunder.\n\nBut reference is made to the expression, \"All the high hills under the\nwhole heavens were covered;\" which the bishop will have it meant all the\nmountains under the moon.\n\nBut the popular use of the word \"heavens,\" in Moses' day, had as little\nreference to universal space, as the word earth, or land, had to the\nwhole globe. It meant simply the visible heavens over any place; and its\nextent was defined by the extent of the earth those visible heavens\ncovered. Thus Moses himself defines it, Deuteronomy iv. 32: \"Ask from\nthe one side of heaven unto the other.\" Deuteronomy xxviii. 8: \"Thy\nheaven over thee shall be as brass.\" Deuteronomy ii. 25: \"This day I\nwill begin to put the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the\nwhole heaven.\" And so commonly throughout the Bible, \"the clouds of\nheaven,\" \"the fowls of heaven,\" refer to the optical heavens. Such is\nthe meaning in Genesis. Noah describes the deluge as it appeared to him,\nas covering all the hills within the horizon of observation, and Moses\ncopies Noah's log-book.\n\nThe geologist adds his testimony to the existing evidences of the recent\nsubmergence of a large region of Persia and Turkey around the Caspian\nSea, and its subsequent elevation. But it is no part of our business to\nshow in what way God produced the deluge. Geology shows us, however,\nthat the submergence of parts of the earth beneath the sea, and their\nsubsequent elevation, is the most common of all geological phenomena;\nalmost all existing continents and islands having been submerged.\n\nThe bishop is as far behind the age in his astronomy as in his geology.\nHe blindly follows the Infidels of the last century in their attack on\nJoshua's miracle, arresting the sun and moon, as inconsistent with their\nscience; which taught the immobility of the sun and moon, it seems, and\nwas entirely ignorant of the modern discovery of the grand motions of\nthe fixed stars, including our sun, and of the dependence of all the\nplanets, including our earth and moon, upon that grand motion for the\nmotive power of their revolutions.[132]\n\nOne wonders from what college the bishop came out ignorant of facts\nknown to the boys of American common schools.\n\nA great many of the bishop's blunders are occasioned by want of sense.\nThe process is very simple. The sacred history is very brief. Only the\nheadings of things are recorded. Much must be supplied by the common\nsense of the reader. The manners of the East are very different from\nours. Three thousand years have greatly changed the face of the country.\nIgnore all this, and interpret the Pentateuch as though it consisted of\nthe letters of Our Own Correspondent, and you will find difficulties on\nevery page. Such is the style of Colenso's criticism. Assume that Moses\ngives a full and complete chronicle of all events which have happened\nsince the creation, and then dispute the recorded facts because it can\neasily be shown he omitted many.\n\nBut the bishop has not the honor of discovering this method, or of\nfounding this school of criticism. We have heard village critics of the\nloom and the forge discuss such questions as are handled by Colenso, and\nthe Essays and Reviews, and often with much more acuteness and\npenetration. With what _eclat_ has our village critic unhorsed the\nitinerant preacher with the inquiry, What became of the forks belonging\nto the nine and twenty knives which Ezra brought back from Babylon? but\nwas, alas! himself routed in the moment of triumph by the inquiry as to\nthe sex of the odd clean beasts of Noah's sevens. How often has our\nvillage blacksmith critic requested a sermon upon the genealogy of\nMelchizedek, which the minister agreed to furnish when our blacksmith\ncould tell him the foundry which manufactured Tubal Cain's hammer and\nanvil. Lot's wife, the witch of Endor, Jonah's whale, the sundial of\nAhaz, and the population of Nineveh, were all duly discussed, together\nwith the bodies in which the angels dined with Abraham. Did the loaves\nand fishes miraculously multiply in numbers, or increase in size? Where\ndid the angel get the flour to bake the cake for Elijah? Did our Lord\ncatch the fish by net, or by miracle, which he used in the Lord's Dinner\non the shore of the Sea of Galilee. But _the_ question--which we marvel\nbeyond measure that the bishop overlooks--always was, Where did Cain\nget his wife? This is the fundamental question for such critics. The\ndifficulty, it will be perceived, lies across the very threshold of the\nhistory. How did he stumble over it without record of his misadventure?\nIt recurs, however, on every page. If the bishop will only answer that\nquestion, and introduce us politely to Cain's wife, I will engage that\nshe will answer most of these other difficult questions. Had Seth a\nwife? How could Noah and his three sons build a ship larger than the\nGreat Eastern? We can imagine the roars of laughter with which the\nbigger school-boys will greet the serious exhibition of their old tests\nof dullness, in a printed book, and by a learned bishop, as objections\nto the inspiration of the Bible. But the bishop does actually devote\nChapter V. to the impossibility of Moses addressing all Israel; Chapter\nVI. to the extent of the camp compared with the priest's duties; Chapter\nXX. to the grave difficulty of the three priestly families consuming the\nofferings of some millions of people; which surely to a bishop of the\nChurch of England should not be an unparalleled feat. Such chapters\nenable us to appreciate the mental caliber of our critic, and excuse us\nfrom argument with a man incapable of interpreting popular phrases. He\nwould prove the associated press dispatches all a myth, because it is\nimpossible for the House of Commons to appear at the bar of the House of\nLords--six hundred men to stand on four square yards of floor; for\nMcClellan to address the Army of the Potomac, which extended along a\nline of thirty miles; for Grant and Sherman--two men--to capture\nVicksburg and thirty thousand prisoners! Manifestly impossible.\n\nThe most specious of all the sophistry spread over the volume is that\ncontained in the Seventeenth Chapter, regarding the increase of Jacob's\nfamily, of seventy persons, to a nation of two or three millions, in\nEgypt, during the two hundred and fifteen years to which he confines the\nbondage. But it is only another case of Cain's wife. The Pentateuch\ngives us the list of Jacob's children and their wives, but makes no\nformal mention in that place of their servants and retainers. These, in\nAbraham's times, amounted to three hundred fencible men, or a population\nof fifteen hundred; who would have increased in Jacob's time to several\nthousands, capable of defending the border land of Goshen against the\nmarauding Bedouin. And this population could easily increase to the\nthree millions of the Exodus, at the same ratio in which the population\nof the United States is now increasing; so that it is a mere superfluity\nof naughtiness for the bishop to deny what the sacred historian so\nemphatically asserts: \"That the people were fruitful, and increased\nabundantly, and multiplied, and the land was filled with them.\" But the\nbishop utterly ignores the people of the _clan_, and taking his slate\nand pencil ciphers out the impossibility of Jacob's _family_ amounting\nto so many. And yet it is not impossible that in the four hundred and\nthirty years which the sacred historian so precisely asserts as the\nperiod of their sojourn in Egypt, Exodus xii. 40, the family alone might\nhave multiplied as fast as the family of the famous Jonathan Edwards,\nwhich, in a hundred years after his death, numbered two thousand souls.\n\nPeter Cartwright, the venerable Methodist minister, celebrated his\neighty-seventh birthday on the first of September, 1871, at Pleasant\nPlains, Sangamon County, Illinois, surrounded by one hundred and twenty\nchildren, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Now, if this family of\ntwo persons could so increase in eighty-seven years, why could not\nJacob's family, of seventy persons, increase in equal ratio? In that\ncase, even in the two hundred and fifteen years to which the bishop\nlimits the sojourn in Egypt, the Israelites would have amounted to over\neight millions. If it be objected that this was a case of special\nblessing, we answer that the Israelites are expressly asserted to have\nbeen specially and wonderfully multiplied. There is, therefore, no\nimprobability in Moses' numbers.\n\nThe bishop ascribes to Moses another of his own blunders; this time,\nhowever, in reading his Bible in plain English, which correctly\ntranslates the Hebrew--Exodus xiii. 2. The Lord commands Moses and\nIsrael to \"Sanctify to him every male that openeth the womb, both of man\nand beast,\" from the time of the death of the first-born of the\nEgyptians. The impropriety of _ex post facto_ legislation, the reason\nassigned for this law, and the grammatical meaning of the language in\nthe present tense, all combine to show that the law is prospective; and\nthe number of the first-born, twenty-two thousand two hundred and\nseventy-five, afterward given in Numbers, shows plainly that this is the\nmeaning, being about the proper increase of thirteen months. But the\nbishop strangely blunders into the notion that this is the number of all\nthe first-born of Israel; only about one in forty-five or fifty, and\ntherefore argues against the historical veracity of the Pentateuch. A\ngood many of the bishop's blunders arise in this way from misreading his\nBible.\n\nHe makes another blunder of this kind, and as usual charges it on Moses,\nin his misreading of Leviticus xxiii. 40, as if directing Israel to make\nbooths of palm branches and willows at the feast of tabernacles, instead\nof bearing the palms of victory in triumph into the temple of God. The\nson of the chief rabbi of London ridicules the bishop's Hebrew\nscholarship here, saying that any Jewish child could have set him right;\nbut had he read even his English translation carefully he need not have\nblundered here.\n\nIn connection with the subject of the numbers of the people we notice\nhis tacit assumption--that Moses records everything necessary for a\nstatistical table--in his criticisms on the numbers of the Danites and\nLevites, Chapters XVIII. and XVI.; and on Judah's family, Chapter II.\nHe takes it for granted that because the Exodus took place in the\nlifetime of the fourth generation of some of the sons of Jacob,\ntherefore there were none but four generations born in the two hundred\nand fifteen years to which he confines the bondage, and none but those\nwhose names are recorded. This is a blunder of the same sort as if he\nshould mistake the list of the British peerage for a census of all the\nfamilies of Great Britain, and calculate the average duration of human\nlife by the ages of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Palmerston. But here\nwe have a wonderful instance of the providence which often makes\nobjectors refute themselves. The chapter on Judah's family (II.) shows\nthat in forty-two years Judah had grandchildren ten or twelve years old;\nas many Syrians, Persians, and Hindoos have at this day. But if six\ngenerations could thus be born in Syria, or India, in a century, why not\nin Egypt? And 1 Chronicles vii. 20, 21 enumerates ten generations of the\nsons of Ephraim; giving ample opportunity for the biblical increase.\n\nAnother set of the bishop's blunders is occasioned by his utter\nignorance of camp-life, especially among the Arabs. In Chapter VIII. he\nassumes that all the people had tents, and the bishop orders them made\nof leather. But he concludes they could not possibly get them, nor if\nthey had them could they carry them. By and by he provides them with two\nmillions of cattle, however; and it is likely each of them had a skin,\nand was able to carry it for a while, while the Hebrews dwelt in the\nbooths of the encampments they still commemorate in the feast of\ntabernacles. But the word \"tents\" is the common phrase for any kind of\nshelter in Scripture, including even houses in the expression, \"To your\ntents, O Israel,\" used in the days of David.\n\nIn Chapter IX. he discusses the probability of their obtaining arms in\nEgypt. A week with one of the Union armies would show him how speedily\nfreedmen can provide themselves with arms and learn tactics; and a\nshort residence in Ireland would teach him the utter impossibility of\npreventing a discontented people from arming themselves even with\nfirearms; much more when every grove furnished artillery. He protests\nthat all Egypt could not furnish lambs enough for the passover; because\nin Natal an acre will only graze one sheep, forgetting that Moses was\nnot raising sheep in Natal, but in the best of the land of Goshen,\nwhich, if as fertile as the county of Dorset in England, would easily\nkeep five millions of sheep.\n\nIn Chapter X. he insists on the impossibility of giving warning of the\npassover, and subsequent march, in one day, to a population as large as\nLondon, scattered over two or three counties. Has he forgotten the\nstraws carried over all Ireland in one night, and the Chupatties of the\nIndian Mutiny? The negro insurrection of Charleston was known by the\nnegroes of Louisiana two days before their masters received the\nintelligence by mail. Critics know little of the power of the love of\nfreedom. But there is no reason for the bishop's supposition that all\nthe preparations for leaving were made in one day, save his own mistake\nof the Hebrew of Exodus xii. 12, as referring to the night of the day on\nwhich God spake to Moses, instead of the night of the day of which he\nwas speaking, as the slightest reflection on the context shows.\n\nIn Chapter XI. the bishop assumes the functions of Major-General, and\nmasses his army--rank, and file, wagon train, hospital, commissariat,\ncontrabands, droves of cattle, and camp followers--into a mass of fifty\nfront and twenty-two miles long. Very naturally he gets into a\ntremendous jam, out of which we have no intention of extricating him;\nmerely remarking that bishops do not make good generals, and that Arab\nSheikhs do not march in that way. They scatter themselves and their\ncattle over the whole country for forty or fifty miles, and have no\nconfusion; and attend moreover to Moses' sanitary camp regulations, in\ntheir several encampments.\n\nIn Chapter XII. he exerts himself to starve the cattle for want of\npasture and water; garbling Moses' account of the wilderness for that\npurpose, Deuteronomy viii. 15, \"Beware that thou forget not Jehovah, thy\nGod, who led thee through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein\nwere fiery serpents, and scorpions, _where there was no water_.\" Here he\nstops, as if this was all that referred to the subject. But when we turn\nto the passage, we find that he omits the most material part of the\nspeech. For Moses goes on to say, in the hearing of all Israel, who\ncould certainly have contradicted him had the fact not been well known\nto them, \"Who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint.\" Moses'\naccount is quite self-consistent, and the bishop's garbling of it is\ndishonest. There were districts of Arabia so dry and sterile that but\nfor this miraculous supply both men and beasts had perished; but the\ngreater part of the country was simply uninhabited pasture land,\nsufficiently productive even now to support several Arab tribes; and\nmuch better wooded and watered then. The monuments of Egypt abundantly\ntestify the number and power of its shepherd kings, who pastured their\nflocks upon it in their successive invasions of Egypt.\n\nThe bishop says, Chapter XIII., that the climax of inconsistencies\nbetween facts and figures is reached when we come to the notice by the\nLord to Israel, contained in Exodus xxiii. 29, \"I will not drive them,\nthe Canaanites, out from before thee in one year, lest the land become\ndesolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee.\" The\nargument is that a population of two millions was assigned to a\nterritory of only eleven thousand square miles; and consequently would\nbe more dense than the population of the agricultural region of England,\nwhere there is no danger of wild beasts multiplying.\n\nBut the objection is again based on a blunder, and a garbling of the\ntext of Scripture. Had the bishop done himself and his readers the\njustice to complete the passage which he has half cited, by inserting\nthe next two verses, he could have read verse thirty-one: \"And I will\nset thy bounds from the Red Sea even to the Sea of the Philistines, and\nfrom the desert unto the river,\" _i. e._, the Euphrates, as other\npassages show, Genesis xv. 18. That is to say, a territory five hundred\nmiles long by one hundred miles broad, or fifty thousand square miles,\nwas to be occupied by two millions of people. That is about the present\npopulation, and all travelers testify that three-fourths of it lies\ndesolate. Prof. Porter saw seventy deserted towns and villages in Bashan\nalone. But for the rifle and gunpowder the wild beasts would now\noverpower the inhabitants.\n\nBy a wonderful providence, contemporaneously with these attacks, the\nLord has raised up an army of scholars, travelers, and archaeologists,\nwhose explorations illustrate the Bible in a remarkable manner, throwing\nnew light upon its history, poetry, and prophecy. It is refreshing to\nturn from the cavils of ignorant criticism to the clear light of\ndiscovered facts and imperishable monuments.\n\nThe Bible history has recently received a wonderful amount of\nillustration and confirmation from the researches of scholars and\ndiscoverers amid the ruins of Egypt, Persia, and Assyria; completely\nexploding the theory that this history was a comparatively recent\ncomposition, written long after the events which it records, and\nbetraying its want of genuineness by the anachronisms and errors of\ndescription of historical and natural events with which it abounds.\nWherever it differed from the statements of any Greek, or other heathen\nhistorian, it was forthwith alleged that Moses was wrong, and the\nprofane author was right; and for a long time nobody could bring any\nevidence on the other side, because there were no contemporary records;\nthe oldest heathen historian being a thousand years later than Moses.\nBut by some strange inspiration, the Lord set a multitude of explorers\nto work upon the monuments of Egypt, deciphering the hieroglyphics which\nhad so long puzzled the world, digging into the mounds which had for\ncenturies covered the ruined palaces and cities of Persia and Assyria,\nand bringing to Europe ship-loads of recovered statues, marbles,\ncylinders, mummies, obelisks, papyrii, covered with all manner of\npictures and inscriptions, civil, religious, and political, contemporary\nwith the Bible history, and setting the best scholars of Europe to\ndecipher and translate them. They are only, as yet, in the middle of\ntheir labors, but already so much has been discovered as to warrant the\nassertion that before they have finished they will furnish full\ncorroboration of all the great outlines of Old Testament history.\n\nEgypt was the first to come forward in furnishing her quota of\ncommentary to the corroboration of the Books of Moses. Hengstenberg's\n_Egypt and the Books of Moses_, Wilkinson's _Ancient Egyptians_, and\nOsburn's _Monumental History of Egypt_, furnish almost a commentary upon\nMoses' account of Egyptian affairs, confirming every biblical allusion\nto Egypt as historically correct, and revealing to us even the natural\ncauses of the seven years high Nile and plenteous harvests; in the\noverflow of the great central lake in Nubia wearing away the embankment;\nand of the seven years subsequent low Nile and famine, by the drought\nconsequent on this immense drainage. The very titles of Joseph as,\n\"Director of the Full and Empty Irrigating Canals,\" \"Steward of the\nGranaries,\" etc. etc., are still to be read on his tomb at\nSakkarah,[133] and much more of the same sort.\n\nF. Newman ridicules the Bible narrative of Shishak's expedition against\nRehoboam as a mere fictitious embellishment of an otherwise tame\nnarrative;[134] but Egyptologists, like Stuart, Poole, and Brugsch, have\nexamined the inscription of Shishak, at Karnak, and allege that it fully\ncorroborates the Scripture history.[135]\n\nSome of the most obscure portions of the Bible, which have long been\nstumbling-blocks to commentators and historians, are now thus\nilluminated by the light of modern discoveries of monuments and\ninscriptions found in the ruins of the ancient cities of Persia and\nAssyria, upon which they in turn cast such light as to enable the\ndiscoveries of Layard and Rawlinson to assume an intelligible coherency.\nThe tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis, written a thousand years\nbefore Herodotus or Manetho, and which Rationalistic commentators were\nso long \"unable to verify by their own consciousness,\" and which were\ntherefore consigned to the realm of mythology, are now acknowledged by\nthe first scholars and discoverers to stand at the head of the page of\nreliable history, and to form the basis of all scientific ethnography.\n\nThe diversity of languages among mankind seems not to have attracted the\nattention of the Greek philosophers. When modern inquirers began to\ninvestigate the matter, they were well-nigh confounded by the multitude\nof dialects and languages. The labor of three generations of scholars\nhas been expended upon philology, the most ancient monument of mankind.\nAnd the result is that all the various languages of earth have at length\nbeen classified under three tongues--the Shemitic, the Aryan, and the\nTuranian. But this most recent discovery of comparative philology was\nnarrated by Moses thirty centuries ago, with the historical account of\nthe origin of the division of the primeval family into three separate\ncolonies, colonizing the earth after their families and after their\ntongues.--Genesis x. 32. The discovery of this coincidence fills Bunsen\nwith astonishment. \"Comparative philology,\" he says, \"would have been\ncompelled to set forth as a postulate the supposition of some such\ndivision of languages in Asia, especially on the ground of the relation\nof the Egyptian language to the Shemitic, even if the Bible had not\nassured us of the truth of this great historical event. It is truly\nwonderful; it is a matter of astonishment; it is more than a mere\nastounding fact that something so purely historical, and yet divinely\nfixed--something so conformable to reason, and yet not to be conceived\nof as a mere natural development--is here related to us out of the\noldest primeval period, and which now for the first time, through the\nnew science of philology, has become capable of being historically and\nphilosophically explained.\"\n\nThe brief, yet definite, assertions of the Hamitic origin of the old\nempire of Babylon, and of an Asiatic Cush or Ethiopia, which have been\nso repeatedly charged against the Bible as blunders, even by some\nprofound scholars, have been vindicated by the recent discoveries in the\nmounds of Chaldea Proper of multitudes of inscriptions in a language\nwhich Sir H. Rawlinson affirms \"is decidedly Cushite or Ethiopian,\" and\nthe modern languages to which it makes the nearest approaches are those\nof Southern Arabia and Abyssinia. The old traditions have then been\nconfirmed by comparative philology, and both are side lights to\nScripture. * * * \"The primitive race which bore sway in Chaldea Proper\nis demonstrated to have belonged to this Ethnic type.\"[136]\n\n\"The conquest of Palestine is recorded on the annals of Sennacherib, and\nthe cylinder of Tiglath-Pileser describes his invasion of Palestine.\nThe names of Jehu, of Amaziah, of Hezekiah, of Omri, Ahaz, and Uzziah\nhave been made out. _The very clay which sealed the treaty between the\nkings of Judah and Assyria, with the impresses of their joint seals upon\nit, is preserved in the Nineveh gallery._ The library of Assurbanipal,\nin twenty thousand fragments, contains among other scientific treatises,\nsuch as astronomical notices, grammatical essays, tables of verbs,\ngenealogies, etc., an historico-geographical account of Babylonia and\nthe surrounding countries. As far as these fragments have been\ntranslated, the district and tribal names given in the Bible correspond\nvery closely with them.\"[137]\n\nBut this is not the only illustration and confirmation which these old\nAssyrian monuments offer to the Sacred Writings. From the first invasion\nof the Assyrians, under Tiglath-Pileser, to the restoration of Israel\nfrom Babylon, and the rebuilding of the temple, under Darius, the Bible\nhistory is full of references to the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian\nmonarchies, and their affairs with Israel and Judah. And the inscribed\ntablets, cylinders, and temple tablets, and statues, are full of\nreferences which directly or indirectly elucidate and corroborate the\nBible history, attesting to skeptics the truthfulness of its wonderful\nnarrative; the very stones of Nineveh, and the ruined palaces of Babylon\nand Assyria, crying out in vindication of the veracity of the Bible.\nAlready so much has been discovered as to fill several volumes, to which\nwe must refer the reader for details.[138]\n\nOne of the alleged historical errors greatly insisted on by\nRationalistic commentators was the statement by Daniel, that Belshazzar\nwas King of Babylon when it was taken by the Medo-Persians, and that he\nwas slain at the storming of the city. Herodotus and Berosus had stated\nthat Nabonnidus was king, and that he was not in the city then, but was\nafterward taken prisoner and treated generously by Cyrus. These accounts\nseemed contradictory; and as Herodotus and Berosus were generally\nesteemed respectable historians, the Rationalists ridicule Daniel as an\nerroneous writer of history. But one of Sir H. Rawlinson's discoveries\nhas vindicated the prophet, and also explained how the historians were\ntruthful too. W. Taylor, one of Rawlinson's assistants, discovered an\ninscribed cylinder in Ur of the Chaldees containing an account of the\nreign of this very Nabonnidus, which Sir Henry describes in a letter to\nthe _Athenaeum_, (1854, page 341): \"The most important facts, however,\nwhich they disclose are that the eldest son of Nabonnidus was named\nBel-shar-ezar, and that he was admitted by his father to a share in the\ngovernment.\" This name is undoubtedly the Belshazzar of Daniel, and thus\nfurnishes a key to the explanation of that great historical problem\nwhich has hitherto defied solution. We can now understand how\nBelshazzar, as _joint-king_ with his father, may have been Governor of\nBabylon when the city was attacked by the combined forces of the Medes\nand Persians, and may have perished in the assault which followed; while\nNabonnidus, leading a force to the relief of the place, was defeated,\nand was obliged to take refuge in Borsippa, capitulating after a short\nresistance, and being subsequently assigned, according to Berosus, to an\nhonorable retirement in Carmania. A minute coincidence also is thus\nbrought to light, showing the accuracy of the inspired historian in one\nof the details of his narrative. Belshazzar elevates him to the position\nof Grand Vizier, or Prime Minister, which, under ordinary circumstances,\nwould be the _second_ place of dignity in the empire. But Daniel\nrepresents the king as raising him to the _third_ place, which we now\nsee to be strictly correct, since Belshazzar himself was the second in\nrank. Thus the weapons discharged against the Bible ever recoil upon the\nheads of its assailants.\n\nNot only among the monuments of the great historic nations do we now\ndiscover corroborations of Scripture, the records and monuments of even\nobscure nations are most strangely turning up and being discovered,\nafter lying unnoticed for centuries, as if God had reserved their\ntestimony for the time when it would be needed and valued. The Bible\ndoes not refer to the history of the surrounding nations, save in\nconnection with their relations to Israel; but it is surprising to see\nhow many of these references are corroborated by recent discoveries. The\nBible, for instance, describes[139] Omri as establishing a kingdom with\nhis capital at Samaria, and he and his son, Ahab, making war on Mesha,\nKing of Moab, conquering him and making him pay an annual tribute of one\nhundred thousand lambs and one hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But\nit came to pass that when Ahab was dead that the King of Moab rebelled\nagainst the King of Israel.\n\nNow amid the perpetual wars of the petty kingdoms of Asia, and after the\nutter extirpation of the Moabitish nation, the chances were millions to\none against our recovering any historical monuments whatever of that\npeople; and almost infinite against recovering any which should coincide\nwith the half dozen allusions to them in the Bible. But Mr. Klein\ndiscovered in the ruins of Dibon, one of the ancient cities of Moab, and\nCapt. Warren recovered, the fragments of the now famous Moabite Stone,\non which, in the old Samaritan characters, we read: \"I, Mesha, son of\nJobin, King of Moab. My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I\nreigned after my father. I erected this altar unto Chemosh, who granted\nme victory over mine enemies, the people of Omri, King of Israel, who,\ntogether with his son, Ahab, oppressed Moab a long time--even forty\nyears,\"[140] etc.\n\nBut space forbids even the enumeration of the corroborations of Bible\nhistory from the days of Abraham to the time of the first census of the\nRoman Empire, when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria the second time. In\nevery instance where its monuments have spoken of biblical affairs they\nhave confirmed the accuracy of the Bible history. The history of Great\nBritain, or of the United States, is not more authentic than, and not so\naccurate as, the long line of history recorded in the Bible. No\nimportant error has been proven in any of its historical statements of\nthe world's history for forty centuries. This accuracy contrasted with\nthe acknowledged errors of the best historians, is proof to every candid\nmind of divine direction and help to the sacred writers.\n\nSweeping away, then, these cobwebs, we open the volume and form our\nopinion of its genuineness and authenticity from its own internal\nevidences--its nature and contents--and from the way in which it was\nused by the Hebrew nation.\n\nIt is important at the outset to know how long these documents have\nundoubtedly existed. No one denies that they were in existence eighteen\nhundred years ago. Indeed, the first literary attack on them which has\nbeen recorded was made about that time; and Josephus' defense of the\nScriptures against Apion still exists. The very same writings which the\nProtestant churches now acknowledge as canonical, and none other, were\nthen acknowledged to be of divine authority by the Jews. It is true they\nbound their Bibles differently from ours, but the contents were the very\nsame. They made up their parchments of the thirty-nine books in\ntwenty-two rolls or volumes, one for every letter of their alphabet;\nputting Judges and Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of\nKings, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah's\nProphecy and Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets, in one volume\nrespectively. They also distinguished the five books of Moses as, _The\nLaw_; the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon as, _The\nPsalms_; and all the remainder as, _The Prophets_.[141] Moreover, it is\nwell known that two hundred and eighty-two years before the Christian\nera, these writings were translated into Greek and widely circulated in\nall parts of the world. They were, in fact, not only popular, but\nreceived as of divine authority by the Jews at that time, read in their\nsynagogues in public worship, and regarded with sacred reverence. How\ndid they come to receive them in this manner?\n\nThese writings were not only acknowledged by the Jews; their bitterest\nenemies--the Samaritans--owned the divine authority of the five books of\nMoses, and preserve an ancient copy of them, differing in no essential\nparticular from the Hebrew version, to this day. The Samaritans always\nbore to the Hebrews such a relation as Mohammedans do to Christians, and\nthe Hebrews returned the grudge with interest: \"For the Jews have no\ndealings with the Samaritans.\" These heathen Babylonians, four centuries\nor more before the Christian era, were somehow induced to receive the\nPentateuch as of divine authority, and to frame some sort of religion\nupon it. Their enmity to the Jews is conclusive proof that, since that\ntime, neither Jews nor Samaritans have altered the text; else the\nmanuscripts would show the discrepancy.\n\nThese books are not such as any person would forge to gain popularity,\nor to make money by. There is nothing in them to bribe the good opinion\nof influential people, or catch the favor of the multitude. On the\ncontrary, their stern severity, and unsparing denunciation of popular\nvice and profitable sin must have secured their rejection by the Jewish\npeople, had they not been constrained by undeniable evidence to\nacknowledge their divine authority. They set out with the assertion of\nthe divine authority of the law of Moses, and everywhere sharply reprove\nprinces, priests, and people for breaking it. The prophets, so far from\nseeking popularity, are foolhardy enough to denounce the bonnets, hoops,\nand flounces of the ladies, and to cry, Woe! against the regular\nbusiness of the most respectable note-shavers,[142] to croak against the\nmarch of intellect, and shake public confidence in the prosperity of\ntheir great country,[143] to ally themselves with fanatic abolitionists,\nand introduce agitating political questions into the pulpit; crying,\n_Woe to him that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth\nhim not for his work._[144] To crown all, they organized abolition clubs\nto procure immediate emancipation, and published incendiary\nproclamations in the cities of the slaveholders,[145] and, strange to\nsay, they were allowed to escape with their lives; and their writings\nwere held sacred by the children of those very men and women they so\nunsparingly denounced; a conclusive proof that the calamities they\npredicted had compelled them to acknowledge these prophets as the\nheralds of God. The proof must have been conclusive, indeed, which\ncompelled the Jews to acknowledge the writings of the prophets as\nsacred.\n\nAnother very striking feature of these writings is, their mutual\nconnection with each other. They were written at various intervals,\nduring a period of a thousand years' duration, by shepherds and kings,\nby prophets and priests, by governors of States and gatherers of\nsycamore fruit; in deserts and in palaces, in camps and in cities, in\nEgypt and Syria, in Arabia and Babylon; under the iron heel of despotic\noppression, and amid the liberty of the most democratic republic the\nworld ever saw; yet, circumstances, and lapse of time, they ever hold to\none great theme, always assert the same great principles, and\nperpetually claim connection with the writers who have preceded them.\nThere is nothing like this in the histories of other nations. Two\ncenturies will work such changes of opinion, that you can not find\nnowadays any historian who approves the sentiments of Pepys or\nClarendon, whatever use he may make of their facts. But the historians\nof the Bible not only refer to their predecessors' writings, but refer\nto them as of acknowledged divine authority. Thus the very latest of\nthese books gives the weight of its testimony to the first--\"_And they\nset the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses for\nthe service of God, which is at Jerusalem, as it is written in the book\nof Moses._\"[146] And Daniel spake of the books of Moses as well known\nwhen he says, \"_Therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that\nis written in the law of Moses the servant of God._\"[147] The shortest\nbook in the Old Testament--the prophecy of Obadiah, consisting only of\ntwenty sentences--contains twenty-five allusions to the preceding\nhistories and laws. The last of the prophets shuts up the volume with a\ncommand to \"_Remember the law of Moses._\" In fact, just as the epistles\nprove the existence and acknowledged authority of the gospels; so do the\nprophets prove the existence and acknowledged authority of the law of\nMoses. They were acknowledged not merely by one generation of the Jewish\npeople, but by the nation during the whole period of its national\nexistence; and they are of such a character, that they must then, and\nnow, be taken as one whole--all accepted, or all rejected together.\n\nThe reader of the Old Testament will speedily find that these writings\nare not merely a connected history of the nation, of great general\ninterest, like Bancroft's or Macaulay's, but of no such special interest\nto any individual as to force him, by a sense of self-interest, or the\ndanger of loss of liberty or property, to correct their errors. On the\ncontrary, every farmer in Palestine was deeply concerned in the truth\nand accuracy of the Bible; for it contained not only the general\nboundaries of the country, and of the particular tribes, like the survey\nof the Maine boundary, or of Mason and Dixon's line, but it delineated\nparticular estates, also, and was, in fact, the report of the\nSurveyor-General, deposited in the county court for reference, in case\nof any litigation about sale or inheritance of property.[148] The\ngenealogies of the tribes and families were also preserved in these\nwritings; and on the authenticity and correctness of these records, the\ninheritance of every farm in the land depended; for as no lease ran more\nthan fifty years, every farm returned to the heirs of the original\nsettler at the year of jubilee.[149] Thus every Jewish farmer had a\ndirect interest in these sacred records; and it would be just as hard to\nforge records for the county courts of Ohio, and pass them off upon the\ncitizens as genuine, and plead them in the courts as valid, as to impose\nat first, or falsify afterward, the records of the commonwealth of\nIsrael.\n\nThis will appear more clearly when we consider that they contained also\nthe laws of the land--the Constitution of the United States of Israel,\nwith the statutes at large--according to which every house, and farm,\nand garden in the whole country was possessed, every court of justice\nwas guided,[150] every election was held, from the election of a petty\nconstable, to that of Governor of the State,[151] and the militia\nenrolled, mustered, officered, and called out to the field of\nbattle.[152] These laws prescribed the way in which every house must be\nbuilt, regulated the weaver in weaving his cloth, and the tailor in\nmaking it, and the cooking of every breakfast, dinner and supper eaten\nby an Israelite over the world, from that day to this.[153] Now, let any\none who thinks it would be an easy matter to forge such a series of\ndocuments, and get people to receive and obey them, try his hand in\nmaking a volume of Acts of Assembly, and passing it off upon the people\nof Ohio for genuine. Let him bring an action into one of the courts, and\npersuade the judges to give a decision in his favor, upon the strength\nof his forged or falsified statutes, and then he may hope to convince us\nthat the laws of Moses are simply a collection of religious tracts,\nwhich came to be held sacred through lapse of time, nobody knows how or\nwhy.\n\nNor were these laws, and the usages thus established, common, and such\nas the people would be ready easily to adopt. On the contrary, Moses\nrepeatedly asserts, and all ancient history shows, that they were quite\npeculiar to the Hebrew people then; and they are to this day confined to\nthe republics which, like our own, have drawn their ideas from the\nBible. It is enough to name the common law and trial by jury; the armed\nnation; the right of free public assembly, free speech, free passport,\nand free trade; the election of civil, judicial, and military officers\nby universal suffrage; the division of the land in fee-simple among the\nwhole people; the rights of women to hold real estate in their own\nright, to speak in public assemblies, and to prophetic functions; and\nthe support of religion by the voluntary offerings of the people.\n\nOur own republic resembles Israel as a daughter her mother. The land of\nliberty was the Bible country. The first republic which the world ever\nsaw was designed by Almighty God, and revealed to the world in the\nBible, and by the example of the United States of Israel. From that\npattern our forefathers copied all the grand features of our glorious\nrepublic--the equitable distribution of the land, in fee-simple, among\nthe people; securing them, by the jubilee, against the introduction of\nfeudal tenure, and landlordism; the abolition of a standing army, and\nthe defense of the country by the militia; the election of all officers,\ncivil and military, from the town constable, and the justice of the\npeace, up to the president of the republic, the Lord Jehovah himself, by\nuniversal suffrage--and the Federal Union of the twelve tribes into one\nnation, with township, county, and state governments, with a common law,\ncommon schools, and the equality of all citizens before the law; the\nright of naturalization; sanitary and social institutions, such as\nmodern philanthropists are only beginning to dream of, for the elevation\nof the people; and all this avowedly held in trust for all mankind, as a\nfountain of blessings for all the families of the earth. No such ideas\nof liberty, equality, and fraternity, ever existed among the wisest\nheathen nations--the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. On the face\nof the whole earth there never was, and there is not to-day, a free\nrepublic outside of the light and liberty of the Bible. The so-called\nrepublics of Athens and Rome were hideous aristocracies, and tyrannies.\nFrom the Bible the men of the Continental Congress learned the grand\ntruth, which they emblazoned on the forefront of their immortal\nDeclaration of Independence, \"That all men are endowed by their Creator\nwith certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness;\" thus planting the rights of man upon the only immovable\nbasis--the throne of the eternal God.\n\nBut there were other features of the Mosaic legislation so far in\nadvance of the ideas of our modern Materialism as not to have been even\nyet suggested in our social congresses, nor even dreamt of by our most\nadvanced Christian philanthropists, in their endeavors after the\nelevation of the masses. Moses' idea was the prevention of pauperism,\nand of the conflict between labor and capital, and of the gambling\nspeculating fever, and the formation of an independent, intelligent,\njoyous, religious, healthy, and thrifty people, well-bred, well-fed,\nwell-lodged, able to fight their foes on the battle-field, to reap their\nridge on the harvest-field, to enjoy the blessings of healthy families,\nand to rejoice before the Lord. A volume would be needed to develop the\nsocial bearings of the laws of the Hebrews. We can only suggest for\nconsideration the laws regarding inalienability of the homestead, and\nthe bankrupt law; the laws of marriage and inheritance; the laws of\nservitude and wages; the sanitary laws regarding building, clothing,\nbathing, eating, and contagion; the protection of the rights of animals;\nthe dispersion of the educated class; and the three great national\nfestivals, during which the whole people were released from the labors\nof the field, and of the kitchen, and enjoyed during the eight summer\ndays of each picnic such an excitement of social enjoyment, religious\nfervor, and political patriotism, as modern Christendom anticipates in\nthe millennium, but which neither Church nor State has, as yet,\nsystematically attempted to nurture.\n\nThat the Hebrews did not obey the law, and so did not enjoy the\nhappiness obedience would have secured, is only what God foresaw, and\nforetold repeatedly, with solemn warning of the disastrous degradation\nto which disobedience to God's laws must ever reduce man. Nevertheless,\neven their very imperfect conformity to these institutions gave them\nsuch superiority of blood and breeding to their ungodly neighbors, that\nthey have survived the most powerful nations, and, in spite of\ndispersion, exile, disfranchisement, and persecution, they exist as a\ndistinct people, superior intellectually, commercially, and morally to\nall the heathen nations at this day. How much higher had been their\nposition had they fully obeyed the law.\n\nOur argument is, that this law of liberty, equality, fraternity, and\nreligion, was worthy of our Father in heaven, and a seed of blessing to\nall the families of the earth.\n\nTo a Jew living before the coming of Christ, the unanimous testimony of\nhis nation, confirmed by all the commemorative observances of the\nsacrifices, the passover, the Sabbath, and the jubilee, by the reading\nof the law and the prophets, and the singing of the historical psalms in\nthe temple and the synagogues, by the execution of the laws of Moses in\nthe courts, and by the very existence of his nation as a distinct\npeople, separate from all the other nations--could leave no doubt that\nlaws so peculiar and beneficent must have been enacted by a wisdom\nsuperior to that of man, and their observance imposed by divine\nauthority; nor that the miracles by which these laws were authenticated,\nand the national existence of the people of Israel was secured, were\ngenuine, and divine. The chain of historical and internal evidence is\ntoo strong to be broken, while the Jewish nation exists.\n\nBut yet this historical and internal evidence of the authority of the\nOld Testament is but the smallest part of that which we possess, who\nhave the testimony of Christ on this subject. For this testimony removes\nthe question from the mists of antiquity, and even from the debatable\nground of historic certainty, and resolves the whole process of\nsearching for, and comparing and examining a host of second-hand\nwitnesses, into the easy and certain one of hearing the Author himself\nsay, whether he acknowledges this Book to be his or not. Christians\nreceive the Old Testament as the Word of God, because Jesus says so.\n\nNow, reader, it is of the utmost importance that you should stop just\nhere, and give a plain, confident answer to these questions: Dost thou\nbelieve upon the Son of God? Is Jesus the Messiah of whom Moses in the\nlaw, and the prophets, did write? Are you perfectly satisfied of the\ntruth of the New Testament, and willing to venture your eternal\nsalvation upon the words of Christ contained in it?\n\nFor, if not, of what use is it for you to trouble yourself about the Old\nTestament? You might as well waste your time in examining the\ngenuineness of the bills of a broken bank; they may be genuine or they\nmay be forgeries; but who cares? They will never be paid. If the first\npromises of the bank of heaven, to send the Messiah eighteen hundred\nyears ago, have been fulfilled, its other paper may be also valuable; if\nnot, it must be equally worthless. If the New Testament be not of divine\nauthority, you may place the prophets on the same shelf with the Poems\nof Ossian; and then follows the serious consequence, that there is not a\ngrain of hope left for you or for any man on earth. If Jesus be indeed\nan Almighty Savior, and if he has indeed risen from the dead, then,\nthrough the power of his mighty love, your filthy soul may be washed\nfrom its sins, and your mortal body may be raised from the rottenness of\nthe grave. But if Christ be not risen, you are yet in your sins. You\nhave no notion that any of the gods of the heathen, or the precepts of\nthe Koran, can purify your heart. You know well that Infidelity never\nsanctified any of your comrades. Conscience tells you that you are not\nany better now than you were a year ago, but worse. You are yet in your\nsins; and in them you must live and die! Aye, while your immortal soul\nlives, while the laws of human nature continue, you must carry those\nbrands of infamy on your character, and daily progress from bad to\nworse; sinking deeper and deeper in the contempt of all intelligent\nbeings; and, were there no other avenger, in the remorse and despair of\nyour own mind, you must experience the horrors of perdition. Jesus, able\nto save to the uttermost, all that come unto God by him, is your only\nhope. There is none other name given under heaven among men whereby we\nmust be saved. If his gospel be true, you may be saved; if it is false,\nyou must be damned.\n\nIf you have the shadow of a doubt of the truth of the New Testament, go\nover the subject again; re-read the former chapters of this book; pray\nto God for light and truth; above all, read the Book again and again;\nand if, in your case, as in that of one of the most famous teachers of\nGerman Neology--De Wette--the careful study of the New Testament impels\nyou to rush through all the mists of doubt to the higher standpoint of a\nlofty faith, and the sunshine of real religion; and if with him you can\nnow say, \"Only this one thing I know, that in no other name is there\nsalvation than in the name of Jesus Christ the crucified, and that for\nhumanity there is nothing higher than the incarnation of Deity set\nbefore us in him, and the kingdom of God established by him,\"[154] you\nmay then go on with your inquiry into the divine authority of the Old\nTestament. With the Master himself before you, the Author, the Inspirer,\nby whom, and for whom, the prophets spake, and to whom all the\nScriptures point, you will not think of wasting time in examining\nsecond-hand evidence; but go direct to Jesus himself. His testimony will\nnot be merely so much additional testimony--another candle added to the\nchandelier by whose light you have perused the evidences of the\nScriptures; it will shine out on your soul as the light of the Sun of\nRighteousness with healing on his wings. Every word from his lips will\nawaken in your heart the voice from heaven, \"_This is my beloved Son.\nHear him._\" What saith Christ, then, respecting the Old Testament?\n\nThe moment you open the New Testament to make this inquiry, you are met\nby a reference to the Old. \"_The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,\nthe Son of David, the Son of Abraham_,\" is its formal title; and the\nmost cursory perusal tells you that you have taken up, not a separate\nand independent work, which you can profitably peruse and understand\nwithout much reference to some foregoing volumes--as one might read\nAbbott's Life of Napoleon without needing at the same time to study the\nHistory of the Crusades--but that you have taken up a continuation of\nsome former work--the last volume in fact of the Old Testament--and that\nyou can not understand even the first chapter without a careful reading\nof the foregoing volumes. Before you have finished the first chapter you\nmeet with the most unequivocal assertion of the harmony of the gospels\nand the prophecies, and of the divine authority of both--\"_Now all this\nwas done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the\nprophet_,\" etc. The whole tenor of the New Testament corresponds to this\nbeginning, teaching that the birth, doctrine, miracles, life, death,\nresurrection, ascension, and second coming of the Lord, are the\nfulfillments of the Old Testament promises and prophecies; of which no\nless than a hundred and thirty-nine are expressly quoted, beginning with\nMoses and ending with Malachi.\n\nWe can not explain this by saying, with the mythical school of\ninterpreters, that this was merely the opinion of the writers of the\ngospels and of the Jews of their age; whose longings for the Messiah led\nthem to imagine some curious coincidences between the events of Christ's\nlife and the utterances of these ancient oracles to be ready\nfulfillments; and that Christ did not deem it needful in all cases to\nundeceive them. For to suppose that Christ--the Truth--would sanction or\nconnive at any such sacrilegious deception, is at once to deprive him,\nnot only of his divine character, but of all claim to common honesty. So\nfar from the Jews longing for any such events as those which fulfilled\nthe prophecies, they despised the Messiah in whom they were fulfilled,\nand refused to believe in him; and his disciples were as far from the\ngospel ideal of the Messiah, when Jesus needed to reproach them with,\n\"_O fools, and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have\nspoken._\"[155] It was not the Jews, nor yet the disciples, but the Lord\nhimself who perpetually insisted on the divine authority of the Old\nTestament as the _Word_ of his Father, and the sufficient attestation of\nhis own divine character, after this manner: \"_Ye have not his word\nabiding in you; for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the\nScriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they\nwhich testify of me. * * * Had ye believed Moses, ye would have\nbelieved me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how\nshall ye believe my words?_\"[156]\n\nHis first recorded sermon contains a remarkable and solemn attestation\nto the divine authority of the Old Testament, and of his own relation to\nit as its substance and supporter, \"_Think not that I am come to destroy\nthe law, and the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For\nverily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle\nshall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled._\"[157] The\nwhole of this discourse is an exposition of the true principles of the\nOld Testament, stripping off the rubbish by which tradition had made\nvoid the law of God, and enforcing its precepts by the sanction of his\ndivine authority. And in one of his last discourses after his\nresurrection: \"_Beginning at Moses, and the prophets, he expounded unto\nthem in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. * * * And he\nsaid unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was\nyet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in\nthe law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.\nThen opened he their understanding, that they might understand the\nScriptures._\"[158]\n\nIn this distinct enumeration of the whole of the Scriptures of the Old\nTestament; in the assertion that they all treated of him, and that their\nprincipal predictions were fulfilled in him; and in his bestowal of\ndivine illumination to enable them to understand these divine\noracles--we have such an indorsement of their character by the Truth\nhimself, as must command the faith and obedience of every believer in\nhim. Had no objections been raised against particular doctrines or\nfeatures of the Old Testament, we should stop here; perfectly satisfied\nwith the attestations to the truth of its history, given by the\ncontinual references, and to the authority of its precepts, by the\nsolemn formal declarations of the Son of God. But some popular\nobjections to its completeness and perfection demand a brief notice.\n\n1. The general character of the Old Testament being then ascertained\nbeyond doubt, our first inquiry must be as to the integrity and\ncompleteness of the collection. For it is manifest that their divine\nauthority being admitted, any attempt to add to them any human writings,\nor to take away those which were from God, would be a crime so serious\nin its consequences, that it could not escape the notice of him who\nseverely rebuked even the verbal traditions by which the Jews made void\nthe law of God. Now we are told by some that a great many inspired\nbooks have been lost; and they enumerate the prophecy of Enoch; the book\nof the Wars of the Lord; the book of Joshua; the book of Iddo the seer;\nthe book of Nathan the prophet; the acts of Rehoboam; the book of Jehu,\nthe son of Hanani; and the five books of Solomon, on trees, beasts,\nfowls, serpents, and fishes; which are alluded to in the Bible.\n\nIf the case were so, it is difficult to see what objection could be\nraised against the divine authority of the books we have, because of the\ndivine authority of those we have not; for it is not supposed that one\ndivinely inspired book would contradict another. Nor yet can we see how\nthe loss of these books should disprove their inspiration, much less the\ninspiration of those which remain, any more than the want of a record of\nthe multitude of words and works of Jesus himself which were never\ncommitted to writing,[159] should be an argument against the divine\nauthority of the Sermon on the Mount. It will hardly be asserted that\nGod is bound to reveal to us everything that the human race ever did,\nand to preserve such records through all time, or lose his right to\ndemand our obedience to a plain revelation of his will; or that we do\nwell to neglect the salvation of our own souls until we obtain an\ninfallible knowledge of the acts of Rehoboam.\n\nBut there is not the shadow of a proof that any of these were inspired\nbooks, or that some of them were books at all. The Bible nowhere says\nthat Enoch wrote his prophecy, or that Solomon read his discourses on\nnatural history; nor of what religious interest they would have been to\nus any more than the hard questions of the Queen of Sheba, and his\nanswers to them. Though the loss of these ancient chronicles may be\nregretted by the antiquarian, the Christian feels not at all concerned\nabout it; knowing as he does, on the testimony of Christ, that the Holy\nScriptures, as he and his apostles delivered them to us, contain all\nthat we need to know in order to repent of our sins, lead holy lives,\nand go to heaven; and that we have the very same Bible of which Jesus\nsaid: \"_They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. * * * If\nthey hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded\nthough one rose from the dead._\"[160]\n\n2. Another objection is, that the religion of the Old Testament was\nessentially different from that of the New. It is at once acknowledged,\nthat the light which Christ shed on our relations to God, and to our\nbrethren of mankind, is so much clearer than that of the Old Testament\nthat we see our duties more plainly, and are more inexcusable for\nneglecting them, than those who had not the benefit of Christ's\nteaching. And no objection can be raised against God for not sending his\nSon sooner, or for not giving more light to the world before his coming,\nunless it can be shown that he is debtor to mankind, and that they were\nmaking a good use of the light he gave them. So that the question is\nnot, Did God give as full and expanded instructions to the Church in her\ninfancy as he has given in her maturity? but, Did he give instructions\nof a different character? It is not, Did Christ reveal more than Moses?\nbut, Did Christ contradict Moses? And here, at the very outset, we are\nmet by Christ's own solemn formal disclaimer of any such intention:\n\"_Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. I am not\ncome to destroy, but to fulfill._\" And as to the actual working of the\nChristian religion, when Paul is asked, \"_Is the law then against the\npromises of God?_\"[161] he indignantly replies, \"_God forbid!_\"\n\nBut it is urged, \"Judaism is not Christianity. You have changed the\nSabbath, abolished the sacrifices, trampled upon the rules of living,\neating, and visiting only with the peculiar people, you neglect the\npassover, and drop circumcision, the seal of the covenant, all on the\nauthority of Christ. Do you mean to say that these are not essential\nelements of the Old Testament religion?\"\n\nUndoubtedly. Outward ceremonies of any kind never were essential parts\nof religion. \"_I will have mercy and not sacrifice_,\" is an Old\nTestament proverb, which clearly tells us that outward ceremonies are\nmerely means toward the great end of all religion. \"_The law_,\" says the\nHoly Ghost, by the pen of Paul, \"_was our schoolmaster to bring us to\nChrist_.\" The bread of heavenly truth is served out to God's children\nnow on ten thousand wooden tables, instead of one brazen altar; but it\nis made of the same corn of heaven, it is dispensed by the same hand of\nlove, to a larger family, it is true, but received and eaten in the\nexercise of the very same religious feelings, by any hearer of the\ngospel in New York, as by Abraham on Moriah. By faith in Christ the\nsinner now is justified, \"_Even as Abraham believed God, and it was\nimputed to him for righteousness._\" So says one who knew both law and\ngospel well. \"_Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid!\nYea, we establish the law!_\" The Epistles to the Romans and to the\nHebrews are just demonstrations of this truth, that the law was the\nblossom, the gospel the fruit.\n\nBut it is alleged that the religion of the Old Testament could not but\nbe defective, as it wanted the doctrines of immortality and the\nresurrection; of which, it is alleged, the Old Testament saints were\nignorant.\n\nIt were easy to prove, from their own words and conduct, that Job,\nAbraham, David, and Daniel, were not ignorant of these great\ndoctrines.[162] But the manner in which our Lord proves the truth of\nthe resurrection, by a reference to it as undeniably taught in the Old\nTestament, must ever silence this objection. \"_But as touching the\nresurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto\nyou by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the\nGod of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living._\"[163]\n\n3. But it is objected the Hebrew Jehovah tolerated and approved\npolygamy, slavery, and divorce; and, in general, a low code of morals\namong the Hebrews.\n\nBut we demand to know what standard of morals our objectors adopt? That\nof the ancient oriental world in which Israel lived? Then the laws of\nJehovah were very far in advance of that age. The slave had his blessed\nSabbath rest secured to him; which is more than modern civilization can\nsecure for her railway slaves; his master was forbidden to treat him\ncruelly; and the maid-servant's honor was protected by the best means\nthen known; while the Sacred Writings held up for example the primitive\nexample of marriage, interposed the formality of a legal document before\ndivorce, and elevated the family far above the degraded state of the\nheathen around them.\n\nBut the objector falls back on the morals of Christendom, the\ncivilization of the nineteenth century, and judges the laws of Moses by\nthat standard. Very well. This is simply to say that our ideas have been\nraised to the standard of Christianity; and then the objection is that\nthe laws of Moses are not so spiritual and elevated as the precepts of\nChrist. Our Lord himself asserts the same thing. He says Moses tolerated\ndivorce because of the hardness of the people's hearts; but from the\nbeginning it was not so. And Paul (Hebrews viii. 6, 7) alleges the\nimperfection of Moses' law as a good reason for the introduction of a\nbetter covenant. The Bible itself then recognizes an advance from good\nto better, the path of the just shining more and more unto the perfect\nday.\n\nBut then it is asked, Is God the Author of an imperfect law? Could God\ngive a defective code of morals? The question entirely misses the design\nof God's revelation as a process of educating his children. Suppose we\nask, Could God speak Hebrew--a language so defective in philosophical\nterms? God must condescend to the mental, and even, in some degree, to\nthe moral level of mankind if he is to reach us at all. All education\nmust begin low, and rise from step to step. The A, B, C of morals must\nbe first learned. The whole analogy of providence shows this to be God's\nmethod of procedure. The kingdom of God is like the growing seed; first\nthe blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. Gradual, and\neven slow, progress is the law of nature.\n\nOur modern civilization, which is so proudly invoked, is very far indeed\nfrom any such perfection as might enable us to look down upon Moses'\nlegislation with contempt. We have only to name our standing armies and\nconscriptions; our national promises to pay debts, which no one ever\nexpects to pay; our laws regarding drunkenness, and our revenues derived\nfrom the licenses for the sale of liquors; the utter failure of our\nattempts to put down betting, gambling, and stock and gold speculations,\nprostitution, bribery, frauds, and plundering of the public funds; to\nconvince ourselves that there are many things law can not do, even in\nthis nineteenth century of civilization.\n\nOur little progress, such as it is, has not been made all at once, or by\none great advance. God gives mankind blessings by degrees. He gave the\nmariner's compass to the fourteenth century, the printing press and\nAmerica to the fifteenth, the Bible in the vulgar tongue to the\nsixteenth, parliamentary government to the seventeenth, the steam\nengine to the eighteenth, railroads and the telegraph to the nineteenth.\nOne might as well cavil at his providence for not giving the Hebrews\nsewing machines, Hoe's printing presses, and daily newspapers, when they\nentered into Canaan, as for delaying to give them the elements of\nChristian civil law, and social life, before they were able to value and\nto use them.\n\nAs it was, Moses' law was so far in advance of their own ideas of\npropriety, and so far in advance of those of all the people around them,\nthat they were continually falling back from it, and rebelling against\nit, and subjecting themselves to the discipline which God had threatened\nfor disobedience. Thus they were kept ever looking upward to a higher\nmodel. Their transgressions must be confessed as sins, and atoned for by\nbloody sacrifices, declaring the transgressor worthy of death. Their\nconsciences were educated to the idea of holiness, an idea utterly\nwanting among the heathen; and the law became a powerful motive power,\nurging them to higher and holier lives, and preparing them to receive\nthe higher and holier example and precepts of Christ.\n\nThe imperfection, then, of the law of Moses, so far from being an\nevidence of the human origin of the Bible, is a mark of the infinite\nwisdom of the great Lawgiver in adapting his legislation to the\ncondition of his people; and while tolerating for the time then present\nan imperfect state of society, just as at this time he tolerates a\nChristendom far below the gospel standard, yet implanting in the minds\nof his people principles of righteousness and love which were certain\neventually to raise them to the high level of the kingdom of God. This,\nthen, is simply an instance of the general law of divine development.\n\n4. Again, however, it is contended, \"that the morality of the Old\nTestament was narrow and bigoted; requiring, indeed, the observance of\ncharity to the covenant people, but allowing Israel to hate all others\nas enemies, and as well expressed in the text, _Thou shalt love thy\nneighbor and hate thine enemy._\"[164]\n\nBut let it be noticed, that this is no text of Scripture, nor does our\nLord so quote it. He does not say it is so written, but, _ye have heard\nit said by them of old time_. The first part is God's truth; the second\nis the devil's addition to it, which Christ clears away and denounces.\nIt were easy to quote multitudes of passages from the Old Testament,\ncommanding Israel to show kindness to the stranger, and a whole host of\npromises, that in them all the families of the earth should be blessed;\nany one of which would sufficiently refute the foolish notion, that the\nmorality of the Old Testament was geographical, and its charity merely\nnational. But the simple fact, that the most sublime sanction of\nworld-wide benevolence which ever fell even from the lips of Christ\nhimself, was uttered by him as the sum and substance of the teachings of\nthe Old Testament, conclusively confutes this dogma. The Golden Rule was\nno new discovery, unless its Author was mistaken, for he says:\n\"_Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do\nye even so to them_: FOR THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.\"[165] He\ndeclares the very basis and foundation of the whole Old Testament\nreligion to be those eternal principles of godliness and charity, which\nhe quotes in the very words of the law: \"_Then one of them, which was a\nlawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is\nthe great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love\nthe Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all\nthy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is\nlike unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two\ncommandments hang all the law and the prophets._\"[166] The law and the\nprophets, then, taught genuine world-wide benevolence, Christ being\nwitness; and the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the\nNew Testament, if we may believe the Lawgiver.\n\n5. Still, it is alleged, \"it can not be denied that the writers of the\nOld Testament breathed a spirit of vindictiveness, and imprecated curses\non their enemies, utterly at variance with the precepts of the gospel,\nwhich command us to bless and curse not; and even in their solemn\ndevotions uttered sentiments unfit for the mouth of any Christian; nor\nthat their views of the character of God were stern and gloomy, and that\nthey represented the Hebrew Jehovah as an unforgiving and vengeful\nbeing, utterly different from the kind and loving Father whom Christ\ndelighted to reveal.\"\n\nThis, if the truth were told, is the grand objection to the Old\nTestament. The holy and righteous sin-hating God, presented in its\nhistory, is the object of dislike. The God who drowned the old world,\ndestroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven, commanded the\nextermination of the lewd and bloody Canaanites, thundered his curses\nagainst sinners of every land and every age, saying, \"_Cursed be he that\nconfirmeth not all the words of this law to do them_,\" requiring all the\npeople to say _Amen_,[167] is not the God whom Universalists can find in\ntheir hearts to adore. A mild, easy, good-natured being, who would allow\nmen to live and die in sin without any punishment, would suit them\nbetter. They try to think that he is altogether such an one as\nthemselves, and an approver of their sin.\n\nBut it is worth while to inquire whether the Father of our Lord Jesus\nChrist be in this respect anything different from the Hebrew Jehovah, or\nwhether the gospel has in the least degree lessened his displeasure\nagainst iniquity. Paul thought not that he was a different person, when\nhe said:\n\n\"_We know him who hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will\nrecompense, saith the Lord._\"[168] Jesus thought not that he was more\nlenient to sinners when he cried, \"_Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto\nthee, Bethsaida! * * * Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven,\nshalt be brought down to hell * * * It shall be more tolerable for the\nland of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee._\"[169] It is not in\nthe Old Testament, but in the New, that we are told that Jesus himself\nshall come \"_In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,\nand that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be\npunished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and\nfrom the glory of his power._\"[170] It is not an old, bigoted Hebrew\nprophet giving a vision of the Hebrew Jehovah, but the beloved disciple\nwho leaned on Jesus' breast, picturing the Savior himself, who says:\n\"_He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called\nthe Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon\nwhite horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his\nmouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and\nhe shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the wine-press of\nthe fierceness and wrath of Almighty God._\"[171]\n\nLet no man imagine that the New Testament offers impunity to the wicked,\nor that the Old Testament denies mercy to the repenting sinner, or that\nChrist exhibited any other God than the God of Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob--the same Hebrew Jehovah who _commands the wicked to forsake his\nway, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and to return unto the Lord,\nand he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly\npardon_.[172] It is exceedingly strange that those who dwell upon the\npaternal character of God, as a distinctive feature of Christ's personal\nteaching, should have forgotten that the hymns of the Old Testament\nchurch, a thousand years before his coming, were full of this endearing\nrelation; that it was by the first Hebrew prophet that the Hebrew\nJehovah declared, \"_Israel is my son, even my first-born; and I say unto\nthee, Let my son go, that he may serve me_;\"[173] and that by the last\nof them he urges Israel to obedience by this tender appeal: \"_If I be a\nfather, where is mine honor?_\"[174] It was not Christ, but David--one of\nthose gloomy, stern, Hebrew prophets--who penned that noble hymn to our\nFather in heaven, which Christ illustrated in his Sermon on the Mount:\n\n     \"The Lord is merciful and gracious,\n     Slow to anger and plenteous in mercy.\n     He will not always chide,\n     Neither will he keep his anger forever.\n     He hath not dealt with us after our sins,\n     Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities;\n     For as the heaven is high above the earth,\n     So great is his mercy to them that fear him;\n     As far as the East is from the West,\n     So far hath he removed our transgressions from us.\n     Like as a father pitieth his children,\n     So the Lord pitieth them that fear him.\"--Psalm ciii.\n\nIt is utter ignorance of the Old Testament which prompts any one to\nimagine that it presents any other character of God than \"_The Lord, the\nLord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in\ngoodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and\ntransgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the\nguilty._\"[175] This is the name which God proclaimed to Moses, and this\nis the character which he proclaimed in Christ, when he cried on the\ncross: \"_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But thou art holy, O\nthou that inhabitest the praises of Israel._\"[176] Justice and mercy are\nunited in Christ dying for the ungodly.\n\nIt is untrue to say that the prophets of the Old Testament were actuated\nby a spirit of malice, or of revenge for personal injuries as such, in\npraying for, or prophesying destruction on the inveterate enemies of God\nand his cause.[177] Of all Scripture characters, David has been most\ndefamed for vindictiveness; but surely never was man more free from any\nsuch spirit, than the persecuted fugitive, who, with his enemy in his\nhand in the cave, and his confidential advisers urging him to take his\nlife, cut off his skirt instead of his head; and on another occasion\nprevented the stroke which would have smitten the sleeping Saul to the\nearth, and sent back even the spear and the cruse of water, the trophies\nof his generosity. When cursed himself, and defamed as a vengeful\nshedder of blood by the Benjamite, he could restrain the fury of his\nfollowers, protect the life of the ruffianly traitor, and thus appeal to\nGod as the witness of his innocence:\n\n     \"O Lord, my God! if I have done this,\n     If there be iniquity in my hands,\n     If I have rewarded evil to him that was at peace with me,\n     Yea I have delivered him that without cause was mine enemy.\"[178]\n\nIt is true that he does bitterly curse several living persons; of whom\nit is observable that some had done him no sort of personal injury; as\nDoeg the Edomite--the Nana Sahib of his day--who anticipated the scenes\nof Cawnpore, in the streets of Nob, by mercilessly butchering\nunoffending men, helpless women, and innocent babes. But surely no\nfriend of humanity can imagine that it is improper that the chief\nmagistrate of Israel, anointed for the very purpose of being a terror to\nevil doers, should express his righteous indignation against such\natrocities; nor confound such public execration with the petty gnawings\nof private revenge. Still less can the fearer of God doubt the propriety\nof his expressing by the mouth of his prophet, that displeasure he\nsignally displayed by his providence, scathing and blasting the accursed\nwretch into a terror to all bloody and deceitful men who shall read\ntheir own warning in his doom.\n\n     \"God shall likewise destroy thee forever,\n     He shall take thee away and pluck thee from thy dwelling,\n     And root thee out of the land of the living.\"[179]\n\nWe have the most solemn assurance, that every one of the historical\nincidents of Scripture is recorded for our instruction, and that every\nprophecy gives a lesson to all ages. \"_Now all these things happened\nunto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon\nwhom the ends of the world are come._\"[180] The imprecations of the\nBible against individual sinners are the gibbets on which these\nmalefactors are hung up for warning to all men to flee the crimes that\nbrought them to that fate.\n\nIt is put beyond the possibility of doubt, by the combined testimony of\nthe Lord and his apostles, that by far the greater number of the curses\nwhich David uttered, he spoke in the person of Christ himself, of whom\nhe was a type; and with direct reference to the crimes and punishment of\nhis enemies. Thus the Sixty-ninth Psalm, and the One hundred and ninth,\npre-eminently the cursing Psalms, are most explicitly and repeatedly\nasserted by Christ, by Peter, and by John, to belong to Christ, and to\nexpress his very words: \"_This scripture must needs have been fulfilled,\nwhich the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning\nJudas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. * * * For it is\nwritten in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let\nno man dwell therein. And, His bishopric let another take._\"[181] If any\none feels reluctant to imagine that such cursings should fall from the\nlips of the merciful Savior, let him remember that the most awful curse\nwhich shall ever fall on the ears of terrified men shall be pronounced\nby Jesus himself, \"_Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared\nfor the devil and his angels._\"[182] The solemn facts of the Bible will\nnot accommodate themselves to our likes and dislikes. Christ loves\nrighteousness and hates iniquity; in the Bible he takes leave to say so,\nand he expects his people to share his feelings, and to be willing to\nexpress them on fit occasions.\n\nPersonal revenge, and curses for mere personal injuries, are forbidden\nin the New Testament as well as in the Old. But it was an apostle of\nJesus Christ who cried, \"_If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let\nhim be accursed. Though we or an angel from heaven bring any other\ngospel unto you, let him be accursed._\"[183] Nor until we can in some\nmeasure feel this holy indignation against sin, and this burning desire\nto see all tyranny, superstition, bribery, licentiousness, and\nprofanity, crushed and banished from the earth, can we pray in truth\n\"_Thy kingdom come._\" Still less can we be prepared for the rejoicings\nof heaven over the conquest of the enemies of God and man: \"_Rejoice\nover her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath\navenged you on her._\"\n\nReader, you hope to go to heaven; but it may be a different place from\nwhat you dream of. Did you ever study the employment of the saints\nthere? Are you washed from your sins? Is your mind purified from your\ncarnal notions? Unless a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of\nGod. Are your likes and dislikes, your sentiments and sympathies, your\nunderstanding and your will, all brought into subjection to Christ? Can\nyou heartily love and adore a sin-hating, sin-avenging God? Or do you\nshrink back in terror or dislike from God's denunciations of wrath\nagainst the wicked? Would your benevolence lead you to deal alike with\nthe righteous and the wicked; and to abhor the thought of destroying\nthem that destroy the earth? Then how will you join in the hallelujahs\nof heaven; for God's judgments are the themes of thanksgiving and praise\nfrom saints and angels there, and this is their song:\n\n\"_Hallelujah, salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord,\nour God, for true and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged\nthe great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and\nhath avenged the blood of his servants at her hands. And again they\nsaid, Hallelujah! And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four\nand twenty elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped\nGod that sat on the throne, saying, Amen! Hallelujah! And a voice came\nout of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants; and ye\nthat fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of\na great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of\nmighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah!_ FOR THE LORD GOD OMNIPOTENT\nREIGNETH.\"[184]\n\nAnd now, if this be the character of God, if he be indeed one who hates\niniquity, and punishes impenitent sinners, we need not wonder that those\nwho spake his word should utter imprecations, either in the Old\nTestament or in the New; but rather bless the mercy which warns before\njustice strikes, which hangs the red lantern over the abyss, and which\nseeks by the terrors of the Lord to persuade men from perdition. The\ncurses of the Bible are denounced against the enemies of God, with the\ndesign of showing sinners their danger, and leading them to repentance.\n\nThe conclusion, then, of our investigation is, that the Old Testament is\nthe Word of God no less than the New; that it is in no respect contrary\nto it; that all its parts--the law and the prophets, and the Psalms--are\nof divine authority; that all its contents were written by divine\ndirection, whether prophecy or history, ceremony or morality, promise or\nthreatening, curses or blessings. It is of the Old Testament principally\nthat the Holy Ghost declares: \"_All Scripture is given by inspiration of\nGod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for\ninstruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,\nthoroughly furnished unto all good works._\"[185]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[120] Parker's Absolute Religion, p. 205.\n\n[121] Parker's Discourses on Religion, p. 161.\n\n[122] Macknight's Doctrine of Inspiration, p. 161, and seq.\n\n[123] Macknight's Doctrine of Inspiration, p. 192, etc.\n\n[124] Essays and Reviews, page 121.\n\n[125] John, chap. x. 25, 38.\n\n[126] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, p. 254. Annual Cyclopaedia,\n1863, p. 377.\n\n[127] Mastodon Giganteus, Boston, 1855, p. 199.\n\n[128] For a fuller discussion of the subject, and references to the\nauthorities, which our space here forbids, I must refer the curious\nreader to the _Princeton Review_, Vol. XL. No. 4, where I have noticed\nevery fact bearing on the subject up to that date; merely adding that no\nnew fact, establishing man's remote antiquity, has been established up\nto this date, September 21, 1874.\n\n[129] Familiar Lectures, page 456.\n\n[130] Authenticity of the Pentateuch, II. 150.\n\n[131] Creation's Testimony to its God. London, 1867, page 338.\n\n[132] See this subject more fully discussed in chapter XII., Telescopic\nViews of Scripture.\n\n[133] Osburn's Monumental History.\n\n[134] Hebrew Monarchy, 160.\n\n[135] Prof. Rawlinson's Modern Skepticism, 285.\n\n[136] Ancient Monarchies I. 65.\n\n[137] W. R. Cooper, Secretary Biblical Archaeological Society, in _Faith\nand Free Thought_, page 257.\n\n[138] Rawlinson's Illustrations of Scripture.\n\n[139] 2 Kings, chap. iv. 2 Chronicles, chap. xx.\n\n[140] Recovery of Jerusalem, page 496, Gunsberg's Essay.\n\n[141] Josephus against Apion, Book I. Sect. 8. Horne's Introduction\nChap. ii. Sect. 1.\n\n[142] Isaiah, chap. iii. 16. Ezekiel, chap. xviii. 12.\n\n[143] Jeremiah, chaps. xxi., and xxii. 16.\n\n[144] Jeremiah, chap. xxii. 13.\n\n[145] Jeremiah, chap. xxxiv.\n\n[146] Ezra, chap. vi. 18.\n\n[147] Daniel, chap. ix. 11.\n\n[148] Joshua, chaps. xiii.-xix.\n\n[149] 1 Chronicles, chaps. i.-ix. Leviticus, chap. xxv.\n\n[150] Exodus, chap. xxi. 6. Deuteronomy, chap. i. 16; chap. xix.\n\n[151] Exodus, chap. xviii. 21.\n\n[152] Deuteronomy, chap. xx. Numbers, chap. x. 9.\n\n[153] Deuteronomy, chap. xxii. 8, 11, 12. Leviticus, chap. xi.\n\n[154] Preface to Exposition of the Apocalypse.\n\n[155] Luke, chap. xxiv. 25.\n\n[156] John, chap. v. 38, 39, 46, 47.\n\n[157] Matthew, chap. v. 17, 18.\n\n[158] Luke, chap. xxiv. throughout.\n\n[159] John, chap. xx. 30.\n\n[160] Luke, chap. xvi. 29.\n\n[161] Galatians, chap. iii. 21.\n\n[162] Job, chap. xix. 25. Psalm xvi. 10. Hebrews, chap. xi. 13-16.\nDaniel, chap. xii. 2, 3.\n\n[163] Matthew, chap. xxii. 31, 32.\n\n[164] Matthew, chap. v. 43.\n\n[165] Matthew, chap. vii. 12.\n\n[166] Matthew, chap. xxii. 35-40.\n\n[167] Deuteronomy, chap. xxvii. 26.\n\n[168] Hebrews, chap. x. 30.\n\n[169] Matthew, chap. xi.\n\n[170] 2 Thessalonians, chap. i.\n\n[171] Revelation, chap. xix.\n\n[172] Isaiah, chap. lv.\n\n[173] Exodus, chap. iv. 22.\n\n[174] Malachi, chap. i.\n\n[175] Exodus, chap. xxxiv.\n\n[176] Psalm xxii.\n\n[177] 2 Timothy, chap. iv. 14.\n\n[178] Psalm vii.\n\n[179] Psalms vii. and lii. and 2 Samuel, chaps. xvi., xxi. and xxii.\n\n[180] 1 Corinthians, chap. x.\n\n[181] John, chap. ii. 17; chap. xv. 25; chap. xix. 28. Acts, chap. i.\n20.\n\n[182] Matthew, chap. xxv. 41.\n\n[183] Galatians, chap. i. 9. 1 Corinthians, chap. xvi. 22. Revelation,\nchaps. xix., xx. and xxi.\n\n[184] Revelation, chaps. xix., xx. and xxi.\n\n[185] 2 Timothy, chap. iii. 16, 17.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nINFIDELITY AMONG THE STARS.\n\n     A little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline a\n     man's mind to Atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's\n     minds about to religion.--BACON.\n\n\nWhen skeptics, who are determined not to believe in the Bible, find the\nhistorical evidences of its genuineness, authority, and inspiration,\nimpregnable against the assaults of criticism, they turn their attention\nto some other mode of attack, and of late years have selected their\nweapons from the physical sciences. The argument thus raised is, that\nthe Bible can not be the Word of God, because it asserts facts contrary\nto the teachings of science. Of this warfare Voltaire may be considered\nthe leader, in his celebrated attack on the chemical processes recorded\nin Scripture; in which he exposed himself to the ridicule of all the\nchemists and metallurgists in Europe, by denying the possibility of\ndissolving the golden calf; the solution of gold being actually found in\nevery gilder's shop in Paris, and known even to coiners and forgers, for\nhundreds of years before he made this notable discovery. The result was\nominous.\n\nThe whole circle of the sciences has been ransacked for such arguments,\nand especially has every new discovery been hailed by skeptics as an\nally to their cause, until further acquaintance has demonstrated that\nthe stranger, too, was in alliance with religion. Thus, when a few years\nago, Geology began to upheave his titanic form, he was eagerly greeted\nas a being undoubtedly not of celestial, but rather of subterranean, or\neven of infernal origin, willing to employ his gigantic powers in the\nassault upon heaven, and able to overwhelm the Bible and the Church\nunder the ruins of former worlds. But now that skeptics have discovered\nthe proofs he gives of the presence of the Almighty on this world of\nours, they are getting shy of his acquaintance, and are cultivating the\nsociety of some still more juvenile visitors from the chambers of animal\nmagnetism and biology. The same scene will doubtless be acted over\nagain; and these infantile strangers, when able to give distinct\nutterance to the facts of their developed consciousness, will bear\ntestimony to the truth of God.\n\nSuch objections to the Bible are very rarely brought forward by truly\nscientific men. It is a phenomenon, like the advent of a great comet, to\nfind a man profoundly versed in science attack the Bible. Your third or\nfourth rate men of learning attain distinction in this field. An\nanti-Bible writer or lecturer has generally been promoted to that high\neminence from the school-room, or the editorial sanctum of an\nunsuccessful newspaper; or his patients have not sufficiently\nappreciated his physic; or he has failed in getting a patent right for\nhis wonderful perpetual motion; or possibly he has enlarged his\npractical knowledge of science in the laboratory of some college, or has\nhad his head turned by being asked to hear the mathematical recitations\nduring the sickness of some professor. But to hear of men like Galileo,\nKepler, Boyle, Newton, and Leibnitz, or Lyell, Mantell, Herschel,\nAgassiz, Hitchcock, Faraday, Balbo, Nichol, or Rosse, heading an attack\nupon Christianity, would be an unprecedented phenomenon. Such men are\nprofoundly impressed with the thorough agreement between the facts of\nnature rightly observed, and the declarations of the Bible rightly\ninterpreted.\n\nIt is equally rare to hear of a specialist in any department of science\nassume Atheistic ground in that department; though a few of that class\nare willing to believe that some other department of science, of which\nthey have no personal knowledge, favors Infidelity. Even Huxley, with\nall his nonsense about the identical composition of the protoplasm of\nthe mutton chop, and that of the lecturer, denies, and disproves,\nspontaneous generation, and votes in the London School Board for the\nreading of the Bible. The leading Infidel writers, such as Comte and\nSpencer, are not distinguished by any personal scientific researches and\ndiscoveries; they are merely collectors and retailers, at second-hand,\nof other men's discoveries. The original scientific explorers and\ndiscoverers are few and modest.\n\nNevertheless, the other class, being both the most numerous and the most\nnoisy, make up by loquacity for their deficiency of science, and\ncounterbalance their ignorance by their assurance. Such writers,\nassuming that they have outstripped all the philosophers of former days,\nwill tell you how foolishly David, and Kepler, and Bacon, and Newton,\nand Herschel dreamed of the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord, and\nthe firmament showing his handiwork; \"while at the present time, and for\nminds properly familiarized with true astronomical philosophy, the\nheavens display no other powers than those of natural laws, and no other\nglory than that of Hipparchus, of Kepler, of Newton, and of all who have\nhelped to discover them.\" Theology belongs only to the infancy of the\nhuman intellect; metaphysical philosophy is the amusement of youth; but\nthe full-grown man has learned to relinquish both religion and reason,\nand comes to the \"positive state of science in which the human mind,\nacknowledging the impossibility of obtaining absolute knowledge,\nabandons the search after the origin and destination of the universe,\nand the knowledge of the secret causes of phenomena.\" The crown of\nmodern science is ultimately to be placed upon the brow of Atheism; but\nlong before that eagerly desired achievement, the old Bible theology is\nto be buried beyond the possibility of a resurrection, under mountains\nof natural laws, and monuments of scientific discovery. These\nassertions, confidently made, and perseveringly reiterated in the ears\nof ungodly men ignorant of the facts, of impetuous youths eager to throw\noff the restraints of religion, of Christians weak in the faith, and\neven poured into the unsuspecting mind of childhood, produce the most\npainful results; and it becomes the imperative duty of the bishops of\nthe Church of Christ not to allow them to pass unchallenged, but to\nconvince the gainsayers, and stop the mouths of these unruly and vain\ntalkers; or, if that be not possible, to make their folly manifest to\nall men. The implements for such a service are well tried and abundant,\nand the difficulty lies only in making a proper selection.\n\nAt first view, the extinction of religion by science seems very\nunlikely. It is as unlikely that any thing that an Infidel says about\nreligion should be true, as that a blind man should describe the sun\ncorrectly, or even read a chapter accurately, with the book open before\nhim? I shall show you presently that learned Infidels make the grossest\nblunders respecting the plainest Scripture records of scientific facts.\nIt is very unlikely that Infidels, who lay no claim to prophetic\ninspiration, should make any predictions about religion more reliable\nthan those they have been telling so abundantly for two hundred years\npast, respecting the immediate overthrow of Christianity and the Bible;\nwhich, nevertheless, has been going on conquering new kingdoms every\nyear, its missionaries outstripping scientific ardor in exploring the\nmysteries of African geography, honorably receiving the prizes which the\nInfidel Volney instituted for philological proficiency, and printing\nBibles from Voltaire's printing-press. And it is very unlikely that\nthese physical sciences, so long worshipers in the temple of God, should\nnow become impious; as unlikely as that Hitchcock, or McCosh, or Hodge,\nor Barnes should now, in their old days, renounce the Bible, and\nblaspheme God. What! astronomy, and zoology, and botany, and\nethnography, that were suckled at the breast of the Bible, raise their\nhands against the mother that bore them! Incredible! These sciences made\nan early profession of religion; taught Sabbath-school in the days of\nJob, Zophar, and Elihu; wrote sacred poetry, and were licensed to\npreach, in the days of Solomon; poured forth prophetic raptures in the\ndays of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; wrote volumes on the\npolitics of Christianity in Babylon, and painted glorious visions of the\nvictories of the Lamb of God, and dazzling views of the landscapes of\nparadise restored, in Patmos; employed the gigantic intellect of Newton,\nthe elegant pen of Paley, the eloquence of Chalmers, Herschel's\nheaven-piercing eye, and Miller's muscular arm, to guard the outer\ncourts of the sanctuary, while they sung sublime anthems to the music of\nDavid's harp within. Have they now, after such a life of devotion,\nrelinquished all these sublimities and beatitudes, taken lodgings in the\nsty, and renounced their faith in God, and hope of heaven, for the\nInfidel maxim, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die?\" God forbid!\nOn the contrary, all matured science glorifies its Creator.\n\nAs a specimen of the testimony of matured science to religion, let us\nlook at the progress of astronomy, as it has successively swept away one\nAtheistic theory after another, answered anti-Bible objections, and\nillustrated promises couched in heavenly figures, long incomprehensible\nto the Church. If, in order to present something like a fair outline of\nthe bearings of astronomy on modern Atheism, we should have occasion to\nrepeat, expand, and illustrate some things already introduced in\nprevious chapters, the repetition won't hurt us. A good story is nothing\nthe worse for being twice told; and the story of our opponents is\nnothing but a ceaseless repetition of the Atheism of twenty centuries.\n\nThe progress of astronomical science has swept away the alleged facts on\nwhich all systems of Atheism have been based.\n\n1. _It has refuted the fundamental dogma of Atheism, that the universe\nis infinite, and therefore self-existent._\n\nThe assertion is confidently made by Atheists and Pantheists, that the\nuniverse has no boundaries; not merely none which we can see, but that\nit actually fills all immensity; suns succeeding suns, and firmament\nclustering beyond firmament, throughout infinite space.\n\nIt is indispensable for the Atheist not only to assert, but to prove\nthis to be the fact, if he would convince himself, or any other person,\nthat the universe had no Creator, but exists by the necessity of its own\nnature; for that which exists by the necessity of its own nature must\nexist in all time, and in every place. No reason can be given why\nself-existent suns, planets, and moons should exist in any one portion\nof space, and not exist in any other similar portion of space. For if\nsuch a reason could be given, that reason must show a cause for their\nexistence in the one place, and their non-existence in another; and that\ncause must have existed before the universe, and must have been a cause\nsufficient to produce the effect. This sufficient cause includes ability\nto produce, wisdom to arrange, and force to put in motion all the powers\nof the universe; qualities which reside only in an intelligent being.\nThis is the cause which the Bible asserts when it says, \"In the\nbeginning GOD created the heavens and the earth,\" and which Atheists\ndeny when they assert that \"the universe is eternal and infinite.\"\n\nNow, this fundamental article of the creed of Infidels is utterly\nincapable of proof. If the fact were really so, they never could prove\nit. They acknowledge no revelation from an infinite understanding, but\nfound their belief on the knowledge of a number of finite and ignorant\nbeings. Before they are competent to pronounce upon the extent of the\nuniverse, they must explore it thoroughly; which, when they shall have\ndone, they will have demonstrated that it has boundaries, seeing they\nhave discovered them; but, if they have not thoroughly explored the\nuniverse, they can not say that it is infinite, because they do not\nknow. The very utmost, then, which could possibly be asserted on the\nmatter would be, not that the universe has no boundaries, but that man\nhas never reached them. As in the case of ocean soundings, if we can not\nfind bottom, we are not therefore to conclude that there is none, but\nthat our line is not long enough, or our lead not heavy enough to reach\nit.\n\nIt were a logical absurdity to say, that the whole is greater than the\nsum of its parts--that any number of finite parts could compose an\ninfinite universe. Each sun or planet is a finite object, and any\npossible number of them can be counted in a sufficient time. It is\nimpossible that any number can be infinite; for we are not using the\nword infinite here in the loose sense in which it is used by\nmathematicians, when they speak of an infinite series; that is, a series\nwhich, though it has no end, has a beginning; but in the strict sense of\nsomething having neither beginning nor end. A beginning of the universe,\neither in space or time, is the very thing the Atheist denies.\n\nThe same objection applies to the allegation, that infinite space is\nfull of ether, air, gas, nebulae, or any other kind of matter. It is an\nassertion incapable of proof; and therefore thoroughly unscientific; as\nall Infidel theories are. But if it could be proven that every part of\nspace accessible to our telescopes is full of an ether whose undulations\ntransmit light, as we believe it can, that would be only a proof of the\nfinitude of matter. That ether consists of parts whose movements can be\nmeasured and numbered; and no possible multitude of such parts can\namount to the infinite.\n\nWhile reason thus enables us to show this dogma of the infinity of the\nuniverse to be theoretically improbable, and logically irrational,\nscience has lately taken a more decisive step, and demonstrated it to be\nactually false. The universe has boundaries, and we have seen them. The\nproof is simple, and easily demonstrable. That broad band of luminous\ncloud which stretches across the heaven, called the Milky Way, consists\nof millions of stars, so small and distant that we can not see the\nindividual stars, and so numerous that we can not help seeing the light\nof the mass; just as you see the outline of the forest at a distance,\nbut are unable to distinguish the individual trees. Besides this mass of\nstars to which our solar system belongs, there are thousands of smaller\nsimilar clouds in various parts of the heavens, which have successively\nbeen shown to consist of multitudes of stars. But all around these\nstar-clouds the clear blue sky is discovered by the naked eye.\n\nNow, it is easy to perceive, that if all the regions of infinite space\nwere filled either with self-luminous suns, or planets capable of\nreflecting light, or luminous nebulae, or comets of gaseous consistency,\nat such distances as the Milky Way, or any other star-cloud demonstrates\nto be safe and practicable, we should see no blue sky at all; but the\nwhole vault of heaven would present that whitish light resulting from\nthe mingling of the rays of multitudes of stars, planets, and comets,\nwhich the Milky Way does actually exhibit. No matter how small or how\ndistant these stars, _if they were only infinitely numerous_, it is\nimpossible that there could be any point in the heavens unilluminated by\ntheir rays, even although the stars themselves were invisible to our\neyes, or even to our telescopes. The whole heaven would be one vast\nMilky Way. Or rather, as Humboldt reasons, \"If the entire vault of\nheaven were covered with innumerable strata of stars, one behind the\nother, as with a widespread starry canopy, and light were undiminished\nin its passage through space, the sun would be distinguished only by its\nspots, the moon would appear as a dark disc, and amid the general blaze\nnot a constellation would be visible.\"[186] It would appear also to\nfollow, as a necessary consequence, that such an infinite multitude of\nblazing suns must generate a heat compared with which the general\nconflagration would be cool and comfortable.\n\nBut the telescope shows us a state of matters vastly different from\nthis. It shows us, in fact, that space, so far from being occupied with\nsuns and stars, is mostly empty. Our universe is only a little island in\nthe great ocean of infinite space.\n\nThough the telescope discovers multitudes of stars where the naked eye\nsees none, yet they are, in far the greater number of instances, \"_seen\nprojected on a perfectly dark heaven, without any appearance of\nintermixed nebulosity_.\"[187] And even through the Milky Way, and the\nother nebulae, the telescope penetrates, through \"_intervals absolutely\ndark, and completely void of any star, of the smallest telescopic\nmagnitude_.\"[188] It may assist us to understand the full import of this\ndeclaration, to remember that Lord Rosse's large telescope clearly\ndefines any object on the moon's surface as large as the Custom House.\nIts power of penetrating space surpasses our power of imagination, but\nis represented by saying, that light, which flashes from San Francisco\nto London quicker than you can close your eye and open it again,\nrequires _millions of years_ to travel to our earth from the most\ndistant star-cloud discoverable by this telescope.[189] If a galaxy like\nthis of ours existed anywhere within this amazing distance, that\ntelescope would discover its existence. It has, in fact, augmented the\nuniverse visible to us, 125,000,000 times, and thus made us feel that\nnot merely this world, which constitutes our earthly all, and yon\nglorious sun, which shines upon it, but all the host of heaven's suns,\nand planets, and moons, and firmaments, which our unaided eyes behold,\nare but as a handful of the sand of the ocean shore compared with the\nimmensity of the universe. But ever, and along with this, it has shown\nus the ocean as well as the shore, and revealed boundless regions of\ndarkness and solitude stretching around and far away beyond these\nislands of existence. The telescope, then, enlarges and confirms our\nviews of the extent of the unoccupied portions of space.\n\nIf there were only one dark point of the heavens no larger than the\napparent magnitude of the smallest star, this one unoccupied space would\nsufficiently disprove the infinity of the universe, inasmuch as there\nwould be a portion of space of boundless length, and of a diameter not\nless than the diameter of the earth's orbit, say 190,000,000 miles, in\nwhich stars might exist, as they do in its borders, but yet do not. But\nthe argument becomes utterly overwhelming, when the attempt is made to\ncalculate the proportion of space occupied by the stars to that left\nunoccupied. Whether we take Herschel's computation, that the nebulae\ncover one two hundred and seventieth part of the superficies of the\nvisible heaven,[190] or Struve's supposition of the existence of a star\nsubtending no measurable angle, in every part of the visible sky as\nlarge as the surface of the moon, the vast disproportion of the\nuniverse, to the space in which it is placed, forces itself upon our\nnotice. For, upon the largest of these computations, the proportion of\nexistence to empty space is mathematically proved to be not greater\nthan as the cube of one to the cube of two hundred and sixty-nine; that\nis to say, there is room for 19,395,109 such universes as this of ours\nin that small part of infinite space open to the view of Herschel's\ntelescopes. But when we come to consider the vastness of these regions\nof darkness, over which no light has traveled for twenty millions of\nyears, and remember also that astronomers have looked clear through the\nnebulae, and find that they bear no more cubical proportion to the\ninfinite darkness behind them than the sparks of a chimney do to the\nextent of the sky against which they seem projected, so far from\nimagining the universe to be infinite, we stand confounded at its\nrelative insignificance, and are convinced that it bears no more\nproportion to infinite space than a fishing-boat does to the Atlantic\nOcean.\n\nThere is no possible evasion of this great fact, by any contradictory\nhypothesis. It can not be objected \"that stars may exist at infinite\ndistances, whose light has not yet reached the limits of our universe.\"\nIf they do, they did not exist from eternity, for there is no possible\ndistance over which light could not have traveled, during eternal\nduration. But their eternal existence is the very thing which the\nAtheist is concerned to prove. Grant that infinite space is filled with\nworlds _which had a beginning_, and their necessary existence instantly\nfalls, and we are compelled to seek for a cause of their beginning of\nexistence; that is to say, a Creator.\n\nNor will it answer the purpose to say, \"that for anything we know to the\ncontrary, these dark regions may be filled with dark stars.\"\n\nIf the fact were so, it is equally fatal to the dogma of self-existence.\nSome stars shine; others are dark. Why so? Wherefore this difference?\nVariety is an effect, and demands a prior cause. Were there only two\nstars in the sky, or two substances on the earth, and those unlike in\nany particular, that plurality, and that variety, would prove that they\ncould not be infinite or self-existent, but dependent upon some cause\nfor their existence, and for their variety of form.\n\nBut we do know many things contrary to the notion that the dark regions\nof infinite space may be full of dark stars. Light is not the only\nindication of the presence of a star. The attraction of gravity, which\nis wholly independent of light, is a proof quite as certain and\nsatisfactory to the astronomer. The presence of stars and planets too\nfaint to be discovered by the naked eye, and of one, the planet\nNeptune,[191] as far distant from the planet disturbed by its attraction\nas the earth is from the sun, was ascertained, and its place pointed out\nby Adams and Le Verrier, _before it was seen_. If the dark\ninterplanetary spaces, then, were full of dark attracting bodies, the\nperturbations of the other planets would discover their existence. So\nthe presence of some invisible stars at much greater distances from\ntheir visible associates has been discovered by Bessel,[192] and it is\nquite possible that a dark firmament may yet be discovered, containing\nas great a number of dark stars as we now behold of luminaries; another\ngroup of islets in the ocean of infinite space. But the very facts which\nwill prove their existence will disprove their infinity; for we can know\ntheir presence only by their perturbation of the proper motions of the\nvisible stars; but if infinite space were full of dark bodies, the\nvisible stars would have no room to move at all. It is easily\ndemonstrable, that if infinite space were filled with dark stars, the\nequilibrium and coherence of our galaxy, and of all other clusters of\nstars, would be destroyed. The existence of nebulae, and clusters, and\nthe revolutions of the binary stars, are conclusive proof that the dark\nparts of infinite space are not full of dark attracting bodies.\n\nNor can the Atheist here raise his usual argument from unknown facts,\nand say that, \"far beyond the range of our most powerful telescopes, a\nboundless expanse of firmaments may exist.\" It concerns not our present\nargument whether such exist or not. Whatsoever discoveries may be made\nto eternity, of firmaments, ten thousand times ten thousand times larger\nthan we now behold, _they can never bear the smallest proportion to the\ninfinite space in which they exist_. Beyond these islets will extend\ngulfs and oceans immeasurable. Our argument, however, has no concern\nwith the unknown possible, but with the actual fact--visible to the\nnaked eye and confirmed by the telescope--that there is a portion of\nspace in which millions of universes such as this might exist with\nsafety, yet they do not. Worlds, therefore, do not exist by the\nnecessity of their own nature, wherever there is room for them, but must\nhave had some pre-existent, external, and supernatural cause of their\nexistence in this place and not in other places. This implies\nchoice--will--God.\n\nThe physical refutation of the self-existence of the universe is\ncompleted by the discovery, _that all the orbs of heaven, as well as the\nearth, are in motion, and that an orderly and regulated motion_.[193]\nThe fact need not be illustrated, for it is not denied. The consequence\nis inevitable. That which is self-existent must be unchangeable; for\nchange is an effect, and demands a cause; and the cause must exist\nbefore the effect, and produce it. Whatsoever is changeable, then, is a\nproduct of a prior cause, and so not self-existent. But every part of\nthe universe is changeable, for it is in motion, which is a change of\nplace; and, therefore, is not self-existent, but the product of a prior\ncause.\n\nProfessor Fick, who was some time since called from Zurich to fill the\nprofessorship of physiology at Wurzburg, and who is known by his\nexperiments on muscular physics, in a recent work on the transformation\nof force, brings out the argument in proof of the non-eternity of our\nuniverse in a new form. He shows that heat is continually being lost by\nradiation; and when mechanical force is converted into heat _some_ of\nthat heat can never be brought back to be mechanical force. And as this\nchange from mechanical force to heat is ever going on, all force must at\nlast turn into heat, in which case all difference of temperature would\nbe lost and universal stagnation and death would be the result. He then\nconcludes in the following words, which we quote from _Nature_,\nMacmillan's weekly: \"We are come to this alternative; either in our\nhighest, or most general, our most fundamental scientific abstractions\nsome great point has been overlooked; or the universe will have an end,\nand must have had a beginning; could not have existed from eternity, but\nmust at some date, not infinitely distant, have arisen from something\nnot forming part of the chain of natural causes, _i. e._, must have been\ncreated.\"[194]\n\nTo this it has been replied, that motion is the normal condition of\nmatter; arising from the force of gravitation, acting in and upon the\nvarious bodies composing the universe; and mathematical calculations\nhave been attempted to show how vortices, and spiral motions, could be\nproduced by the force of gravitation, and the mutual resistances of the\natoms originally composing the universe.\n\nBut this attempt is easily seen to be a failure. The attraction of\ngravitation alone can not possibly produce any such motion as we behold\nin the heavens; nor can it originate, nor sustain, any kind of eternal\nmotion whatever. For the attraction of gravitation is always in right\nlines; but there is no rectilinear motion in the heavens; all celestial\nmotions are curvilinear. Nor can the attraction of gravitation account\nfor the maintenance of any kind of eternal motion. Its tendency is to\ndraw all bodies to the center of gravity, and to keep them there, in one\nvast heap, by the force of their mutual attraction; thus bringing all\nmotion to an eternal rest.\n\nTo this it is now replied that motion is the equivalent of light, heat,\nelectricity, and chemical reaction; all of which are convertible into\nmotion. These are properties of matter, and inseparable from it, and so\nas eternal as itself.\n\nWe have already disproved the eternity of matter; but if, for the sake\nof argument, it were granted, yet would not the regulated and orderly\nmotions of the universe be thereby accounted for. For these forces\neither exactly balance the force of gravitation, or they do not. If they\ndo not, and their repulsion prevails, by even the slightest degree, the\nparticles of matter had been driven away into infinite space millions of\nyears ago, and suns, and planets, and atheistic philosophers, would have\nvanished like the baseless fabric of a vision. But if the attraction of\ngravitation had prevailed, by even the weight of an ounce, long ages ago\nsun, moon and stars would have rushed together into one vast mountain\nmass, whose attraction would have been so great, that no living creature\ncould move upon its surface, and whose parts would be compressed into a\ndensity compared with which quicksilver would be lighter than cork.\n\nBut if, on the other hand, it be alleged, that these inherent forces of\nmatter exactly balance its power of gravitation--with which they have no\nother apparent relation--then the argument is irresistible, that these\ngrains of sand and drops of water and globes of granite being unequal to\nsuch calculations, there was some calculating engineer at work arranging\nthe motions of the stars.\n\nNo mechanical law is a sufficient cause for this motion. To allege that\na power of orderly, regulated motion--and there is no other sort of\nmotion in heaven or earth--is an inherent property of matter, is simply\nto insult our common sense, and overturn the foundation of all reason.\nFor we have no knowledge of matter, and can have none, more certain than\nwe have of the constitution of our own minds, which requires us to trace\nup every change among material objects to _the energy and will of a\nperson_ capable of planning and effecting the change. To refer us to the\nlaw of gravity is not to give us a cause for the motions of the heavenly\nbodies, but only a _name_; for law is only _a rule of action_. We demand\na lawgiver--an agent--a _force_, capable of producing effects. When the\nlaw of projectiles makes a cannon-ball, and projects it, we will believe\nthat the law of gravity made the worlds, and moves them.\n\n\"Descending within the mind's interior chambers, I find no conviction so\nsure of the existence of an external world, as is my belief in the\nreality of _power_--of something that sustains succession, and causes\norder. Again, then, whence this idea, and what is it? What this\nattribute with which I endow material laws, and raise them into\n_forces_? Now, in my apprehension, the strictest scrutiny can not obtain\nfor these inquiries any reply save one; we _primarily_ connect the idea\nof _power_ with no change or movement, except an act or determination of\nthe FREE WILL; but from such acts, that idea is inseparable. If,\ntherefore, in order to explain the progress of material things, we\nrequire the agency of _efficient causes_, is not this a direct and\nsolemn recognition--through all form and transiency--of the necessity of\nan _ever-present creative power_; a power requisite and necessary to\nuphold--to renew the universe every moment--or, rather, to prolong\ncreation by the persistence of the creative act? And, in very truth,\nstartling though it be, such is the only and ultimate scientific idea of\nthe divine omnipresence. Law is not even the Almighty's minister; the\norder of the material world, however close and firm, is not merely the\nAlmighty's ordinance. The _forces_, if so we name them, which express\nthat order, are not powers which he has evolved from the silences, and\nto whose guardianship he has committed all things, so that he himself\nmight repose. No! above, below, around, _there_ is God; there his\nuniversal presence, speaking to finite creatures, in finite forms, a\nlanguage which only the living heart can understand. In the rain and\nsunshine; in the soft zephyrs; in the cloud, the torrent, and the\nthunder; in the bursting blossom, and the fading branch; in the\nrevolving season, and the rolling star; there is the infinite essence,\nand the mystic development of HIS WILL.\"[195]\n\n2. _Scientific astronomy inexorably demolishes the Atheistic scheme for\nthe arrangement of the solar system by accident, commonly known as\nBuffon's cosmogony._\n\n\"Buffon supposed that the force of a comet falling obliquely on the sun\nhas projected to a distance a torrent of the matter of which it is\ncomposed, as a stone thrown into a basin causes the water which it\ncontains to splash out. This torrent of matter, in a state of fusion,\nhas broken into several parts, which have been arrested at different\ndistances from the sun, according to their density, or the impetus they\nreceived. They then united in spheres, by the effect of the motion of\nrotation, and condensing by cold, have become opaque and solid planets\nand satellites.\"[196]\n\nThis formation of worlds by accident, it is true, gave no reason for the\nform of their orbits, for their rotation on their axes, in one\ndirection, and that, too, the direction of their motion, nor for several\nother matters, of which Infidels make little account, but about which\nplain men like to ask, namely: Where did the sun come from? What melted\nit down into a fluid state, fit to be splashed about? Where did the\ncomet come from? And who threw it with so correct an aim through\ninfinite space as exactly to hit the sun _in an oblique direction_.\nCreation, it seems, was nearly missed, after all. This chaotic theory\nnever gained much respect from men of science, though its simplicity\nspeedily opened its way among the vulgar, and it has ever been a\nfavorite with the most ignorant class of Infidels, numbering thousands\nof warm advocates, even at the present day.\n\nIt was thought to be very much corroborated by the discovery of the\nasteroids, and their supposed formation by the explosion of a larger\nbody. There is a certain proportion observed in the distances of the\norbits of the planets from each other--a breadth or gauge, as it were,\non the celestial railroad. But there was the breadth of a track between\nthe orbits of Mars and Jupiter on which no train ran, and this vacancy\nexcited the curiosity of astronomers. In the first seven years of this\ncentury, three very small planets were discovered, running near this\ntrack; and Dr. Olbers, the discoverer of Pallas, finding that they were\nnearly in the same track, and sometimes crossed each other, and that\nthey were diminutively small--bearing about the same proportion to a\nregular planet which a hand-car does to a freight train--imagined that\nthey were formed by the explosion of a large planet; that the boiler of\nthe large locomotive had burst, the fragments had all lighted upon the\ntrack again, in the shape of hand-cars, and the hand-cars had\nmagnanimously resolved to keep running, and do the business of the line;\nand that, as there must have been material enough in the original planet\nto make some thousands of them, more would be discovered by watching two\ndepots, at the crossings of the tracks, in the constellations Virgo and\nthe Whale, where they must all pass. In fact, he did himself find\nanother, very near one of these nodes; more recently many others have\nbeen found; and astronomers now expect to hear of one or two more every\nyear.\n\nAt first sight his theory seemed strengthened by every new discovery.\nIt is true, reflecting men could not help wondering at such a\nmarvelously regular explosion as would produce beautiful little orderly\nplanets, going so regularly too, and all by accident. They never heard\nof the blowing up of a palace producing cottages, or the explosion of a\nsteamboat throwing off the hurricane deck in the shape of whaleboats, or\nthe bursting of a locomotive producing model engines, or even hand-cars.\nHowever, as the theory removed God out of sight, it was generally\naccepted and freely used by Infidels, to show that the world had no need\nof a Creator.\n\nBut astronomers saw, that as each new asteroid had a track of its own,\nand ran to a different terminus, and the roads in which they ran were of\ndifferent gauges and grades--one little asteroid, Pallas, running up and\ndown a track inclined thirty-five degrees, just as speedily as the\nothers--every new discovery increased the difficulty of accounting for\ntheir origin by explosion. But the discovery of the planet Hygeia, at a\nvast distance from the others, utterly overturned the explosion theory.\nLoomis says:\n\n\"The difficulties in the way of our regarding these small planets, as\nfragments of a single body, were well nigh-insuperable before the\ndiscovery of Hygeia. This last discovery has probably given the\ndeath-blow to the theory of Olbers. The orbit of Hygeia completely\nincloses the orbits of several of the asteroids, its perihelion\ndistance--that is, its least distance from the sun--exceeding the\naphelion--or greatest distance--of Flora by _twenty-five millions of\nmiles_. _No change of position of the orbits could, therefore, bring\nthese orbits to a coincidence._\"[197]\n\nThe matter has been finally settled by the greatest of modern\nmathematicians, Le Verrier, who has subjected the eccentricities,\ndistances, and inclinations of the orbits of the asteroids to a\nmathematical investigation, the result of which is as follows:\n\n\"In the present state of things, these eccentricities and these\ninclinations are totally incompatible with Olbers' hypothesis, which\nsupposed that the small planets--some of which were discovered even in\nhis day--were produced from the wreck of a larger star, which had\nexploded. The forces necessary to launch the fragments of a given body\nin such different routes (whose existence we should be obliged to\nsuppose) would be of such an improbable intensity, that the most limited\nmathematical knowledge could not but see its absurdity.\" He concludes\nthe memoir by advancing four propositions, \"which forever annihilate\nOlbers' hypothesis.\"[198]\n\n3. _The progress of astronomical discovery has utterly refuted the\nnotion of creation by natural law, known as the Development Theory, or\nthe Nebular Hypothesis._\n\nScientific Infidels knew that there was too much order and regularity in\nthe motions of the planets to allow any rational mind to ascribe these\nmotions to accident, according to Buffon's notion. They saw that these\nmovements must be regulated by law. La Place, an eminent mathematician,\nsaw that there are at least five great regularities pervading the\nsystem, for which Buffon's theory gave no reason:\n\n1. The planets all move in elliptical orbits, nearly circular. They\nmight, on the contrary, have been as elongated as those of comets.\n\n2. They revolve in orbits nearly in the plane of the sun's equator. They\nmight have revolved in orbits inclined to it at any angle, or even in\nthe plane of his poles.\n\n3. They revolve around the sun all in the same direction, which is the\ndirection of his rotation on his axis.\n\n4. They rotate on their axes, also, so far as known, in the same\ndirection.\n\n5. The satellites (with the exception of those of Uranus) revolve around\ntheir primary planets, and also rotate on their axes, in the same normal\ndirection.\n\nIt was evident, even to the believers in chance, that so many\nregularities were not produced by accident. La Place found, by computing\nthe chances by the formula of probabilities, that the chances were two\nmillions to one against these regularities happening by chance, _and\nfour millions to one in favor of these motions having a common origin_.\nThe grand phenomenon being a motion of rotation in the whole system, of\nwhich the rotation of the sun is the central part, he thought if he\ncould account for this, he could explain all the rest.\n\nHe set out by supposing, that the sun and planets originally existed as\na vast cloud of gaseous matter, intensely heated--a vast\nfire-mist--placed in a region of space much cooler, and that this cloud,\nby gradual cooling, and the pressure of its parts, settled down into\nsolid forms. It was supposed that some portions of this cloud would\nbegin to cool sooner than others, and so become solid sooner, and that\nthe hot gas, rushing to the solid part, would form a vortex, which would\nset the cloud in motion around its center. As the speed of its rotation\nwould increase, and the outside condense and grow solid before the\ninside, the cloud would whirl off the rings of solid matter, which would\nkeep revolving in the same orbits in which they were cast off, and would\nrevolve faster and faster as they grew cooler and more solid, till they\nbroke up, by the force of their velocity, into smaller pieces; which\nfragments, in their turn, repeated the process, until the present number\nof planets and their satellites was produced.[199]\n\nThis theory differs from Buffon's much as a low pressure engine,\nderiving most of its power from the condenser, differs from one of high\npressure. La Place does not explode the boiler to make his planets, but\nmerely runs his train so fast as to break an axle every now and then,\nwhen the wheel runs off with the velocity it has got, and keeps its\ntrack as well as if it had an engineer to guide it, grows into a little\nlocomotive by dint of running, and after a while breaks an axle\ntoo--breaking is a hereditary failing of these suns and planets that had\nno God to make them--and the wheels thus thrown off supply it with moons\nand rings, like Saturn's. The illustration is not nearly so absurd as\nthe theory, inasmuch as a locomotive is an incomparably less complicated\ncontrivance than a planet. However the nonsense was cradled in the halls\nof philosophy by means of antiquity, and distance.\n\nAs no fiction was too marvelous for the credence of the Greek, if it\nwere only a hundred years old, or located beyond the Euxine, so to our\ndevelopment philosopher any impossibility may be accepted, if it can\nonly be dissolved into gas, and located a good many millions of miles\naway; and to make it an article of faith on which he will risk his soul,\nit is only necessary to give it a remote antiquity. No Papist ever\ninsisted more on antiquity as the solvent of all absurdity. Antiquity,\ndistance, and expansion are his trinity, with which all absurdities\nbecome scientific facts.\n\nHerschel had discovered numbers of nebulae, or luminous clouds, in the\ndistant heavens shining with a distinct light, but which, with the\nhighest magnifying power he could apply, presented no trace of stars.\nSome nebulae, it is true, his largest telescope resolved, like our own\nMilky Way, into beds of distinct stars; but there were others--for\ninstance, one in the belt of Orion--visible to the naked eye as a cloud,\nbut which his forty feet telescope only displayed as a larger cloud,\nwithout any shape of stars. Now, reasoning upon the matter, he found\nthat if these nebulae were composed of stars as large as those distinctly\nvisible, they must be immensely distant to be indistinguishable by his\ntelescope, and exceedingly numerous and close together to give a cloud\nof light visible to the naked eye. In fact, the suns of those firmaments\nmust be so close to each other as to present a blaze of glory, and\ncomplexities of revolution inconceivable to the dwellers on earth. But\nas this daring idea seemed incredible, even to his giant mind, he\nthought the appearance of these nebulae might be more rationally\naccounted for by supposing that they were not stars at all, but simply\nclouds of gaseous matter, like the matter of comets, from which he\nsupposed that stars were formed by a long process of condensation and\nsolidification. He thought this theory was favored by the fact, that\nnebulae are generally seen in those portions of the heavens that are not\nthickly strewn with stars; and also by the various forms of these\nclouds. Some were merely loose clouds, without any definite form; others\nseemed gathering toward the center. In some, of a roundish, or oval\nform, the central mass seemed well defined. In a few, the process seemed\nnearly complete, a bright star shining in the midst of a faint nebulous\nhalo. Here, then, it was said, we see the whole progress of the growth\nof stars; their development from the gaseous nebulous fluid into solid,\nbrilliant suns. La Place accepted Herschel's discoveries as conclusive\nproof of the truth of his theory, and it was generally accepted by the\nscientific world. Oddly enough, Infidels seem not to have noticed that\nthose appearances of _condensation toward the center_, which seemed to\nHerschel so strongly in favor of his theory of the nebulous fluid, were\ndiametrically opposed to La Place's requirements of _condensation at the\ncircumference_; and these two contradictory notions were supposed to\nsupport each other, and to furnish a solid basis for the development\nhypothesis.\n\nThis theory, as stated by Herschel, and expounded by Nichol, Dick, and\nother Christian writers, _is not necessarily Atheistical_. On the\ncontrary, they allege that it furnishes us with greater evidences of the\npower of God, and gives us higher ideas of his wisdom, to suppose a\nsystem of creation by development, under natural law, than by a direct\nexercise of his will. Undoubtedly, had God so pleased he could have made\nsuns from fire-mists, according to some plan which his infinite wisdom\ncould devise, and his omnipotent power could execute; but it is beyond\nthe possibilities even of omniscience and omnipotence to make worlds, or\nto make anything but nonsense, according to La Place's plan. Had God so\npleased, to make firmaments grow as forests do, and if he should please\nto enable us to discover such celestial growth in some distant part of\nheaven, we should have the same kind of evidence of his being, power,\nwisdom, and goodness in this creation by natural law which we now have\nfrom his providence by natural law, in the growth of the fruits of the\nearth, and as much greater an amount of it as the heavens are greater\nthan the earth. The first beginning of primeval elements demands a\nCreator. The contrivance of the law of development proclaims a\nContriver. The force by which it operates--whether that of gravity or\nchemical reaction--must be the force of an Agent.\n\n_The development theory, then, fails to account for the origin of the\nuniverse, or even of our own world._ Herbert Spencer, its most eloquent\nexpounder, admits this. He says: \"It remains only to point out that\nwhile the genesis of the solar system, and of countless other systems\nlike it, is thus rendered comprehensible, the ultimate mystery continues\nas great as ever. The problem of existence is not solved; it is simply\nremoved farther back. The Nebular Hypothesis throws no light on the\norigin of diffused matter; and diffused matter as much needs accounting\nfor as concrete matter. The genesis of an atom is not easier to conceive\nthan the genesis of a planet. Nay, indeed, so far from making the\nuniverse a less mystery than before, it makes it a greater mystery.\nCreation by manufacture is a much lower thing than creation by\nevolution. A man can put together a machine, but he can not make a\nmachine develop itself. The ingenious artisan, able as some have been,\nso far to imitate vitality as to produce a mechanical piano-forte\nplayer, may in some sort conceive how, by greater skill, a complete man\nmight be artificially produced; but he is unable to conceive how such a\ncomplex organism gradually arises out of a minute, structureless germ.\nThat our harmonious universe once existed potentially as formless,\ndiffused matter, and has slowly grown into its present organized state,\nis a far more astonishing fact than would have been its formation after\nthe artificial method vulgarly supposed. Those who hold it legitimate to\nargue from phenomena to noumena, may rightly contend that the Nebular\nHypothesis implies a First Cause as much transcending 'the mechanical\ngod of Paley,' as this does the fetish of a savage.\"[200]\n\nThe Nebular Hypothesis, then, can not exist without God. However, as it\nseems to remove him to a great distance from this present world, both in\nspace and time, it has become popular with Atheists.\n\nThe Nebular Hypothesis, as presented by Atheists, _imagines a state of\nprimeval matter as simple, or homogeneous, of which science presents no\nexample, in heaven or on earth_.\n\nThis homogeneous condition of matter is the very foundation of the\ntheory. Spencer reasons at great length, that all progress is from the\nsimple to the differentiated. And it is indispensable for the Atheists\nto prove that the primeval world was composed of matter perfectly simple\nand homogeneous. If they alleged that it was composed of several\ningredients, nobody would believe them that this compound was eternal.\nThere is no conviction of common sense stronger than that every compound\nhas been put together by some compounder.\n\nThey could not persuade a child that a plum pudding made itself, or that\na steamship filled with passengers existed so from eternity, much less a\nplanet with a much larger crew and company. They therefore alleged that\nthe first matter of the universe was perfectly homogeneous and simple.\nWhen common people objected that no such thing was to be seen in this\nworld nowadays, since all things here--stones, water, air, earth,\nplants, animals--are compounded and built up out of a great variety of\nmatters, they claimed that this is the result of the growth of our\nplanet; but that the nebulae, which astronomers see far away in the sky,\nare young suns and planets, just beginning to condense, and that the gas\nthey consist of is the genuine, simple, homogeneous matter out of which\nthis world, and all worlds, originally made themselves. They thought the\nnebulae were so very far away that nobody would ever go there to see and\ncome back to contradict them; and so they were quite safe in pointing to\nthem as examples of homogeneous matter.\n\nNow one does not see, if the nebula had been exactly what the\ndevelopment men assert--_simple, homogeneous matter_--_how they could\never have made such a composite world as this out of it_, or indeed how\nthey could make anything but itself out of it. No chemical actions or\nreactions can begin in a simple substance; there must always be at least\ntwo simple substances to make a compound. Heating or cooling a simple\nsubstance will never make it a compound. You may heat water in a boiler\nand cool it again as often as you please, but your heating and cooling\nwill never make coffee out of it, unless you put coffee into it. So you\nmay heat and cool your simple nebula to all eternity, but you will never\nget coffee out of it, much less coffee and coffee-pot, china and\ncompany, with the biscuits and butter; all which, and a great deal\nmore, our philosophers contrive to churn out of the primeval homogeneous\nnebula.\n\nBut the progress of science has enabled us to show that the nebulae, far\nfrom being simple, homogeneous matter, are compounded of as many\ningredients as the flame of your lamp or gas light, which is combined of\nhalf a score of different substances. By the discovery of Spectrum\nAnalysis we are able to analyze the chemical composition of the most\ndistant flames, to tell whether they proceed from solids or gases in a\nstate of combustion, and what are the gases and minerals consumed in\nthem. As space forbids the details of this discovery here, I can only\nstate the results, namely that some of the nebulae consist of clouds of\nsmall solid stars, of which the nebula in Orion is an instance; but\nothers consist of flames of gases, in all cases compound, and showing,\nbesides the oxygenated flame, the lines which declare the presence of\nhydrogen, and of several metals. Thus it is proved, that no such\neternal, homogeneous nebulae are to be found in heaven, and consequently\nnobody could ever make worlds out of a substance which had no existence.\n\nThis theory of development was always _a mere notion, a castle in the\nair_, and never could be anything more. To say that it was mere\nmoonshine would be to give it far too respectable a standing; for\nmoonshine has a real existence, and may be seen and felt. But nobody\never saw or felt a homogeneous nebula. Indeed, its inventor never\npretended that he, or anybody else, ever saw one; or saw it sailing off\ninto moons, and planets, and suns, or ever would see any such thing. No\nscientific man has ever pretended that it was an established fact, or\nanything more than a theory, a notion. Young people, who are invited to\nhazard their souls on the strength of this miscalled scientific theory,\nshould remember that it is not science, which means something a man\nknows, but merely a theory, which is some notion which he imagines.\n\n_It is an unsatisfactory notion._ It does not answer the purpose of its\ninventors. As we have already seen, it gives us no account of the origin\nof the homogeneous matter of the nebula. It gives no answer to the\nquestions, How did it get to be so hot, while all the space around it\nwas so cold? Is the fire that heated it burning still, or is it\nexhausted for want of fuel? Were the germs of all the plants and animals\nin it while it was blazing at a white heat? If they were, how did they\nescape being burnt to ashes? If they were not, where did they come from?\nFor there was nothing but that nebula then in existence. Did it contain\nwithin itself all the principles of things, all the forces now found in\nthe worlds which grew out of it? If so, how came they there? If not, how\ndid attraction, and repulsion, vegetable life, animal life, intellect,\nand free will, work themselves into that cloud of homogeneous gas?\n\nProfessor Tyndall thus exposes the absurdity of the supposition that the\nnebula contained the elements of mind: \"For what are the core and\nessence of this hypothesis? Strip it naked and you stand face to face\nwith the notion that not alone the more ignoble forms of animalcular or\nanimal life, not alone the noble forms of the horse and lion, not alone\nthe exquisite and wonderful mechanisms of the human body, but the human\nmind itself--emotion, intellect, will, and all these phenomena, were\nonce latent in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion\nis more than a refutation.\"[201]\n\n_It was only one of several contradictory notions._ Thus a writer in the\n_Atlantic Monthly_, so far from accepting the notion that the sun and\nearth are solidifying and cooling down, as explanatory of the facts\nrevealed by astronomy and geology, infers the very contrary from the\nacknowledged facts, namely, that we are coming up to the nebular\ncondition, rather than developing from it. He writes as follows:\n\n     \"The earth is progressing by excessively slow changes toward\n     the solar and nebulous condition. Its history is a repetition\n     of the solar, and a time must arrive when the surface,\n     becoming incandescent, will be obscured only by casual dark\n     pits in a brilliant atmosphere, a _souvenir_ of the present\n     darkness of the crust; yet during a certain period, within\n     fixed limits of gravitating force and heat of mass, the human\n     race may continue to exist; progressing, we may suppose, in\n     force and fineness of organization. The race will perish,\n     perhaps, in the order of nature, by failure or insufficient\n     number of offspring, a principal cause of the extinction of\n     superior races. The earth must become lone and voiceless long\n     before the incandescence of the crust. Science may follow it\n     into the condition of an attendant star, and then of an\n     expanding nebula.\n\n     \"In the cosmos all movements are cyclical, and recurrent,\n     without change, save interchange among forms of motion. A\n     universe which is, in its total, the same to-day as yesterday,\n     and always, would appear idle and dull if it were not the\n     footstool of divine force, upon which the creative will\n     maintains a certain equipoise, necessary to the continued\n     production of spiritual forms.\"\n\n_It is an impracticable notion, contrary to the first principle of\nmechanics, that action and reaction are equal._\n\nThe grand requirement of the system--power to work the engine--can never\nbe raised by La Place's, nor by any other mechanical plan. The cooling\ncloud of fire-mist is simply a very big machine, and no machine can\ngenerate power to work itself. If La Place could have somehow or other\ngot power for the motion of rotation outside of his cloud, he might have\nmade it revolve, and scatter off great lumps of the lightest outside\nstuffs, as your grindstone scatters off drops of water when you turn it\nrapidly; but, having no such power, his theory is a plan to make the\ngrindstone turn itself. It is, therefore, precisely of the same value\nas any one of the hundred of ingenious schemes for creating power by\nmachinery, of the perpetual motion men, in defiance of the first law of\nmechanics, that action and reaction are equal.\n\nMoreover, he proposes to raise the power by making the gas cool at one\npart of the surface faster than at another, and so to make a vortex\naround that spot, which would set the whole mass to revolving. But no\nconceivable reason can be alleged why the homogeneous mass should begin\nto cool at one place faster than another, or indeed why an eternally hot\nmass should ever begin to cool at all. But, letting that pass, to make\nthe required vortex for the rotation of the whole mass, it should not\nbegin to cool at any part of the surface, but at the center, where, as\nevery engine driver who ever saw a condenser, and every woman who ever\ncooled a dish of mush knows, it could not possibly begin to cool till\nthe outside mass had become cold; and so no motion could be produced.\nThis is so well known in the machine shops that it is rare to find a\nmachinist own the theory.\n\nBut even a more fatal objection has been raised by one of the most\neloquent expounders of the theory. Mr. Spencer shows us that the mass,\ncondensing under the influence of gravitation, so far from cooling _must\nnecessarily evolve heat_. He is perfectly clear and decided on this\nmatter, _that the condensing mass could never, by any possibility, begin\nto cool, but must begin to heat, and go on heating till it burst out in\na blaze_. He says: \"Heat must inevitably be generated by the aggregation\nof diffused matter into a concrete form; and throughout our reasonings\nwe have assumed that such generation of heat has been an accompaniment\nof nebular condensation.\"[202] \"While the condensation and the rate of\nrotation are progressively increasing, the approach of the atoms\nnecessarily generates _a progressively increasing temperature_. As this\ntemperature rises light begins to be evolved, and ultimately there\nresults a revolving sphere of fluid matter radiating intense light and\nheat--a sun.\"[203]\n\nThis, it will be perceived, is exactly the reverse of the original\nnebular theory of a cooling globe, or spheroid of homogeneous nebular\nmatter, diffused by intense heat, and cooling down into suns, and moons,\nand planets. So far as the Spencer system is accepted, it displaces La\nPlace's theory, and the inventor accordingly works out a new theory of\nhis own, and equally inconsistent with known facts and principles. But\nas Mr. Spencer candidly owns that his scheme can neither generate matter\nnor force, as we have already seen, it needs no further discussion in\nthis connection.\n\nThe fact is simply this, a chemical perpetual motion is as impossible as\na mechanical one. The discovery of the convertibility of forces shows\nthis. The development theory of the generation of motion by processes of\nthe self-heating or the self-cooling of the machine, or by chemical\nactions and reactions, is, in its last analysis, only a big perpetual\nmotion humbug.\n\nEven were the rotation, and the cooling process, to take place, as is\nsupposed, _no such results would proceed from these combined operations\nas the case requires_; for, according to the theory, as the cooling and\ncontracting rings revolve in the verge of a vortex of fluid less dense\nthan themselves, one of these two results must take place: either, as is\nmost probable, from their exceeding tenuity, the rings will break at\nonce into fragments, when, instead of flying outward, they will sink\ntoward the center, and, as long as they are heavier than the surrounding\nfluid, _they will stay there_; and, as the cooling goes on on the\noutside, so will the concentration of the heavier matter, till we have\n_one_ great spheroid, with a solid center, liquid covering, and gaseous\natmosphere. A vortex will never make, nor allow to exist beyond its\ncenter, planets heavier than the fluid of which it is composed. The\nother alternative, and the one which La Place selected, was the\nsupposition that the cooling and contracting rings did not at first\nbreak up into pieces, but retained their continuity; but, contrary to\nall experience and reason, he supposed that these cooling rings kept\ncontracting and widening out from the heated mass, at the same time. The\nonly fluid planetary rings which we can examine--those of Saturn--have\nbeen closing in on the planet since the days of Huygens, and eventually\nwill be united with the body of the planet. Every boy who has seen a\nblacksmith hoop a cart-wheel has learned the principle, that a heated\nring contracts as it cools, and in doing so presses in upon the mass\naround which it clings. But, according to this nebular notion, the\nfire-mist keeps cooling and shrinking up, while the rings, of the very\nsame heat and material, keep cooling faster, and widening out from it; a\npiece of schismatical behavior without a parallel among solids or\nfluids, either in heaven or earth, or under the earth.\n\nPlateau's illustration of the mode in which centrifugal force acts in\novercoming molecular attraction, has been cited as a demonstration of\nthe truth of the nebular hypothesis. The conditions, however, are\nentirely different. By means of clock-work he caused a globule of oil to\nrotate in a mixture of alcohol and water _of the same density_, thus\nentirely getting rid of the power of gravitation; and by increasing the\nvelocity he caused it to flatten out into a disc, and finally to project\na multitude of minute drops, which continued their revolutions so long\nas the fluid in which they floated kept revolving by the motion of the\nrotating spindle, _the divergent drops, the central mass, and the\nsurrounding fluid, being all the while of the same density_. But the\nessential conditions of the nebular theory are, that _the central mass_\nexert an attraction of gravitation upon all its parts, and _therefore be\ndenser than the surrounding ether or empty space_, and that _the cooling\nand contracting rings be of a different density from the rest of the\nmass_. Their divergence from the more fluid portion is supposed to arise\nfrom their growing denser. And Reclus shows[204] that the divergent\ndrops owe their existence to the _expansion_, not to the _contraction_,\nof the globule of oil. This experiment, then, contradicts the theory, so\nfar as it is applicable.\n\nPlateau himself never adduced this experiment in support of the nebular\ntheory; but having, by way of illustration, spoken of the revolving\ndrops as satellites, and finding that expression misunderstood, he\ncorrected the error in a subsequent paper. He says: \"It is clear that\nthis mode of formation is entirely foreign to La Place's cosmogonic\nhypothesis; therefore we have no idea of deducing from this little\nexperiment, which only refers _to the effects of molecular attraction_,\nand _not to those of gravitation_, any argument in favor of the\nhypothesis in question; an hypothesis which _in other respects we do not\nadopt_.\"[205]\n\n_It was always contrary to the facts of astronomical science._ It has\naccordingly been repudiated by the most eminent astronomers.\n\nSir John Herschel declares that the appearance of those groups, or\nclusters, of stars, supposed to be formed by the condensation of nebulae\nis quite different from that depicted by this theory, and that no traces\nof the ring-making process is visible among them. He thus describes the\nappearances of these groups; exactly the contrary of that demanded by\nthe theory, which he emphatically disclaims, from the presidential chair\nof the British Association for the Advancement of Science.\n\n\"If it is to be regarded as demonstrated truth, or as receiving the\nsmallest support from any observed numerical relations which actually\nhold good among the elements of the primary orbits, I beg leave to\ndemur. Assuredly it receives no support from the observation of the\neffects of sidereal aggregation as exemplified in the formation of\nglobular and elliptic clusters, supposing them to have resulted from\nsuch aggregation. For we see this cause working out in thousands of\ninstances, to have resulted, _not_ in the formation of a single large\ncentral body, surrounded by a few smaller attendants disposed in one\nplane around it, but in systems of infinitely greater complexity,\nconsisting of multitudes of nearly equal luminaries, grouped together in\na solid elliptic or globular form. So far then as any conclusions from\nour observations of nebulae can go, the result of agglomerative\ntendencies _may_ indeed be the formation of families of stars of a\ngeneral and very striking character, but we see nothing to lead us to\npresume its further result to be the surrounding of those stars with\nplanetary adherents.\"[206]\n\n_This theory is contradicted by the peculiarities of our solar system._\nThe orbits of the comets being inclined at all angles to the sun's\nequator, are often out of the plane of his rotation, and so in the way\nof the theory. The moons of Uranus revolve in a direction contrary to\nall the other bodies, and fly right into the face of the theory.\nAccording to the nebular theory, the outer planets, first cast off from\nthe sun, ought to be lighter than those nearer him, as these had longer\npressing near the middle of the mass; and the sun himself, having been\npressed by the weight of all the rest of the system, should be the\ndensest body of the whole. And the author of _The Vestiges of Creation_,\nin expounding the theory, manufactures a set of facts to suit it, and\ntells his readers that the planets exhibit a progressive diminution in\ndensity from the one nearest the sun to that which is most distant. Our\nsolar system could not have lasted thirty years had that been the case.\nThe Earth, Venus, and Mars, are nearly of the same density. Uranus is\nmore dense than Saturn, which is nearer the sun. Neptune is more dense\nthan either. The sun, which ought to be the heaviest of all, according\nto the theory, is only one-fourth the density of the earth. La Place\nhimself has demonstrated that these densities and arrangements are\nindispensable to the stability of the system. But they are plainly\ncontradictory to his theory of its formation.[207]\n\nThe palpable difference of luminosity between the sun and the planets,\nwhich, as they are all made of the very same materials, and by the same\nprocess, according to this theory, ought to be equally self-luminous, is\nin itself a self-evident refutation of the nebular hypothesis, or of any\nother process of creation by mere mechanical law. \"The same power,\nwhether natural or supernatural, which placed the sun in the center of\nthe six primary planets, placed Saturn in the center of the orb of his\nfive secondary planets; and Jupiter in the center of his four secondary\nplanets; and the earth in the center of the moon's orbit; and,\ntherefore, had this cause been a blind one, _without contrivance or\ndesign_, the sun would have been a body of the same kind with Saturn,\nJupiter, and the Earth; that is, _without light or heat_. Why there is\none body in our system qualified to give light and heat to all the rest,\nI know no reason, but because the Author of the system thought it\nconvenient.\" So says the immortal Newton.[208]\n\nThe great expounder of modern science--Humboldt--is equally explicit in\nenumerating the decisive marks of choice and will in the construction of\nthe solar system, and in contemptuously dismissing the notion of\ndevelopment and creation by natural law from the halls of science.\n\n\"Up to the present time, _we are ignorant, as I have already remarked,\nof any internal necessity--any mechanical law of nature_--which (like\nthe beautiful law which connects the square of the periods of revolution\nwith the cube of the major axis) represents the above-named\nelements--the absolute magnitude of the planets, their density,\nflattening at the poles, velocity of rotation, and presence or absence\nof moons--of the order of succession of the individual planetary bodies\nof each group, in their dependence upon the distances. Although the\nplanet which is nearest the sun is densest--even six or eight times\ndenser than some of the exterior planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and\nNeptune--the order of succession in the case of Venus, the Earth, and\nMars, is very irregular. The absolute magnitudes do, generally, as\nKepler has already observed, increase with the distances; but this does\nnot hold good when the planets are considered individually. Mars is\nsmaller than the Earth; Uranus smaller than Saturn; Saturn smaller than\nJupiter, and succeeds immediately to a host of planets, which, on\naccount of their smallness, are almost immeasurable. It is true, the\nperiod of rotation generally increases with the distance from the sun;\nbut it is in the case of Mars slower than in that of the Earth, and\nslower in Saturn than in Jupiter.\"[209] \"_Our knowledge of the primeval\nages of the world's physical history does not extend sufficiently far to\nallow of our depicting the present condition of things as one of\ndevelopment._\"[210]\n\nSir David Brewster adds his testimony as follows: \"Geology does not\npretend to give us any information respecting the process by which the\nnucleus of the earth was formed. Some speculative astronomers indeed\nhave presumptuously embarked in such an inquiry; but there is not a\ntrace of evidence that the solid nucleus of the globe was formed by\nsecondary causes, such as the aggregation of attenuated matter diffused\nthrough space; and the _nebular theory_, as it has been called, though\nmaintained by a few distinguished names, has, we think, been overturned\nby arguments which have never been answered. Sir Isaac Newton, in his\nfour celebrated letters to Dr. Bentley, has demonstrated that the\nplanets of the solar system could not have been thus formed and put in\nmotion round a central sun.\"[211]\n\n4. _Astronomy not only exposes the folly of past cosmogonies, but\ndemonstrates the impossibility of framing any true theory of creation,\nand thus refutes all future cosmogonies._\n\nThe grand error of all cosmogonies lies in the arrogant assumption, on\nwhich every one of them must be founded, _that the theorist is\nacquainted with all substances, and all forces in the universe_, and\nwith all the modes of their operation; not only at the present period,\nand on this earth, but in all past ages, and in worlds in widely\ndifferent, and utterly unknown situations; for, if he be ignorant of any\nsubstance, or of any active force in the universe, his generalization is\navowedly imperfect, and necessarily erroneous. That unknown force must\nhave had its influence in framing the world. Its omission, then, is\nfatal to the theory which neglects it. A theory of creation, for\ninstance, which would neglect the attraction of gravitation would be\nmanifestly false. But there are other forces as far reaching, whose\nomission must be equally fatal; for instance, the power of repulsion.\n\nA conviction of this truth has given rise to a constant effort to\nsimplify matters down to the level of our ignorance, by reducing all\nsubstances to one, or at most two simple elements, and all forces to the\nform of one universal law; but the progress of science utterly blasts\nthe attempt. Instead of simplifying matters, the very chemical processes\nundertaken with that view revealed new substances, and every year\nincreases our knowledge of nature's variety. No scientific man now\ndreams of one primeval element. In the same way, astronomy, which, it\nwas boasted, would enable us to account for all the operations of the\nuniverse, by reducing all motion to one mechanical law, has revealed to\nus the existence of other forces as far reaching as the attraction of\ngravitation, and more powerful; and substances whose nature and\ncombinations are utterly unknown. But every cosmogony is just an attempt\nto simplify matters, by ignoring the existence of these unknown\nsubstances, and mysterious forces; a process which science condemns, as\nutterly unphilosophical and absurd.\n\nAstronomy has shown us _our ignorance of the substances_, or\n_materials_, _of our own little globe_. It has demonstrated that the\nwhole body of the earth must have an average density equal to iron. As\nthe rocks near the surface are much lighter, those toward the center\nmust be heavier than iron, to make up this density. Of what, then, do\nthey consist? The geologist says he does not know. No geologist ever saw\nthem. No mortal ever will see them, and report their chemical\nconstitution, their dip, and the arrangement of their strata, to the\nAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science. The very utmost \"we\ncan say is that they are unlike anything with which we are acquainted.\"\nVery well; then be pleased to have the decency to abstain from telling\nus how the world was made, when you don't know what it is made of.\n\nThe sun's heat, at its surface, is 300,000 times greater than at the\nsurface of the earth, but a tenth of this amount, collected in the focus\nof a lens, dissipates gold and platinum in vapor. When the most vivid\nflames which we can produce are held up in the blaze of his rays, they\ndisappear. If a cataract of icebergs, a mile high, and wider than the\nAtlantic Ocean, were launched into the sun with the velocity of a\ncannon-ball, the small portion of the sun's heat expended on our earth\nwould convert that vast mass into steam as fast as it entered his\natmosphere without cooling its surface in the least degree. \"The great\nmystery, however, is to conceive how so enormous a conflagration (if\nsuch it be) can be kept up. Every discovery in chemical science here\nleaves us completely at a loss, or rather seems to remove farther the\nprospect of probable explanation.\"[212] Yet, the sun is the nearest of\nthe fixed stars, and by far the best known, and most nearly related to\nus. In fact, we are dependent on his influences for life and health. But\nif the theorist _can not tell his substance, or the nature and cause of\nthe light and heat he sends us_, how can he presume so far on the\nworld's credulity as to present a theory of his formation?\n\n\"Astronomical problems accumulate unsolved upon our hands, because we\ncan not, as mechanicians, chemists, or physiologists, experiment on the\nstars. Are they built of the same material as our planet? Are Saturn's\nrings solid, or liquid? Has the moon an atmosphere? Are the atmospheres\nof the planets like ours? Are the light and heat of the sun begotten of\ncombustion? And what is the fuel which feeds these unquenchable fires?\nThese are questions, which we ask, and variously answer, _but leave\nunanswered after all_.\"[213] But, till he can answer these, and a\nthousand questions like these, let no man presume to describe the\nformation of these unknown orbs.\n\nComets constitute by far the greatest number of the bodies of our solar\nsystem. Arago says seven millions frequent it, within the orbit of\nUranus.[214] They are the largest bodies known to us, stretching across\nhundreds of millions of miles. They approach nearer to this earth than\nany other bodies, sometimes even involving it in their tails, and\ngenerally exciting great alarm among its inhabitants. But the nature of\nthe transparent luminous matter of which they are composed is utterly\nunknown. As they approach the sun, they come under an influence directly\nthe opposite of attraction. The tail streams away from the sun, over a\ndistance of millions of miles, _and yet the rate of the comet's motion\ntoward the sun is quickened_, as though it were an immense rocket,\ndriven forward by its own explosion.\n\nFurther, while the body of the comet travels toward the sun, sometimes\nwith a velocity nearly one-third of that of light, the tail sends forth\ncoruscations in the opposite direction, with a much greater velocity.\nThe greatest velocity with which we are acquainted on earth is the\nvelocity of light, which travels a million of times faster than a\ncannon-ball, or at the rate of 195,000 miles per second; but here is a\nsubstance capable of traveling twenty-three times faster, and here is a\nforce propelling it, twenty-three times greater than any which exists on\nearth. Its existence was first discovered by the coruscations of the\ncomet of 1807. \"In less than one second, streamers shot forth, to two\nand a half degrees in length; they as rapidly disappeared, and issued\nout again, sometimes in proportions, and interrupted, like our northern\nlights. Afterward the tail varied, both in length and breadth; and in\nsome of the observations, the streamers shot forth from the whole\nexpanded end of the tail, sometimes here, sometimes there, in an\ninstant, two and a half degrees long; _so that within a single second\nthey must have shot out a distance of 4,600,000 miles_.\"[215] Similar\nexhibitions of this unknown force were made by the comet of 1811, by\nHalley's comet, and several others.\n\nIn these amazing disclosures of the unknown forces of the heavens, do we\nnot hear a voice rebuking the presumption of ignorant theorists, with\nthe questions, Knowest _thou_ the ordinances of heaven? Canst _thou_ set\nthe dominion thereof in the earth? Hear one of the most distinguished of\nmodern astronomers expound the moral bearings of such a discovery: \"The\nintimation of a new cosmical power--I mean of one so unsuspected before,\nbut which yet can follow a planet through all its wanderings--throws us\nback once more into the indefinite obscure, and checks all dogmatism.\nHow many influences, hitherto undiscovered by our ruder senses, may be\never streaming toward us, and modifying every terrestrial action. And\nyet, because we had traced one of these, we have deemed our astronomy\ncomplete! Deeper far, and nearer to the root of things, is that world\nwith which man's destiny is entwined.\"[216]\n\nWe can have no reason, save our own self-sufficient arrogance, to\nbelieve that the discovery of these two forces exhausts the treasures of\ninfinite wisdom. Humboldt thus well refutes the folly of such an\nimagination: \"The imperfectibility of all empirical science, and the\nboundlessness of the sphere of observation, render the task of\nexplaining the forces of matter by that which is variable in matter, an\nimpracticable one. What has been already perceived, by no means exhausts\nthat which is perceptible. If, simply referring to the progress of\nscience in our own times, we compare the imperfect physical knowledge of\nRobert Boyle, Gilbert, and Hales, with that of the present day, and\nremember that every few years are characterized by an increasing\nrapidity of advance, we shall be better able to imagine _the periodical\nand endless changes which all physical sciences are destined to\nundergo. New substances and new forces will be discovered._\"[217]\n\nThus, all true science, conscious of its ignorance, ever leads the mind\nto the region of faith. Its first lesson, and its last lesson, is\nhumility. It tells us that every cosmogony, which the children of theory\nso laboriously scratch in the sand, must be swept away by the rising\ntide of science. When we seek information on the great questions of our\norigin and destiny, and cry, \"Where shall wisdom be found, and what is\nthe place of understanding?\" The high priests of science answer, in her\nname, \"It is not in me; the measure thereof is longer than the earth,\nand broader than the sea.\"\n\nWe receive this honest acknowledgment as an inestimable boon. We are\nsaved thereby the wearying labor of a vain and useless search after\nknowledge which lies not in her domain. We come down to the Bible with\nthe profound conviction that science can give us no definite information\nof our origin, no certainty of our destiny, and but an imperfect\nacquaintance with the laws which govern this present world. If the Bible\ncan not inform us on these all-important questions, we must remain\nignorant. Science declares she can not teach us. The Word of God\nremains, not merely the best, but absolutely the only, the last resource\nof the anxious soul.\n\nThe Bible gives us no theory of creation. It simply asserts the fact,\nthat \"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,\" but does\nnot tell us _how_ he did so. The knowledge could be of no use to us, for\nhe never means to employ us as his assistants in the work of creation.\nNor could we understand the matter. The force by which he called the\nworlds into being, and upholds them in it, exists in no creature. \"He\nstretcheth forth the heavens alone. He spreadeth abroad the earth by\nhimself.\" \"He upholdeth all things by the word of his power.\"\n\nBut it presents anxious, careworn, humbled souls with something\ninfinitely more precious than cosmogonies; even an explicit declaration\nof the love toward them of him who made these worlds.\n\n     \"Thus saith the Lord, THY REDEEMER,\n     And he who formed thee from the womb:\n     I am the Lord, who maketh all things;\n     Who stretcheth forth the heavens alone,\n     And spreadeth abroad the earth, by myself.\"\n\n     \"He healeth the broken in heart,\n     And bindeth up their wounds.\n     He telleth the number of the stars,\n     And calleth them all by their names.\n     Great is our Lord, and of great power;\n     His wisdom is infinite!\"\n\nYes, the Creator of heaven and earth, who upholds all things by the word\nof his power, became a man like you, and dwelt on earth, and suffered\nthe sorrow, the shame, the pain, the death, that sinful man deserved;\nand when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand\nof the Majesty on high. From that heavenly throne his voice now sounds,\nreader, in your ear, \"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are\nheavy-laden, and _I will give you rest_.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[186] Cosmos III. 138.\n\n[187] Herschel's Outlines, chap. xvii. sec. 887.\n\n[188] Cosmos III. 197.\n\n[189] Nichol's Architecture of the Heavens, 9th ed. p. 180.\n\n[190] Cosmos IV. 292.\n\n[191] Nichol's Contemplations on the Solar System, xxx.\n\n[192] Cosmos III. 253.\n\n[193] Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy, chap. xvi.\n\n[194] _New York Evangelist_, May 5, 1870.\n\n[195] Nichol's Architecture of the Heavens, 9th edition, 272.\n\n[196] Pontecoulant in _System of the World_, p. 70.\n\n[197] Progress of Astronomy, 70.\n\n[198] Memoirs of the French Academy, by M. Le Verrier; from _The Annual\nof Scientific Discovery_, for 1855, p. 376.\n\n[199] Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy, p. 558, ed. of 1853.\n\n[200] Illustrations of Universal Progress, page 298.\n\n[201] Fragments of Science and Scientific Thought, p. 163.\n\n[202] Illustrations of Progress, page 292.\n\n[203] Illustrations of Progress, page 34.\n\n[204] The Earth, page 256.\n\n[205] Taylor's Scientific Memoirs, Vol. V., cited in McCosh's Typical\nForms and Special Ends in Creation, p. 403.\n\n[206] Opening Address to the British Association, 1845.\n\n[207] Taking water as the unit of density, Mercury is 6.71; Venus, 5.11;\nEarth, 5.44; Mars, 5.21; Saturn, 0.76; Uranus, 0.97; Neptune, 1.25; the\nSun, 1.37.--Cosmos IV. p. 447.\n\n[208] Newton's Optics, IV. p. 438.\n\n[209] Cosmos, IV. p. 425.\n\n[210] Cosmos, III. p. 28.\n\n[211] More Worlds Than One, p. 45.\n\n[212] Herschel's Outlines, VI. Sect. 400.\n\n[213] Dr. George Wilson, F. R. S. E., in Edinburgh Phil. Journal, V. p.\n53.\n\n[214] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, p. 360.\n\n[215] Dick's Sidereal Heavens, chap. xx.\n\n[216] Nichol's Solar System, p. 76.\n\n[217] Cosmos, III. p. 27.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nDAYLIGHT BEFORE SUNRISE.\n\n\nIn the last chapter we saw astronomy demonstrating our need of a\nrevelation from God. In this we shall see how it illustrates and\nconfirms that revelation. Seen through the telescope, the Bible glows\nwith celestial splendor. Even its cloudy mysteries are displayed as\nclouds of light, and its long misunderstood phrases are resolved, by a\nscientific investigation, into galaxies of brilliant truths, proclaiming\nto the philosopher that the Book which describes them is as truly the\nWord of God as the heavens which it describes are his handiwork.\n\nIf, once in a century, a profound practical astronomer is found denying\nthe inspiration of the Bible, he will either acknowledge, or discover\nhimself, not familiar with its contents. For the most part, the charges\nbrought against the Bible, of contradicting the facts of astronomy, are\nbased upon misstatements and mistakes of its teachings, and so do not\nfall within the range of the telescope, or the department of the\nobservatory. The Sabbath-school teacher, and not the astronomer, is the\nproper person to correct such errors. A few months' instruction in the\nBible class of any well-conducted Sabbath-school would save some of our\npopular anti-Bible lecturers from the sin of misrepresenting the Word of\nGod, and the shame of hearing children laugh at their blunders.\n\nA favorite field for the display of their knowledge of science, and\nignorance of the art of reading, by our modern Infidels, is the Bible\naccount of creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, which is alleged\nto be utterly irreconcilable with the known facts of astronomy and\ngeology. Leaving the latter out of view, for the present, the\nastronomical objections may all be arranged under four heads. First:\nthat the Bible account of the creation of man, only some six or seven\nthousand years ago, must be false; because the records of astronomical\nobservations, taken more than seventeen thousand years ago, by the\nHindoos and Egyptians, are still in existence, and have been verified.\nSecond: that the light of some of the stars, now shining upon us, and\nespecially of some of the distant nebulae, must have left them millions\nof years ago, to have traveled over the vast space which separates them\nfrom us, and be visible on our globe now; whereas, the Bible teaches\nthat the universe was created only some six or seven thousand years ago.\nThird: that the Bible represents God as creating the sky a solid\ncrystal, or metallic sphere, or hemisphere (they are not agreed which),\nto which the stars are fastened, and with which they revolve around the\nearth; which every school-boy knows to be absurd. Fourth: that the Bible\nrepresents God as creating the sun and moon only two days before Adam,\nand as creating light before the sun, which is also held to be absurd.\n\n1. The first of these objections--that the Hindoos and Egyptians made\nastronomical observations thousands of years before Adam, and that the\naccuracy of these observations has been verified by modern\ncalculations--_is simply untrue_. No such observations were ever made.\nThe pretended records of such have been proved, in the case of the\nHindoo astronomy, to be forgeries, and in the case of the Egyptian\nrecords, blunders of the discoverers. There is not an authentic\nuninspired astronomical observation extant for two thousand years after\nAdam.\n\nThe objection, however, is worth noticing, and its history worth\nremembering, as a specimen of the way in which ignorant men swallow\nimpudent falsehoods, if they only seem to contradict the Word of Truth.\nWhen the labors of oriental scholars had made the Vedas and\nShasters--the sacred books of the Hindoos--accessible to European\nphilosophers, a wonderful shout was raised among Infidels. \"Here,\" it\nwas said, \"is the true chronology. We always knew that man was not a\ndegenerate creature, fallen from a higher estate, some few thousand\nyears ago, but that he has existed from eternity, in a constant progress\ntoward his present lofty position; and now we have the most authentic\nrecords of the most ancient and civilized people in the world--the\npeople of India--reaching back for millions of years before the Mosaic\ncosmogony, and allowing ample time for the development of the noble\nsavage into the cultivated philosopher. These records have every mark of\ntruth, giving minute details of events, and histories of successive\nlines of princes; and, moreover, record the principal astronomical facts\nof the successive periods--eclipses, comets, positions of stars,\netc.--which attest their veracity. Henceforth, the Hebrew records must\nhide their heads. Neither as poetry nor history can they pretend to\ncompare with the Vedas.\"\n\nThe Hindoo Shasters were accordingly, for a time, in high repute, among\npeople who knew very little about them. Even Dr. Adam Clarke was so far\nled away with the spirit of the age, as to pollute his valuable\ncommentary by the insertion of the _Gitagovinda_, after the Chaldee\nTargum on the Song of Solomon; where the curious reader can satisfy\nhimself as to the scientific value of such Pantheistic dotings. By the\nInfidels of Britain and America they were appealed to as standard works\nof undoubted authority; and hundreds, who declared that it was\nirrational credulity to believe in the Bible, risked their souls on the\nfaith of the Vedas, _of which they never had read a single sentence_!\n\nNow, when we remember that these veracious chronicles reach back through\n_maha yugs_ of 4,320,000 years of mortals, a thousand of which, or\n4,320,000,000, make a _kalpa_ or one day of the life of Brahma, while\nhis night is of the same duration, and his life consists of a hundred\nyears of such days and nights, about the middle of which period the\nlittle span of our existence is placed; that among the facts of the\nhistory are the records of the seven great continents of the world,\nseparated by seven rivers, and seven chains of mountains, four hundred\nthousand miles high (reaching only to the moon); of the families of\ntheir kings, one of whom had a hundred sons, another only ten thousand,\nanother sixty thousand, who were born in a pumpkin, nourished in pans of\nmilk, reduced to ashes by the curse of a sage, and restored to life by\nthe waters of the Ganges; and that among the astronomical observations,\nby which the accuracy of these extraordinary facts is confirmed, are\naccounts of deluges, in which the waters not only rose above the tops of\nearth's mountains, but above the seven inferior and three superior\nworlds, _reaching even to the Pole Star_[218]--we may well wonder at the\nfaith which could receive all this as so true, that on the strength of\nit they rejected the miracles of the Bible as false. Even Voltaire\nridiculed these stories.\n\nBut a visionary man, named Baillie, calculated the alleged observations\nbackward, and found them sufficiently correct to satisfy him that all\nthe rest of the story was equally true. It never seems to have occurred\nto him, that if he could calculate eclipses _backward_, so could the\nHindoos. It is just as easy to calculate an eclipse, or the position of\na planet, backward as forward. If I watch the motion of the hands of a\nclock accurately, and find that the little hand moves over the twelfth\nof a circle every hour, and the large hand around the circle in the same\ntime, and that the large hand, now at noon, covers the little one, I\ncan calculate, that at sixteen minutes and a quarter past three it will\nnearly cover it again; but then, it is just as easy to count that the\ntwo hands were covered at sixteen minutes and a quarter before nine that\nmorning, or that they were exactly in line at 6 A. M. If my clock would\nkeep going at the same rate for a thousand years, I could predict the\nposition of the hands at any hour of the twenty-ninth of March, of the\nyear 2857; but it is evident that the very same calculation applied the\nother way would show the position that the hands would have had a\nthousand years ago, or five thousand years ago, just as well. And if I\nwere to allege that my clock was made by Tubal Cain, before the flood,\nand for proof of the fact declare, that on the first of January, 3857 B.\nC., at 6 o'clock P. M., I had seen the two hands directly in line, and\nsome wiseacre were to calculate the time, and find that at that hour the\nhands ought to have been just in that position, and conclude thence that\nI was undoubtedly one of the antediluvians, and the clock no less\ncertainly a specimen of the craft of the first artificer in brass and\niron, the argument would be precisely parallel to the Infidel's argument\nfrom the Tirvalore Tables, and the astronomy of the Vedas.\n\nBut suppose my clock ran a little slow; say half a minute in the month,\nor so; or that it was made to keep sidereal time, which differs by a\nlittle from solar time, and that I did not know exactly what the\ndifference was; it is evident that on a long stretch of some hundreds or\nthousands of years, I would get out of my reckoning, and the hands would\nnot have been in the positions I had calculated. Now, this was just what\nhappened with the Brahmins and their calculations. The clock of the\nheavens keeps a uniform rate of going, but they made a slight mistake in\nthe counting of it; and so did their Infidel friends. But our modern\nastronomers have got the true time, set their clocks, and made their\ntables by it; and on applying these tables to the pretended Hindoo\nobservations, find that they are all wrong, and that no such eclipses as\nthey allege ever did occur or possibly could have happened in our solar\nsystem.[219] So the Hindoo astronomy is now consigned to the same tomb\nwith the Hindoo chronology and cosmogony, except when a missionary, on\nthe banks of the Ganges, exhibits it to the pupils of his English\nschool, as a specimen of the falsehoods which have formed the swaddling\nbands of Pantheism.\n\nFailing in the attempt to substitute Brahminism for Christianity,\nInfidels beat a retreat from India, and went down into Egypt for help.\nHere they made prodigious discoveries of the scientific and religious\ntruths believed by the worshipers of dogs and dung beetles, recorded\nupon the coffins of holy bulls, and the temples sacred to crows and\ncrocodiles. The age was favorable for such discoveries.\n\nNapoleon and his savans cut out of the ceiling of a temple, at Denderah,\nin Egypt, a stone covered with uncouth astronomical, astrological, and\nhieroglyphic figures, which they insisted was a representation of the\nsky at the time the temple was built; and finding a division made\nbetween the signs of the crab and the lion, and marks for the sun and\nmoon there, they took it into their heads that the sun must have entered\nthe Zodiac at that spot, on the year this Zodiac was made; and,\ncalculating back, found that must be at least seventeen thousand years\nago. Hundreds of thousands visited the wonderful antediluvian monument,\nin the National Library, in Paris, where it had been brought; and where\nInfidel commentators were never wanting to inform them that this\nremarkable stone proved the whole Bible to be a series of lies. A\nprofessor of the University of Breslau published a pamphlet, entitled\n_Invincible Proof that the Earth is at least ten times older than is\ntaught by the Bible_. Scores of such publications followed, and for\nforty years Infidel newspapers, magazines, and reviews kept trumpeting\nthis great refutation of the Bible. From these it descended to the\nvulgar, with additions and improvements; and it is now frequently\nalleged as proving that \"ten thousand years before Adam was born, the\npriests of Egypt were carving astronomy on the pyramids.\" There is\nscarcely one of my French or German readers who has not heard of it.\n\nIt did not shake the Skeptic's credulity in the least that no two of the\nsavans were agreed, by some thousands of years, how old it was--that\nthey could not tell what the Egyptian system of astronomy was--_and that\nnone of them could read the hieroglyphics which explained it_. Whatever\nmight be doubtful, of one thing they were all perfectly sure, that it\nwas far older than the creation. But in 1832 the curious Egyptian\nastronomy was studied, and it appeared that the sun and moon were so\nplaced on the Zodiac to mark the beginning of the year there; and the\ndividing line fenced off one half of the sky under the care of the sun,\nwhile the other was placed under the moon's patronage. Then it was\ndiscovered that the positions of the stars were represented by the\npictures of the gods whose names they bore--Jupiter, Saturn, etc.--and\nby calculating the places of these pictures back, it was found that this\nZodiac represented their places in the year of our Lord 37; the year of\nthe birth of Nero, a great temple-builder and repairer. Finally,\nChampollion learned to read the hieroglyphics, and the names, surnames,\nand titles of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and Domitian were\nfound on the temple of Denderah; and on the portico of the temple of\nEsneh, which had been declared to be a few thousand years older than\nthat of Denderah, were found the names of Claudius and Antoninus Pius;\nwhile the whole workmanship and style of building have satisfied all\nantiquarians that these buildings were erected during the declining days\nof art in the Roman Empire. The Roman title, _autocrat_, engraved on\nthe Zodiac itself, attests its antiquity to be not quite two thousand,\ninstead of seventeen thousand years.\n\nBut, not satisfied with merely demolishing the batteries of Infidelity,\nastronomy has been employed to ascertain the dates of numbers of events\nrecorded on Egyptian monuments to have happened to one or other of the\nPharaohs, \"beloved of Ammon, and brother of the sun,\" when such a star\nwas in such a position. Mr. Poole has spent years in gathering such\ninscriptions, and in calculating the dates thus furnished. The\nastronomer royal, at Greenwich, Mr. Airy, has reviewed the calculations,\nand finds them correct. Wilkinson, the great Egyptologist, agrees with\ntheir conclusions. And the result is, that _the astronomical chronology\nof the Egyptian monuments sustains the Bible chronology_.[220] Geology\ncomes forward to confirm the testimony of her elder sister, and assures\nus, that the alleged vast antiquity of the Egyptian monuments is\nimpossible, as it is not more than 5,000 years since the soil of Egypt\nfirst appeared above water, as a muddy morass.[221] The learned Adrian\nBalbo thus sums up the whole question: \"No monument, either astronomical\nor historical, has yet been able to prove the books of Moses false; _but\nwith them, on the contrary, agree, in the most remarkable manner, the\nresults obtained by the most learned philologists and the profoundest\ngeometricians_.\"[222]\n\n2. To the second objection--that astronomers have discovered stars whose\nlight must have been millions of years traveling to this earth, and that\nconsequently these stars must have existed millions of years ago, and\ntherefore the Bible makes a false declaration when it says the universe\nwas created only some six or seven thousand years ago--I reply by\nasking, _Where does the Bible say so?_\n\n\"What,\" says our objector, \"is not that the good old orthodox doctrine\nof Christians and commentators? Do they not unanimously denounce\ngeologists and astronomers as heretics, for asserting the vast antiquity\nof the earth?\"\n\nWe shall see presently that no such unanimity of denunciation has ever\nexisted, and that some of the most ancient and learned Christian\ncommentators taught the antiquity of the earth, from the Bible, before\ngeology was born. But that is not the question before us just now. We\nare not asking what the good old orthodox doctrine of Christians, or the\nunanimous opinion of commentators may have been; but what is the reading\nof the Bible--_What does this Book say?_--not, \"What does somebody\nthink?\"\n\n\"Well,\" replies our objector, \"does not the Bible say, in the first of\nGenesis, that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and\nAdam on the sixth; and are not chronologists agreed that that was not\nmore than seven thousand years ago, at the very utmost?\"\n\nIf the Bible had said that God created the heavens and the earth in six\ndays, and that the end of that period was only seven thousand years ago,\nit would by no means follow that the beginning of it was only a few\nhours before that; for every Bible reader knows, that the most common\nuse of the word _day_, in Scripture, is to denote, not a period of\ntwenty-four hours, but a period of time which may be of various\nlengths.[223] In this very narrative (Genesis ii. 5) it is used to\ndenote the whole period of the six days' work: \"In the day the Lord God\nmade the earth and the heavens.\" Does it mean just twenty-four hours\nthere? In the first of Genesis, its duration is defined to consist of\n\"the evening and the morning.\" Before our Infidel chronologist finds\nout the Bible date of creation, he must be able to tell us _of what\nlength was the evening which preceded the first morning_, and with it\nconstituted the first day? God has of set purpose placed\nstumbling-blocks for scoffers at the entrance and the exit of the Bible,\nas a rebuke to pride and vain curiosity.[224]\n\nThe duration of the seventh day is also hidden from man. It is God's\nSabbath, on which he entered when he ceased from the work of creation, a\nrest which still continues, and which he invites us to enter into\n(Hebrews iv. 1-5) as a preparation for the eternal rest. God's rest day\nhas already lasted six thousand years, and no man can tell how much\nlonger it may last. Perhaps his working days were each as long.\n\nBut if our objector had read the Bible attentively, he would have seen\nthat it _does not say that God created the heavens and the earth in six\ndays_. Before it begins to give any account of the six days' work, it\ntells us of a previous state of disorder; and going back beyond that\nagain, it says: \"_In the beginning_, God created the heavens and the\nearth.\" It is as self-evident that this _beginning_ was before the six\ndays' work, as that the world must have existed before it could be\nadjusted to its present form. How long before, the Bible does not say,\nnor does the objector pretend to know. It may have been as many millions\nof years as he assigns to the stars, or twice as many, for anything he\nknows to the contrary. He must have overlooked the first two verses of\nthe Bible, else he had never made this objection; which is simply a\nblunder, arising from incapacity to read a few verses of Scripture\ncorrectly.\n\nBut it is replied, \"Does not the Bible say, in the fourth commandment,\n'In six days the Lord made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that\nin them is,'\" etc.? True. But we are speaking just now of a very\ndifferent work--the work of _creation_. If any one does not know the\ndifference between _create_ and _make_, let him turn to his dictionary,\nand Webster will inform him that the primary literal meaning of _create_\nis, \"To produce; to bring into being from nothing; to cause to exist.\"\nThe example he gives to illustrate his definition is this verse, \"In the\nbeginning God _created_ the heavens and the earth.\" But the primary\nmeaning of _make_ is, \"To compel; to constrain;\" thence, \"to form of\nmaterials;\" and he illustrates the generic difference between these two\nwords by a quotation from Dwight: \"God not only _made_, but _created_;\nhe not only made the work, but the materials.\" Both words are as good\ntranslations of the Hebrew originals, _bra_, and _oshe_, as can be\ngiven.\n\nIf any of my readers has not a dictionary he can satisfy himself\nthoroughly as to the different meanings of these two words, and of their\nequivalents in the original Hebrew, by looking at their use in his\nBible. Thus, he will find _create_ applied to the creation of the\nheavens and the earth, in the beginning, when there could have been no\npre-existent materials to make them from; unless we adopt the Atheistic\nabsurdity, of the eternity of matter--that is to say, _that the paving\nstones made themselves_.[225] Then it is applied to the production of\nanimal life--verse twenty-one--which is not a product or combination of\nany lifeless matter, but a direct and constant resistance to the\nchemical and mechanical laws which govern lifeless matter: \"God created\ngreat whales, and every living creature that moveth.\"[226] Next it is\napplied to the production of the human race, as a species distinct from\nall other living creatures, and not derived from any of them. \"God\n_created_ man in his own image.\"[227] It is in like manner applied to\nall God's subsequent bestowals of animal life and rational souls, which\nare directly bestowed by God, and are not in the power of any creature\nto give. \"Thou sendest forth thy spirit: they are _created_.\" \"Remember\nnow thy _Creator_, in the days of thy youth.\"[228] In all these\ninstances, the use of the word determines its literal meaning to be what\nWebster defines it: \"To bring into being from nothing.\"\n\nThe metaphorical use of the word is equally expressive of its literal\nmeaning, for it is applied to the production of new dispositions of mind\nand soul utterly opposite to those previously existing. \"Create in me a\nclean heart;\" which God thus explains: \"A new heart will I give you, and\na new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart\nout of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.\"[229] The\nHebrew word _bra_ has as many derivative meanings as our English word\n_create_; as we speak of \"creating a peer,\" \"long abstinence creating\nuneasiness,\" etc.; but these no more change the primitive idea in the\none case than in the other.\n\nFrom this word _create_, the Bible very plainly distinguishes the words\n_make_ and _form_, using them as the complement of the former, in many\npassages which speak of both creation and making. Thus, man was both\ncreated and made. His life and soul are spoken of as a creation; his\nbody as a formation from the dust; his deputed authority over the earth\nalso implies a primal creation, and subsequent investiture; and so both\nterms are applied to it. So the words _make_ and _form_ are applied to\nthe production of the bodies of animals from pre-existing materials,\nwhile animal life is ever spoken of as a product of creative power. But,\nthat we may see that these processes are distinct, and that the words\nwhich express them have distinctive meanings, _the Author of the Bible\ntakes care to use them both_ in reference to this very work, in such a\nway that we can not fail to perceive he intends some distinction, unless\nwe suppose that he fills the Bible with useless tautologies. For\ninstance, \"On the seventh day, God rested from all his work, which God\n_created_ and _made_.\" \"These are the generations of the heavens and the\nearth, when they were _created_; in the day the Lord God _made_ the\nearth and the heavens.\" \"But now thus saith the Lord that _created_\nthee, Jacob, and he that _formed_ thee, O Israel.\" \"For thus saith the\nLord that _created_ the heavens, God himself, that _formed_ the earth,\nand _made_ it; he hath established it; he _created_ it not in confusion;\nhe _formed_ it to be inhabited.\"[230] In all these passages _creation_\nis clearly distinguished from _formation_ and _making_, if the Bible is\nnot a mass of senseless repetitions. If _create_, and _make_, and\n_form_, have all the same meaning, why use them all in the same verse?\nThese, and many similar passages, show that the Bible teaches the work\nof _creation_--calling things into being--to be previous to and distinct\nfrom the work of _making_--forming of materials already created.\n\nBetween these two widely different processes--of the original creation\nof the universe, and the subsequent preparation of the habitable earth,\nby the six days' work--two intervening periods are indicated by\nScripture, both of indefinite length. The first of these is that which\nintervened between the original creation and the period of disorder\nindicated in the second verse. The second is that disordered period\nduring which the earth continued without form and void.\n\nThat original chaos which some would find in the second verse, never had\nany existence, save in the brains of Atheistic philosophers. It is\npurely absurd. God never created a chaos. Man never saw it. The\ncrystals of the smallest grain of sand, the sporules of the humblest\nfungus on the rotten tree, the animalculae in the filthiest pool of mud,\nare as orderly in their arrangements, as perfect after their kind, and\nas wisely adapted to their station, as the angels before the throne of\nGod. And as man never saw, so he has no language to describe, a state of\noriginal disorder; for every word he can use implies a previous state of\nregularity; as disorder tells of order dissolved; confusion of previous\nforms melted together. So the poets who have tried to describe a chaos\nhave been obliged to represent it as the wreck of a former state.\n\nBoth the Bible language and the Bible narrative correspond to the\nphilosophy and philology of the case; for, by the use of the substantive\nverb, in the past tense, implying progressive being, according to the\nusual force of the word in Hebrew, we are told literally, \"the earth\n_became_ without form and void.\" God did not create it so, but after it\nwas created, and by a series of revolutions not recorded, it became\ndisordered and empty. The Holy Spirit takes care to explain this verse,\nby quoting it in Jeremiah iv. 23, as the appropriate symbolical\ndescription of the state of a previously existing and regularly\nconstituted body politic, reduced to confusion by the calamities of war.\nAgain, he explains both the terms used in it in Isaiah xxxiv. 11, by\nusing them to describe, not the rude and undigested mass of the heathen\npoet, but the wilderness condition of a ravaged country, and the\ndesolate ruins of once beautiful and populous cities: \"He will stretch\nout upon it the line of _confusion_, and the stones of _emptiness_.\" In\nboth these cases the previous existence of an orderly and populous state\nis implied. And finally, we are expressly assured, that the state of\ndisorder mentioned in the second verse of Genesis i., was not the\noriginal condition of the earth--Isaiah xlv. 18--where the very same\nword is used as in Genesis i. 2, \"He created it not, _teu_,\n_disordered_, in _confusion_.\" The period of the earth's previous\nexistence in an orderly state, or that occupied by the revolutions and\ncatastrophes which disordered its surface, is not recorded in Scripture.\n\nThe second period is that of disorder, which must have been of some\nduration, more or less, and is plainly implied to have been of\nconsiderable length, in the declaration that \"the Spirit of the Lord\nmoved\"--literally, _was brooding_ (a figure taken from the incubation of\nfowls)--\"upon the face of the waters.\" But no portion of Scripture gives\nany intimation of the length of this period.\n\nIf, then, astronomers and geologists assert that the earth was millions,\nor hundreds of millions of years in process of preparation for its\npresent state, by a long series of successive destructions and\nrenovations, and gradual formations, _there is not one word in the Bible\nto contradict that opinion_; but, on the contrary, very many texts which\nfully and unequivocally imply its truth. But, as the knowledge of the\nexact age of the earth is by no means necessary to any man's present\nhappiness, or the salvation of his soul, it is nowhere taught in the\nBible. God has given us the stars to teach us astronomy, the earth to\nteach us geology, and the Bible to teach us religion, and neither\ncontradicts the other.\n\nThis is no new interpretation evoked to meet the necessities of modern\nscience. The Jewish Rabbins, and those of the early Christian Fathers\nwho gave any attention to criticism, are perfectly explicit in\nrecognizing these distinctions. The doctrine of the creation of the\nworld only six or seven thousand years ago is a product of monkish\nignorance of the original language of the Bible. But Clement of\nAlexandria, Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen, after Justin Martyr,\nteach the existence of an indefinite period between the creation and the\nformation of all things. Basil and Origen account for the existence of\nlight before the sun, by alleging that the sun existed, but that the\nchaotic atmosphere prevented his rays from being visible till the first\nday, and his light till the third.[231] Augustine, in his first homily,\nrepresents the first state of the earth, in Genesis i. 1, as bearing the\nsame relation to its finished state, that the seed of a tree does to the\ntrunk, branches, leaves, and fruit. Horsley, Edward King, Jennings,\nBaxter, and many others, who wrote during the last two centuries, but\nbefore the period of geological discovery, explained the second verse\nsubstantially as did Bishop Patrick, a hundred and fifty years ago. \"How\nlong all things continued in confusion, we are not told. _It might have\nbeen, for anything that is here revealed, a very great while._\"[232]\n\nSome persons, however, have supposed that the chaos of the second verse\nsucceeded immediately to the creation of the first, and that the six\ndays' work in like manner followed that instantaneously, or at least\nafter a very brief interval, because the records of these cycles are\nconnected by the word _and_, which, they think, precludes the idea of\nany lengthened periods or intervals. But the slightest reflection upon\nthe meaning of the word will show that _and_ can not of itself be any\n_measure_ of time, its use being to indicate merely _sequence_ and\n_connection_. When used historically, it always implies an interval of\ntime; for there can be no succession without an interval; but the length\nof that interval must be determined from the context, or some other\nsource. A very cursory perusal of the Bible, either in English or\nHebrew, will show that very often in its brief narratives, the interval\nindicated by _and_, and its Hebrew originals, is a very long time. The\ndescent of Jacob and his children into Egypt is connected with the\nrecord of their deaths, in the very next verse, by this word _and_,\nwhich thus includes nearly the lifetime of a generation. That event,\nagain, is connected with a change of dynasty in Egypt, and the\noppression and multiplication of the Israelites there, recorded in the\nnext verse, by the same word, _vau_, _and_; while the period over which\nit reaches was over two hundred years.[233] So in the brief record of\nthe family of Adam, after reciting the birth of Seth, the historian\nadds, in the next verse, \"And to Seth also was born a son, and he called\nhis name Enos;\" while the interval thus indicated by the word _and_ was\na hundred and five years. The command to build the ark, recorded in the\nlast verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis, is connected with the\ncommand to enter into it, in the first verse of the seventh chapter, by\nthis same word _and_, although we know, from the nature of the case,\nthat the interval required for the construction of such a huge vessel\nmust have been considerable; and from the third verse of the sixth\nchapter, we learn that it was a hundred and twenty years. So the births\nand deaths of the antediluvians are connected by this same word _and_,\nthroughout the fifth chapter of Genesis; while the interval, as we see\nfrom the narrative, was often eight or nine hundred years. The descent\nof the Holy Spirit upon Christ, to qualify him for judging the world, is\nconnected with the actual discharge of that office, in the destruction\nof Antichrist by the breath of his mouth, by this word _and_,[234]\nalthough the interval has been over eighteen hundred years. If in the\nrecords of the generations of mortal men, the word _and_ is customarily\nemployed as a connecting link in the narrations of events separated by\nan interval of hundreds of years, it is quite consistent with the\nstrictest propriety of language to employ it, with an enlargement\nproportioned to the duration of the subject of discourse, to connect\nintervals of millions, in the narrative of the generations of the\nheavens and the earth.\n\nThe Bible uniformly attributes the most remote antiquity to the work of\ncreation. So far from supposing man to be even approximately coeval with\nit, the emphatic reproof of human presumption is couched in the\nremarkable words, \"Where wast thou, when I laid the foundations of the\nearth?\" In majestic contrast with the frail human race, Moses glances at\nthe primeval monuments of God's antiquity, as though by them he could\nform some faint conceptions even of eternity, and sings, \"Before the\nmountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and\nthe universe, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.\"[235]\n\nThe very word here used, _the beginning_, is in itself an emphatic\nrefutation of the notion that the work of creation is only some six or\nseven thousand years old. Geologists have been unable to invent a\nbetter, and have borrowed from the Bible this very form of speech, to\ndesignate those strata beyond which human knowledge can not\npenetrate--_the primary formations_. But, with far greater propriety,\nthe Holy Spirit uses this word with regard to ages, compared with which\nthe utmost range of the astronomer's or geologist's reasonings is but as\nthe tale of yesterday. For this word, in Bible usage, marks the last\npromontory on the boundless ocean of eternity; the only positive word by\nwhich we can express the most remote period of past duration. It is not\na date--a point of duration. It is a period--a vast cycle. It has but\none boundary; that where creation rises from its abyss. Created eye has\nnever seen the other shore. It is that vast period which the Bible\nassigns to the manifestations of the Word of God, \"whose goings forth\nhave been of old, from everlasting.\" Carrying our astonished gaze far\nback beyond the era of his creature, man, and ages before the \"all\nthings\" that were made by Him, the Bible places this _beginning_ on the\nvery shore of the eternity of God, when it declares, \"_In the beginning_\nwas the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.\"[236]\nThus, both by the use of the imperfect tense, _was_, denoting continued\nexistence, and by the connection of this _beginning_ with the eternity\nof the Word, does the Bible teach us to dismiss from our thoughts all\nnarrow views of the period of duration employed in manifesting the glory\nof the self-existent Eternal One, and to raise our conceptions to the\nhighest possible pitch, and then to feel, that far beyond the grasp of\nhuman calculation lies that _beginning_ which includes the years of the\nright hand of the Most High, and is even used as one of the names of the\nEternal: \"I AM THE BEGINNING _and the Ending, saith the Lord, who is,\nand who was, and who is to come_--THE ALMIGHTY.\"[237]\n\nIn another Bible exhibition of the eternity of the Son of God, we are\nconducted from that _beginning_, downward, stage by stage, from those\nperiods of remote antiquity prior to the formation of water, the\nupheaval of the mountains, the alluvial deposits, the subsidence of the\nexisting sea basins, and the adornment of the habitable parts of the\nearth, to that comparatively recent event, the existence of the sons of\nmen. Our ideas of the eternity of the love of Christ are thus enhanced,\nby the vastness of the ages which stretch out between the human race and\nthat beginning when He was, as it were, \"The Lamb slain from before the\nfoundations of the world.\"\n\n     \"The Lord possessed me _in the beginning of his way_,\n     _Before his works of old_.\n     I was set up from everlasting,\n     _From the beginning, or ever the earth was_.\n     When there were no depths, I was brought forth;\n     When there were no fountains, abounding with water;\n     Before the mountains were settled,\n     Before the hills, was I brought forth;\n     While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,\n     Nor the highest part of the dust of the world\n     When he prepared the heavens, I was there;\n     When he described a circle upon the face of the deep;\n     When he established the clouds above;\n     When he strengthened the fountains of the deep;\n     When he gave to the sea his decree,\n     That the waters should not pass his commandment;\n     When he appointed the foundations of the earth:\n     Then was I by him, as one brought up with him;\n     And I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him:\n     Rejoicing in the habitable parts of his earth;\n     And my delights were with the sons of men.\"[238]\n\nLet the geologist, then, penetrate as deeply as he can into the\nprofundities of the foundations of the earth, and bring forth the\nmonuments of their hoary antiquities: we will follow with the most\nunfaltering faith, and receive with joy these proofs of his eternal\npower and Godhead. Let the astronomer raise his telescope, and reflect\non our astonished eyes the light which flashed from morning stars, on\nthe day of this earth's first existence, or even the rays which began to\ntravel from distant suns, millions of years ere the first morning dawned\non our planet: we will place them as jewels in the crown of Him who is\nthe bright and morning star. They shall shed a sacred luster over the\npages of the Bible, and give new beauties of illustration to its\nmajestic symbols. But never will geologist penetrate, much less exhaust,\nthe profundity of its mysteries, nor astronomer attain, much less\nexplore, the sublimity of that beginning revealed in its pages; for eye\nhath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man\nto conceive, either the antiquity, or the nature, or the duration of the\nthings which God hath prepared for them that love him. Human science\nwill never be able to reach the Bible era of creation. It is placed in\nan antiquity beyond the power of human calculation, in that sublime\nsentence with which it introduces mortals to the Eternal: \"_In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth._\"\n\n3. The third objection we have named is equally unfounded. _The Bible\nnowhere teaches that the sky is a solid sphere, to which the stars are\nfixed, and which revolves with them around the earth._ I know that\nInfidels allege that the word _firmament_, in the first chapter of\nGenesis, conveys this meaning. It does not. Neither the English word,\nnor the Hebrew original, has any such meaning. As to the meaning of the\nEnglish word, I adhere to the dictionary. Infidels must not be allowed\nto coin uncouth meanings for words, different from the known usage of\nthe English tongue, for which Webster is undeniable authority. His\ndefinition of _firmament_ is, \"The region of the air; the sky, or\nheavens. In Scripture, the word denotes an expanse--a wide extent; for\nsuch is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with _regio_,\n_region_, and _reach_. The original, therefore, does not convey the\nsense of solidity, but of stretching--extension. The great arch or\nexpanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the\nclouds, and in which the stars _appear_ to be placed, and are _really_\nseen.\" The word _firmament_, then, conveys no such meaning as the\nInfidel alleges, to any man who understands the English tongue.\n\nNo Hebrew speaking man or woman ever did, or ever could understand the\noriginal Hebrew word _reqo_ in any other sense than that of _expanse_;\nfor the verb from which it is formed means to extend, or spread out, as\neven the English reader may see, by a few examples of its use, in the\nfollowing passages of Scripture; where the English words by which the\nverb _reqo_ is expressed, are marked in italics. \"Then did I beat them\nsmall as the dust of the earth, and did stamp them as the mire of the\nstreet, and _did spread them abroad_.\" \"The goldsmith _spreadeth it\nover_ with gold.\" \"Thus saith the Lord: he that created the heavens, and\nstretched them out; he that _spread forth_ the earth.\" \"I am the Lord,\nthat maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, and\n_spreadeth abroad_ the earth by myself.\" \"To him that _stretcheth out_\nthe earth above the waters.\" \"The censers of these sinners against their\nown souls, let them _make them broad_ plates, for a covering for the\naltar. _And they were made broad._\" \"Hast thou with him _spread out_ the\nsky;\"[239] or, in Humboldt's elegant rendering, \"the pure ether,\n_spread_ (during the scorching heat of the south wind) as a melted\nmirror over the parched desert.\"[240] We might refer to the opinions of\nlexicographers, all unanimous in ascribing the same idea to the word;\nbut the authorities given above are conclusive. The meaning, then, of\nthe Hebrew word rendered firmament is so utterly removed from the notion\nof compactness, or solidity, or metallic or crystalline spheres, that it\nis derived from the very opposite; the fineness or tenuity produced by\nprocesses of expansion. Science has not been able to this day to invent\na better word for the regions of space than the literal rendering of the\noriginal Hebrew word used by Moses--_the expanse_.\n\nThe inspired writers of the New Testament, though they found the world\nfull of all the absurdities of the Greek philosophy, and their Greek\ntranslations of the Bible continually using the word _stereoma_, which\nexpressed these notions, _never used it_ but once, and then not for the\nsky, but for the _steadfastness of faith_ in Christ. Their thus using it\nonce shows that they were acquainted with the word, and its proper\nmeaning, and that their disuse of it was intentional; while their disuse\nof it, and choice of another word to denote the heavens, proves\ndecisively that they disapproved of the absurdity which it was\nunderstood to express. Now, whether you account for this fact by\nadmitting their inspiration, or by alleging that they drew their\nlanguage from the Hebrew original, and not from the Greek translation,\nit is in either case perfectly conclusive as to the scriptural meaning\nof the word. Indeed, it is marvelous how any man who is familiar with\nhis Bible, and knows that the Scriptures usually describe the sky by\nmetaphors conveying the very opposite ideas to those of solidity or\npermanence--as, \"stretched out like a curtain,\" \"spread abroad like a\ntent to dwell in,\" \"folded up like a vesture,\" and the like--should\nallow himself to be imposed on by the impudent falsehood of Voltaire,\nthat the Bible teaches us that the sky is a solid metallic or crystal\nhemisphere, supported by pillars.\n\nThose beautiful figures of sacred poetry in which the universe is\nrepresented as the palace of the Great King, adorned with majestic\n\"pillars,\" and \"windows of heaven,\" whence he scatters his gifts among\nhis expectant subjects in the courts below, have been grossly abused for\nthe support of this miserable falsehood. We are assured, that so\nignorant was Moses of the true nature of the atmosphere, and of the\norigin of rain, that he believed and taught that there was an ocean of\nfresh water on _the outside_ of this metal hemisphere, which covered the\nearth like a great sugar-kettle, bottom upward, and was supported on\npillars; and at the bottom of the ocean were trap-doors, to let the\nrain through; which trap-doors in the metal firmament are to be\nunderstood, when the Bible speaks of the windows of heaven. Now, the\nbottom of an ocean is an odd place for windows, and a trap-door is\nrather a strange kind of watering-pot; and if Moses put the ocean of\nfresh water on the _outside_ of his metal hemisphere, he must have\nchanged his notions of gravity materially from the time he planned the\nbrazen hemisphere for the tabernacle, which he turned mouth upward, and\nput the water in the _inside_.\n\nWhile such writers are quite clear about the metal trap-doors and the\nocean, they have not yet fully fathomed the construction and arrangement\nof the pillars. Whether the Bible teaches that they are \"pillars of\nsalt,\" like Lot's wife, or of flesh and blood, like \"James, Cephas, and\nJohn,\" or such \"iron pillars and brazen walls\" as Jeremiah was against\nthe house of Israel--whether they consisted of \"cloud and fire,\" like\nthe pillar Moses describes in the next book as floating in the sky over\nthe camp of Israel, or are \"pillars of smoke,\" such as ascend out of the\nwilderness--whether they are those \"pillars of the earth which tremble\"\nwhen God shakes it, or \"the pillars of heaven which are astonished at\nhis reproof\"--whether they are the pillars of the earth and its\nanarchical inhabitants, which Asaph bore up, or are composed of the same\nmaterials as Paul's \"pillar and basis of the truth,\" or the pillars of\nvictory which Christ erects \"in the temple of God\"[241]--they have not\nyet decided. Whether the Hebrews understood these pillars to be arranged\non the outside of the metal hemisphere, and if so, to imagine any use\nfor them there; or in the inside, and in that case whether they kept the\nsky from falling upon the earth, or only supported the earth from\nfalling into the sky, these learned men are by no means agreed. Having\ntrampled the pearl into fragments, their attempts to combine them into\nanother shape are more amusing than successful; and it is hard to say\nwhich of the seven opinions ascribed to the Bible by Infidel\ncommentators is least probable. That opinion, however, will, doubtless,\nafter more vigorous and protracted rooting, be discovered and greedily\nswallowed amid grunts of satisfaction; an appropriate reward of such\nlaborious stupidity.\n\nThe absurdities of the Greek philosophers were not drawn from the Bible.\nHad the Greeks read the Bible more, they would have preserved the common\nsense God gave them a great deal longer, and would not, while professing\nthemselves to be wise, have become such fools as to adore blocks and\nstones, and dream of metal firmaments. But they turned away their ears\nfrom the truth, and were turned unto such fables as Infidels falsely\nascribe to the Bible. A thousand years before the cycles and epicycles\nof the Ptolemaic astronomy were invented, and before learned Greeks had\nlearned to talk nonsense about crystal spheres, and trap-doors in the\nbottom of celestial oceans, the writers of the Bible were recording\nthose conversations of pious philosophers concerning stars, and clouds,\nand rain, from which Galileo derived the first hints of the causes of\nbarometrical phenomena. The origin of rain, its proportion to the amount\nof evaporation, and the mode of its distribution by condensation, could\nnot be propounded by Humboldt himself with more brevity and perspicuity\nthan they are expressed by the Idumean philosopher: \"He maketh small the\ndrops of water; they pour down rain according to the vapor thereof,\nwhich the clouds do drop and distill upon man abundantly. Also, can any\nunderstand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his\ntabernacles?\"[242] The cause of this rarefaction of _cold water_ is as\nmuch a mystery to the British Association as it was to Elihu; and even\nwere all the mysteries of the electrical tension of vapors disclosed,\n\"the balancings of the clouds\" would only be more clearly discovered to\nbe, as the Bible declares, \"the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in\nwisdom.\" But the gravity of the atmosphere, the comparative density of\nfloating water, and its increased density by discharges of electricity,\nwere as well known to Job and his friends as they are to the wisest of\nour modern philosophers. \"He looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth\nunder the whole heaven, _to make weight to air, and regulate waters by\nmeasure, in his making a law for the rain, and a path for the lightning\nof thunder_.\"[243] Three thousand years before the theory of the trade\nwinds was demonstrated, or before Maury had discovered the rotation and\nrevolutions of the wind-currents, it was written in the Bible, \"The wind\ngoeth toward the south, and turneth about to the north. _And the wind\nreturneth again, according to his circuits._\"[244]\n\nThousands of years before Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus were born,\nIsaiah was writing about the \"orbit of the earth,\" and its\ninsignificance in the eyes of the Creator of the host of heaven.[245]\nJob was conversing with his friends on the inclination of its axis, and\nits equilibrium in space: \"He spreadeth out the north over the empty\nspace, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.\"[246]\n\nSo far from entertaining the least idea of the waters of the atmosphere\nbeing contained either on the outside or the inside of a metal or solid\nhemisphere, the writers of the Bible never once use, even figuratively,\nany expression conveying it. On the contrary, the well-known scriptural\nfigures for the fountains of the rain, are the soft, elastic, leathern\nwaterskins of the east, \"the bottles of the clouds,\" or the wide,\nflowing shawl or upper garment wherein the people of the east are\naccustomed to tie up loose, scattering substances.[247] \"He bindeth up\nthe waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under them.\"\n\"Who hath bound the waters in a garment;\" \"As a vesture thou shalt\nchange them;\" or the loose, flowing curtains of a royal pavilion; or the\nextended covering of a tent: \"his pavilion around him were dark waters,\nand thick clouds of the skies;\" \"the spreadings of the clouds, and the\nnoise of his tabernacle;\" \"he spread a cloud for a covering.\"[248]\nInstead of the notion of a single ocean, the \"number of the clouds\" is\nproverbial in the Scriptures[249] for a multitude; and in direct\nopposition to the permanence of a vast metallic arch, the chosen emblems\nof instability and transitoriness, and of the utmost rapidity of motion,\nsuitable even for the chariot of Jehovah, are selected from the\nheavens.[250]\n\nIn short, there is not the slightest vestige of any foundation in\nScripture for the notions long afterward introduced by the Greek\nphilosophers. Yet Christians, who have read these passages of Scripture\nover and over again, allow themselves to give heed to Infidels, who have\nnot, asserting, without the shadow of proof, that Moses taught\nabsurdities which were not invented for a thousand years after his\ndeath. The Bible gives hints of many profound scientific truths; it\nteaches no absurdities; _and, instead of countenancing the notion that\nthe sky is a solid metal hemisphere, it teaches, both literally and\nfiguratively, directly the contrary_.\n\n4. We come now to the fourth objection, _that the Bible represents God\nas creating light before the sun_, which is supposed to be an absurdity,\n_and as creating the sun, moon, and stars only two days before Adam_.\nThis is the only astronomical objection to the Bible account of creation\nwhich has any foundation of Scripture statement to rest upon; but we\nshall soon see that here, also, Infidels have not done themselves the\njustice of reading the Bible with attention.\n\nI have already corrected that confusion of ideas and carelessness of\nperusal which confounds the two distinct and different words, _create_\nand _make_, so as to make both mean the same thing. God _created_ the\nheavens, as well as the earth, _in the beginning_; a period of such\nremote antiquity that, in Bible language, it stands next to eternity.\nThe sun and moon then came into being. Through what changes they passed,\nor when they were endowed with the power of giving light to the\nuniverse, the Bible nowhere declares; but on the fourth day, it tells\nus, they _were made lights_, or, literally, _light-bearers_, to this\nearth. The comparatively insignificant place allotted to the stars, in\nthe narrative of this earth's formation, corresponds, with the strictest\npropriety, to the nature of the discourse; which is not an account of\nthe system of the universe, but of the process of preparation of this\nearth for the abode of man. Compared with the influences of \"the two\ngreat light-bearers,\" those of the stars are very insignificant; since\nthe sun sheds more light and heat on the earth in one day, than all the\nfixed stars have done since the creation of Adam. It is evident, from\nthe words, that Moses is not speaking either of their original creation,\nor of their actual magnitude, but of their appointment and use in\nrelation to us, when he says, \"And God made two great light-bearers (the\ngreater light-bearer to rule the day, and the lesser light bearer to\nrule the night), and the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the\nheavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and the\nnight, and to divide the light from the darkness.\"\n\nNeither here nor elsewhere does he say they were _created_ at this time,\nbut in all the subsequent references uses other words, such as\n\"prepared,\" \"divided,\" \"made,\" \"appropriated,\" \"made for ruling,\"\n\"gave;\" a studious omission, which shows that the Author of the Bible\nhad not forgotten how long it was since he had called them into being.\n_The Bible, then, does not say that God created the sun and stars only\ntwo days before Adam._\n\nAnother correction of careless Bible reading is necessary, that we may\nbe satisfied about what the Bible _does not say_, ere we begin to defend\nwhat it does say. The Bible does not say, nor lead us to believe, that\nthe darkness spoken of in the second verse of the first of Genesis had\nexisted from eternity. Darkness is not eternal; it requires the exercise\nof creative power for its production. Light is the eternal dwelling of\nthe Word of God.[251] The darkness which brooded over our earth, at the\nperiod of its formation, is very plainly described in the Bible as a\ntemporary phenomenon, incident to, and necessary for, the birth of\nocean. It is confined by the adverb of time, _when_, to the period of\ncondensation, upheaval, and subsidence, occupied by the birth of that\ngigantic infant, \"_when_ it burst forth as though it had issued from the\nwomb; _when_ I made the cloud a garment for it, and thick darkness a\nswaddling band for it, and broke up for it my decreed place, and set\nbars and doors.\"[252] The sun may have shone for millions of years\nbefore upon the earth, or might have been shining with all his\nbrilliance at that very time, while not a single ray penetrated the\nthick darkness of the vapors in which earth was clothed. But whether or\nnot, darkness must, from its very nature, be limited, both in space and\ntime. To speak of infinite and eternal darkness is as unscriptural as it\nis absurd. The source of light is Uncreated and Eternal.[253]\n\nFurther--if my readers are not tired with these perpetual corrections of\ncareless reading and mistaken meaning--the light called into existence\nin the third verse of the first chapter of Genesis is as evidently a\ndifferent word from _the two lights_ spoken of in the fourteenth verse,\nas the singular is different from the plural; and the thing signified by\nit is as distinct from the things spoken of in the fourteenth verse, as\nthe abstract is from the concrete; as, when I say of the first, \"light\ntravels 195,000 miles per second,\" but mean a totally distinct subject\nwhen I say, \"Extinguish the lights.\" The Hebrew words are even more\npalpably different, the word for _light_, in the third verse, being\n_aur_, while the words for _the lights_, in the fourth day's work, are\n_maurt_ and _at emaur_; words as distinct in shape and sense as our\nEnglish words, _light_ and _the lighthouses_.\n\nThe locality of the light of the third verse is, moreover, wholly\ndifferent from that of the light-bearers of the fourteenth verse. That\nwas placed on earth--these in heaven. It was of the earth alone the\nwriter was speaking, in the second verse; the earth alone is the subject\nof the following verses. It was the darkness of earth that needed to be\nilluminated; but there is not the remotest hint, in any portion of\nScripture, that any other planet or star was shrouded in gloom at this\ntime. But, on the contrary, we are most distinctly informed that the\nwonders which God was performing in this world at that very time were\ndistinctly visible amid the cheerful illumination of other orbs, \"when\nthe morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for\njoy,\"[254] as this earth emerged from its temporary darkness. It was not\nfrom the light of heaven, but out of this darkness of earth, that God,\nwho still draws the lightning's flash from the black thunder-cloud,\ncommanded the light to shine.[255] And it was upon this earth, and not\nthroughout the universe, that it produced alternate day and night. To\nextend this command for the illumination of the darkened earth, so as to\nmean the production of light in general, and the lighting of the most\ndistant telescopic, and even invisible stars--which are neither\nspecified in the command itself, nor by any necessity of language or\nScripture implied in it, but, on the contrary, excluded, by the express\nScripture declarations of the pre-existence of light, and of morning\nstars--is an outrage alike against all canons of criticism, laws of\ngrammar, and dictates of common sense. The command, \"Let there be\nlight,\" had respect to this earth only.\n\nThe Bible does represent this earth as illuminated at a time when the\nsun was not visible from its surface--perhaps not visible at all. Now,\nif any one will undertake to scoff at the Bible for speaking of light\nwithout sunshine, or of the sun shining upon a dark earth--as Infidels\nabundantly do--we demand that he tell us, What is light, and how is it\nconnected with the sun? If he can not, let him cease to scoff at matters\ntoo high for him.\n\nIf he can tell us, he knows that the retardation of Encke's comet, which\nevery year falls nearer and nearer the sun, has discovered the existence\nof an attenuated ether in the expanse or firmament; and that the\nexperiments of Arago on the polarization of light have finally\ndemonstrated that our sensation of light is exerted by a series of\nvibrations or undulations of this fluid,[256] he will then be able to\nperceive the propriety with which the Author of light and of the Bible\nspeaks, not of _creating_ light, as if it were a material substance, but\nof _forming_ or commanding its display. And he will be better able to\ncomprehend the beauty and scientific propriety with which he selected\nthe active participle of the verb _to flow_, as the name for the\nundulations of this fluid; for the primary meaning of the Hebrew verb\n_ar_ is, _to flow_, or, when used as a noun, _a flood_. \"It shall be\ncast out and drowned, as by the _flood_ of Egypt.\"[257] And of the like\nimport are the nouns, _iar_ and _aur_, formed from it. \"Who is this that\ncovereth up like a _flood_, whose waters are moved like the\nrivers?\"[258] The philosopher, even though he be a skeptic, will cease\nto mock the Bible when he reads there, that 6000 years ago its Author\ntermed light _the flowing--the undulation_. \"In the words of the 'Son of\nGod,' and the 'Son of Man,' no less than in his works, with all their\nadaptation to the circumstances of the times and persons to whom they\nwere originally delivered, are things inexplicable--concealed germs of\nan infinite development, reserved for future ages to unfold.\"[259] To\nthe man of learning and reflection, this progressive fullness, and\nunfathomable depth of the Scripture, is a most conclusive proof that it\nwas dictated by Him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge.\n\nBut the ignorant scoffers--the great majority--will mock on, and speak\nevil of the things they know not. Their mockery is founded on two\nassumptions, which they believe to be irrefutable; that the sun is the\nonly possible source of light to the earth; and that it is impossible\nfor the sun to exist without illuminating the earth. Unless they can\n_prove_ both of these assumptions to be true, they can not prove the\nBible account of creation to be false, nor even show it to be\nimpossible. Neither of these assumptions can possibly be proved true;\nfor none of them can explore the universe, to discover the sources of\nlight, nor put the sun through every possible experiment, to discover\nthat his light is an inseparable quality. The only thing Infidels can\ntruly allege against the Bible account of the origin of light is, _their\nignorance of the process_. The argument is simply this: \"God could not\ncause light without sunshine, _because I don't know how he did it_. Nor\n_can I understand_ how the sun shone on a dark earth; therefore, it is\nimpossible.\"\n\nThese arguments from ignorance need no other answer than the questions,\nDo you know how the sun shines at all? Is your ignorance the measure of\nGod's wisdom?\n\nBut I shall demonstrate the utter falsehood of both these assumptions,\nby showing the actual existence of many sources of light besides the\nsun, and the perfect possibility of the existence of the sun without\nsunshine, and of sunshine without any light reaching the earth. Thus,\nboth the alleged _impossibilities_ upon which the argument against the\ntruth of the Bible is based will be removed, and the gross ignorance of\nnatural science displayed by professedly scientific scoffers at the\nBible exposed.\n\nLight, so far from being solely derived from the sun, exists in, and can\nbe educed from, almost any known substance. Even children are familiar\nwith the light produced by the friction of two pieces of quartz; and no\none needs to be informed how light may be produced by the combustion of\ninflammable substances. But the number of these substances is far\ngreater than is generally supposed, and light can be produced by\nprocesses to which we do not generally apply the idea of burning.\nResins, wool, silks, wood, and all kinds of earths and alkalies, are\ncapable of emitting light in suitable electrical conditions; so that\nthe surface of our earth may have been a source of light in past ages,\nas it even now is,[260] near the poles and the equator, flashing its\nAurora Borealis and Aurora Australis, and sending out its belts of\nZodiacal light,[261] far into the surrounding darkness.\n\nSchubert, quoted by Kurtz, says: \"May not that polar light, which is\ncalled the Aurora of the North, be the last glittering light of a\ndeparted age of the world, in which the earth was inclosed in an expanse\nof aerial fluid, from which, through the agency of electric magnetic\nforces, streamed forth an incomparably greater degree of light,\naccompanied with animating warmth, almost in a similar mode to what\nstill occurs in the luminous atmosphere of our sun?\"\n\nAgain, the metallic bases of all the earths are highly inflammable. A\nbrilliant flame can be produced by the combustion of water. All the\nmetals can be made to flash forth lightnings, under suitable electric\nand magnetic excitements. The crystals of several rocks give out light\nduring the process of crystallization. Thousands of miles of the earth's\nsurface must once have presented the lurid glow of a vast furnace full\nof igneous rocks. Even now, the copper color of the moon during an\nellipse shows us that the earth is a source of light.[262] The mountains\non the surface of Venus and the moon, and the continents and oceans of\nMars, attest the existence of upheaval and subsidence, and of volcanic\nfires, capable of producing such phenomena, and of course of sources of\nlight in those planets, such as exist on the earth. We know, then, most\ncertainly, that there are many other bodies capable of producing light\nbesides the sun. That God could command the light to shine out of\ndarkness, and convert the very ocean into a magnificent illumination,\nthe following facts clearly prove. \"Capt. Bonnycastle, coming up the\nGulf of St. Lawrence, on the seventh of September, 1826, was roused by\nthe mate of the vessel, in great alarm, from an unusual appearance. It\nwas a starlight night, when suddenly the sky became overcast, in the\ndirection of the high land of Cornwallis County, _and an instantaneous\nand intensely vivid light, resembling the Aurora, shot out of the\nhitherto gloomy and dark sea_, on the lee bow, which was so brilliant\nthat it lighted everything distinctly, even to the mast-head. The light\nspread over the whole sea, between the two shores, and the waves, which\nbefore had been tranquil, now began to be agitated. Capt. Bonnycastle\ndescribes the scene as that of _a blazing sheet of awful and most\nbrilliant light_. A long and vivid line of light, superior in brightness\nto the parts of the sea not immediately near the vessel, showed the base\nof the high, frowning, and dark land abreast; the sky became lowering,\nand more intensely obscure. Long tortuous lines of light showed immense\nnumbers of large fish, darting about as if in consternation. The topsail\nyard and mizzen boom were lighted by the glare, as if gas-lights had\nbeen burning directly below them; and until just before daybreak, at\nfour o'clock, the most minute objects were distinctly visible.\"[263]\n\nThe other assumption, that the sun could not possibly have existed\nwithout giving light to the earth, is contradicted by the most familiar\nfacts. The earth and each of the planets might have been, and most\nprobably were, surrounded by a dense atmosphere, through which the sun's\nrays could not penetrate. It is not at all necessary to prove that such\nwas the fact. I am only concerned to prove the _possibility_; for the\nInfidel's objection is founded on the presumed _impossibility_ of the\ncoexistence of a dark earth and a shining sun. Any person who has ever\nbeen in Pittsburg, Glasgow, or the manufacturing districts of England,\nand has seen how the smoke of even a hundred factory chimneys will\nshroud the heavens, can easily comprehend how a similar discharge, on a\nlarger scale, from the thousands of primeval volcanoes,[264] would cover\nthe earth with the pall of darkness. By the eruption of a single\nvolcano, in the island of Sumbawa, in 1815, the air was filled with\nashes, from Java to Celebes, darkening an area of more than 200,000\nsquare miles; and the darkness was so profound in Java, three hundred\nmiles distant from the volcano, that nothing equal to it was ever\nwitnessed in the darkest night.[265] Those who have witnessed the fogs\nraised on the Banks of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in\nthe Bay of San Francisco, by the mingling of currents of water of\nslightly different temperatures, can be at no loss to conceive the\ndensity of the vapors produced by the boiling of the sea around and over\nthe multitude of volcanoes[266] which have produced the countless\n_atolls_ of the Pacific, and by the vast upheavals of thousands of miles\nof heated rocks of the primary formations into the beds of primeval\noceans. While such processes were in progress, it was impossible but\nthat darkness should be upon the face of the deep.[267] Even now, a\nslight change of atmospheric density and temperature would vail the\nearth with darkness. We see this substantially done every time that God\n\"covereth the light with clouds, and commandeth it not to shine by the\ncloud that cometh betwixt,\" although the sun continues to shine with all\nhis usual splendor. To understand how there may be a day without\nsunshine, we need only conceive the whole earth temporarily enveloped\nin the vapors of the unastronomical atmosphere of Peru, thus described\nby Humboldt:\n\n\"A thick mist obscures the firmament in this region for many months,\nduring the period called _tiempo de la garua_. Not a planet--not the\nmost brilliant stars of the southern hemisphere--are visible. It is\nfrequently almost impossible to distinguish the position of the moon.\nIf, by chance, the outline of the sun's disc be visible during the day,\nit appears devoid of rays, as if seen through colored glasses. According\nto what modern geology has taught us to conjecture concerning the\nancient history of our atmosphere, its primitive condition in respect to\nits mixture and density _must have been unfavorable to the transmission\nof light_. When we consider the numerous processes which, in the primary\nworld, may have led to the separation of the solids, fluids, and gases\naround the earth's surface, the thought involuntarily arises, _how\nnarrowly the human race escaped being surrounded with an untransparent\natmosphere_, which, though not greatly prejudicial to some classes of\nvegetation, would yet have completely vailed the whole of the starry\ncanopy. All knowledge of the structure of the universe could then have\nbeen withheld from the inquiring spirit of man.\"[268] The sun, then, may\nhave shone with all his brilliancy, for thousands of years, and a single\nray never have penetrated the darkness upon the face of the deep.\n\nBut we will go further, and show that so far from light being an\nessential property of suns, it is a very variable attribute, and that in\nseveral cases suns have ceased, and others begun, to shine, before our\neyes.\n\nThe fixed stars are self-luminous bodies, similar to our sun, only\nimmensely distant from us. Their numbers, magnitudes, and places, are\nknown and recorded. But new stars have frequently flashed into view,\nwhere none were previously seen to exist; and others have gradually\ngrown dim and disappeared, without changing their place; and a few which\nhad disappeared have reappeared in the same spot they formerly occupied;\nwhile others have changed their color since the era of astronomical\nobservation. In short, there is no permanence in the heavens, any more\nthan on the earth; but a perpetual progress and change is the destiny of\nsuns and stars, of which the most conspicuous indication is the\nvariability of their powers of giving light, of which I shall transcribe\na few instances.\n\n\"On the eleventh of November, 1572, as the illustrious Danish\nastronomer, Tycho, was walking through the fields, he was astonished to\nobserve a new star in the constellation Cassiopea, beaming with a\nradiance quite unwonted in that part of the heavens. Suspecting some\ndelusion about his eyes, he went to a group of peasants, to ascertain if\nthey saw it, and found them gazing at it with as much astonishment as\nhimself. He went to his instrument, and fixed its place, from which it\nnever after appeared to deviate. For some time it increased in\nbrightness--greatly surpassed Sirius in luster, and even Jupiter. It was\nseen by good eyes in the daytime; a thing which happens only to Venus,\nunder very favorable circumstances; and at night it pierced through\nclouds which obscured the rest of the stars. After reaching its fullest\nbrightness, it again diminished, passed through all degrees of visible\nmagnitude, assuming in succession the hues of a dying conflagration, and\nthen finally disappeared.\" \"It is impossible to imagine anything more\ntremendous than a conflagration that could be visible at such a\ndistance.\"[269]\n\nAstronomers now recognize a class of such _Temporary Stars_, which have\nappeared from time to time in different parts of the heavens, blazing\nforth with extraordinary luster, and after remaining awhile, apparently\nimmovable, have died away, and left no trace.[270] Twenty-one of such\nappearances of new suns are on record.[271]\n\nStill further, many familiar suns have ceased to shine. \"On a careful\nre-examination of the heavens, _many stars are found to be\nmissing_.\"[272] \"There are many well authenticated cases of the\ndisappearance of old stars, whose places had been fixed with a degree of\ncertainty not to be doubted. In October, 1781, Sir William Herschel\nobserved a star, No. 55 in Flamstead's Catalogue, in the constellation\nHercules. In 1790 the same star was observed by the same astronomer, but\nsince that time no search has been able to detect it. The stars 80 and\n81 of the same catalogue, both of the fourth magnitude, have likewise\ndisappeared. In May, 1828, Sir John Herschel missed the star No. 42, in\nthe constellation Virgo, which has never since been seen. Examples might\nbe multiplied, but it is unnecessary.\"[273]\n\nThe demonstration of the variableness of the light-giving power of suns\nis completed by the phenomena of the class called _Variable Stars_;\nthough the best astronomers are now agreed that _variability, and not\nuniformity_, in the emission of light, is the general character of the\nstars.[274] But the variations which occur before our eyes impress us\nmore deeply than those which require centuries for their completion. Sir\nJohn Herschel has observed, and graphically described, one such instance\nof variation of light.\n\n\"The star Eta Argus has always hitherto been regarded as a star of the\nsecond magnitude; and I never had reason to regard it as variable. In\nNovember, 1837, _I saw it, as usual_. Judge of my surprise to find, on\nthe sixteenth of December, that _it had suddenly become a star of the\nfirst magnitude_, and almost equal to Rigel. It continued to increase.\nRigel is now not to be compared with it. It exceeds Arcturus, and is\nvery near equal to Alpha Centauri, being, at the moment I write, the\nfourth star in the heavens, in the order of brightness.\"[275] It has\nsince passed through several variations of luster. Humboldt gives a\ncatalogue of twenty-four of such stars whose variations have been\nrecorded.\n\n\"A strange field of speculation is opened by this phenomenon. Here we\nhave a star fitfully variable to an astonishing extent, and whose\nfluctuations are spread over centuries, apparently in no settled period,\nand with no regularity of progression. What origin can we ascribe to\nthese sudden flashes and relapses? What conclusions are we to draw as to\nthe comfort or habitability of a system depending for its supply of\nlight and heat on such an uncertain source? Speculations of this kind\ncan hardly be termed visionary, when we consider that, from what has\nbeen before said, we are compelled to admit a community of nature\nbetween the fixed stars and our own sun; and when we reflect, that\ngeology testifies to the fact of extensive changes having taken place,\nat epochs of the most remote antiquity, in the climate and temperature\nof our globe; changes difficult to reconcile with the operation of\nsecondary causes, such as a different distribution of sea and land, but\nwhich would find an easy and natural explanation in a slow variation of\nthe supply of light and heat afforded by the sun himself.\"[276] \"I can\nnot otherwise understand alterations of heat and cold so extensive as at\none period to have clothed high northern latitudes with a more than\ntropical luxuriance of vegetation, and at another to have buried vast\ntracts of Europe, now enjoying a genial climate, and smiling with\nfertility, under a glacier crust of enormous thickness. Such changes\nseem to point to causes more powerful than the mere local distribution\nof land and water can well be supposed to have been. In the slow secular\nvariations of our supply of light and heat from the sun, _which, in the\nimmensity of time, may have gone to any extent, and succeeded each other\nin any order, without violating the analogy of sidereal phenomena which\nwe know to have taken place_, we have a cause, not indeed established as\na fact, but readily admissible as something beyond a bare possibility,\nfully adequate to the utmost requirements of geology. A change of half a\nmagnitude on the luster of our sun, regarded as a fixed star, spread\nover successive geological epochs--now progressive, now receding, now\nstationary--_is what no astronomer would now hesitate to admit as a\nperfectly reasonable and not improbable supposition_.\"[277]\n\nThe most eminent astronomers are perfectly unanimous in their deductions\nfrom these facts. They regard _variability as the general characteristic\nof suns and stars, our own sun not exempted_. \"We are led,\" says\nHumboldt, \"by analogy to infer, that as the fixed stars _universally_\nhave not merely an apparent, but a real motion of their own, so their\nsurfaces or luminous atmospheres are generally subject to those changes\n(in their \"light process\") which recur, in the great majority, in\nextremely long, and therefore unmeasured, and probably undeterminable\nperiods, or which, in a few, recur without being periodical, as it were,\nby a sudden revolution, either for a longer or a shorter time.\" And he\nasks, _Why should our sun differ from other suns?_\n\nIn reference to the extinction of suns, he says: \"What we no longer see\nis not necessarily annihilated. It is merely the transition of matter\ninto new forms--into combinations which are subject to new processes.\nDark cosmical bodies may, by a renewed process of light, again become\nluminous.\"[278]\n\nIn confirmation of the fact adduced in support of this view, by La\nPlace, \"that those stars which have become invisible, after having\nsurpassed Jupiter in brilliancy, have not changed their place during the\ntime they continued visible,\" he adds, \"The luminous process has simply\nceased.\" Bessel asserts[279] that, \"_No reason exists for considering\nluminosity an essential property of these bodies._\" And Nichol sums up\nthe matter in the following emphatic words: \"No more is light _inherent_\nin the sun than in Tycho's vanished star; and with it and other orbs, a\ntime may come when, through the consent of all the powers of nature, he\nshall cease to be required to shine. _The womb which contains the future\nis that which bore the past._\"[280]\n\nHere, then we behold astronomy presenting to our observation facts and\nprocesses so similar to those which revelation presents to our faith,\nthat all those men who are most profoundly versed in her lore, reasoning\nsolely from the facts of science, and without any reference to the\nBible, unanimously conclude that there was such a state of darkness and\nconfusion before our era, as the Bible declares--that its causes were\nmost probably such as the Bible implies--and that the sudden\nilluminating of dark bodies, and their extinction, and even\nre-illumination, are facts so perfectly well authenticated as matters of\nobservation in regard to other suns, that no reasonable man can hesitate\nto believe any credible assurance that our sun has passed through such a\nprocess. With what feelings, then, are we to regard men who, in\ndefiance of the most common facts, and in contradiction to the\ndemonstrations of science, blaspheme the God of truth as a teacher of\nfalsehood, because he speaks of light distinct from that of the sun?\nSurely, such men are those whom he describes as \"having the\nunderstanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through\nthe ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts.\nIn whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that\nbelieve not.\"[281]\n\nThese facts, of the sudden kindling of stars, their gradual passage\nthrough all the hues of a dying conflagration, and their final\nextinction, and present blackness of darkness, are facts of fearful omen\nto the enemies of God. They are the original threatenings of Heaven,\nwhence the fearful language of Bible warning is derived. They attest its\ntruth, and illustrate its import.\n\nThe favorite theory of the unbeliever is the uniformity of nature.\n\"Where,\" says he, \"is the promise of Christ's coming to judgment; for\nsince the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were since\nthe beginning of the world?\" But the telescope dispels the illusion,\nexhibits the course of nature as a succession of catastrophes, displays\nthe conflagration of other worlds, and the extinction of their suns,\nbefore our eyes, and asks, _Why should our sun differ from other suns?_\nIt is not the preacher, but the philosopher, who has turned prophet,\nwhen--looking back on the period when the Siberian elephant and\nrhinoceros were frozen amid their native jungle, and icebergs visited\nthe plains of India--he proclaims, \"_The womb that bore the past\ncontains the future._\"\n\nThe threatenings of God's Word are invested with a mantle of terrible\nliterality by the facts we have been contemplating. Raised at the day of\nresurrection, in these bodies, and with these senses, and this\ncapability of rejoicing in the light, and shuddering and pining amid\noutward gloom, physical darkness will be the terrible prison of those\nwho chose darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. The\nFather of Lights shall withdraw his blessed influences from the hearts,\nthe dwellings, the eyes, of those who say to him, \"Depart from us, for\nwe desire not the knowledge of thy ways.\" The sun shall cease to vivify\nGod's corn, and wine, and oil, which ungodly men consume upon their\nlusts. The moon shall cease to shine upon the robber's toil, and the\nstars to illumine the adulterer's path. The light of heaven shall cease\nto gild the field of carnage, where men perform the work of hell. In the\nvery midst of your worldliness and business, unbeliever, when you are in\nall the engrossment of buying and selling, and planting and building,\nand marrying and giving in marriage, without warning or expectation,\n\"the sun shall go down at noon, and the stars shall be darkened in the\nclear day.\" As in the warning and example given to the enemies of the\nLord in Egypt, thick darkness, that may be felt, shall wind its\ninevitable chains around you, preventing your escape from the judgment\nof the great day, and giving you a fearful foretaste of that \"blackness\nof darkness for ever\" of which you are now forewarned in the Word of\nTruth.\n\n     \"The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,\n     And the stars shall fall from the heavens,\n     And the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;\n     And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heavens,\n     And then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn;\n     And they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven,\n     With power and great glory.\"\n\n     \"Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness;\n     There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.\"\n\n     \"Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud,\n     For the Lord hath spoken.\n     Give glory to the Lord, your God,\n     Before he cause darkness,\n     And before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains;\n     And while ye look for light,\n     He turn it into the shadow of death,\n     And make it gross darkness.\"\n\n     \"I am the light of the world;\n     He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness,\n     But shall have the light of life.\"[282]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[218] Duff's India, 127.\n\n[219] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, p. 83.\n\n[220] Poole's Horae Egyptiacae.\n\n[221] Henri L'Egypte Pharonique.\n\n[222] Atlas Ethnographique, Eth. I.\n\n[223] See Cruden's Concordance, Art. _Day_.\n\n[224] Dan., chap. xii. 10. Job, chap. xxxviii. 4. Col., chap. ii. 18.\n\n[225] Chap. I. _Did the World Make Itself?_\n\n[226] Genesis, chap. i. 21.\n\n[227] Genesis, chap. i. 27.\n\n[228] Psalm civ. 30. Eccl., chap. xii. 1.\n\n[229] Psalm li. 10. Ezekiel, chap. xxxvi. 26.\n\n[230] Genesis, chap. ii. 1-5. Isaiah, chap. xliii. 1-7; chap. xlv. 1, 2.\n\n[231] Wiseman's Lectures on the Connection of Science and Revealed\nReligion, 1-297.\n\n[232] Commentary on Genesis, i. 2.\n\n[233] Exodus, chap. i. 5, 8.\n\n[234] Isaiah, chap. xi. 3, 4.\n\n[235] Psalm xc.\n\n[236] John, chap. i. 1.\n\n[237] Revelation, chap. i. 8.\n\n[238] Proverbs, chap. viii. 22.\n\n[239] Samuel, chap. xxii. 43. Isaiah, chap. xl. 19; chap. xliv. 24;\nchap. xlii. 5. Psalm cxxxvi. 6. Numbers, chap. xvii. 38. Job, chap.\nxxxvii. 18.\n\n[240] Cosmos v. 2, p. 60.\n\n[241] Genesis, chap. xix. 26. Exodus, chap. xiii. 20; chap. xxxiii. 10.\nJeremiah, chap. i. 18. Galatians, chap. ii. 7. Song, chap. iii. 6. Job,\nchap. ix. 6; chap. xxvi. 11. Psalm lxxv. 3. 1 Timothy, chap. iii. 15.\nRevelation, chap. iii. 12.\n\n[242] Job, chap. xxxvi. 27.\n\n[243] Job, chap. xxviii. 24--literal reading.\n\n[244] Ecclesiastes, chap. i. 6.\n\n[245] Isaiah, chap. xl.\n\n[246] Job, chap. xxvi. 7.\n\n[247] Ruth, chap. iii. 15.\n\n[248] Job, chap. xxxviii. 37; chap. xxvi. 8; chap. xxxviii. 9; chap.\nxxxvi. 29. Psalm cv. 39; lxxvii. 17.\n\n[249] Isaiah, chap. xliv. 22. Jeremiah, chap. iv. 13. Job, chap.\nxxxviii. 37. Proverbs, chap. xxx. 4.\n\n[250] Ecclesiastes, chap. xi. 4. Psalm civ. 3. Matthew, chap. xxix. 30.\n\n[251] Isaiah, chap. xlv. 7. 1 John, chap. i. 5. Daniel, chap. ii. 22. 1\nTimothy, chap. vi. 16.\n\n[252] Job, chap. xxxviii. 9, 10. Literally, _In my making_, etc.\n\n[253] Revelation, chap. xxi. 23; chap. xxii. 5. Isaiah, chap. lx. 19.\n\n[254] Job, chap. xxxviii. 7.\n\n[255] 2 Corinthians, chap. iv. 6.\n\n[256] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, Sec. 19-23.\n\n[257] Amos, chap. viii. 8.\n\n[258] Jeremiah, chap. xlvi. 7. Genesis, chap. xli. 1-18. See Parkhurst's\nHebrew Lexicon, sub voce.\n\n[259] Neander.\n\n[260] Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 196.\n\n[261] Annual of Scientific Discovery. 1856.\n\n[262] Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 196. Nichol's Solar System, 184.\n\n[263] Somerville's Connection of Physical Sciences, 288.\n\n[264] Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 250.\n\n[265] Lyell's Principles of Geology, 465.\n\n[266] Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 250.\n\n[267] Cosmos, Vol. I. pp. 198, 216.\n\n[268] Cosmos, Vol. III. p. 139.\n\n[269] Nichol's Solar System, 188. Connection of Physical Sciences, 363.\n\n[270] Herschel's Outlines, Sec. 827.\n\n[271] Cosmos, Vol. VIII. p. 210.\n\n[272] Herschel's Outlines, Sec. 832.\n\n[273] Mitchell's Planetary and Stellar Worlds, 294.\n\n[274] Cosmos, Vol. III. p. 253.\n\n[275] Astronomical Observations, 351.\n\n[276] Herschel's Outlines, Sec. 830.\n\n[277] Astronomical Observations, 351.\n\n[278] Cosmos, Vol. III. pp. 222-232.\n\n[279] Cosmos, Vol. III. p. 246.\n\n[280] Solar System, 190.\n\n[281] Ephesians, chap. iv. 18. 2 Corinthians, chap. iv. 4.\n\n[282] Matthew, chap. xxiv. 29. John, chap. viii. 12. Jeremiah, chap.\nxiii. 15. Matthew, chap. xxii. 13 and chap. xxv. 30.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTELESCOPIC VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE.\n\n\nNo kind of knowledge is more useful to man than the knowledge of his own\nignorance; and no instrument has done more to give him such knowledge\nthan the telescope. Faith is the believing of facts we do not know, upon\nthe word of one who does. If any one knows everything, or thinks he\ndoes, he can have no faith. A deep conviction of our own ignorance is,\ntherefore, indispensable to faith. The telescope gives us this\nconviction in two ways. It shows us that we see a great many things we\ndo not perceive, tells us the size and the distances of those little\nsparks that adorn the sky, and leads us to reason out their true\nrelations to our earth. Then it tells us, that what we see is little of\nwhat is to be seen; that our knowledge is but a drop from the great\nocean, a rush-light sparkling in the vast darkness of the unknown. It\ntells us, that we do not see right, and that we do not see far; and that\nthere may be things, both in heaven and earth, not dreamed of in our\nphilosophy. Further, it confirms the Bible testimony concerning the\nfacts of its own province, by removing all improbability from some of\nits most wonderful narratives, attesting the accuracy of its language,\nand confirming, by some of its most recent discoveries the truth of its\nstatements. Our space will only allow us to select five illustrations of\nthe tendency of faith in the telescope, to produce faith in the Bible.\n\n1. One of the latest astronomical discoveries throws light upon one of\nthe most ancient scientific allusions of the Bible, and one which has\nperplexed both commentators and geologists; _that which hints at the\nsecond causes of the deluge_. Not that it is at all needful for us to be\nable to tell where God Almighty procured the water to drown the ungodly\nsinners of the old world, before we believe his word that he did so;\nunless, indeed, somebody has explored the universe, and knows that there\nis not water enough in it for that purpose, or that it is so far away\nthat he could not fetch it; for, as to the fact itself, geology assures\nus that all the dry land on earth has been drowned, not only once, but\nmany times. It is not the province of the commentator, but of the\ngeologist, to account for the phenomenon.\n\nSeveral solutions of the difficulty of finding water enough for the\npurpose have been proposed. One of these supposes that some of the\ninternal caverns of the earth are filled with water, which, when heated\nby neighboring volcanic fires, would expand one twenty-third of its\nbulk, and flow out, and raise the ocean. When the volcanic fire was\nburnt out, and the water cooled, it would of course contract to its\nformer dimensions, and the ocean recede. These caverns they suppose to\nbe meant by \"the fountains of the great deep,\" in Genesis vii. 11.\n\nBut the Bible describes another, and plainly a very important source of\nthe waters of the deluge, in the rain which fell for forty days and\nforty nights. At present, all the water in our atmosphere comes from the\nsea, by evaporation; and the quantity is too insignificant to cover the\nglobe to any considerable depth. Divines and philosophers were perplexed\nto give any adequate explanation of this language, and considered it\nsimply as Noah's description of the appearance of things as viewed from\nthe ark, rather than an accurate explanation of the actual causes of the\ndeluge. Now, it is certainly true, that the Bible does describe things\nas they appear to men. It is, however, beginning to be discovered, that\nthese popular appearances are closely connected with philosophical\nreality. Our purblind astronomy and prattling geology may be as\ninadequate to expound the mysteries of the Bible philosophy as was the\nincoherent science of Strabo and Ptolemy. The experience of another\nplanet, now transacting before our eyes, admonishes us not to limit the\nresources of Omnipotence by our narrow experience, or to suppose that\nour young science has catalogued all the weapons in the arsenal of the\nAlmighty.\n\nThe planet Saturn is surrounded by a revolving belt, consisting of\nseveral distinct rings, containing an area a hundred and forty-six times\ngreater than the surface of our globe, with a thickness of a hundred\nmiles. From mechanical considerations it had been proved, that these\nrings could not be of a uniform thickness all around, else when a\nmajority of his seven moons were on the same side, the attraction would\ndraw them in upon him, on the opposite side; and once attracted to his\nsurface, they could never get loose again, if they were solid.[283] It\nwas next ascertained that the motions of the moons and of the rings were\nsuch, that if the inequality was always in the same place, the same\nresult must follow; so that the ring must be capable of changing its\nthickness, according to circumstances. It must be either composed of an\nimmense number of small solid bodies, capable of shifting freely about\namong themselves, or else be fluid. Finally, it has been demonstrated\nthat this last is the fact; that the density of this celestial ocean is\nnearly that of water; and that the inner portion, at least, is so\ntransparent, that the planet has been seen through it.[284] \"The ring of\nSaturn is, then, a stream or streams of fluid, rather denser than water,\nflowing about the primary.\"[285] The extraordinary fact, which shows us\nhow God can deluge a planet when he pleases, I give not in the words of\na divine, but of a philosopher, whose thoughtless illustration of\nScripture is all the more valuable, that it is evidently unintentional.\n\n\"M. Otto Struve, Mr. Bond, and Sir David Brewster, are agreed that\nSaturn's third ring is fluid, that this is not of very recent formation,\nand that it is not subject to rapid change. And they have come to the\nextraordinary conclusion, that the inner border of the ring has, since\nthe day of Huygens, been gradually approaching to the body of Saturn,\nand that we may expect, sooner or later--perhaps in some dozen years--to\nsee the rings united with the body of the planet. _With this deluge\nimpending, Saturn would scarcely be a very eligible residence for men,\nwhatever it might be for dolphins._\"[286]\n\nKnowing, as we most certainly do, that the fluid envelopes of our own\nplanet were once exceedingly different from the present,[287] here is a\npossibility quite sufficient to stop the mouth of the scoffer. Let him\nshow that God did not, or prove that he could not, suspend a similar\nseries of oceans over the earth, or cease to pronounce a universal\ndeluge impossible.\n\n2. That sublime ode, in which Deborah describes _the stars in their\ncourses as fighting against Sisera_[288] has been rescued from the grasp\nof modern scoffers, by the progress of astronomy. It has been alleged as\nlending its support to the delusions of judicial astrology; by one class\ndesiring to damage the Bible as a teacher of superstition, and by\nanother to help their trade. The Bible reader will doubtless be greatly\nsurprised to hear it asserted, that the Bible lends its sanction to this\nantiquated, and, as he thinks, exploded superstition. He knows how\nexpressly the Bible forbids God's people to have anything to do with\nit, or with its heathenish professors. \"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not\nthe way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for\nthe heathen are dismayed at them.\"[289] And they will be still more\nsurprised to learn, that those who object against the Bible, that it\nascribes a controlling influence to the stars, are firm believers in\nReichenbach's discovery of _odyle_; an influence from the heavenly\nbodies so spiritual and powerful, that they imagine it able to govern\nthe world, instead of God Almighty.[290]\n\nThe passage thus variously abused is a description, in highly poetic\nstrains, of the battle between the troops of Israel and those of Sisera;\nof the defeat of the latter, and of an earthquake and tempest, which\ncompleted the destruction of his exhausted troops. The glory of the\nvictory is wholly ascribed to the Lord God of Israel; while the rain,\nthe thunder, lightning, swollen river, and \"the stars in their courses,\"\nare all described, in their subordinate places, as only his\ninstruments--the weapons of his arsenal.\n\n     \"Lord, when thou wentest out of Seir,\n     When thou marchedst out of the field of Edom,\n     The earth trembled, and the heavens dropped,\n     The clouds also dropped down water;\n     The mountains also melted from before the Lord,\n     Even that Sinai, from before the Lord God of Israel.\"\n\nThen, after describing the battle, she alludes to the celestial\nartillery, and to the effects of the storm in swelling the river, and\nsweeping away the fugitives who had sought the fords:\n\n     \"They fought from heaven;\n     The stars in their courses fought against Sisera;\n     The river Kishon swept them away;\n     That ancient river, the river Kishon.\"[291]\n\nAfter describing some further particulars the hymn concludes with an\nallusion to the clearing away of the tempest and the appearance of the\nunclouded sun over the field of victory:\n\n     \"So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord;\n     But let them that love thee be as the sun, when he goeth forth\n         in his might.\"\n\nWhere is there the least allusion here to any controlling influence of\nthe stars? You might just as well say, \"The Bible ascribes a controlling\ninfluence over the destinies of men, to the river Kishon;\" for they are\nboth spoken of, in the same language, as instruments in God's hand for\nthe destruction of his enemies.\n\nBut it is objected, \"Even by this explanation you have the Bible\nrepresenting the stars as causing the rain.\" Not so fast. If a man were\nvery ignorant, and had never heard of anything falling from the sky but\nrain, he might think so. And if the Bible did attribute to the stars\nsome such influence over the vapors of the atmosphere, as experience\nshows the moon to possess over the ocean, are you able to demonstrate\nits absurdity?\n\nDeborah, however, when she sang of the stars _in their courses_ fighting\nagainst Sisera, was describing a phenomenon very different from a fall\nof rain--was, in fact, describing a fall of aerolites upon the army of\nSisera. Multitudes of stones have fallen from the sky, and not less than\nfive hundred such falls are recorded.\n\n\"On September 1, 1814, a few minutes before midday, while the sky was\nperfectly serene, a violent detonation was heard in the department of\nthe Lot and Garonne. This was followed by three or four others, and\nfinally by a rolling noise, at first resembling a discharge of musketry,\nafterward the rumbling of carriages, and lastly that of a large building\nfalling down. Stones were immediately after precipitated to the ground,\nsome of which weighed eighteen pounds, and sunk into a compact soil, to\nthe depth of eight or nine inches; and one of them rebounded three or\nfour feet from the ground.\"\n\n\"A great shower of stones fell at Barbatan, near Roquefort, in the\nvicinity of Bordeaux, on July 24, 1790. A mass fifteen inches in\ndiameter penetrated a hut and killed a herdsman and bullock. Some of the\nstones weighed twenty-five pounds, and others thirty pounds.\"\n\n\"In July, 1810, a large ball of fire fell from the clouds, at Shahabad,\nwhich burned five villages, destroyed the crops, and killed several men\nand women.\"[292]\n\nAstronomers are perfectly agreed as to the character of these masses,\nand the source whence they come. \"It appears from recent astronomical\nobservations that the sun numbers among his attendants not only planets,\nasteroids, and comets, but also immense multitudes of meteoric stones,\nand shooting stars.\"[293] AErolites are, then, really stars. They are\ncomposed of materials similar to those of our earth; the only other star\nwhose materials we can compare with them. They have a proper motion\naround the sun, in orbits distinct from that of the earth. They are\ncapable of emitting the most brilliant light, in favorable\ncircumstances. Some of them are as large as the asteroids. One, of\n600,000 tons weight, passed within twenty-five miles of the earth, at\nthe rate of twenty miles a second. A fragment of it reached the\nearth.[294] \"That aerolites were called _stars_ by the ancients is\nindisputable. Indeed, Anaxagoras considered the stars to be only stony\nmasses, torn from the earth by the violence of rotation. Democritus\ntells us, that invisible dark masses of stone move with the visible\nstars, and remain on that account unknown, but sometimes fall upon the\nearth, and are extinguished, as happened with the stony star which fell\nnear Aegos Potamos.\"[295]\n\nWhen Deborah, therefore, describes the _stars in their courses_ as\nfighting against Sisera, it is an utterly unfounded assumption to\nsuppose that she has any allusion to the baseless fancies of an\nastrology everywhere condemned by the religion she professed, when a\nsimple and natural explanation is afforded by the fact, that stars do\nfall from the heavens to the earth, and _that they do so in their\ncourses_, and just by reason of their orbital motion; and that the\nancients both knew the fact, and gave the right name to those bodies.\nLet no reasonable man delude himself with the notion that God has no\nweapons more formidable than the dotings of astrology, till he has taken\na view of the arsenals of God's artillery, which he has treasured up\nagainst the day of battle and of war.\n\nHere it may be well to notice the illustration which the remarkable\nshowers of meteors, particularly those of November, 1833, shed upon\nseveral much ridiculed texts of Scripture. Scientific observation has\nfully confirmed and illustrated the scientific accuracy of the Bible in\nsuch expressions as, \"the stars shall fall from heaven;\" \"there fell a\ngreat star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp;\" \"and the stars of\nheaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely\nfigs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.\" Whatever political or\necclesiastical events these symbols may signify, there can be no\nquestion, now, that the astronomical phenomenon used to prefigure them\nis correctly described in the Bible. Most of my readers have seen some\nof these remarkable exhibitions; but for the sake of those who have not,\nI give a brief account of one. \"By much the most splendid meteoric\nshower on record, began at nine o'clock, on the evening of the twelfth\nof November, 1833, and lasted till sunrise next morning. It extended\nfrom Niagara and the northern lakes of America, to the south of Jamaica,\nand from 61 deg. of longitude, in the Atlantic, to 100 deg. of longitude in\nCentral Mexico. Shooting stars and meteors of the apparent size of\nJupiter, Venus, and even the full moon, darted in myriads toward the\nhorizon, _as if every star in the heavens had darted from their\nspheres_.\" They are described as having been as frequent as the flakes\nof snow in a snow-storm, and to have been seen with equal brilliancy\nover the greater part of the continent of North America.[296]\n\nThe source whence these meteors proceed is distinctly ascertained to be,\nas was already remarked with regard to the aerolites, a belt of small\nplanetoids, revolving around the sun in a little less than a year, and\nin an orbit intersecting that of the earth, at such an angle, that every\nthirty-three years, or thereabouts, the earth meets the full tide on the\ntwelfth of November. These meteors are true and proper stars. \"All the\nobservations made during the year 1853 agree with those of previous\nyears, and confirm what may be regarded as sufficiently well\nestablished: the cosmical origin of shooting stars.\"[297]\n\n3. The language of the Bible with respect to _the circuit of the sun_ is\nfound to have anticipated one of the most sublime discoveries of modern\nastronomy. True to the reality, as well as to the appearance of things,\nit is scientifically correct, without becoming popularly unintelligible.\n\nThere is a class of aspirants to gentility who refuse to recognize any\nperson not dressed in the style which they suppose to be fashionable\namong the higher classes. A Glasgow butcher's wife, in the Highlands,\nattired in all the magnificence of her satins, laces, and jewelry,\nreturned the courteous salute of the little woman in the gingham dress\nand gray shawl with a contemptuous toss of the head, and flounced past,\nto learn, to her great mortification, that she had missed an opportunity\nof forming an acquaintance with the Queen. So a large class of\npretenders to science refuse to become acquainted with Bible truth,\nbecause it is not shrouded in the technicalities of science, but\ndisplays itself in the plain speech of the common people to whom it was\ngiven. They will have it, that because its author used common language,\nit was because he could not afford any other; and as he did not\ncontradict every vulgar error believed by the people to whom he spoke,\nit was because he knew no better; and because the Hebrews knew nothing\nof modern discoveries in astronomy, geology, and the other sciences, and\nthe Bible does not contain lectures on these subjects, the God of the\nHebrews must have been equally ignorant, and the Bible consequently\nbeneath the notice of a philosopher.\n\nYou will hear such persons most pertinaciously assert, that Moses\nbelieved all the absurdities of the Ptolemaic astronomy; that the earth\nis the immovable center, around which revolve the crystal sphere of the\nfirmament, and the sun, and moon, and stars, which are attached to it,\nafter the manner of lamps to a ceiling; and that he, and the world\ngenerally in his day, had not emerged from the grossest barbarism and\nignorance of all matters of natural science. Yet these very people will\nprobably tell you, in the same conversation, of the wonderful\nastronomical observations made by the Egyptians, ten thousand years\nbefore the days of Adam! So beautiful is the consistency of Infidel\nscience. But when you inquire into the source of their knowledge of the\nphilosophy of the ancients, you discover that they did not draw it from\nthe writings of Moses, of which they betray the grossest ignorance, nor\nof any one who lived within a thousand years of Moses' time. Voltaire is\ntheir authority for all such matters. He transferred to the early\nAsiatics all the absurdities of the later Greek philosophers, and would\nhave us believe that Moses, who wrote before these Greeks had learned to\nread, was indebted to them for his philosophy. Of the learning of the\nancient patriarchs Voltaire does not tell them much, for a satisfactory\nreason.\n\nYet it might not have required much learning to infer, that the eyes,\nand ears, and nerves of men who lived ten times as long as we can, must\nhave been more perfect than ours; that a man who could observe nature\nwith such eyes, under a sky where Stoddart now sees the ring of Saturn,\nthe crescent of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter, with the naked\neye,[298] and continue his observations for eight hundred years, would\ncertainly acquire a better knowledge of the appearance of things than\nany number of generations of short-lived men, called away by death\nbefore they have well learned how to observe, and able only to leave the\nshell of their discoveries to their successors; that unless we have some\ngood reason for believing that the mind of man was greatly inferior,\nbefore the flood, to what it is now, the antediluvians must have made a\nprogress in the knowledge of the physical sciences, during the three\nthousand years which elapsed from the creation to the deluge, much\ngreater than the nations of Europe have effected since they began to\nlearn their A, B, C, about the same number of years ago; and that though\nNoah and his sons might not have preserved all the learning of their\ndrowned contemporaries, they would still have enough to preserve them\nfrom the reproach of ignorance and barbarism; at least until their sons\nhave succeeded in building a larger ship than the ark, or a monument\nequal to the Great Pyramid. The Astronomer Royal of Scotland[299] has\ndemonstrated, that in this imperishable monument, erected four thousand\nyears ago, the builders, who took care to keep it alone, of all the\nbuildings of Egypt, free from idolatrous images or inscriptions,\nrecorded with most laborious care, in multiples of the earth's polar\ndiameter, a metric system, including linear and liquid measures, and a\nsystem of weights based on a cubical measure of water of uniform\ntemperature; which uniform temperature they took the utmost care to\npreserve. He shows further, that they were acquainted with the\nprecession of the equinoxes, with the density of the earth, and with the\nearth's distance from the sun; or at least calculated it at what proves\nto be nearly a mean of our discordant calculations; and that they were\nacquainted with problems just beginning to attract the attention of the\nscience of Europe.\n\nWhen we know that the Chaldeans taught the Egyptians the expansive power\nof steam, and the induction of electricity by pointed conductors; that\nfrom the most remote antiquity the Chinese were acquainted with decimal\nfractions, electro-magnetism, the mariner's compass, and the art of\nmaking glass; that lenses have been found in the ruins of Nineveh, and\nthat an artificial currency was in circulation in the first cities built\nafter the flood;[300] that astronomical observations were made in China,\nwith so much accuracy, from the deluge till the days of Yau, B. C. 2357,\nthat the necessary intercalations were made for harmonizing the solar\nwith the lunar year, and fixing the true period of 365-1/4 days; and\nthat similar observations were conducted to a like result within a few\nyears of the same remote period, in Babylon;--if the reader does not\nconclude that the world may have forgotten as much ancient lore during\neighteen hundred years of idolatrous barbarism before the coming of\nChrist, as it has learned in the same number since, he will, at least,\nsatisfy himself that the ancient patriarchs were not ignorant\nsavages.[301] \"Whole nations,\" says La Place, \"have been swept from the\nearth, with their languages, arts, and sciences, leaving but confused\nmasses of ruins to mark the place where mighty cities stood. Their\nhistory, with a few doubtful traditions, has perished; _but the\nperfection of their astronomical observations marks their high\nantiquity, fixes the periods of their existence, and proves that even at\nthat early time they must have made considerable progress in\nscience_.\"[302] The Infidel theory, that the first men were savages, is\na pure fiction, refuted by every known fact of their history.\n\nThat, however, is not the matter under discussion. We are not inquiring\nnow, what Moses and the prophets _thought_, but what the Author of the\nBible _told them to say_. The scribe writes as his employer dictates. \"I\nwill put my words in thy mouth,\" said God to Jeremiah. \"My tongue is as\nthe pen of a ready writer,\" said David. The prophets began, not with\n\"Thus saith Isaiah,\" but \"Thus saith the Lord.\" Unless the Word of God\nwas utterly different from all his other works, it must transcend the\ncomprehension of man in some respects. The profoundest philosopher is as\nignorant of the cause of the vegetation of wheat as the mower who cuts\nit down; but their ignorance of the mysteries of organic force is no\nreason why the one may not harvest, and the other eat and live. Just so\nGod's prophets conveyed previous mysteries to the Church, of the full\nimport of which they themselves were ignorant; even as Daniel heard but\nunderstood not. The prophets, to whom it was revealed, that they did not\nminister to themselves, but to us, inquired and searched diligently into\nthe meaning of their own prophecies; which meaning, nevertheless,\ncontinued hid for ages and generations.[303] If the prophets of the old\neconomy might be ignorant of the privileges of the gospel day, of which\nthey prophesied, at God's dictation, they might very well be ignorant,\nalso, of the philosophy of creation, and yet write a true account of the\nfacts, from his mouth.\n\nLet us suppose, then, that the ancient Hebrews and their prophets were,\nif not quite as ignorant of natural science as modern Infidels are\npleased to represent them, yet unacquainted with the discoveries of\nHerschel and Newton; and, as a necessary consequence, that their\nlanguage was the adequate medium of conveying their imperfect ideas,\ncontaining none of the technicalities invented by philosophers to mark\nmodern scientific discoveries; and that God desired to convey to them\nsome religious instruction, through the medium of language; must we\nsuppose it indispensable for this purpose that he should use strange\nwords, and scientific phrases, the meaning of which would not be\ndiscovered for thirty-three hundred years? Could not Dr. Alexander write\na Sabbath-school book, without filling it full of such phrases as \"right\nascension,\" \"declination,\" \"precession of the equinoxes,\" \"radius\nvector,\" and the like? Or, if some wiseacre did prepare such a book,\nwould it be very useful to children? Perhaps even we, learned\nphilosophers of the nineteenth century, are not out of school yet. How\nmany discoveries are yet to be made in all the sciences; discoveries\nwhich will doubtless render our fancied perfection as utterly childish\nto the philosophers of a thousand years hence as the astronomy of the\nGreeks seems to us; and demand the use of technical language, which\nwould be as unintelligible to us as our scientific nomenclature would\nhave been to Aristotle. If God may not use popular speech in speaking to\nthe people of any given period, but must needs speak the technical\nlanguage of perfect science, and if science is now, and always will be,\nof necessity, imperfect, we are led to the sage conclusion, that every\nrevelation from God to man must always be unintelligible!\n\nDoes it necessarily follow, that because the Author of the Bible uses\nthe common phrases, \"sun rising,\" and \"sun setting,\" in a popular\ntreatise upon religion, that therefore he was ignorant of the rotation\nof the earth, and intended to teach that the sun revolved around it? He\nis certainly under no more obligation to depart from the common language\nof mankind, and introduce the technicalities of science into such a\ndiscourse, than mankind in general, and our objectors in particular, are\nto do the like in their common conversation. Now, I demand to know\nwhether they are aware that the earth's rotation on its axis is the\ncause of day and night? But do you ever hear any of them use such\nphrases as \"earth rising,\" and \"earth setting?\" But if an Infidel's\ndaily use of the phrases, \"_sun rising_,\" \"_sun setting_,\" and the like,\ndoes not prove, either that he is ignorant of the earth's rotation as\nthe cause of that appearance, or that he intends to deceive the world by\nthose phrases, why may not Almighty God be as well informed and as\nhonest as the Infidel, though he also condescends to use the common\nlanguage of mankind?\n\nDo you ever hear astronomers, in common discourse, use any other\nlanguage? I suppose Lieut. Maury, and Herschel, and Le Verrier, and\nMitchell, know a little of the earth's rotation; but they, too, use the\nEnglish tongue very much like other people, and speak of sunrise and\nsunset; yet nobody accuses them of believing in the Ptolemaic astronomy.\nHear the immortal Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary\nrevolution: \"We astronomers do not pursue this science with the view of\naltering common language; but we wish to open the gates of truth,\nwithout affecting the vulgar modes of speech. We say with the common\npeople, 'The planets stand still, or go down;' 'the sun rises, or sets;'\nmeaning only that so the thing appears to us, although it is not truly\nso, as all astronomers are agreed. How much less should we require that\nthe Scriptures of divine inspiration, setting aside the common modes of\nspeech, should shape their words according to the model of the natural\nsciences, and by employing a dark and inappropriate phraseology about\nthings which surpass the comprehension of those whom it designs to\ninstruct, perplex the simple people of God, and thus obstruct its own\nway toward the attainment of the far more exalted end to which it aims.\"\n\nIt is evident, then, that God not only may, _but must_, use popular\nlanguage in addressing the people, in a work not professedly scientific;\nand that if this popular language be scientifically incorrect, such use\nof it neither implies his ignorance nor approval of the error.\n\nBut it may be worthy of inquiry whether this popular language of\nmankind, used in the Bible, be scientifically erroneous. If the language\nbe intended to express an absolute reality, no doubt it is erroneous to\nsay the sun rises and sets; but if it be only intended to describe an\nappearance, and the words themselves declare that intention, it can not\nbe shown to be false to the fact. Now, when the matter is critically\ninvestigated, these phrases are found to be far more accurate than those\nof \"earth rising,\" and \"earth setting,\" which Infidels say the Author of\nthe Bible should have used. For, as up and down have no existence in\nnature, save with reference to a spectator, and as the earth is always\ndown with respect to a spectator on its surface, neither rising toward\nhim, nor sinking from him, in reality, nor appearing to do so, unless in\nan earthquake, the improved phrases are false, both to the appearance of\nthings, and to the cause of it. Whereas, our common speech, making no\npretensions to describe the causes of appearances, can not contradict\nany scientific discovery of these causes, and therefore can not be false\nto the fact; while it truly describes all that it pretends to\ndescribe--the appearance of things to our senses. And so, after all the\noutcry raised against it by sciolists, the vulgar speech of mankind,\nused by the Author of the Bible, must be allowed to be philosophical\nenough for his purpose, and theirs; at least till somebody favors both\nwith a better.\n\nThough we are in no way concerned, then, to prove that every poetical\nfigure in Scripture, and every popular illustration taken from nature,\ncorresponds to the accuracy of scientific investigation, before we\nbelieve the Bible to be a revelation of our duty to God and man, yet it\nmay be worth while to inquire, further, whether we really find upon its\nsacred pages such crude and egregious scientific errors as Infidels\nallege. We have seen in the last chapter, that they are not able to read\neven its first chapter without blundering. Indeed, they generally boast\nof their ignorance of its contents. It is a very good rule to take them\nat their word, and when they quote Scripture, to take it for granted\n_that they quote it wrong_, unless you know the contrary. The first\nthing for you to do when an Infidel tells you the Bible says so and so,\nis to get the Book, and see whether it does or not. You will generally\nfind that he has either misquoted the words, or mistaken their meaning,\nfrom a neglect of the context; or perhaps has both misquoted and\nmistaken. Then, when you are satisfied of the correct meaning of the\ntext, and he tells you that it is contrary to the discoveries of\nscience, the next point is to ask him, _How do you know?_ You will find\nhis knowledge of science and Scripture about equal. Both these tests\nshould be applied to scientific objections to the Bible, as they are all\ncomposed of equal parts of biblical blunders, and philosophical\nfallacies.\n\nIn the objection under consideration, for instance, both statements are\nwrong. The Bible does not represent the earth as the immovable center of\nthe universe, or as immovable in space at all. It does not represent the\nsun and stars as revolving around it. Nor are the facts of astronomy\nmore correctly stated. It is not the Bible, but our objector, that is a\nlittle behind the age in his knowledge of science.\n\nIf we inquire for those texts of Scripture which represent the earth as\nthe immovable center of the universe, we shall be referred to the\nfigurative language of the Psalms, the book of Job, and other poetical\nparts of Scripture, which speak of the \"foundations of the earth,\" \"the\nearth being established,\" \"abiding for ever,\" and the like, when the\nslightest attention to the language would show _that it is intended to\nbe figurative_. The accumulation of metaphors and poetical images in\nsome of these passages is beautiful and grand in the highest degree; but\nnone, save the most stupid reader, would ever dream of interpreting them\nliterally. Take, for instance, Psalm civ. 1-6, where, in one line, the\nworld is described as God's house, with beams, and chambers, and\nfoundations; but in the very next line the figure is changed, and it is\nviewed as an infant, covered with the deep, as with a garment.\n\n     \"Bless, the Lord, O my soul.\n     O Lord my God, thou art very great;\n     Thou art clothed with honor and majesty:\n     Who coverest thyself with light, as with a garment;\n     Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain;\n     _Who layeth the beams of his chambers upon the waters_:\n     Who walketh upon the wings of the wind:\n     Who maketh his angels spirits:\n     His ministers a flaming fire:\n     _Who laid the foundations of the earth,\n     That it should not be removed for ever_.\n     Thou coveredst it with the deep, as with a garment:\n     The waters stood above the mountains.\"\n\nBut if any one is so gross as to insist on the literality of such a\npassage, and to allege that it teaches the absolute immobility of the\nearth, let him tell us what sort of immobility the third verse teaches,\nand how a building could be stable, the beams of whose chambers are\n_laid upon the waters_--the chosen emblems of instability. \"He hath\nfounded it upon the seas: he hath established it upon the floods,\" says\nthe same poet, in another Psalm--xxiv 1. This, and all other expressions\nquoted as declaring the immobility of the earth _in space_, are clearly\nproved, both by the words used, and the sense of the context, to refer\nto an entirely different idea: namely, _its duration in time_. Thus,\nEcclesiastes i. 4, \"One generation passeth away, and another cometh; but\nthe earth abideth forever,\" is manifestly contrasting the duration of\nearth with the generations of short-lived men, and has no reference to\nmotion in space at all.\n\nAgain, in Psalm cxix. 89-91, our objectors find another Bible\ndeclaration of the immobility of the earth in space:\n\n     \"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven;\n     Thy faithfulness is unto all generations;\n     Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.\n     _They continue to this day_, according to thine ordinances.\"\n\nThe same permanence is here ascribed to the heavens (to which, as our\nobjectors argue, the Bible ascribes a perpetual revolution) as to the\nearth. The next verse explains this permanence to be _continuance to\nthis day_; durability, not immobility. That the word _establish_ does\nnot necessarily imply fixture, is evident from its application, in\nProverbs viii. 28: \"He _established_ the clouds,\" the most fleeting of\nall things. Nor is the Hebrew word _kun_ (whence our English word,\ncunning), inconsistent with motion; else, the Psalmist had not said that\n\"a good man's footsteps are _established_ by the Lord.\"[304] \"He\n_established_ my goings.\" Wise arrangement is the idea, not permanent\nfixture.\n\nThe same remarks apply to Psalm xciii. 1; xcvi. 10; 1 Chronicles xvi.\n30, and many other similar passages.\n\n     \"The world is established, that it can not be moved;\n     Thy throne is established of old:\n     Thou art from everlasting.\"\n\nWhere the establishment, which is contrasted with the impossible\nremoval, and which explains its import, is evidently not a local fixing\nof some material seat, in one place, but the everlasting duration of\nGod's authority. The idea is not that of position in space, at all, but\nof continued duration.\n\nSpace does not allow us to quote all the passages which refer to this\nsubject; but after an examination of every passage in the Bible usually\nreferred to in this connection, and of a multitude of others bearing\nupon it, I have no hesitation in saying, that it does not contain a\nsingle text which asserts or implies the immobility of the earth in\nspace. The notion was drawn from the absurdities of the Greek\nphilosophy, and the superstitions of popery, but was never gathered from\nthe Word of God.\n\nBut it is alleged that other passages of Scripture do plainly and\nunequivocally express the motion of the sun, and his course in a\ncircuit; as, for instance, the Nineteenth Psalm:\n\n     \"In them he hath set a tabernacle for the sun,\n     Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,\n     And rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.\n     His going forth is from the end of heaven,\n     And his circuit unto the ends of it.\"\n\nAnd again, in the account of Joshua's miracle, in the tenth chapter of\nhis book, it is quite evident that the writer supposed the sun to be in\nmotion, in the same way as the moon, for he commanded them both to stand\nstill: \"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley\nof Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the\npeople had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\" Now, it is said, if\nthe writer had known what he was about, he would have known that the sun\nwas already standing still, and would have told the earth to stop its\nrotation. And if the earth had obeyed the command, we should never have\nheard of the miracle; for, as the earth rotates at the rate of a\nthousand miles an hour, the concussion produced by such a stoppage would\nhave projected Joshua, and Israelites, and Amorites, beyond the moon, to\npursue their quarrel among the fixed stars.\n\nWhen we hear men of some respectability bring forward such stuff, we are\nconstrained to wonder, not merely were they ever at school, but if they\never traveled in a railroad car, or whether they suppose their hearers\nto be so ignorant of the most common facts as to believe that there is\nno way of bringing a carriage to a stand but by a sudden jerk, or that\nGod is more stupid than the brakeman of an express train. We will do\nthem the justice, however, to say, that they did not invent it, but\nmerely shut their eyes, and opened their mouths, and swallowed it for\nphilosophy, because they found it in the writings of an Infidel scoffer,\nand of a Neological professor of theology[305]--an edifying example of\nInfidel credulity!\n\nLet it be noticed, that in neither of these texts, nor in any other\nportion of Scripture, does the Bible say a single word about the\nrevolution of the sun _round the earth_, as the common center of the\nuniverse; on which, however, the whole stress of the objection is laid.\nThe passages do not prove what they are adduced to prove. They speak of\nthe sun's motion, and of the sun's orbit, _but they do not say that the\nearth is the center of that orbit_. These texts, then, do not prove the\nAuthor of the Bible ignorant of the system of the universe.\n\nThe objection is based upon utter ignorance of one of the most important\nand best attested discoveries of modern astronomy; the grand motion of\nthe sun and solar system through the regions of space, and the\ndependence of the rotation of all the orbs composing it, upon that\nmotion. It is not the Author of the Bible who is ignorant of the\ndiscoveries of modern astronomy--when he speaks of the orbit of the sun,\nand his race from one end of the heavens to the other, and of the need\nof a miraculous interposition to stop his course for a single day--but\nhis correctors, who have ventured to decry the statements of a Book\nwhich commands the respect of such astronomers as Herschel and Rosse,\nwhile ignorant of those elements of astronomy which they might have\nlearned from a perusal of the books used by their children in our common\nschools. For the benefit of such, however, I will present a brief\nexplanation of the grounds upon which astronomers are as universally\nagreed upon the belief of the sun's motion around a center of the\nfirmament, as they are upon the belief of the revolution of the earth\nround the sun.\n\nWhen you are passing in a carriage, at night, through the street of a\ncity lighted up by gas-lamps in the streets, and lights irregularly\ndispersed in the windows, or passing in a ferry-boat, from one such city\nto another, at a short distance from it, you observe that the lights\nwhich you are leaving appear to draw closer and closer together, while\nthose toward which you are approaching widen out, and seem to separate\nfrom each other. If the night were perfectly dark, so that you could see\nnothing but the lights, you could certainly know not only that you were\nin motion, but also to what point you were moving, by carefully watching\ntheir appearances. So, if all the fixed stars were absolutely fixed, and\nthe sun and planets, including our earth, were moving in any\ndirection--say to the north--then the stars toward which we were moving\nwould seem to widen out from each other, and those which we were\nleaving would seem to close up; so that the space which appeared between\nany two stars in the south, in a correct map of the heavens, a hundred\nyears ago, would be smaller, and that between any two stars in the north\nwould be larger, than the space between the same stars upon a correct\nmap now. Now, such changes in the apparent positions of stars are\nactually observed. The stars do not appear in the same places now as\nthey did a hundred years ago.\n\nThe fixed stars, then, are either drifting past our solar system, which\nalone remains fixed; or, the fixed stars are all actually at rest, and\nour sun is drifting through them; or, our solar system and the so-called\nfixed stars are both in motion. One or other of these suppositions must\nbe the fact. The first is simply the old Ptolemaic absurdity, only\ntransferring the center of the universe to the sun. The second is\ncontrary to the observed fact, that multitudes of the stars, which were\nsupposed to be fixed, are actually revolving around each other, in\nsystems of double, triple and multiple suns. And both are contrary to\nthe first principles of gravitation; for, as every particle of matter\nattracts every other, directly as the mass, and inversely as the square\nof the distance, if any one particle of matter in the universe is in\nmotion, the square of its distance from every other particle varies, and\nits attraction is increased in one direction, and diminished in another;\nand so every particle of matter in free space, as far as the force of\ngravitation extends, will be put in motion too. But our earth, and the\nplanets, and the double and triple stars, are in motion, and the law of\ngravitation extends to every known part of the universe; therefore every\nknown particle of matter in the universe is in motion too, our sun\nincluded.\n\nThe third supposition, then, is most indisputably true; our solar\nsystem, and all the heavenly bodies, are in motion. To this conclusion\nall the observed facts conform. The Bible does say that the sun moves,\nand moves in a curve. All mathematicians prove that it must of necessity\ndo so. All astronomers assert that it does so. The unanimous verdict of\nthe scientific world is thus rendered by Nichol: \"_As to the subject\nitself, the grand motion of the sun, as well as its present direction,\nmust be received now as an established doctrine of astronomy._\"[306] But\nthe discovery was anticipated, three thousand years ago, by the Author\nof the Bible.\n\nBut, as will readily be perceived, the difficulty of determining either\nthe direction or the rate of this motion is immensely increased in this\ncase; for we are now not like persons riding in a carriage, watching the\nfixed lights in the street to determine our direction and rate of\nprogress; but we are watching the lamps of a multitude of carriages,\nmoving at various distances, and with various velocities, and, for\nanything we can tell at first sight, in various directions. We are on\nboard a steamer, and are watching the lights of a multitude of other\nsteamers, also in motion; and it is not easy to find out, in the\ndarkness, how either they or we are going. If each were pursuing its own\nindependent course, without any common object or destination, the\nconfusion would be so great that we could learn nothing of the rate or\ndirection either of our own motion or theirs.\n\nBut astronomers are not content to believe that the universe is governed\nby accident. The whole science is based upon the assumption, that a\npresiding mind has impressed the stamp of order and regularity upon the\nwhole cosmos. They are deeply convinced that God's law extends to all\nGod's creation; that all his works display his intelligence, as well as\nhis power, and proceed according to a wise plan. Having seen that all\nthe stellar motions previously known are orderly motions, in circular or\nelliptical orbits, and that the most of the solid bodies belonging to\nour own system revolve in one direction, they reasoned from analogy,\nthat this might be the case with the sun and the fixed stars, and went\nto work with great diligence, to see whether it was or not; and, by\ncomparing a great multitude of observations, ancient and modern, made\nboth in the northern and southern hemispheres, and on all sorts of\nstars, they have come to the conclusion, that our sun, and all the\nbodies of the solar system, are flying northward, at the rate of three\nmillions three hundred and thirty-six thousand geographical miles a\nday--five thousand times faster than a railway express train--toward the\nconstellation Hercules, in R. A. 259 deg. Dec. 35 deg..\n\nFurther, as the direction of this motion is slowly and regularly\nchanging, just as the direction of the head of a steamer in wearing, or\nof a railway train running a curve, it is certain that the sun is\nmoving, not in a straight line, but in a curve. The revolution of the\nsun in such an orbit was known to the Author of the Bible when he wrote,\n\"_his circuit_ is to the end of heaven.\" The direction of the\ncircumference of a circle being known, that of its center can be found;\nfor the radius is always a tangent to the circumference, and the\nintersection of two of these radii will be the center; so that, if we\ncertainly knew the sun's orbit to be circular, or nearly so, we could\ncalculate the center. But as we do not certainly know its form, we can\nnot certainly calculate the center; we can only come near it. And as we\nknow that the line which connects the circumference with the center of\nthe sun's orbit, runs through the group of stars known as the Pleiades,\nor the Cluster; and as all the stars along that line seem to move in the\nsame direction--a different direction from that of the stars in other\nregions, just as they must do if they and we were revolving around that\ngroup--Argelander and others have concluded, with a high degree of\nprobability, that the grand center around which the sun and our\nfirmament revolve, is that constellation which the Author of the Bible,\nmore than three thousand years ago, called _kyme_--_the pivot_.\n\nIt would require a greater knowledge of electro-magnetism than most of\nmy readers possess, to explain the connection of the earth's rotation\nwith the sun's grand movement. I will merely state the facts.\nElectro-magnetism is induced by friction. The regions of space are not\nempty, but filled with an ether, whose undulations produce light; and\nthis ether is sufficiently dense to retard the motions of comets. The\nfriction, produced by the rapid passage of the sun and solar system\nthrough this ether, must be immense, and is one source of electricity,\nand the principal source of electro-magnetism. This kind of electricity\ndiffers from the other kinds, in that _its action is always at right\nangles to the current, and tends to produce rotation in any wheel,\ncylinder, or sphere, along whose axis it flows_.[307] The sun, and all\nthe planets, traveling in the direction of their poles, the current is\nof course in the direction of the axis; and the result is, that while\nthe sun moves along his grand course, he and all the bodies of the\nsystem will rotate, by the influence of the electro-magnetism generated\nby that motion; and if he stops, his and their rotation stops too. Day\nand night on earth are produced by the sun's motion causing the earth's\nrotation. You can see the principle illustrated by the child who runs\nalong the street with his windmill, to create a current, which will make\nit revolve. The Author of the Bible made no mistake when, desiring to\nlengthen the day, he commanded the sun to stand still. It is not the\nCreator, but his correctors, who are ignorant of the mechanism of the\nuniverse.\n\nThus, these long-misunderstood and much-assailed Scriptures are not\nonly vindicated, but far more than vindicated, by the progress of\nastronomical discovery. It not only proves the language of the Bible to\nbe correct; it assures us that it is divine. The same Hand which formed\nthe stars to guide the simple peasant to his dwelling, at the close of\nday, and to lead the mighty intellects of Newton and of Herschel among\nthe mysteries of the universe, formed those expressions which, to the\npeasant's eye, describe the apparent reality, and, to the astronomer's\nreason, demonstrate the reality of the appearance of the heavens, and\nare thus, alike to peasant and philosopher, the _oracles of God_.\n\nNor is this the only instance of such Bible oracles. Thousands of years\nbefore philosophers knew anything of the formation of dew, Moses\ndescribed it exactly, and noticed how it differed from the rain which\ndrops down, while the dew evaporates. \"My doctrine shall drop as the\nrain, my speech shall _distill_ as the dew.\"--Deuteronomy xxxii. 2.\nSolomon described the cycloidal course of the wind, and recorded it in\nEcclesiastes long before Admiral Fitzroy's discovery; as he also\nanticipated the doctrine of aqueous circulation in his pregnant proverb:\n\"Unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return\nagain.\"--Ecclesiastes i. 7. Job declared the law of pneumatics when he\ndeclared that \"God maketh _weight_ for the winds.\" Long before Madler,\nthe celebrated Russian astronomer, published his remarkable opinion: \"I\nregard the Pleiades as the central group to the whole astral system, and\nthe fixed stars, even to its outer limits, marked by the Milky Way; and\nI regard Alcyone as that star of all others, composing the group which\nis favored by most of the probabilities as being the true central sun of\nthe universe,\" Moses tells us they were known as \"the hinge, or pivot,\"\nof the heavens; and God asks, \"Canst thou bind the secret influences of\nthe Pleiades?\" Though Peter was no geologist, and probably incapable of\ncalculating the ratio of the central heat, he tells us that the heavens\nand the earth are \"reserved unto fire,\" literally, \"stored with fire.\"\n\nEqually in advance of modern medical science, thousands of years before\nour modern discoveries, the Author of the Bible declared that \"the life\nis in the blood,\" and spoke of the slow combustion of starvation exactly\nin the language of the most recent physiology, \"they shall be _burnt_\nwith hunger, and devoured with burning heat.\"--Deuteronomy xxxii. 24.\n\nHere we have scientific truth not discovered for centuries by our men of\nscience, but revealed by prophets--scientific discovery, in advance of\nscience--predictions of the future progress of the human intellect, no\nless than revelations of the existing motions of the stars. He who wrote\nthese oracles knew that the creatures to whom he gave them would one day\nunfold their hidden meaning (else he had not so written them), and in\nthe light of scientific discovery, see them to be as truly divine\npredictions of the advance of science, as the prophecies of Jeremiah and\nEzekiel, read among the ruins of Thebes or Babylon, are seen to be\npredictions of the ruin of empires. Man's discoveries fade into\ninsignificance in the presence of such unfolding mysteries; and we are\nled to our Bibles, with the prayer, \"Open mine eyes, that I may behold\nwondrous things out of thy law.\"\n\n4. The ancient charter of the Church was written in the language of one\nof the most recent astronomical discoveries, thirty-six hundred years\nbefore Herschel and Rosse enabled us to understand its full\nsignificance: \"He brought him forth abroad, and said unto him, _Look now\ntoward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and\nhe said unto him, So shall thy seed be._\"[308]\n\nThe scenery was well calculated to impress Abraham's mind with a sense\nof the ability of Christ to fulfill a very glorious promise, by a very\nimprobable event; but the illustration was as well calculated as the\npromise to test the character of that faith which takes God's Word as\nsufficient evidence of things not seen; for, if the promise was a trying\ntest of faith, so was the illustration. Before this, God had promised\nthat his seed should be as the dust of the earth; and afterward he\ndeclared it should be as the sand of the seashore; the well-known symbol\nof a multitude beyond all power of calculation. To couple the stars of\nheaven with the sand upon the seashore in any such connection as to\nimply that the stars too were innumerable, or that their number came\nwithin any degree of comparison with the ocean sands, must have seemed\nto Abraham in the highest degree mysterious, even as it has appeared to\nscoffers, in modern times, utterly ridiculous; for, though the first\nglance at the sky conveys the impression that the stars are really\ninnumerable, the investigations of our imperfect astronomy seem to\nassure us that this is by no means the case. And, as the patriarch sat,\nnight after night, at his tent door, and, in obedience to the command of\nChrist, counted the stars, and made such a catalogue of them as his\nChaldean preceptors had used, he would very speedily come to the\nconclusion, that so far as he could see, they were by no means\ninnumerable; for the catalogue of Hipparchus reckons only one thousand\nand twenty-two as visible to one observer, and the whole number visible\nin both hemispheres by the naked eye does not exceed eight\nthousand.[309] And even if we suppose, that these old patriarchs had\nbetter eyes, as we know they had a clearer sky, than modern western\nobservers, and that Abraham saw the moons of Jupiter, and stars as\nsmall, still the number would not seem in the least degree comparable\nwith the number of the sands upon the seashore--whereof a million are\ncontained in a cubic inch,[310] a number greater than the population of\nthe globe in a square foot,[311] while the sum total of the human race,\nfrom Adam to this hour, would not approach to the aggregate of the sands\nof a single mile. Though the stars of a size too small to be visible to\nour eyes, are much more numerous than the larger stars, yet even up to\nthe range of view possessed by ordinary telescopes, they are by no means\ninnumerable. In fact, they are counted and registered, and the number of\nthe stars of the ninth magnitude, which are four times as distant as the\nmost distant visible to our eyes--so distant that their light is five\nhundred and eighty-six years in traveling toward us--is declared to be\nexactly thirty-seven thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine. Abraham's\nsense and Abraham's faith must have had many a conflict on this promise,\nas the faith and the sense of many of his children, especially the\nscientific portion of them, have since, when reading such portions as\nthis; and those other Scriptures which represent it as an achievement of\nOmniscience, that \"he telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them\nall by their names.\"[312] It is indeed remarkable how God delights to\ntest the faith of his people, and to stumble the pride of fools, by\npresenting this mysterious truth, of the innumerable multitude of the\nstars, in every announcement of the wonderful works of Him who is\nperfect in wisdom. Infant astronomy stretched out her hands to catch the\nstars, and count them. Many a proud Infidel wondered that Moses could be\nso silly as to suppose he could not count the stars, and the believer\noften wondered what these words could mean. But faith rests in the\npersuasion of two great truths: \"God is very wise,\" and \"I am very\nignorant.\"\n\nThe increase of knowledge, by widening the boundaries of our ignorance,\nseemed for a time to render the difficulty even greater. The increased\npower of Herschel's telescope, and his discovery of the constitution of\nthe Milky Way, mark an era in the progress of astronomy, and enlarge our\nviews of the extent of the universe, to an extent inconceivable by those\nwho have not studied the science. Where we see only a faint whitish\ncloud stretching across the sky, Herschel's telescope disclosed a vast\nbed of stars. At one time he counted five hundred and eighty-eight stars\nin the field of his telescope. In a quarter of an hour, one hundred and\nsixteen thousand passed before his eye. In another portion, he found\nthree hundred and thirty-one thousand stars in a single cluster.[313] He\nfound the whole structure of that vast luminous cloud which spans the\nsky, \"to consist entirely of stars, _scattered by millions, like\nglittering dust_, on the background of the general heavens.\"\n\nYet still it was not supposed to be at all impossible to estimate their\nnumbers. Even this distinguished astronomer, a few years ago, computed\nit at eight or ten millions. Schroeter allowed twenty degrees of it to\npass before him, and withdrew from the majestic spectacle, exclaiming,\n\"What Omnipotence!\" He calculated, however, that the number of the stars\nvisible through one of the best telescopes in Europe, in 1840, was\ntwelve millions; a number equaled by a single generation of Abraham's\ndescendants, far below the power of computation, and utterly\ninsignificant, as compared with the sands of the sea.\n\nHad our powers of observation stopped here, the great promise must still\nhave seemed as mysterious to the astronomer, as it once seemed to the\nPatriarch. But if either the Father of the Faithful, or the Father of\nSidereal Astronomy, had deluded himself with the notion, that he fully\ncomprehended either the words or the works of Him who is wonderful in\ncounsel, and excellent in working, and argued thence that, because the\nrevealed words and the visible works seemed not to correspond, they were\nreally contradictory, he would have committed the blunder of modern\nInfidels, who assume that they know everything, and that as God's\nknowledge can not be any greater than theirs, every Scripture which\ntheir science can not comprehend must be erroneous. The grandest truths,\nimperfectly perceived in the twilight of incipient science, serve as\nstumbling-blocks for conceited speculators, as well as landmarks on the\nboundaries of knowledge to true philosophers, who will ever imbibe the\nspirit of Newton's celebrated saying: \"I seem to myself like a child\ngathering pebbles on the shore, while the great ocean of knowledge lies\nunexplored before me;\" or the profound remark of Humboldt: \"What is seen\ndoes not exhaust that which is perceptible.\"\n\nBut the progress of science was not destined merely to coast the shore\nof this ocean. In 1845, Lord Rosse, and a band of accomplished\nastronomers, commenced a voyage through the immensities, with a\ntelescope which has enlarged our view of the visible universe to one\nhundred and twenty-five million times the extent before perceived, and\ndisplayed far more accurately the real form and nature of objects\npreviously seen. Herschel's researches into the Architecture of the\nHeavens, which have justly rendered his name immortal as the science he\nillustrated, had revealed the existence of great numbers of\n_nebulae_--clouds of light--faint, yet distinct. He supposed many of\nthese to consist of a luminous fluid, pretty near to us; at least,\ncomparatively so; for to believe that they were stars, so far away as to\nbe severally invisible in his forty feet telescope, while yet several\nof these clouds are distinctly seen by the naked eye, involved the\nbelief of distances so astounding, and of multitudes so incredible, and\nof a degree of closeness of the several stars so unparalleled by\nanything which even he had observed, that his imagination and reason\nfailed to meet the requirements of such a problem. The supposition was,\nhowever, thrown out by this gigantic intellect, that these clouds might\nbe firmaments; that the Bible word _heavens_ might be literally plural;\nand more than that, he labored in the accumulation of facts which tended\nto confirm it. He disclosed the fact, that several of these apparent\nclouds, which, to very excellent telescopes, displayed only a larger\nsurface of cloudy matter, did, in the reflector of his largest\ntelescope, display themselves in their true character, as globular\nclusters, consisting of innumerable multitudes of glorious stars; and,\nmoreover, that, stretching away far beyond star, or Milky Way, or\nnebulae, he had seen, in some parts of the heavens, \"a stippling,\" or\nuniform dotting of the field of view, by points of light too small to\nadmit of any one being steadily or fixedly examined, _and too numerous\nfor counting_, were it possible so to view them! What are these?\nMillions upon millions of years must have elapsed ere that faint light\ncould reach our globe, from those profundities of space, though it\ntravels like the lightning's flash. If they are stars, the sands of the\nseashore are as inferior in numbers as the surface of earth is inferior\nin dimensions to the arch of heaven. But if these faint dots and\nstipplings are not single stars!--if they are\nstar-clouds--galaxies--firmaments, like our Milky Way--our infinity is\nmultiplied by millions upon millions! Imagination pants, reason grows\ndizzy, arithmetic fails to fathom, and human eyes fear to look into the\nabyss. No wonder that this profound astronomer, when a glimpse of\ninfinity flashed on his eye, retired from the telescope, trembling in\nevery nerve, afraid to behold.\n\nAnd yet this astounding supposition is a literal truth; and the light of\nthose suns, whose twilight thus bowed down that mighty intellect in\nreverent adoration, now shines before human eyes in all its noonday\nrefulgence. One of the most remarkable of these nebulae--one which is\nvisible to a good eye in the belt of Orion--has been disclosed to the\nobservers at Parsontown as a firmament; and minute points, scarce\nperceptible to common telescopes, blaze forth as magnificent clusters of\nglorious stars, so close and crowded, that no figure can adequately\ndescribe them, save the twin symbol of the promise, \"the sand by the\nseashore,\" or \"the dust of the earth.\" \"There is a minute point, near\nPolaris,\" says Nichol, \"so minute, that it requires a good telescope to\ndiscern its being. I have seen it as represented by a good mirror,\nblazing like a star of the first magnitude; and though examined by a\npotent microscope, clear and definite as the distinctest of these our\nnearest orbs, when beheld through an atmosphere not disturbed. Nay,\nthrough distances of an order I shall scarcely name, I have seen a mass\nof orbs compressed and brilliant, so that each touched on each other,\n_like the separate grains of a handful of sand_, and yet there seemed no\nmelting or fusion of any one of the points into the surrounding mass.\nEach sparkled individually its light pure and apart, like that of any\nconstituent of the cluster of the Pleiades.\"[314]\n\n\"The larger and nearer masses are seen with sufficient distinctness to\nreveal the grand fact decisive of their character, viz: that they\nconsist of multitudes of closely related orbs, forming an independent\nsystem. In other cases we find the individual stars by no means so\nclearly defined. Through effect, in all probability, of distance, the\nintervals between them appear much less, the shining points themselves\nbeing also fainter; while the masses still further off _may be best\nlikened to a handful of golden sand, or, as it is aptly termed, star\ndust_; beyond which no stars, or any vestige of them, are seen, but only\na patch or streak of milky light, similar to the unresolved portions of\nour surrounding zone.\"[315]\n\nTo say, then, that the stars of the sky are actually innumerable is only\na cold statement of the plainest fact. Hear it in the language of one\nprivileged to behold the glories of one out of the thousands of similar\nfirmaments: \"The mottled region forming the lighter part of the mass\n(the nebula in Orion) is a very blaze of stars. But that stellar\ncreation, now that we are freed from all dubiety concerning the\nsignificance of those hazes that float numberless in space, how\nglorious, how endless! Behold, amid that limitless ocean, every speck,\nhowever remote or dim, a noble galaxy. Lustrous they are, too; in\nmanifold instances beyond all neighboring reality--beyond the loftiest\ndream which ever exercised the imagination. The great cluster in\nHercules has long dazzled the heart with its splendors, but we have\nlearned now that among circular and compact galaxies, a class to which\nthe nebulous stars belong, there are multitudes which infinitely surpass\nit--nay, that schemes of being rise above it, sun becoming nearer to\nsun, until their skies must be one blaze of light--a throng of burning\nactivities! But, far aloft stands Orion, the pre-eminent glory and\nwonder of the starry universe! Judged by the only criticism yet\napplicable, it is perhaps so remote that its light does not reach us in\nless than fifty or sixty thousand years; and as at the same time it\noccupies so large an apparent portion of the heavens, how stupendous\nmust be the extent of the nebula. It would seem almost as if all the\nother clusters hitherto gauged were collected and compressed into one,\nthey would not surpass this mighty group, _in which every wisp--every\nwrinkle--is a sand-heap of stars_. There are cases in which, though\nimagination has quailed, reason may still adventure inquiry, and prolong\nits speculations; but at times we are brought to a limit across which no\nhuman faculty has the strength to penetrate, and where, as now, at the\nvery footstool of the secret THRONE, we can only bend our heads, and\nsilently _adore_. And from the inner Adyta--the invisible shrine of what\nalone is and endures--a voice is heard:\n\n     \"Hast thou an arm like God?\n     Canst thou thunder with a voice like Him?\n     Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades,\n     Or loosen the bands of Orion?\n     Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his seasons?\n     Canst thou guide Arcturus and his sons?[316]\n     He telleth the number of the stars:\n     He calleth them all by their names.\n     Great is our Lord, and of great power;\n     His understanding is infinite.\"[317]\n\nThus, nobly does science vindicate Scripture, and display the wisdom and\npower of the Lord of Hosts, whose kingdom extends through all space, and\nendures through all duration. He who called these countless hosts of\nglorious orbs into being is abundantly able to multiply, to an equally\nincalculable number, the humble sands which line the oceans of\nterrestrial grace, the brilliant stars which shall yet adorn the heavens\nof celestial glory. All, of every nation, who shall partake of Abraham's\nfaith, are Abraham's children. They are Christ's, and so Abraham's seed,\nand heirs, according to this promise.[318] When the great multitude,\nwhich no man can number, out of every nation, and tongue, and people,\nstand before the throne of God, and cause the many mansions of our\nFather's house to re-echo the shout, \"Salvation to our God which sitteth\non the throne, and to the Lamb,\" the answering hallelujahs of the most\ndistant orbs shall expound the purport of that solemn oath to Abraham\nand Abraham's seed: \"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because\nthou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only\nson, that in blessing I will bless thee, and _in multiplying I will\nmultiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon\nthe seashore_.\"[319]\n\n5. It is not probable that the mysteries of the distant heavens, _or of\nthose future glories of the redeemed which the Bible employs them to\nsymbolize_, will ever be fully explored by man, or adequately\napprehended in the present state of being. But it is most certain that\nGod would not have employed the mysteries of astronomy so frequently as\nthe symbols of the mysteries of the glory to be revealed, had there not\nbeen some correspondence between the things which eye hath not seen, and\nthese patterns shown in the mount. So habitual, indeed, is the Scripture\nuse of these visible heavens as the types of all that is exalted, pure,\ncheering, and glorious, that, to most Christians, the word has lost its\nprimary meaning, and the idea first suggested to their minds by the word\n_heaven_ is that of future glory; yet their views of the locality and\nphysical adornments of the many mansions of their Father's house are dim\nand shadowy, just because they do not acquaint themselves sufficiently\nwith the divine descriptions in the Bible, and the divine illustrations\nin the sky. The Bible would be better understood were the heavens\nbetter explored. \"I go,\" said Jesus, \"to prepare a _place_ for you.\" The\nbodies of the saints, raised on the resurrection morn, will need a\n_place_ on which to stand. The body of the Lord, which his disciples\nhandled, and \"saw that a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw him\nhave,\" is now resident in a place. Where He is, there shall his people\nbe also. Why, then, when the Bible employs all that is beauteous in\nearth, and glorious in heaven, to describe the adornments of the palace\nof the King of kings, should we hesitate to believe that the power and\nwisdom of God are not exhausted in this little earth of ours, but that\nother worlds may as far transcend ours in glory, as many of them do in\nmagnitude?--or, to allow that the glorious visions of Ezekiel and John\nwere not views of nonentities, or mere visions of clouds, or of some\nincomprehensible symbols of more incomprehensible spiritualities, but\nactual views of the existing glories of some portion of the universe,\npresented to us as vividly as the dullness of our minds and the\nearthliness of our speech will permit? It is certain that the recent\nprogress of astronomical discovery has revealed celestial scenery which\nillustrates some of the most mysterious of these visions.\n\nIt has long been known, that \"one star differeth from another star in\nglory,\" and that the orbs of heaven shine with various colors. Sirius is\nwhite, Arcturus red, and Procyon yellow. The telescope shows all the\nsmaller stars in various colors. Under the clear skies of Syria their\nbrilliance is vastly greater than in our climate. \"_One star shines like\na ruby, another as an emerald, and the whole heavens sparkle as with\nvarious gems._\"[320] But the discovery of the double and triple stars\nhas added a new harmony of colors to these coronets of celestial jewels.\nThese stars generally display the complementary colors. If the one star\ndisplays a color from the red end of the spectrum, the other is\ngenerally of the corresponding shade, from the violet end. For instance,\nin O2 Cygni, the large star is yellow, and the two smaller stars are\nblue; and so in others, through all the colors of the rainbow. \"It may\nbe easier suggested in words,\" says Sir John Herschel, \"than conceived\nin imagination, what a variety of illumination two stars--a red and a\ngreen, or a yellow and a blue one--must afford a planet circulating\naround either, and what cheering contrasts and grateful vicissitudes a\nred and a green day, for instance, alternating with a white one, and\nwith darkness, must arise from the presence or absence of one, or other,\nor both, from the horizon.\"[321] But suppose one of the globular\nclusters--for instance, that in the constellation Hercules--thus\nconstituted; its unnumbered thousands of suns, wheeling round central\nworlds, and exhibiting their glories to their inhabitants; \"skies\nblazing, with grand orbs scattered regularly around, and with a\nprofusion to which our darker heavens are strangers;\" the overhead sky,\nseen from the interior regions of the cluster, _must appear gorgeous\nbeyond description_. In the strictest literality it might be said to the\ndwellers in such a cluster, \"Thy sun shall no more go down, neither\nshall thy moon withdraw herself.\" The surrounding walls of such a\ncelestial palace must seem indeed \"garnished with all manner of precious\nstones.\" Sapphire, emerald, sardius, chrysolite, and pearl, must seem\nbut dim mirrors of its glorious refulgence. Under its ever rising suns\nthe gates need not be shut at all by day, \"for there shall be no night\nthere.\" That glorious place now exists, though far away.\n\nBut the Lord of these hosts has said, \"Behold, I come quickly.\" He will\nnot tarry. A thousand times faster than the swiftest chariot, our solar\nsystem and the surrounding firmament wing their flight toward that same\nglorious cluster in Hercules. As our firmament approaches, under the\nguidance of Omnipotent wisdom, it too must fly to meet our sun, with a\nvelocity increasing with an incalculable ratio. The celestial city will\nthen be seen to descend from heaven. Once within the sphere of its\nattractions, our sun and surrounding planets will feel their power.\nTheir ancient orbits and accustomed revolutions must give way to the\nhigher power. Old things must pass away, and all things become new. A\nnew heaven, no less than a new earth, will form the dwelling of\nrighteousness.\n\nThese are no longer the visions of prophecy merely, but the sober\ncalculations of mathematical science, based upon a foundation as solid\nas the attraction of gravitation, and as wide as the existence of that\nether whose undulations convey the light of the most distant stars; for,\nso surely as that attraction is efficient, must all the firmaments of\nthe heavens be drawn more closely together; and as certainly as they\nrevolve not in empty space, but in a medium capable of retarding Encke's\ncomet three days in every revolution, must that retarding medium bring\ntheir revolutions to a close. \"And so,\" said Herschel, casting his eye\nfearlessly toward future infinities, \"we may be certain that the stars\nin the Milky Way will be gradually compressed, through successive stages\nof accumulation, until they come up to what may be called the ripening\nperiod of the globular cluster.\" Unnumbered ages may be occupied with\nsuch a grand evolution of celestial progress, beyond our power of\ncalculation; but will the changes of created things, even then, have\ncome to an end? Hear again the voice, not of the prophet, but of the\nastronomer: \"Around us lie stabilities of every order; but it is\n_stability_ only that we see, not _permanence_.\" As the course of our\ninquiry has already amply illustrated, even majestic systems, that at\nfirst appear final and complete, are found to resolve themselves into\nmere steps or phases of still loftier progress. Verily, it is an\nastonishing world! Change rising above change--cycle growing out of\ncycle, in majestic progression--each new one ever widening, like the\ncircles that wreathe from a spark of flame, enlarging as they ascend,\nfinally to become lost in the empyrean! And if all that we see, from\nearth to sun, and from sun to universal star-work--that wherein we best\nbehold images of eternity, immortality and God--if that is only a state\nor space of a course of being rolling onward evermore, what must be the\nCreator, the Preserver, the Guide of all!--He at whose bidding these\nphantasms came from nothingness, and shall again disappear;--whose name,\namid all things, alone is _Existence_--I AM THAT I AM?\n\n     \"Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth,\n     And the heavens are the works of thy hands;\n     They shall perish,\n     But thou shalt endure;\n     Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment:\n     As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed;\n     But thou art the same,\n     And thy years shall have no end.\n     The children of thy servants shall continue,\n     And their seed shall be established before thee.\"\n\nPsalm cii. 25\n\n     \"And I saw a new heaven, and a new earth;\n     For the first heaven and the first earth were passed away,\n     And there was no more sea.\n     And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,\n     Coming down from God out of heaven,\n     Prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.\n     And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying,\n     Behold the tabernacle of God is with men,\n     And he will dwell with them,\n     And they shall be his people,\n     And God himself shall be with them, and be their God.\"\n\nRevelation xxi.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nReader, is this glorious heaven your inheritance? Is this unchangeable\nJehovah your God? Are you looking for and hasting unto the coming of the\nday of God? Is it your daily prayer, Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly?\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[283] Kendall's Uranography, 268.\n\n[284] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1856, p. 380.\n\n[285] Ibid. 1852, p. 376.\n\n[286] Ibid. 1856, p. 377.\n\n[287] Cosmos, Vol. I. pp. 198-215.\n\n[288] Judges, chap. v.\n\n[289] Jeremiah, chap. x.\n\n[290] Some of my readers may deem any notice of such a subject, in the\nnineteenth century, entirely unnecessary; but having lived for some\nyears within sight of the dwelling of a woman who publicly advertised\nherself in the newspapers as a professor of astrology, and seen the\ncontinual flow of troubled minds to the promised light--the humble\nserving-girl stealing up the side entrance, and the princely chariot\ndischarging its willing dupes at the door, and rolling hastily away, to\nawait them at the corner--I know of a certainty that folly is not yet\ndead. There are women, aye, and men too, who are above the folly of\nreading the Bible, but just wise enough to pay five dollars for, and\nspend hours in the study of an uncouth astrological picture,\nrepresenting a collocation of the stars, which was never witnessed by\nany astronomer. There are men who would not give way to the superstition\nof supposing that their destiny was regulated by the will of Almighty\nGod, yet who believe that every living creature's fate is regulated by\nthe aspect of the stars at the hour of his nativity; the same stars\nalways causing the same period of life and mode of death; though every\nday's experience testifies the contrary. The same stars presided over\nthe birth of the poor soldier, who perished in an instant at Austerlitz;\nof his imperial master, who pined for years in St. Helena; of the old\ngentleman who died in his own bed, of gout; and of the batch of puppies,\nwhereof old Towser was the only surviving representative, the other nine\nhaving found their fate in the horse-pond, in defiance of the\ncontrolling stars. They were all born at the same hour, and under the\nsame auspices, and destined to the same fate, by the laws of astrology.\nYet half a dozen professors of astrology find patrons enough in each of\nour great cities to enable them to live and to pay for advertising in\nthe daily papers.\n\n[291] Judges, chap. v.\n\n[292] Dick's Celestial Scenery, p. 57, Applegate's edition, where many\nsuch instances are related.\n\n[293] Vaughn's Report to the American Association for the Advancement of\nScience, in Annual of Scientific Discovery for 1855, p. 364.\n\n[294] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, 382.\n\n[295] Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 122; Vol. IV. p. 569.\n\n[296] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, 383.\n\n[297] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1854, p. 361.\n\n[298] Letter to Herschel, from Oroomiah, in Persia--Annual of Scientific\nDiscovery, 1854, p. 367.\n\n[299] _Life and Work in the Great Pyramid_, by Piazzi Smyth, F. R. S.,\nLL. D.\n\n[300] \"These tablets (of unbaked clay, with inscriptions, found in the\ntombs of Erech, the city of Nimrod--Genesis, chap. x. 10--and deciphered\nby Rawlinson) were, in point of fact, the equivalent of our bank notes,\nand prove that a system of artificial currency prevailed in Babylon and\nPersia at an unprecedentedly early age; centuries before the\nintroduction of paper and writing.\"\n\n_Rawlinson, in News of the Churches, February, 1858, p. 50._\n\n[301] Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, Vol. III. p.\n106; Cosmos, Vol. I. pp. 173, 182; Chinese Repository, Vol. IX. p. 573;\nWilliams' Middle Kingdom, Vol. II. p. 147.\n\n[302] Somerville's Connection of Physical Sciences, 82.\n\n[303] Daniel, chap. xii. 8. 1 Peter, chap. i. 10. Ephesians, chap. i. 3.\n\n[304] Psalm xl. 1, and xxxvii. 23, margin.\n\n[305] M. Voltaire; M. Cheneviere; Theol. Essays, Vol. I. p. 456.\n\n[306] Humboldt's Cosmos, Vol. I. p. 139; Herschel's Outlines, 380;\nKendall's Uranography, 205.\n\n[307] Somerville's Connection of the Physical Sciences, 171, 337, 315;\nArchitecture of the Heavens, 286.\n\n[308] Genesis, chap. xv. 5.\n\n[309] Cosmos I. 140.\n\n[310] Ehrenberg computes that there are forty-one millions of the shells\nof animalculae in a cubic inch of Bilier Slate.\n\n[311] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860, p. 341.\n\n[312] Psalm cxlvii. 4.\n\n[313] Dick's Sidereal Heavens, 59; Herschel's Outlines.\n\n[314] Architecture of the Heavens, 62.\n\n[315] Architecture of the Heavens, 64. These unresolved milky streaks\nand patches have since been discovered to be true nebulae, or phosphoric\nclouds, in some way connected with their adjacent stars.\n\n[316] Architecture of the Heavens, 144.\n\n[317] Job, chap. xxxviii. 31. Psalm cxlvii. 4.\n\n[318] Genesis, chap. xxii. 16.\n\n[319] Galatians, chap. iii. 14, 29. Gen. xxii. 16, 17.\n\n[320] Architecture of the Heavens, 217.\n\n[321] Architecture of the Heavens, 77, 130.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nSCIENCE, OR FAITH?\n\n\n\"Faith is destined to be left behind in the onward march of the human\nintellect. It belongs to an infantile stage of intellectual development,\nwhen experience, dependent on testimony, becomes the slave of credulity.\nChildren and childish nations are prone to superstition. Religion\nbelongs properly to such. Hence the endless controversies of religious\nsects. But as man advances into the knowledge of the physical sciences,\nand becomes familiarized with mathematical demonstration and scientific\nexperiment, he demands substantial proofs for all kinds of knowledge,\nand rejects that which is merely matter of faith. The certainties of\nscience succeed the controversies of creeds. Science thus becomes the\ngrave of religion, as religion is vulgarly understood. But science gives\na new and better religion to the world. Instead of filling men's minds\nwith the vague terrors of an unknown futurity, it directs us to the best\nmodes of improving this life.\"--\"This life being the first in certainty,\ngive it the first place in importance; and by giving human duties in\nreference to men the _precedence_, secure that all interpretations of\nspiritual duty shall be in harmony with human progress.\"--\"Nature refers\nus to science for help, and to humanity for sympathy; love to the lovely\nis our only homage, study our only praise, quiet submission to the\ninevitable our duty; and truth is our only worship.\"--\"Our _knowledge_\nis confined to this life; and _testimony_, and _conjecture_, and\n_probability_, are all that can be set forth in regard to\nanother.\"--\"Preach nature and science, morality and art; _nature, the\nonly subject of knowledge_; morality, the harmony of action; art, the\nculture of the individual and society.\"[322]\n\nOr, if you will insist upon preaching religion, support it \"with such\nproofs as accompany physical science. This I have always loved; for I\nnever find it deceives me. I rest upon it with entire conviction. There\nis no mistake, and can be no dispute in mathematics. And if a revelation\ncomes from God, why have we not such evidence for it as mathematical\ndemonstration?\"\n\nSuch is the language now used by a large class of half-educated people,\nwho, deriving their philosophy from Comte, and their religion from the\n_Westminster Review_, invite us to spend our Sabbaths in the study of\nnature in the fields and museums, turn our churches into laboratories,\nexchange our Bibles for encyclopedias, give ourselves no more trouble\nabout religion, but try hard to learn as much science, make as much\nmoney, and enjoy as much pleasure in this life as we can; because we\n_know_ that we live now, and can only _believe_ that we shall live\nhereafter. I do not propose to take any notice here of the proposal of\nSecularism--for that is the new name of this ungodliness--to deliver men\nfrom their lusts by scientific lectures, and keep them moral by\noverturning religion. That experiment has been tried already. But it is\nworth while to inquire, Is science really so positive, and religion so\nuncertain, as these persons allege? Is a knowledge of the physical\nsciences so all-sufficient for our present happiness, so attainable by\nall mankind, and so certain and infallible, that we should barter our\nimmortality for it? And, on the other hand, are the great facts of\nreligious experience, and the foundations of our religious faith, so\ndim, and vague, and utterly uncertain, that we may safely consign them\nto oblivion, or that we can so get rid of them if we would?\n\nThe object of this chapter is to refute both parts of the Secularist's\nstatement; to show some of the uncertainties, errors, contradictions,\nand blunders of the scientific men on whose testimony they receive their\nscience; and to exhibit a few of the facts of religious experience which\ngive a sufficient warrant for the Christian's faith.\n\nScientific observations are made by fallible men exposed to every\ndescription of error, prejudice and mistake; men who can not possibly\ndivest themselves of their preconceived opinions in observing facts, and\nframing theories.\n\nLord Bacon long ago observed that \"the eye of the human intellect is not\ndry, but receives a suffusion from the will and the affections, so that\nit may be almost said to engender any science it pleases. For what a man\nwishes to be true, that he prefers believing.\" \"If the human intellect\nhath once taken a liking to any doctrine, either because received and\ncredited, or because otherwise pleasing, it draws everything else into\nharmony with that doctrine, and to its support; and albeit there may be\nfound a more powerful array of contradictory instances, these, however,\nit does not observe, or it contemns, or by distinction extenuates, and\nrejects.\"[323]\n\nA prejudiced observer sees the facts distorted and exaggerated. \"Thus it\nis that men will not see in the phenomena what alone is to be seen; in\ntheir observations they interpolate and expunge; and this mutilated and\nadulterated product they call a fact. And why? Because the real\nphenomena, if admitted, would spoil the pleasant music of their\nthoughts, and convert its factitious harmony into a discord. In\nconsequence of this many a system professing to be reared exclusively on\nobservation and fact, rests, in reality, mainly upon hypothesis and\nfiction. A pretended experience is indeed the screen behind which every\nillusive doctrine regularly retires. 'There are more false facts,' says\nCullen, 'current in the world than false theories.' Fact, observation,\ninduction, have always been the watchwords of those who have dealt most\nextensively in fancy.\"[324] We propose, therefore, to show that, _I. The\nstudents of the physical sciences have no such certain knowledge of\ntheir facts and theories as Secularists pretend._\n\n1. Mathematical science relating merely to abstract truth is supposed to\npossess powers of demonstration, and capability of scientific certainty\nsuperior to all other kinds of knowledge, but the moment we begin to\napply it to any existing facts we enter the domain of liability to\nerrors as numerous as our fallible observations of these facts; and when\nwe attempt to apply mathematical demonstration to the infinite, and to\nenter the domain of faith, in which as immortals we are chiefly\nconcerned, it baffles, deceives, and insults our reason. Take the\nfollowing illustrations:\n\nLet an infinite whole be divided into halves; the parts must be either\nfinite or infinite. But they can not be finite, else an infinite whole\nwould consist of a finite number of parts; neither can they be infinite,\nbeing each less than the infinite whole.\n\nAgain: it is mathematically demonstrable, that any piece of matter is\ninfinitely divisible. A line therefore of half an inch long is\ninfinitely divisible, or divisible into an infinite number of parts.\nThus we have an infinite half inch. Further, for a moving body to pass a\ngiven point requires some time; and to pass an infinite number of points\nmust require an infinite number of portions of time, or an eternity;\ntherefore, as half an inch contains an infinite number of points, it\nwill require eternity to pass half an inch.\n\nAgain: it is mathematically demonstrable, that a straight line, the\nasymptote of a hyperbola, may _eternally approach_ the curve of the\nhyperbola and _never meet_ it. But no axiom can be plainer than that if\ntwo lines continually approach each other they must at length meet. Here\nis a demonstration contradicting an axiom; and no man has ever yet shown\nthe possibilities of reconciling them, nor yet of denying either side of\nthe contradiction.\n\nAgain: it is a fundamental axiom, contained in the definition of a\ncircle, that it must have a center; but the non-existence of this center\nis mathematically demonstrable, as follows: Let the diameter of the\ncircle be bisected into two equal parts; the center must be in one, or\nthe other, of these parts, or between them. It can not be in one of\nthese parts, for they are equal; and, therefore, if it is in the one, it\nmust also be in the other, and thus the circle would have two centers,\nwhich is absurd. Neither can it be between them, for they are in\ncontact. Therefore the center must be a point, destitute of extension,\nsomething which does not occupy or exist in space. But as all existences\nexist in space, and this supposed center does not, it can not be an\nexistence; therefore it is a non-existence.\n\nIn like manner it has been mathematically demonstrated,[325] that\nmotion, or any change in the rate of progress in a moving body, is\nimpossible; because in passing from any one degree of rapidity to\nanother, all the intermediate degrees must be passed through. As when a\ntrain of cars moving four miles an hour strikes a train at rest, the\nresulting instantaneous motion is two miles an hour; and the first train\nmust therefore be moving at the rate of four, and at the rate of two\nmiles an hour at the same time, which is impossible. And so the ancients\ndemonstrated the impossibility of motion.\n\nThus the non-existence of the most undeniable truths, and the\nimpossibilities of the most common facts are mathematically\ndemonstrable; and the proper refutation of such reasoning is, not the\nscientific, but the common sensible; as when Plato refuted the\ndemonstration of the impossibility of motion, by getting up and walking\nacross the floor. In the hyperbola we have the mathematical\ndemonstration of the error of an axiom. In the infinite inch we behold\nan absurdity mathematically demonstrated. So that it appears we can give\nmathematical demonstration in support of untruth, impossibilities and\nabsurdities; and our reason can not discover the error of the reasoning!\nAlas, for poor humanity, if an endless destiny depended upon such\nscientific certainty! Yet mathematical reasoning about abstract truth is\nuniversally conceded to be less liable to error than any other form of\nscientific analysis. This line, then, is too short to fathom the ocean\nof destiny; too weak to bear inferences from even the facts of common\nlife.\n\nAttempts have indeed been made to apply mathematics to the facts of life\nin what is called the doctrine of chances. By this kind of calculation\nit can be shown, that the chances were a thousand millions to one that\nyou and I should never have been born. Yet here we are.\n\nBut when we begin to apply mathematics to the affairs of every-day life,\nwe immediately multiply our chances of error by the number and\ncomplexity of these facts. The proper field of mathematics is that of\nmagnitude and numbers. But very few subjects are capable of a\nmathematical demonstration. _No fact_ whatever which depends on the will\nof God or man can be so proved. For mathematical demonstration is\nfounded on necessary and eternal relations, and admits of no\ncontingencies in its premises. The mathematician may demonstrate the\nsize and properties of a triangle, but he can not demonstrate the\ncontinuance of any actual triangle for one hour, or one minute, after\nhis demonstration. And if he could, how many of my most important\naffairs can I submit to the multiplication table, or lay off in squares\nand triangles? It deals with purely ideal figures, which never did or\ncould exist. There is not a mathematical line--length without\nbreadth--in the universe. When we come to the application of\nmathematics, we are met at once by the fact that there are no\nmathematical figures in nature. It is true we speak of the orbits of the\nplanets as elliptical or circular, but it is only in a general way, as\nwe speak of a circular saw, the outline of its teeth being regularity\nitself compared with the perturbations of the planets. We speak of the\nearth as a spheroid, but it is a spheroid pitted with hollows as deep as\nthe ocean, and crusted with irregular protuberances as vast as the\nHimalaya and the Andes, in every conceivable irregularity of form. Its\nseas, coasts, and rivers follow no straight lines nor geometrical\ncurves. There is not an acre of absolutely level ground on the face of\nthe earth; and even its waters will pile themselves up in waves, or dash\ninto breakers, rather than remain perfectly level for a single hour. Its\nminuter formations present the same regular irregularity of form. Even\nthe crystals, which approach the nearest of any natural productions to\nmathematical figures, break with compound irregular fractures at their\nbases of attachment. The surface of the pearl is proportionally rougher\nthan the surface of the earth, and the dew-drop is not more spherical\nthan a pear. As nature then gives no mathematical figures, mathematical\nmeasurements of such figures can be only approximately applied to\nnatural objects.\n\nThe utter absence of any regularity, or assimilation to the spheroidal\nfigure, either in meridianal, equatorial, or parallel lines, mountain\nranges, sea beaches, or courses of rivers, is fatal to mathematical\naccuracy in the more extended geographical measurements. It is only by\ntaking the mean of a great many measurements that an approximate\naccuracy can be obtained. Where this is not possible, as in the case of\nthe measurements of high mountains, the truth remains undetermined by\nhundreds of feet; or, as in the case of the earth's spheroidal axis,\nBessel's measurement differs from Newton's, by fully eleven miles.[326]\nThe smaller measures are proportionately as inaccurate. No field, hill,\nor lake, has an absolute mathematical figure; but its outline is\ncomposed of an infinite multitude of irregular curves too minute for\nman's vision to discover, and too numerous for his intellect to\nestimate. No natural figure was ever measured with absolute accuracy.\n\nAll the resources of mathematical science were employed by the\nconstructors of the French Metric System; but the progress of science in\nseventy years has shown that _every element_ of their calculations was\nerroneous. They tried to measure a quadrant of the earth's\ncircumference, supposing the meridian to be circular; but Schubert has\nshown that that is far from being the case; and that no two meridians\nare alike; and Sir John Herschel, and the best geologists, show cause to\nbelieve that the form of the globe is constantly changing; so that the\nancient Egyptians acted wisely in selecting the axis of the earth's\nrotation, which is invariable, and not the changing surface of the\nearth, as their standard of measure.\n\nThe Astronomer Royal, Piazzi Smyth, thus enumerates the errors of\npractice, which they added to those of their erroneous theory: \"Their\ntrigonometrical survey for their meter length has been found erroneous,\nso that their meter is no longer sensibly a meter; and their standard\ntemperature of 0 deg. centigrade is upset one way for the length of their\nscale, and another way for the density of the water employed; and their\nmode of computing the temperature correction is proved erroneous; and\ntheir favorite natural reference of a quadrant of the earth is not\nfound a scientific feature capable of serving the purpose they have been\nemploying it for; and even their own sons show some dislike to adopt it\nfully, and adhere to as much of the ancient system as they can.\"[327]\n\nBut coming down to more practical and every-day calculations, in which\nmoney is invested, how very erroneous are the calculations of our best\nengineers, and how fatal their results. Nineteen serious errors were\ndiscovered in an edition of _Taylor's Logarithms_, printed in 1796; some\nof which might have led to the most dangerous results in calculating a\nship's place, and were current for thirty-six years. In 1832 the\n_Nautical Almanac_ published a correction which was itself erroneous by\none second, and a new correction was necessary the next year. But in\nmaking this correction a _new error was committed of ten degrees_.[328]\nWho knows how many ships were run ashore by that error?\n\nNor can our American mathematicians boast of superior infallibility to\nthe French or British. In computing the experiments which were made at\nLowell (for a new turbine wheel), it was found that when the gate was\nfully open, the quantity of water discharged through the guides was\n_seventy per cent. of the theoretical discharge_. (An error of thirty\nper cent.) The effect of the wheel during these experiments was\neighty-one and a half per cent. of the power expended; but when the gate\nwas half open the effect was sixty-seven per cent. of the power, while\nthe discharge through the guides eleven per cent. more than the\ntheoretical discharge. But when the opening of the gate was still\nfurther reduced to one-fourth of the full opening, the effect was also\nreduced to forty-five per cent. of the power, while the discharging\nvelocity was raised to _forty-nine per cent. more than that given by\nthe theory_.[329] An unscientific man would hardly call that good\nguessing; but it was the best result of labored and expensive scientific\ncalculation. No wonder the _London Mechanics' Magazine_ says: \"More can\nbe learned in this way (testing engines in the workshop) in half an\nhour, than can be derived from the theoretical instructions, however\ngood, in a year.\" So much for the infallibility of a mathematical\ndemonstration. In regard even to the very limited circle of our\nrelations which can be measured by the foot rule, and the small number\nof our anxieties which may be resolved by an equation, if by\nmathematical accuracy be meant anything more than tolerable correctness,\nor by mathematical demonstration a very high degree of probability,\nmathematical certainty is all a fable.\n\n2. _Astronomy._\n\nThe omniscience and prescience of the human intellect have been largely\nglorified by some Infidel lecturers, upon the strength of the accuracy\nwith which it is possible to calculate and predict eclipses, and to the\ndisparagement of Bible predictions. And this glorification has been\namazingly swollen by Le Verrier's prediction in 1846 of the discovery of\nthe planet Neptune. But the prediction of some unknown motion would form\na more correct basis for a comparison of the prophecies of science with\nthose of Scripture; such, for instance, as Immanuel Kant's prediction of\nthe period of Saturn's rotation at six hours twenty-three minutes\nfifty-three seconds; \"which mathematical calculation of an unknown\nmotion of a heavenly body,\" he says, \"_is the only prediction of that\nkind in pure Natural Philosophy_, and awaits confirmation at a future\nperiod.\" It is a pity that this unique scientific prediction should not\nhave had better luck, for the encouragement of other guessers; but\nafter waiting long and vainly, for the expected confirmation, it was\nfinally falsified by Herschel's discovery of spots on the surface of the\nplanet, and observation of the true time, ten hours sixteen minutes\nforty-four seconds.[330] This, however, was not his only astronomical\nprediction. He predicted that immense bodies in a transition state\nbetween planets and comets, and of very eccentric orbits, would be found\nbeyond the orbit of Saturn, and intersecting it, but no such bodies have\nbeen discovered. Uranus and Neptune have no cometary character whatever,\ntheir orbits are less eccentric than others and do not intersect, nor\napproach within millions of miles of Saturn's orbit. The verification of\nLe Verrier's prediction affords even a more satisfactory proof of the\nnecessarily conjectural character of astronomical computations of\nunknown quantities and distances. The planet Neptune has not one-half\nthe mass which he had calculated; his orbit, which was calculated as\nvery elliptical, is nearly circular; and the error of the calculation of\nhis distance is three hundred millions of miles![331]\n\n\"Let us then be candid,\" says Loomis, \"and claim no more for astronomy\nthan is reasonably due. When in 1846 Le Verrier announced the existence\nof a planet hitherto unseen, and when he assigned it its exact position\nin the heavens, and declared that it shone like a star of the eighth\nmagnitude, and with a perceptible disc, _not an astronomer of France,\nand scarce an astronomer in Europe, had sufficient faith in the\nprediction to prompt him to point his telescope to the heavens_. But\nwhen it was announced that the planet had been seen at Berlin, that it\nwas found within one degree of the computed place, that it was indeed a\nstar of the eighth magnitude, and had a sensible disc--then the\nenthusiasm not only of the public generally, but of astronomers also,\nwas even more wonderful than their former apathy. The sagacity of Le\nVerrier was felt to be almost superhuman. Language could scarce be found\nstrong enough to express the general admiration. The praise then\nlavished upon Le Verrier was somewhat extravagant. _The singularly close\nagreement between the observed and computed places of the planet was\naccidental._ So exact a coincidence could not reasonably have been\nanticipated. If the planet had been found even ten degrees from what Le\nVerrier assigned as its probable place, _this discrepancy would have\nsurprised no astronomer_. The discovery would still have been one of the\nmost remarkable events in the history of astronomy, and Le Verrier would\nhave merited the title of First Astronomer of the age.\"[332]\n\nNevertheless, astronomy from the comparative simplicity of the bodies\nand forces with which it has to deal, and the approximate regularity of\nthe paths of the heavenly bodies, may be regarded as the science in\nwhich the greatest possible certainty is attainable. It opens at once\nthe widest field to the imagination, and the noblest range to the\nreason; it has attracted the most exalted intellects to its pursuit, and\nhas rewarded their toils with the grandest discoveries. These\ndiscoveries have been grossly abused by inferior minds, ascribing to the\ndiscoverers of the laws of the universe the glory due to their Creator;\nand boasting of the power of the human mind, as if it were capable of\nexploring the infinite in space, and of calculating the movements of the\nstars through eternity. Persons who could not calculate an eclipse to\nsave their souls, have risked them upon the notion that, because\nastronomers can do so with considerable accuracy, farmers ought to\nreject the Bible, unless its predictions can be calculated by algebra.\nIt may do such persons good, or at least prevent them from doing others\nharm, to take a cursory view of the errors of astronomers; errors\nnecessary as well as accidental.\n\nSir John Herschel, than whom none has a better right to speak on this\nsubject, and whose devotion to that noble science precludes all\nsupposition of prejudice against it, devotes a chapter to _The Errors of\nAstronomy_,[333] which he classifies and enumerates:\n\n     \"I. External causes of error, comprehending such as depend on\n     external uncontrollable circumstances; such as fluctuations of\n     weather, which disturb the amount of refraction from its\n     tabulated value, and being reducible to no fixed laws, induce\n     uncertainty to the amount of their own possible magnitude.\n\n     \"II. Errors of observation; such as arise for instance from\n     inexpertness, defective vision, slowness in seizing the exact\n     instant of the occurrence of a phenomenon, or precipitancy in\n     anticipating it; from atmospheric indistinctness, insufficient\n     optical power in the instrument, and the like.\n\n     \"III. The third, and by far the most numerous class of errors,\n     arise from causes which may be deemed instrumental, and which\n     may be divided into two classes.\n\n     \"The first arises from an instrument not being what it\n     professes to be, which is _error of workmanship_. Thus if an\n     axis or pivot, instead of being as it ought, exactly\n     cylindrical, be slightly flattened or elliptical--if it be not\n     exactly concentric with the circle which it carries--if this\n     circle so called be in reality not exactly circular--or not in\n     one plane--if its divisions, intended to be precisely\n     equidistant, shall be in reality at unequal intervals--_and a\n     hundred other things of the same sort_.\n\n     \"The other subdivision of instrumental errors comprehends such\n     as arise from an instrument not being placed in the position\n     it ought to have; and from those of its parts which are made\n     purposely movable not being properly disposed, _inter se_.\n     These are _errors of adjustment_. Some are unavoidable, as\n     they arise from a general unsteadiness of the soil or building\n     in which the instruments are placed.[334] Others again are\n     consequences of imperfect workmanship; as when an instrument,\n     once well adjusted, will not remain so. But the most important\n     of this class of errors arise from the non-existence of\n     natural indications other than those afforded by astronomical\n     observations themselves, whether an instrument has, or has\n     not, the exact position with respect to the horizon, and the\n     cardinal points, etc., which it ought to have, properly to\n     fulfill its object.\n\n     \"Now, with regard to the first two classes of error, it must\n     be observed, that in so far as they can not be reduced to\n     known laws, and thereby become the subjects of calculation and\n     due allowance, _they actually vitiate in their full extent the\n     results of any observations in which they subsist_. With\n     regard to errors of adjustment, not only the possibility, _but\n     the certainty of their existence in every imaginable form, in\n     all instruments_, must be contemplated. _Human hands or\n     machines never formed a circle, drew a straight line, or\n     executed a perpendicular, nor ever placed an instrument in\n     perfect adjustment, unless accidentally, and then only during\n     an instant of time._\"\n\nThe bearing of these important and candid admissions of error in\nastronomical observations upon all kinds of other observations made by\nmortal eyes, and with instruments framed by human hands, in every\ndepartment of science, is obvious. No philosophical observation or\nexperiment is absolutely accurate, or can possibly be more than\ntolerably near the truth. The error of a thousandth part of an inch in\nan instrument will multiply itself into thousands, and millions of\nmiles, according to the distance of the object, or the profundity of the\ncalculation. Our faith in the absolute infallibility of scientific\nobservers, and consequently in the absolute certainty of science, being\nthus rudely upheaved from its very foundations by Sir John Herschel's\ncrowbar, we are prepared to learn that scientific men have made errors\ngreat and numerous.\n\nTo begin at home, with our own little globe, where certainty is much\nmore attainable than among distant stars, we have seen that astronomers\nof the very highest rank are by no means agreed as to its diameter. Its\nprecise form is equally difficult to determine. Newton showed that an\nellipsoid of revolution should differ from a sphere by a compression of\n1/230. The mean of a number of varying measurements of arcs, in five\ndifferent places, would give 1/299. The pendulum measurement differs\nvery considerably from both, and \"no two sets of pendulum experiments\ngive the same result.\"[335] The same liability to error, and uncertainty\nof the actual truth, attends the other modes of ascertaining this\nfundamental measurement. A very small error here will vitiate all other\nastronomical calculations; for the earth's radius, and the radius of its\norbit, are the foot-rule and surveyor's chain with which the astronomer\nmeasures the heavens. But this last and most used standard is uncertain;\nand of the nine different estimates, it is certain that eight must be\nwrong; and probably that all are erroneous. For example, Encke, in 1761,\ngives the earth's distance from the sun at\n\n                                  95,141,830\n     Encke, in 1769,              95,820,610\n     Lacaille,                    76,927,900\n     Henderson,                   90,164,110\n     Gillies and Gould,           96,160,000\n     Mayer,                      104,097,100\n     Le Verrier,                  91,066,350\n     Sir John Herschel,           91,718,000\n     Humboldt,                    82,728,000[336]\n\nHere now is the fundamental standard measure of astronomy; and nine\nfirst-class astronomers are set to determine its length; but their\nmeasurements range all the way from seventy-seven to one hundred and\nfour millions of miles--a difference of nearly one-fourth. Why the\nold-fashioned finger and thumb measure used before the carpenter's\ntwo-foot rule was invented never made such discrepancies; it could\nalways make a foot within an inch more or less; but our scientific\nmeasurers, it seems, can not guess within two inches on the foot.\n\nTheir smaller measurements are equally inaccurate. Lias says the Aurora\nBorealis is only two and a half miles high; Hood and Richardson make its\nheight double that, or five miles; Olmsted and Twining run it up to\nforty-two, one hundred, and one hundred and sixty miles![337] When they\nare thus inaccurate in the measurement of a phenomenon so near the\nearth, how can we believe in the infallibility of their measurements of\nthe distances of the stars and the nebulae in the distant heavens?\n\nThe moon is the nearest to us of all the heavenly bodies, and exercises\nthe greatest influence of any, save the sun, upon our crops, ships,\nhealth and lives, and consequently has had a larger share of\nastronomical attention than any other celestial body. But the most\nconflicting statements are made by astronomers regarding her state and\ninfluences. There is no end to the controversy whether the moon\ninfluences the weather; though one would think that question, being\nrather a terrestrial one, could easily be decided. Schwabe says Herschel\nis wrong in saying that the years of most solar spots were fruitful; but\nWolf looks up the Zurich meteorological tables, and confirms Herschel.\n\nIn _Ferguson's Astronomy_, the standard text-book of its day, we are\ninformed that \"Some of her mountains (the moon's) by comparing their\nheight with her diameter, are found to be three times higher than the\nhighest hills on earth.\" They would thus be over fifteen miles high. But\nSir Wm. Herschel assures us that \"The generality do not exceed half a\nmile in their general elevation.\" _Transactions of the Royal Society_,\nMay 11, 1780. Beer and Madler have measured thirty-nine whose height\nthey assure us exceed Mont Blanc. But M. Gussew, of the Imperial\nObservatory at Wilna, describes to us, \"a mountain mass in the form of a\nmeniscus lens, rising in the middle to a height of seventy-nine English\nmiles.\"[338] As this makes the moon lopsided, with the heavy side toward\nthe earth, the question of an atmosphere, and of the moon's\ninhabitability is reopened; and the discussion seems to favor the man in\nthe moon; only he keeps on the other side always, so that we can not see\nhim.\n\nThe best astronomers have gravely calculated the most absurd\nproblems--for instance the projection of meteorites from lunar\nvolcanoes; Poisson calculated that they would require an initial\nvelocity of projection of seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-five\nfeet per second; others demanded eight thousand two hundred and\neighty-two; Olbers demanded fourteen times as much; but La Place, the\ngreat inventor of the nebular theory, after thirty years' study fixed it\ndefinitely at seven thousand eight hundred and sixty-two! It appears\nthat the absurdity of the discharging force of a part greater than the\nattracting force of the whole never occurred to him.[339]\n\nThis same La Place supposed, that he could have placed the moon in a\nmuch better position for giving light than she now occupies; and that\nthis was the only object of her existence. As this was not done he\nargued that her waxing and waning light was a proof that she was not\nlocated by an Omniscient Creator. He says he would have placed her in\nthe beginning in opposition to the sun, in the plane of the ecliptic,\nand about four times her present distance from us, with such a motion as\nwould ever maintain that position, thus securing full moon from sunset\nto sunrise, without possibility of eclipse. But Lionville demonstrates\nthat \"if the moon had occupied at the beginning the position assigned\nher, by the illustrious author of the _Mecanique Celeste_, she could not\nhave maintained it but a very short time.\"[340] In short, La Place's\nhypothetical calculations generally have proved erroneous when applied\nto any existing facts; and we have no reason to attach more value to his\nnebular theory calculations.\n\nThe sun is the principal orb of our system, and by far the most\nconspicuous, and the most observed of all observers, astronomers\nincluded. But we have seen already how contradictory their measurements\nof his distance, and their observations of the influence of his spots.\nFar more conflicting are the theories as to his constitution, of which\nindeed we may truly say very little was known before the application of\nphotography and the spectroscope to heliography within the last seven\nyears. One astronomer fixed the period of his rotation at twenty-five\ndays, fourteen hours, and eight minutes; another at twenty-six days,\nforty-six minutes; another at twenty-four days, twenty-eight\nminutes.[341]\n\nIn regard to the sun's heat, a matter fundamental to the nebular\ntheory, the calculations differ widely, and some of them must be grossly\nerroneous. M. Vicaire called the attention of the French Academy, at a\nrecent meeting, to this unsatisfactory condition of science. Father\nSecchi estimates it at eighteen million Fahrenheit; while Pouillet says\nit ranges from two thousand six hundred and sixty-two to three thousand\ntwo hundred and one; and others range from two hundred thousand\ndownward. The most singular thing is that these results are derived from\nobservations or radiations made by apparatus identical in\nprinciple.[342] But Waterston calculates the temperature of the solar\nsurface at above ten, and probably twelve million Fahrenheit.[343]\n\nNow what feeds these enormous fires? The old opinion of astronomy, that\nthe sun was a mass of fire, was assailed by Sir Wm. Herschel, who\nmaintained that it was in the condition of a perpetual magnetic storm.\nThis notion was altered into the belief of a central dark body,\nsurrounded by a stratum of clouds, outside of which is a photosphere of\nlight and heat; which some made one thousand five hundred miles in\ndepth, others four thousand. Outside of this was another layer of\nrose-colored clouds. To this theory Arago, Sir John Herschel and\nHumboldt assented. But Le Verrier declares that the facts observed\nduring late eclipses are contrary to this theory, and a new theory is\nslow in process of construction, to be demolished in its turn by later\nobservations.[344]\n\nOne of the most recent theories is that the fuel is furnished by a\nstream of meteorites, planetoids, and comets, falling in by the power of\nattraction, and being speedily converted into gas flames; a process the\nvery reverse of the theory of the evolution of the solid celestial\nbodies from gas. But it is pretty evident from these conflicting\ntheories that nobody knows anything certainly as to the materials of the\nsun, or the fuel which feeds his flames. But if the very best\nastronomers do not know of what he is made, is it not too great a demand\nupon our credulity to ask us to believe that they can tell how he was\nmade?\n\nThe size, density, and distances of the planets, which form such\nessential elements in the calculations of the nebular theory of\nevolution, are equally uncertain. Ten or twelve years ago Mercury was\nbelieved to be nearly three times as dense as the earth (2.94); and the\ntheory of evolution was partly based upon this assumed fact. But Hausen\nnow finds that it is not half so dense; that, as compared with the\nearth, it is only 1.22; and that its mass is less than half (5/12) of\nwhat had been confidently calculated.[345] Corrections of the masses and\ndensities of other planets are also offered.\n\nStill wider differences prevail in calculating the velocities of these\nbodies; velocities _calculated_ and found to correspond with the theory\nof evolution. Bianchini gives the period of the rotation of Venus at\ntwenty-four days, eight hours; but Schroeter says it is not as many\nhours as Bianchini gives days; that it is only twenty-three hours and\ntwenty minutes. Sir Wm. Herschel can not tell which is right, or whether\nboth are wrong.[346]\n\nFrom such imperfect and erroneous calculations astronomers have deduced\nwhat they called a _law_, which holds the same place in nature that the\nBlue Laws of Connecticut maintain in history; and which like them have\nimposed upon the credulous. Titius and Bode imagined that they had\ndiscovered that, \"When the distances of the planets are examined, it is\nfound that they are almost all removed from each other by distances\nwhich are in the same proportion as their magnitudes increase.\" And this\n_law_ played an important part in introducing the theory of evolution,\nwhich, it was alleged, exactly corresponded with such an arrangement.\nBut more accurate calculations and recent discoveries have dissipated\nthe supposed order of progression. Humboldt says of it, it is \"a law\nwhich scarcely deserves this name, and which is called by Lalande and\nDelambre a play of numbers; by others a help for the memory. * * * In\nreality the distances between Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus approximate\nvery closely to the duplication. Nevertheless, since the discovery of\nNeptune, which is much too near Uranus, the defectiveness in the\nprogression has become strikingly evident.\" And Olbers rejects it, as\n\"contrary to the nature of all truths which merit the name of laws; it\nagrees only approximately with observed facts in the case of most\nplanets, and what does not appear to have been once observed, not at all\nin the case of Mercury. It is evident that the series, 4, 4+3, 4+6,\n4+12, 4+48, 4+96, 4+192, with which the distances should correspond, is\nnot a continuous series at all. The number which precedes 4+3 should not\nbe 4; _i. e._, 4+0, but 4+3/2. Therefore between 4 and 4+3 there\nshould be an infinite number, or as Wurm expresses it, for _n_=1, there\nis obtained from 4+2^{n-2}.3; not 4, but 5-1/2.\"[347] Thus this\nso-called law is erroneous in both ends, and defective in the middle.\nFinally it has been utterly abolished by the discovery of the planet\nVulcan, which does not correspond to any such law.[348] If the theory of\nevolution then corresponds to Bode's law, as its advocates alleged, it\ncorresponds to a myth.\n\nAbout the nebulae which have played so large a part in the atheistic\nworld building, our astronomers are utterly at variance. Sir John\nHerschel says they are far away beyond the stars in space. But the\nMelbourne astronomer, M. Le Seur, suggests that the star Eta and the\nnebulous matter are neighbors; that the nebulous matter formerly around\nit, which has recently disappeared, while the star has blazed up into\nflames, is being absorbed and digested by the star. This has happened\nbefore, thirty years ago, to that star. Why may not our sun also absorb\nand burn up nebulae. But if so, what becomes of the rings of the nebular\ntheory?\n\nThe light of the stars is almost the only medium through which we can\nobserve them, and it would naturally be supposed that astronomers would\nbe at pains to have clear views of light. But the most surprising\ndifferences of statement regarding it exist among the very first\nastronomers. They do not see it alike. Herschel says a Herculis is red;\nStruve says it is yellow. They dispute about its nature, motion, and\nquantity. Some astronomers believe the sun to be the great source of\nlight, at least to our system. But Nasmyth informs the Royal\nAstronomical Society that \"the true source of latent light is not in the\nsolar orb, but in space itself, and that the grand function of the sun\nis to act as an agent for the bringing forth into existence the\nluciferous element, which element I suppose to be diffused throughout\nthe boundless regions of space.\"[349] The nature of light is however\nstill as great a mystery as when Job demanded, \"Where is the way where\nlight dwelleth?\" The undulatory theory of light, now generally accepted,\nassumes that light is caused by the vibrations of the ether in a plane\ntransverse to the direction of propagation. In order to transmit motions\nof this kind, the parts of the luminiferous medium must resist\ncompression and distortion, like those of an elastic solid body; its\ntransverse elasticity being great enough to transmit one of the most\npowerful kinds of physical energy, with a speed in comparison with\nwhich that of the swiftest planets of our system is inappreciable, and\nits longitudinal elasticity immensely greater--both of these\nelasticities being at the same time so weak as to offer no perceptible\nresistance to the motion of the planets, and other visible bodies.[350]\nIs the velocity of light uniform? Or, if variable, is the variation\ncaused by the original difference of the projectile force of the\ndifferent suns, stars, comets, etc.? or by the different media through\nwhich it passes? Arago alleges that light moves more rapidly through\nwater than through air; but Brequet asserts that the fact is just the\nreverse.[351] Both admit that its velocity varies with the medium.\nJacobs alleges that during the trigonometrical survey of India he\nobserved the _extinction_ of light reflected through sixty miles of\nhorizontal atmosphere.[352] How, then, can astronomers make any reliable\ncalculations of the velocity of light reaching us through regions of\nspace filled with unknown media? Newton calculated the velocity of light\nat one hundred and fifty-five thousand five hundred and fifty-five and\nfive-ninth miles a second; but Encke shows he erred thirty per cent.\nOther eminent astronomers make the time of the passage of light from the\nsun all the way from eleven to fourteen minutes, instead of Newton's\nseven or eight. Busch reckons its velocity at one hundred and\nsixty-seven thousand nine hundred and seventy-six miles; Draper one\nhundred and ninety-two thousand; Struve two hundred and fifteen thousand\neight hundred and fifty-four. Wheatstone alleges that electric light\ntravels at the rate of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand miles a\nsecond; but Frizeau's calculations and measurements give only one\nhundred and sixty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-eight for the\nlight of Oxygen and hydrogen.[353] Thus we have a variation of one\nhundred and twenty thousand miles a second in all calculations of\nsidereal distances. Humboldt tries to reconcile these differences by the\nsuggestion, that no one will deny, that lights of different magnetic or\nelectric processes may have different velocities; a fact which throws\nall sidereal astronomy into inextricable confusion, and sets aside all\nexisting time tables on sidereal railroads.\n\nThey are no more agreed as to its composition after it reaches us than\nas to its velocity. Newton taught that it consisted of seven colors;\nWallaston denies more than four; Brewster reduces the number to\nthree--red, yellow, and blue. Newton measures the yellow and violet, and\nfinds them as forty to eighty. Fraunhofer makes the proportion\ntwenty-seven to one hundred and nine. Wallaston's spectrum differs from\nboth. Field says, \"No one has ventured to alter either estimate, and no\none who is familiar with the spectrum will put much faith in any\nmeasurement of it, by whosoever and with what care soever made.\"[354] He\nsays white light is composed of five parts red, three yellow, and eight\nblue; which differs wholly from Brewster, who gives it three parts red,\nfive yellow, and two of blue.\n\nEqually wild are their calculations of the quantity of light emitted by\nparticular stars. Radeau calculates Vulcan's light at 2.25 that of\nMercury; Lias, from the same observations, at 7.36, nearly three times\nas much.[355] Sir John Herschel calculates that _Alpha Centauri_ emits\nmore light than the sun; that the light of Sirius is four times as\ngreat, and its parallax much less; so that by such a calculation Sirius\nwould have an intrinsic splendor sixty-three times that of the sun. But\nWallaston only calculates his light at one-fourth of this amount; and\nSteinheil makes it only one two-hundredth part of the former\nestimate.[356]\n\nAstronomers have lately been comforting the world with the assurance\nthat we have little to fear from comets; that the superstitious fear of\nthe comets prevalent in the past was ill founded, because comets are so\nvery thin that we might pass through one without its breaking up\nanything. But that, as Principal Leitch shows us, is not the only\nquestion. \"We know that the most deadly miasmata are so subtle that it\nis impossible to detect them by any chemical tests, and a very\nhomeopathic dose of a comet, in addition to the elements of our own\natmosphere, might produce the most fatal effects.\"[357]\n\nThe phenomena indicative of cosmical processes are out of the range of\nastronomical observation. We can only observe those indicated by light,\nand gravitation; but how small a proportion of the formative processes\nof our own world indicate themselves by these two classes of phenomena!\nHow few of the chemical, vegetative, animal, moral, social, or even\ngeological processes, now progressing under our own observation, could\ngive us notice of their existence by the two channels of light and\ngravitation? How, then, can philosophers ever learn the process of\nbuilding worlds like our own in which many other powers are at work?\n\nAstronomers are not all agreed as to the existence of a cosmical ether;\nnor do those who assert it agree as to its properties. What is its\nnature, density, power of refraction and reflection of light, and\nresistance to motion? What is its temperature? Is it uniform, or like\nour atmosphere, ever varying? These are manifestly questions\nindispensable to be answered before any theory of the development of\nworlds is even conceivable. But of the properties of this all-extending\ncosmical atmosphere, which is the very breath of life of the development\ntheory, astronomers present the most conflicting statements. Professor\nVaughan says, \"If such a body exists, it is beyond our estimation of all\nthat is material. It has no weight, according to our idea of weight; no\nresistance, according to our idea of calculating resistance by\nmechanical tests; no volume, on our views of volume; no chemical\nactivity, according to our experimental and absolute knowledge of\nchemical action. In plain terms, it presents no known re-agency by which\nit can be isolated from surrounding or intervening matter.\"[358] Or, in\nplainer terms, we know nothing about it.\n\nThe only fact about it which astronomers have ventured to specify and\ncalculate is its temperature; for upon this all the power of the\ndevelopment world-making process depends. But they are very far from any\nagreement; indeed, they are much farther apart than the equator from the\npoles. Stanley finds the temperature of absolute space--58 deg.; Arago--70 deg.;\nHumboldt--85 deg.; Herschel--132 deg.; Saigey--107 deg.; Pouillet, to be exact to a\nfraction--223-6/10 deg. below the freezing point; though when it gets to be\nso cold as that one would think he would hardly stay out of doors to\nmeasure fractions of a degree. But Poisson thinks he is over 200 deg. too\ncold, and fixes the temperature accurately, in his own opinion, 8-6/10 deg..\nMoreover, he alleges that there is no more uniformity in the temperature\nof the heavens than in that of our own atmosphere, owing to the unequal\nradiations of heat from the stars; and that the earth, and the whole\nsolar system, receive their internal heat from without, while passing\nthrough hot regions of space.[359]\n\nFrom this chaos of conflicting assertions of unknown facts the theory of\ndevelopment develops itself. Its fundamental postulate is the\ndifference of temperature between the nebulae and the surrounding space.\nBut the fact is that nobody knows what is the temperature of either\nspace or nebulae, nor is anybody likely ever to know enough of either to\nbase any scientific theory upon. Astronomy will never teach men how to\nmake worlds; nor is it of the least consequence that it does not; since\nwe could not make them, even if we knew how.\n\nFrom these specimens of the errors and contradictions of the best\nastronomers, the teachers upon whose accuracy we depend for our faith in\nscience, we can see, that though the Pope and the Infidel savans may\nclaim infallibility, yet after all the savant is just as infallible as\nthe Pope, viz: he is right when he is right, and he is wrong when he is\nwrong, and that happens frequently and common folks can not always tell\nwhen. There is no such thing, then, as infallible science upon faith, in\nwhich I can venture to reject God's Bible, and risk my soul's salvation.\nScience is founded on faith in very fallible men.\n\n3. _Geology_, one of the most recent of the sciences, and in the hands\nof Infidel nurses one of the most noisy, has been supposed to be\nanti-Christian. The supposition is utterly unfounded. Such of its facts\nas have been well ascertained have demonstrated the being, wisdom, and\ngoodness of an Almighty Creator, with irresistible evidence. Nor, though\na wonderful outcry has been raised about the opposition between the\nrecords of the rocks and the records of the Bible, regarding the\nantiquity of the earth, has any one yet succeeded in proving such an\nopposition, for the plain reason that neither the Bible nor geology says\nhow old it is. They both say it is very old. The Bible says, \"In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth;\" and by the use which\nit makes of the word _beginning_, leaves us to infer that it was long\nbefore the existence of the human race.[360] If the geologist could\nprove that the earth was six thousand millions of years older than Adam,\nit would contradict no statement of the Bible. The Bible reader,\ntherefore, has no reason to question any well ascertained fact of\ngeology. But when Infidels come to us with their geological _theories_\nabout the mode in which God made the earth, or in which the earth made\nitself, and how long it took to do it, and tell us that they have got\nscientific demonstration from the rocks that the Bible account is false,\nand that our old traditions can not stand before the irresistible\nevidence of science, we are surely bound to look at the foundation of\nfacts, and the logical superstructure, which sustain such startling\nconclusions.\n\nNow it is remarkable that every Infidel argument against the statements\nof the Bible, or rather against what they suppose to be the statements\nof the Bible, is based, not on the _facts_, but upon the _theories_, of\ngeology. I do not know one which is based solely on facts and inductions\nfrom facts. Every one of them has a wooden leg, and goes hobbling upon\nan _if_.\n\nTake for example the argument most commonly used--that which asserts the\nvast antiquity of the earth--a thing in itself every way likely, and not\nat all contrary to Scripture, if it could be scientifically proved. But\nhow does our Infidel geologist set about his work of proving that the\nearth is any given age, say six thousand millions of years? A scientific\ndemonstration must rest upon _facts_--well ascertained facts. It admits\nof _no suppositions_. Now what are the facts given to solve the problem\nof the earth's age? The geologist finds a great many layers of rocks,\none above the other, evidently formed below the water, some of them out\nof the fragments of former rocks, containing bones, shells, and casts of\nfishes, and tracks of the feet of birds, made when these rocks were in\nthe state of soft mud, and altogether several miles thick. He has a\ngreat multitude of such facts before him, but they are all of this\ncharacter. Not one of them gives him the element of _time_. They\nannounce to him a succession of events, such as successive generations\nof fishes and plants; but not one of them tells how long these\ngenerations lived. The condition of the world was so utterly different\nthen, from what it is now, that no inference can be drawn from the\nlength of the lives of existing races, which are generally also of\ndifferent species. The utmost any man can say, in such a case, is, _I\nsuppose_, for there is no determinate element of time in the statement\nof the problems, and so no certain time can appear in the solution.\n\nHere is a problem exactly similar. A certain house is found to be built\nwith ten courses of hewn stone in the basement, forty courses of brick\nin the first story, thirty-six courses in the second, thirty-two in the\nthird; with a roof of nine inch rafters covered with inch boards, and an\ninch and a half layer of coal tar and gravel; how long was it in\nbuilding? Would not any school-boy laugh at the absurdity of attempting\nsuch a problem? He would say, \"How can I tell unless I know whence the\nmaterials came, how they were conveyed, how many workmen were employed,\nand how much each could do in a day? If the brick had to be made by\nhand, the lumber all dressed with the hand-saw and jack-plane, the\nmaterials all hauled fifty miles in an ox-cart, the brick carried up by\nan Irishman in a hod, and the work done by an old, slow-going, jobbing\ncontractor, who could only afford to pay three or four men at a time,\nthey would not get through in a year. But if the building stone and sand\nwere found in excavating the cellar, if the brick were made by steam and\ncame by railroad, a good master builder, with steam saw and planing\nmills, steam hoists, and a strong force of workmen, would run it up in\nthree weeks.\"\n\nSo our geologist ought to say; \"I do not know either the source of the\nmaterials of the earth's strata, nor the means by which they were\nconveyed to their present positions; therefore I can not tell the time\nrequired for their formation. If the crust of the earth was created\noriginally of solid granite, and the materials of the strata were ground\ndown by the slow action of frost and rain, and conveyed to the ocean by\nthe still slower agencies of rivers and torrents--hundreds of millions\nof ages would not effect the work. But if the earth was created in such\na shape as would rationally be considered the best adapted for future\nstratification; if its crust consisted of the various elements of which\ngranite and other rocks are composed; if these materials were ejected in\na granular or comminuted form, and in vast quantities by submarine\nvolcanoes generated by the chemical action of these elements upon each\nother; and if, after being diffused by the currents of the ocean, and\nconsolidated by its vast pressure, the underlying strata were baked and\nmelted and crystallized into granite[361]--a very few centuries would\nsuffice. Until these indispensable preliminaries are settled, geology\ncan make no calculations of the length of time occupied by the formation\nof the strata.\"\n\nBut instead of saying so, he _imagines_ that God chose to make the earth\nout of the most impossible materials, by the most unsuitable agencies,\nand with the most inadequate forces; and that therefore a long time was\nneeded for the work. In short, to revert to our illustration of the\nhouse-building, he _supposes_ that Almighty God built the earth with the\nox-team, and employed only the same force in erecting the building,\nwhich he now uses for doing little jobbing repairs. Almost all\ngeological computations of time are made upon the supposition that only\nthe same agents were at work then which we see now, that they only\nwrought with the same degree of force, and that they produced just the\nsame effects in such a widely different condition of the earth as then\nprevailed. It takes a year say to deposit mud enough at the bottom of\nthe sea to make an inch of rock now; _and if mud was deposited no\nfaster_ when the geological strata were formed, they are as many years\nold as there are inches in eight or nine miles depth of strata. But this\nis not the scientific proof we were promised. How does he prove that mud\nwas deposited at just the same rate then as now? The very utmost he can\nsay is that it is a very probable supposition. I can prove it a very\nimprobable supposition. But it is enough for my present purpose to point\nout that, probable or improbable, it is _only supposition_. No proof is\ngiven or can possibly be given for it. Any conclusion drawn from such\npremises can be only a _supposition_ too. And so the whole fabric of\ngeological chronology, upon the stability of which so many Infidels are\nrisking the salvation of their souls, and beneath which they are\nboasting that they will bury the Bible beyond the possibility of a\nresurrection, vanishes into a mere _unproved notion_, based upon an\n_if_.\n\nIt is truly astonishing, that any sober-minded person should allow\nhimself to be shaken in his religious convictions by the alleged results\nof a science so unformed and imperfect, as geologists themselves\nacknowledge their favorite science to be. \"The dry land upon our globe\noccupies only _one-fourth_ of its whole superficies. All the rest is\nsea. How much of this fourth part have geologists been able to examine?\nand how small seems to be the area of stratification which they have\nexplored? We venture to say not one _fiftieth part of the whole_.\"[362]\n\"Abstract or speculative geology, were it a perfect science, would\npresent a history of the globe from its origin and formation, through\nall the changes it has undergone, up to the present time; describing its\nexternal appearance, its plants and animals at each successive period.\n_As yet, geology is the mere aim to arrive at such knowledge_; and when\nwe consider how difficult it is to trace the history of a nation, even\nover a few centuries, we can not be surprised at the small progress\ngeologists have made in tracing the history of the earth through the\nlapse of ages. To ascertain the history of a nation possessed of written\nrecords is comparatively easy; but when these are wanting, we must\nexamine the ruins of their cities and monuments, and judge of them as a\npeople from the size and structure of their buildings, and from the\nremains of art found in them. This is often a perplexing, always an\narduous task; _much more so is it to decipher the earth's\nhistory_.\"[363] \"The canoes, for example, and stone hatchets found in\nour peat bogs afford an insight into the rude arts and manners of the\nearliest inhabitants of our island; the buried coin fixes the date of\nsome Roman emperor; the ancient encampments indicate the districts once\noccupied by invading armies, and the former method of constructing\nmilitary defenses; the Egyptian mummies throw light on the art of\nembalming, the rites of sepulture, or the average stature of ancient\nEgypt. This class of memorials yields to no other in authenticity, but\nit constitutes a small part only of the resources on which the historian\nrelies; whereas in geology it forms the only kind of evidence which is\nat our command. For this reason _we must not expect to obtain a full and\nconnected account of any series of events beyond the reach of\nhistory_.\"[364] \"There are no calculations more doubtful than those of\nthe geologist.\"[365] In fact, no truly scientific geologist pretends\nthat it stands on the same level with any authentic history, much less\nwith the Bible record; inasmuch as the discovery of a single new fact\nmay overturn the whole theory. \"It furnishes us with no clew by which to\nunravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation. These mysteries belong\nto the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We attempt to theorize upon\nthem, and to reduce them to law, and all nature rises up against us in\nour presumptuous rebellion. A stray splinter of cone bearing wood--a\nfish's skull or tooth--the vertebra of a reptile--the humerus of a\nbird--the jaw of a quadruped--_all_, _any_ of these things, weak and\ninsignificant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel too strong for\nus and our theory--the puny fragment in the grasp of truth forms as\nirresistible a weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old; and\nour slaughtered sophisms lie piled up, 'heaps upon heaps,' before\nit.\"[366]\n\nThe history of the progress of geology furnishes abundant proof of the\ntruth of these admissions of weakness and fallibility. In almost every\ninstance when we have had the opportunity of testing geological\ncalculations of time they have proved to be erroneous; and sometimes\ngrossly erroneous. The lake dwellings of Switzerland, which were once\nalleged to be at least fifteen thousand years old, are found surrounded\nby heaps of burnt corn; illustrating Caesar's account of the burning of\ntheir corn by the Helvetians, preparatory to the invasion of Gaul, which\nhe repelled. The peat bogs of Denmark, surrounding stumps of oak, beech,\nand pine, claimed to be successive growths, and at least twelve thousand\nfive hundred years old, have been compared with a piece of primeval bog\nand forest, on the Earl of Arran's estate, in Scotland, which\ncorresponds perfectly to the Danish bog; but which shows the three\ngrowths not successive, but contemporaneous, at different levels; the\nbog growing as well as the trees. And the frequent discovery of Danish\nremains of the stone and bronze ages in the old Danish forts and\nbattle-fields of Ireland fixes their historical period at the era of the\nDanish invasion; some of these stone and bronze weapons being found on\nthe battle-field of Clontarf, dating A. D. 827. Skeletons of warriors\nwith gold collars, bronze battle-axes, and flint arrow heads are quite\ncommon in the Irish bogs. The absence of iron, on which so great a\ntheory of the stone, bronze, and iron ages as successive developments of\ncivilization has been raised, is easily accounted for by the perishable\nnature of iron when exposed to moisture. But that this Celtic race used\niron also, as well as bronze and stone, is proved incontestably by the\ndiscovery, in 1863, of the slag of their iron furnaces, among a number\nof flint weapons, and Celtic skulls, at Linhope, in Northumberland; the\niron itself having perished by rust.[367] The pottery, glass, and\nhandmills found beside these skulls show that their owners were by no\nmeans the degraded savages supposed to represent the so-called stone\nage.\n\nHorner's Nile pottery, discovered at a depth of sixty feet, and\ncalculated to be twelve thousand years old, and fragments found still\ndeeper in this deposit, and calculated at thirty thousand years, were\nfound to be underlaid by still deeper layers, producing Roman pottery;\nand in the deepest boring of all, at the foot of the statue of Rameses\nII., the discovery of the Grecian honeysuckle, marked on some of these\nmysterious fragments, which they had claimed as pre-historic, proved\nthat it could not be older than the Greek conquest of Egypt. Sir Robert\nStephenson found in the neighborhood of Damietta, at a greater depth\nthan Mr. Horner reached, a brick bearing the stamp of Mohammed Ali.[368]\nThe shifting currents of all rivers flowing through alluvial deposits\nbury such things in a single season of high water.\n\nThe raised beaches of Scotland are quite conspicuous geological features\nof the Highlands, and have furnished themes for calculations of their\nvast antiquity. Here and there human remains had been discovered in\nthem, but no link could be had to connect them otherwise than\ngeologically with history. Geologists, accordingly, with their visual\ngenerosity of time, assigned them to the pre-Adamite period. But\nrecently the missing link has been found, and these progenitors of Tubal\nCain, and the pre-Adamites generally, are found to have been in the\nhabit of supping their broth out of Roman pottery!\n\nLyell, the acknowledged prince of geologists, is famous for his\nchronological blundering; of which his calculations of the age of the\ndelta of the Mississippi is a very good American example. He calculates\nthe quantity of mud in suspension in the water, and the area and depth\nof the delta, and says it must have taken sixty-seven thousand years for\nthe formation of the whole; and if the alluvial matter of the plain\nabove be two hundred and sixty-four feet deep, or half that of the\ndelta, it must have required thirty-three thousand five hundred years\nmore for its accumulation, even if its area be estimated at only equal\nto the delta, whereas it is in fact larger.[369] He makes no allowance\nfor tidal deposits.\n\nBut Brig. Gen. Humphrey, of the United States Surveying Department,\ngoes over Lyell's calculations, and shows that instead of 3,702,758,400\ncubic feet of mud brought down by the Mississippi, as estimated by\nLyell, the actual amount is 19,500,750,000,000; that the rate at which\nthe delta is now advancing into the gulf is fifty feet per annum, and\nthat the age of the delta and alluvial deposit is four thousand four\nhundred, instead of Lyell's one hundred thousand five hundred\nyears.[370] We might go on and give a dozen such instances of geological\nmiscalculations of time did space permit; but these are enough to\ndisabuse us of any faith in such calculations.\n\nWith such specimens before us of the miscalculations of the smaller\nperiods by geologists, we are not surprised to find that they grossly\nexaggerate the larger cycles of time. The necessities of the evolution\nof the ascidian into the snail, of the snail into the fish, and of the\nfish into the lizard, of the lizard into the monkey, and of the monkey\ninto the man, by slow and imperceptible changes, demanded an almost\ninfinite length of time; and the geologists of that school accordingly\nasserted the existence of animal life upon our globe for hundreds of\nthousands of millions of years.\n\nBut Sir Wm. Thompson, one of the first mathematicians, demonstrates[371]\nthe impossibility of any such length of time being spent in the process\nof cooling our little globe. Beginning with their own assumption, of a\nglobe of molten granite cooling down to the present state, he proves\nthat the earth can not have been in existence longer than a hundred\nmillions of years; and of course that plants and animals have existed on\nit a much shorter time; as for the greater part of that period it was\ntoo hot for them. The geologists are now becoming ashamed of their\npoetical cycles, and some acknowledge that their chiefs blundered\negregiously in their calculations.\n\nThe principles of geology seem to be as unsettled as its facts. There is\nno agreement upon any of its theories. The history of its theories, like\nthat of their framers, begins with their birth, and ends with their\nburial. Each new theory placed the tombstone upon the preceding, and\ninscribed it with the brief record of the antediluvian, \"and he died.\" A\nbusy time they must have had with their Wernerian, Huttonian, and\nDiluvian hypotheses; not to mention the Hutchinsonian theory, the animal\nspirits flowing from the sun, the vegetative power of stories, and other\nsage and serious facts and theories, theological and philosophical,\ninvented to account for the world's creation. \"No theory,\" says Lyell,\n\"could be so far-fetched or fantastical as not to attract some\nfollowers, provided it fell in with the popular notion.\" \"Some of the\nmost extravagant systems were invented or controverted by men of\nacknowledged talent.\" A more amusing exhibition of philosophical\nabsurdity can not be found than those chapters which he devotes to \"The\nHistorical Progress of Geology,\"[372] unless perhaps the scientific\ndiscussions of the erudite acquaintances of Lemuel Gulliver.\n\nLet it not be supposed that the progress of inductive science, and the\nprevalence of the Baconian philosophy have banished absurdities and\ncontradictions from the sphere of geology. It would require a man of\nconsiderable learning to find three geologists agreed, either in their\nfacts, or in their theories. In a general way, indeed, we have the\nCatastrophists, with Hugh Miller, overwhelming the earth with dire\nconvulsions in the geological eras, and upheaving the more conservative\nLyell and the Progressionists; who affirm that all things continue as\nthey were from the beginning of the world. And there is perhaps a\ngeneral agreement now that the underlying _primitive_ rocks, so called,\nare not primitive at all, as geologists thought twenty years ago; but,\nlike the foundations of a Chicago house, have been put in long after the\nbuilding was finished and occupied. But then comes the question how they\nwere inserted--whether as Elie de Beaumont thinks, the mountains were\nupheaved by starts, lever fashion, or, as Lyell affirms, very gradually,\nand imperceptibly, like the elevation of a brick house by screws.[373]\nNor is there the least likelihood of any future agreement among them;\ninasmuch as they can not agree either as to the thickness of the earth's\nsolid crust which is to be lifted, or the force by which it is to be\ndone? Hopkins proves by astronomical observation that it is eight\nhundred miles thick. Lyell affirms that at twenty-four miles deep there\ncan be no solid crust, for the temperature of the earth increases one\ndegree for every forty-five feet, and at that depth the heat is great\nenough to melt iron and almost every known substance. But then there is\na difference between philosophers about this last test of\nsolidity--those who believe in Wedgewood's Pyrometer, which was the\ninfallible standard twenty years ago, asserting that the heat of melted\niron is 21,000 deg. Fahrenheit; while Professor Daniells demonstrates by\nanother infallible instrument that it is only 2,786 deg. Fahrenheit;[374]\nwhich is rather a difference. In one case the earth's crust would be\nover two hundred miles thick, in the other twenty-four. But then comes\nthe great question, What is below the granite? and a very important one\nfor any theory of the earth. It evidently underlies the whole foundation\nof speculative geology, whether we assume with De Beaumont and Humboldt,\nthat \"the whole globe, with the exception of a thin envelope, much\nthinner in proportion than the shell of an egg, is a fused mass, kept\nfluid by heat--a heat of 450,000 deg. Fahrenheit, at the center, Cordier\ncalculates--but constantly cooling, and contracting its dimensions;\" and\noccasionally cracking and falling in, and \"squeezing upward large\nportions of the mass;\" \"thus producing those folds or wrinkles which we\ncall mountain chains;\" or, with Davy and Lyell, that the heat of such a\nboiling ocean below would melt the solid crust, like ice from the\nsurface of boiling water--and with it the whole theory of the primeval\nexistence of the earth in a state of igneous fusion, its gradual cooling\ndown into continents and mountains of granite, the gradual abrasion of\nthe granite into the mud and sand which formed the stratified rocks, and\nall the other brilliant hypotheses which have sparked out of this great\ninternal fire. Instead of an original central heat he supposes that \"we\nmay _perhaps_ refer the heat of the interior to chemical changes\nconstantly going on in the earth's crust.\"[375] Now if the very\nfoundations of the science are in such a state of fusion, and floating\non a _perhaps_, would it not be wise to allow them to solidify a little\nbefore a man risks the salvation of his soul upon them?\n\nThe various theories are contradictions. The igneous theory assault the\naqueous theory with the greatest heat; while the aqueous theorists pour\ncold water, in torrents, upon the igneous men. The shocks of conflicting\nglacier theories have shaken the Alps and convulsed all North America;\nand have not yet ceased. There are eleven theories of earthquakes, which\nhave been, and are still, such energetic agents in geology; and the\nwhole eleven afford not the least rational idea of their causes; nor of\nany means of preventing, predicting, or escaping their ravages. The best\ngeologists have described fossil tracks as the footprints of gigantic\nbirds, which others equally as authoritative pronounce the tracks of\nfrogs and lizards. Indeed, a good part of every geological treatise, and\nof the time of every association of geologists, is taken up with\nrefutations of the errors of their predecessors.\n\nThere are no less than nine theories of the causes of the elevation of\nmountains; some scoop out the valleys by water; others by ice; others\nheave up the mountains by fire; and some by the chemical expansion of\ntheir rocks; while others still upheave them by the pressure of molten\nlava from beneath; and others again make them out to be the wrinkles of\nthe contraction of the supposed crust of the liquid interior. Of all\nthese theories an able geologist says: \"The many proposed theories of\nmountain elevation are based upon assumptions which unfortunately are\nnot true; but that is an unimportant matter to the majority of our\nspeculating geologists; and one never seen by the inventors of the\ntheories, who allow themselves to be led captive by a poetic\nimagination, instead of building their inductions upon field\nobservations.\n\n\"Thus, to suppose that mountains are elevated by a wedge like intrusion\nof melted matter is to give to a fluid functions incompatible with its\ndynamic properties. So also the supposition that the igneous rocks were\nintruded, as solid wedges separating and lifting the crust, is opposed\nto the fact that no apparent abrasion, but generally the closest\nadhesion, exists at the line of contact of the igneous and stratified\nrocks. Equally fatal objections may be advanced against the other\ntheories.\"[376]\n\nMultitudes of the alleged facts of Infidel geologists are as apocryphal\nas their theories. Thus in a recent ponderous quarto volume, the\nproduction of half a dozen philosophers, this identical impossible\ntheory--of the cooling of the earth's crust down to solidity, while an\nirresistible central heat remains below--is presented to the world as an\nascertained fact; we are informed of the discovery of a human skull\nfifty-seven thousand years old, _in good preservation_; asked to believe\nthat two tiers of cypress snags could not be deposited in the delta of\nthe Mississippi in less than eleven thousand four hundred years; and to\ncalculate that the delta of the Nile must have been a great many ages in\ngrowing to its present size, because it is quite certain that for the\nlast three thousand years _it has never grown at all_.[377]\n\nIt were easy to fill a volume with such mistakes of geologists, but my\nlimits restrict me to a few specimens. Silliman's Journal, in a review\nof \"_The Geology of North America_, by Julius Marcoe, U. S. Geologist,\nand Professor of Geology in the Federal Polytechnic School of\nSwitzerland; quarto, with maps and plates,\" says:\n\n\"The author describes the mountain systems of north America as _he\nsupposes they must be_, according to the theoretical views of Elie de\nBeaumont.\" \"Thus one single fossil--that one a species of pine, and only\nvery much resembling the _Pinites Fleurotti_ of Dr.\nMonguett--_establishes_ a connection between the New Red of France, and\nthat of America. This is a very strong word for a geologist to use on\nevidence so small, _and so uncertain_, with the fate of four thousand or\nfive thousand feet of rock at stake, and the beds beneath, containing\n'perhaps Belemnites.' The prudent observer would have said, _establishes\nnothing_; and such is the fact.\" \"_On such evidence_ a region over the\nRocky Mountains, which is one thousand miles from north to south, and\neight hundred miles from east to west, is for the most part colored in\nthe maps as Triassic. Such a region would take in quite a respectable\npart of the continent of Europe.\" \"We now know beyond any reasonable\ndoubt, that all the country from the Platte to the British Possessions,\nand from the Mississippi to the Black Hills, is occupied by Cretaceous\nand Tertiary rocks. And as regards the region from the Platte southward\nto the Red River, very far the largest part _is known to be not\nTriassic_, while it is possible the Trias may occur in some parts of\nit.\" \"It is unfortunate in its bearing on the progress of geological\nscience to have false views about some five hundred thousand miles of\nterritory, and much more besides, spread widely abroad through\nrespectable journals, and transactions of distinguished European\nSocieties.\"[378]\n\nOne can not but sympathize with the poor abused Rocky Mountains,\ntormented and misrepresented for a thousand miles by this French\ngeologist. But our American patriotism may be partially pacified when we\nfind that Europe fares no better; and that Great Britain, and Old\nScotland, Hugh Miller's own cradle, which has been the very lecture room\nof geologists, has nevertheless been most grossly misrepresented in all\nbooks and maps, up till the last decade. The _Edinburgh Review_, a\ncompetent authority, says (No. cxxvii.): \"The new light which has been\nthus thrown on the history of the geological series of Scotland (by Sir\nRoderick Murchison), showing that great masses of crystalline rocks,\ncalled primary, and supposed to be much more ancient than the Silurian\nsystem, are here simply metamorphosed strata of that age, may with\njustice be looked upon as one of the most valuable results which have\nbeen attained by British geologists for many years.\" A very just remark\nindeed! If only geologists would learn a little modesty from this\ndiscovery, which completely turns upside down their old world-building\nprocess of grinding down all the upper strata out of the molten\ngranite, and gives us, instead, the baking of the strata into\ncrystalline rocks; a process exactly the reverse of the former, and of\nthat asserted by the theory of evolution. There is no prospect of any\ncessation of the war of geological theories.\n\n4. _Zoology._\n\nEqually hostile to each other are the expounders of the development of\nman from the monkey. As Ishmaelites their hand is against every man.\nEach is a law in theorizing unto himself. Their contendings may well\nteach us caution. Lamarck set those right who preceded him. The author\nof the _Vestiges of Creation_ outstripped Lamarck, and Mr. Darwin sets\nboth aside; while he in his turn is severely censured by M. Tremaux, and\nhas all his reasoning controverted in favor of the new theory. Lamarck\nbelieved in spontaneous generation; Darwin does not. The author of the\n_Vestiges of Creation_ expounded a law of development, and Mr. Darwin\nreplaces it by Natural Selection. M. Tremaux has repudiated the origin\nwhich Mr. Darwin has assumed, and insists on our believing that, not\nwater, but the _soil_, is the origin of all life, and therefore of man.\nWith him there is no progress; all creatures have reached their resting\nplace. But man rises or sinks, according to the more ancient or recent\nsoil he dwells upon. Professor Huxley is unwilling to abandon his idea\nthat life may come from dead matter, and is not disposed to accept of\nMr. Darwin's explanation of the origin of life by the Creator having, at\nfirst, breathed it into one or more forms. While accepting of Mr.\nDarwin's theory of a common descent for man with all other creatures, he\nnot only differs from him as to the beginning, but he admits that there\nis no gradual transition from the one to the other. He acknowledges that\nthe structural differences between man and even the highest apes are\ngreat and significant; and yet because there is no sign of gradual\ntransition between the gorilla, and the orang, and the gibbon, he\ninfers that they all had a common origin; whereas the more natural\nconclusion from the facts would be that they had separate beginnings.\nMr. Wallace, whose claims are admitted to be equal to these of Mr.\nDarwin, as the propounder of the theory of the origin of species by\nNatural Selection, has firmly asserted that, with all its resources,\nNatural Selection is utterly inadequate to account for the origin and\nstructure of the human race.[379] Thus they go, biting and devouring\neach other, until at last it becomes a reproduction of the Kilkenny\ncats, and there is nothing left but the tails. We have only to wait, and\nthe current Infidel theory will certainly be exposed and demolished next\nyear, by the author of some equally impossible theory.\n\nNot merely individual scientists, but the most learned societies have\nblundered. \"Has not the French Academy pronounced against the use of\nquinine and vaccination, against lightning rods and steam engines? Has\nnot Reaumer suppressed Peysonnel's 'Essay on Corals,' because he thought\nit was madness to maintain their animal nature? Had not his learned\nbrethren decreed, in 1802, that there were no meteors, although a short\ntime later two thousand fell in one department alone; and had they not\nmore recently still received the news of ether being useful as an\nanaesthetic with sure and unanimous condemnation?\"[380]\n\nIf space permitted we could go over the circle of the sciences, and show\nthat a similar state of uncertainty and exposure to error exists in them\nall. We have, however, confined our attention to those whose certainty\nis now most loudly vaunted, and whose theories are most largely used as\nthe basis of Infidelity. Nor have we by any means exhausted the list of\nerrors and contradictions of these. A volume as large as this would be\nrequired to present the list of several hundred errors, absurdities,\ncontradictions, and mutual refutations of scientists, in the physical\nsciences, now before me; errors not sought after, but incidentally\nobserved and noted in the spare hours' reading of a busy professional\nlife.\n\nIt is worthy of notice, that the uncertainties of science increase just\nin proportion to our interest in it. It is very uncertain about all my\ndearest concerns, and very positive about what does not concern me. The\ngreatest certainty is attainable in pure mathematics, which regards only\nideal quantities and figures; but biology--the science of life--is\nutterly obscure. The astronomer can calculate with considerable accuracy\nthe movements of distant planets, with which we have no intercourse; but\nwhere is the meteorologist bold enough to predict the wind and weather\nof next week, on which my crops, my ships, my life may depend? Heat,\nlight, and electricity may be pretty accurately measured and registered,\nbut what physician can measure the strength of the malignant virus which\nis sapping the life of his patient? The chemist can thoroughly analyze\nany foreign substance, but the disease of his own body which is bringing\nhim to the grave, he can neither weigh, measure nor remove. Science is\nvery positive about distant stars and remote ages, but stammers and\nhesitates about the very life of its professors.\n\n4. Such, then, are a few of the uncertainties, imperfections, and\npositive and egregious errors of science at its fountain head. To the\nactual investigator infallible certainty of any scientific fact is\nhardly possible, error exceedingly probable, and gross blunders in fact\nand theory by no means uncommon. But how greatly diluted must the\nmodified and hesitating conviction possible to an actual observer\nbecome, when, as is generally the case, a man is not an actual observer\nhimself, but _learns his science at school_. Such a person leaves the\nground of demonstrative science, and stands upon faith. The first\nquestion then to be proposed to one whose demonstrative certainty of the\ntruths of physical science has disgusted him with a religion received on\ntestimony and faith, is, How have you reached this demonstrative\ncertainty in matters of science? Are you quite sure that your certainty\nrests not upon the testimony of fallible and erring philosophers, but\nsolely upon your own personal observations and experiments?\n\nTo take only the initial standard of astronomical measurements--the\nearth's distance from the sun. Have you personally measured the earth's\nradius, observed the transit of Venus in 1769, from Lapland to Tahiti at\nthe same time, calculated the sun's parallax, and the eccentricity of\nthe earth's orbit? Would you profess yourself competent to take even the\npreliminary observation for fixing the instruments for such a reckoning?\nWere you ever within a thousand miles of the proper positions for making\nsuch observations? Or have you been necessitated to accept this primary\nmeasure, upon the accuracy of which all subsequent astronomical\nmeasurers depend, merely upon hearsay and testimony, and subject to all\nthose contingencies of error and prejudice, and mistakes of copyists,\nwhich, in your opinion, render the Bible so unreliable in matters of\nreligion?\n\nOr to come down to earth. You are a student of the stone book, with its\nenduring records graven in the rock forever; and perhaps have satisfied\nyourself that \"under the ponderous strata of geological science the\ntraditionary mythology and cosmogony of the Hebrew poet has found an\neverlasting tomb.\" But how many volumes of this stone book have you\nperused personally? You are quite indignant perhaps that theologians and\ndivines, who have no practical or personal knowledge of geology, should\npresume to investigate its claims. Have you personally visited the\nvarious localities in South America, Siberia, Australia, India,\nBritain, Italy, and the South Seas, where the various formations are\nexhibited; and have you personally excavated from their matrices the\nvarious fossils which form the hieroglyphics of the science? Have you,\nin fact, ever seen one in a thousand of these minerals and fossils _in\nsitu_? Or are you dependent on the tales of travelers, the specimens of\ncollectors, the veracity of authors, the accuracy of lecturers, aided by\nmaps of ideal stratifications, in rose-pink, brimstone-yellow, and\nindigo-blue, for your profound and glowing convictions of the\nirresistible force of experimental science, and of the shadowy vagueness\nof a religion dependent upon human testimony?\n\nTo come down considerably in our demands, and confine ourselves to the\nnarrow limits of the laboratory. You are a chemist perhaps, and proud,\nas most chemists justly are, of the accuracy attainable in that most\npalpable and demonstrative science. But how much of it is experimental\nscience _to you_? How many of the nine hundred and forty-two substances\ntreated of in Turner's Chemistry have you analyzed? One-half? One-tenth?\nWould you face the laughter of a college class to-morrow upon the\nexperiment of taking nine out of the nine hundred, reducing them to\ntheir primitive elements, giving an accurate analysis of their component\nparts, and combining them in the various forms described in that, or any\nother book, whose statements, because experimentally certain, have\nfilled you with a dislike of Bible truths, which you must receive upon\ntestimony? In fact, do you know anything worth mention of the facts of\nscience upon your own knowledge, except those of the profession by which\nyou make your living?\n\nOr, after all your boasting about scientific and demonstrative\ncertainty, have you been obliged to receive the certainties of science\n\"upon faith, and at second-hand, and upon the word of another;\" and to\nsave your life you could not tell half the time who that other is, by\nnaming the discoverers of half the scientific truths you believe? What!\nare you dependent on hearsay, and probability, for any little science\nyou possess, having in fact never obtained any personal demonstration or\nexperience of its first principles and measurements, nor being capable\nof doing so? Then let us hear no more cant about the uncertainty of a\nreligion dependent upon testimony, and the certainties of experimental\nscience. Whatever certainty may be attainable by scientific men--and we\nhave seen that is not much--it is very certain you have got none of it.\nThe very best you can have to wrap yourself in is a second-hand\nassurance, grievously torn by rival schools, and needing to be patched\nevery month by later discoveries. Your science, such as it is, _rests\nsolely upon faith_ in the testimony of philosophers, often contradictory\nand improbable, and always fallible and uncertain.\n\n5. Nor would you cease to be dependent upon faith could you personally\nmake all the observations and calculations of demonstrative science. The\nknowledge of these facts does not constitute science; it is merely the\nbrick pile containing the materials for the building of science. Science\nis knowledge systematized. But if the parts of nature were not arranged\nafter a plan, the knowledge of them could not be formed into a system.\nChaos is unintelligible. Our minds are so constituted that we look for\norder and regularity, and can not comprehend confusion. We possess this\nexpectation of order before we begin to learn science, and without it\nwould never begin the search after a system of knowledge. All scientific\nexperiment is but a search after order, and order is only another name\nfor intelligence--for God. Deprive us of this fundamental faith in cause\nand effect, order and regularity--of reason, in short--and science\nbecomes as impossible to man as to the orang-outang. _All science, even\nin its first principles, rests upon faith._\n\nNot only science, reason, also, is founded upon faith; for we can not\nprove by reason the truths which form the data of reasoning. The\nintuitions of the mind, which form the postulates necessary to the first\nprocess of reasoning, are believed, not proven. When the wise fool\nattempted to prove his own existence by the celebrated sophism, \"I\nthink, therefore I exist,\" he necessarily postulated his existence in\norder to prove it. How did he know that there was an \"I\" to think? And\nhow did he know that the \"I\" thought? Certainly not by any process of\nreasoning, but by faith. He believed these truths; but could never\nreason them into his consciousness. Faith, then, underlies reason\nitself.\n\nWe may now proceed to inquire whether or not faith, which we have found\nso prevalent even among those who repudiate it, is a thing to be ashamed\nof; or if it be a sufficiently certain and reliable basis for human life\nand conduct.\n\n1. We are met at the very outset by the great fact that God has so\nconstituted the world and everything in it, that _in all the great\nconcerns of life we are necessitated to depend on faith_; without any\npossibility of reaching absolute certainty regarding the result of any\nordinary duty. We sow without any certainty of a crop, or that we may\nlive to reap it. We harvest, but our barns may be burned down. We sell\nour property for bank-bills, but who dare say they will ever be paid in\nspecie? We start on a journey to a distant city, but even though you\ninsure your life, who will insure that fire, or flood, or railroad\ncollision may not send you to the land whence there is no return?\n\nScience is the child of yesterday; but from the beginning of the world\nmen have lived by faith. Before science was born, Cain tilled his ground\nwithout any mathematical demonstration that he should reap a crop. Abel\nfed his flock without any scientific certainty that he should live to\nenjoy its produce; and Tubal Cain forged axes and swords without any\nassurance that he should not be plundered of his wages. All the\nexperience of mankind proves that experimental certainty regarding the\nmost important business of this life is impossible. By what process of\nphilosophical induction is religion alone put beyond the sphere of faith\nand hope? If religious duties are not binding on us, unless religion be\nscientifically demonstrated, then neither are moral obligations; for\nthese two can not be separated. Is it really so, that none but\nscientific men are bound to tell the truth, and pay their debts; and\nthat a person may not fear God, and go to heaven, unless he has\ngraduated at college? The common sense of mankind declares that we live\nby faith, not by science.\n\n2. _We demand the knowledge of truths of which science is profoundly\nignorant._ Science is but an outlying nook of my farm, which I may\nneglect and yet have bread to eat. Faith is my house in which all my\ndearest interests are treasured. Of all the great problems and precious\ninterests which belong to me as a mortal and an immortal, science knows\nnothing. I ask her whence I came? and she points to her pinions scorched\nover the abyss of primeval fire, her eyes blinded by its awful glare,\nand remains silent. I inquire what I am? but the strange and questioning\n_I_ is a mystery which she can neither analyze nor measure. I tell her\nof the voice of conscience within me--she never heard it, and does not\npretend to understand its oracles. I tell her of my anxieties about the\nfuture--she is learned only in the past. I inquire how I may be happy\nhereafter--but happiness is not a scientific term, and she can not tell\nme how to be happy here! Poor, blind science!\n\n3. _All our dearest interests lie beyond the domains of science, in the\nregions of faith._ Science treats of things--faith is confidence in\npersons. Take away the persons, and of what value are the things? The\nworld becomes at once a vast desert, a dreary solitude, and more\nmiserable than any of its former inhabitants the lonely wretch who is\nleft to mourn over the graves of all his former companions--the last\nman. Solitary science were awful. Could I prosecute the toils of study\nalone, without companion or friend to share my labors? Would I study\neternally with no object, and for no use; none to be benefited, none to\nbe gratified by my discoveries? Though you hung maps on every tree, made\nevery mountain range a museum, bored mines in every valley, and covered\nevery plain with specimens, made Vesuvius my crucible, and opened the\nfoundations of the earth to my view--yet would the discovery of a single\nfresh human footprint in the sand fill my heart with more true hope of\nhappiness, than an endless eternity of solitary science. I can live, and\nlove, and be happy without science, _but not without companionship,\nwhose bond is faith_.\n\nFaith is the condition of all the happiness you can know on earth. Law,\norder, government, civilization, and family life, depend not upon\nscience, but upon confidence in moral character--upon faith. In its\nsunshine alone can happiness grow. It is faith sends you out in the\nmorning to your work, nerves your arms through the toils of the day,\nbrings you home in the evening, gathers your wife and your children\naround your table, inspires the oft-repeated efforts of the little\nprattler to ascend your knee, clasps his chubby arms around your neck,\nlooks with most confiding innocence in your eye, and puts forth his\nlittle hand to catch your bread, and share your cup. Undoubting faith is\nhappiness even here below. Need you marvel, then, that you must be\nconverted from your pride of empty, barren science, and casting yourself\nwith all your powers into the arms of faith, become as a little child\nbefore you can enter into the kingdom of heaven?\n\n4. But religion is not founded upon faith as distinct from observation\nand experiment. _It is the most experimental of all the sciences._ There\nis less of theory, and more of experience in it than in any other\nscience. Its faith is all practical. It is a great mistake to suppose\nthat faith is the opposite pole of experience. On the contrary,\nexperience is the fruit which ripens from the blossom of faith. We have\nseen how an underlying conviction of the existence of an intelligent\nplanner and upholder of the laws of nature is the source of all\nscientific experiment, and systematized knowledge. A similar underlying\nconviction of the existence of a moral governor of the world is the\nsource of all religious experience. _He that cometh to God must believe\nthat he is, and that he is the rewarder of those that diligently seek\nhim._ But this fundamental axiom believed, long trains of experience\nfollow; of every one of which you can be, and actually are, infinitely\nmore certain than of any fact of physical science. Your eyes, your ears,\nyour touch, your instruments, your reason, may be deceived; but your\nconsciousness can not. If your soul is filled with joy, that is a\n_fact_. You know it, and are as sure of it as you are that the sun\nshines. If you feel miserable, you are so. A sense of neglected duty, a\nconsciousness that you have done wrong, and are displeased with yourself\nfor it; a certainty that God is displeased with you for wrong-doing, and\nthat he will show his displeasure by suitable punishment; the tenacious\ngrasp of vicious habits on your body and soul, and the fearful thought\nthat by the law of your nature these vipers, which you vainly struggle\nto shake off, will forever keep involving you more closely in their\ncursed coils--these are _facts of your experience_. You are as certain\nthat they give you disquiet of mind, when you entertain them, as that\nthe sea rages in a tempest; and that you can no more prevent their\nentrance, nor compel their departure, nor calm nor drown the anxiety\nthey occasion, than you can prevent the rising of the tempest, dismiss\nthe thunder-storm, or drown Etna in your wine-glass. Of these primary\nfacts of moral science, and of others like them, you possess the most\nabsolute and infallible certainty from your own consciousness. They\nresult from the inertia of moral matter, which, when put into a state of\ndisturbance, has no power of bringing itself to rest; as expressed in\nthe formula, _There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked._[381]\n\nLet us now go out of your own experience, as you must do in every other\nscience, into the region of observation, and study a few of the other\nphenomena of religion. Your comrade, Jones, has taken to drinking of\nlate, and also to going with you to Sunday lectures, and in the evening\nto other places of amusement. He has, however, been warned that the next\ntime he comes drunk to the workshop he will be discharged; and as he is\na clever young fellow, and knows more about the Bible than you, having\ngone to Sabbath-school when a boy, and is able to use up the saints\ncleverly, you would be sorry to lose his company. So you set on him to\ngo with you to hear a temperance lecture, hoping that he may be induced\nto take the pledge; for if he does not you fear he will soon lie in the\ngutter. He curses you, and himself too, if ever he listens to any such\nstuff; and refuses to go. You can easily gather a hundred other\nillustrations of the great law of the moral repulsion between vice and\ntruth, expressed in the following formula: \"_This is the condemnation,\nthat light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than\nlight, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil\nhateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be\nreproved._\"[382] Your life, however, is but a long illustration of this\nprinciple. Have you not willingly remained in ignorance of the contents\nof the Bible, because you dislike its commands?\n\nThere is another fact of the same science--there, in the gutter before\nyou, wallowing in his own vomit, covered with rags, besmeared with mud,\nsmelling worse than a hog, his bruised and bleeding mouth unable to\narticulate the obscenities and curses he tries to utter. \"Is it possible\nthat can be Bill Brown! Why, only three years ago we worked at the same\nbench. It was he who introduced me to the Sunday Institute; as clever a\nworkman and as jovial a comrade as I ever knew, but would get on a spree\nnow and again. He had a good father and mother, got considerable\nschooling, had good wages, got married to a clever girl, and had two\nfine children. Is it possible he could make such a beast of himself in\nsuch a short time?\" Yes, quite possible, and more, quite certain. Not\nonly in his case, but in all others, the law of moral gravitation is\nuniversal and infallible. \"_Evil men and seducers wax worse and\nworse._\"[383] The degradation may not always be in this precise form,\nnor always as speedy; as all heavy bodies do not fall to the same place,\nnor with like rapidity. But it is always as certain and always as deep,\nand will one day be far more public. Fix it firmly in your mind. It\nconcerns you more than all the science you will ever know. You, too, are\nin the course of sin, and you know it. You have already begun to fall.\n\nCome again into this room. \"What, into a prayer-meeting? I don't go to\nsuch places.\" But, if you want to study the phenomena of religion\nscientifically, you should go to such places; just as if you want to\nstudy geology, you should go to the places where the strata are exposed\nto view. I do not ask you to speak, and to ask people to pray for you,\nbut only to look on and listen. If you are a philosopher I wish you to\ncease dogmatizing about fanaticism, and enthusiasm, and the ignorance,\nand credulity of believers, at least until you philosophically examine\nthe evidence upon which they believe. You can set aside, if you please,\ntheir unfounded beliefs concerning matters beyond their capacity, and\nalso their confident hopes for futurity. What I wish you to examine is\ntheir _actual experience of religion_, as they severally relate it. For\nas we have seen, the facts of consciousness are just as certain, and as\nascertainable, as the facts discovered by our senses; and there is no\nreason in the world why we should not pursue the study of religion in\nthe same way that we gain a knowledge of science; namely, by collecting\nand studying the facts accumulated by those who have made experiments,\nand have obtained a practical knowledge of the matter.\n\nThere are here, as you see, a great number of religious experimenters.\nThey are also of very various conditions of life, and of various degrees\nof education. Many of them are moreover well known to you, so that you\nare in a favorable position for forming a fair judgment of their\ndiscoveries. There is your comrade Smith, Hopkins who does the hauling\nfor your establishment, Lawyer Hammond, Professor Edwards, whose\nchemical lectures you attend, Dr. Lawrence, who lectured before the\nLyceum last winter, Mr. Heidenberger, who wrote a series of articles on\nComte's Positive Philosophy for the Investigator, Mrs. Bridgman, your\nAunt Polly, who nursed you during your typhoid fever, and a great many\nothers whom you know quite well. Professor Edwards leads in prayer, and\ngives a brief address. You never dreamt that he was hoaxing you when he\ntold you of his chemical experience; have you any reason to offer for\nbelieving that he now solemnly, and in the presence of God, lies to you\nand to this assembly, when he tells you of the peace he has found in\nbelieving in Christ, and the happiness he experiences in uniting with\nhis brethren in the worship of God? Or is he more liable to error in\nnoting the fact of his mental joy or sorrow, than in observing the\neffect of the extraordinary ray in double refraction? If not, the fact\nthat he has felt this religious experience, is just as certain as the\nfact, that he has seen polarized light.\n\nThere is your comrade Smith, whom you have known for years, actually\ngot up to speak in meeting. You are surprised; but listen: \"Neighbors\nand friends, most of you know I never cared much about religion, and was\noften given to take more liquor than was good for me, and then I would\nfight and curse awful bad. I knew as well as anybody that it wasn't\nright, and always felt bad after a spree, and many a time I said I would\nturn over a new leaf, and be good. But it was all no use, for as soon as\nany of the fellows would come around after me, I always went along with\nthem, till at last I gave it up and said it was no use to try. Still,\nwhenever any of my acquaintances died, I felt scared like; and I kept\naway as far as I could from churches and preachers and such like,\nbecause I could not bear to think about God and judgment to come. Well,\nabout five weeks ago my little Minnie set on me one Sabbath morning to\ncarry her to church, and to please the little creature--for she is as\npert a darling as you could see anywhere--I told my wife to get her\nready, and we would go. She seemed as if she would cry, and kept talking\nto herself all the way. When we got into the church the singing almost\nupset me, for I had not been to a church since I was a little fellow,\njust before father and mother died. But it seemed as if it was the same\ntune, and as if the tune brought them all back, and as if I saw them\nagain and all the family, and heard mother sing as she used to, and I\nforgot church and everything, and thought I was a little fellow playing\nabout on the floor just as I used to do when I was a happy child. When\nthey stopped I was so sorry, and wished I could just be as innocent and\nas happy as I was then. Well, it seemed like the preacher had been\nreading my thoughts, for he gave out for his text, '_Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, unless a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of\nGod._' He began to preach how Jesus can give us new hearts, and save us\nfrom our sins; that his blood cleanses from all sin; that he is able to\nsave to the uttermost all that come unto God through him. The tears\ncame into my eyes, and I could hardly keep my mouth shut till I got out.\nWhen I got home I knelt down, and cried to Jesus to save me from my\nsins; and my wife prayed too, and we cried for mercy. The Lord heard us,\nand I felt light and happy, and I went to church again, and sung with\nthe rest. And the best of it is, the Lord delivered me from the drink;\nas I told a man who asked where I was going to-day, and I told him I was\ngoing to prayer-meeting, for I had got religion now. He said there were\na great many religions, and most of them wrong, and a great many people\nsaid all religion was only a notion, and preaching only nonsense. I says\nto him, 'Look here, stranger, do you see that tavern there?' 'Yes,' says\nhe. 'Well,' says I, 'do you see me?' 'I do, of course,' says he. 'Well,'\nsays I, 'every little fellow in these parts knows that so long as Tom\nSmith had a quarter in his pocket he could never pass that tavern\nwithout having a drink. All the men in Jefferson could not stop him. Now\nlook here,' says I, 'there is my week's wages, and I can go past, and\nthank God I don't feel the least like drinking, for the Lord Jesus has\nsaved me from it. If you call that a notion, it is a mighty powerful\nnotion, and it is a notion that has put clothes on my children's backs,\nand plenty of good food on my table, and songs of praise to the Lord in\nmy mouth. _That's a fact, stranger._ Glory be to God for it. And I would\nrecommend you to come to prayer-meeting with me, and maybe you would get\nreligion too. A great many people are getting religion now.'\"\n\nHis last remark is certainly very true. There are so many, and of such\nvarious characters and grades of life, and in so many places, that every\nreader can easily find several Tom Smiths of his own acquaintance, whose\nconversions display all the essential facts of this case, and prove\nthat:\n\n5. The facts of religious experience _are better attested, and more\nunobjectionable_ than those of any other science.\n\nUnless they can be shown to be unreasonable or impossible, we are bound\nto receive them, when presented by the experimentists who have\ndiscovered them, though personally we may not have any such experience;\njust as we believe the chemists, or the astronomers who relate their\ndiscoveries which personally we have not observed. But the facts of\nreligion are _by no means unreasonable_. They can not be shown to\ncontradict any known law of the human mind. It is true they are\nmysterious. But so are the facts of physical science--heat, light,\nelectricity, gravitation. Of either, we may be quite certain that such\nphenomena exist, and utterly ignorant of the mode of their operation. It\nwere as utterly unphilosophical to deny that Almighty God could impart\nnervous energy to the languid limbs of your sick neighbor, because you\nare ignorant of its origin and means of transmission, as to deny that\nGod could impart spiritual electricity to his paralyzed soul, because\nyou are ignorant of the mode in which he bestows it. And ignorance is\nall that you can plead in this case. You must just admit that having\ntried an experiment which you have not, your religious friend has a\nright to know more than you.\n\nMoreover, the facts of religion are presented for belief upon _the most\nabundant and reliable testimony_. In physical science you must rely on\nthe testimony of a very few observers--the great bulk even of scientific\nmen having no opportunity of testing the facts themselves, and being\nwell satisfied if any fact is confirmed by the testimony of two or three\nphilosophers--and this testimony often contradictory, and always\nfallible, as the discordant results of their experiments prove. But here\nyou have a great multitude of experimentists, in every city and village\nof the land, of every variety of intellect and education, prosecuting\nthe same course of experiments, and all arriving at the same results.\nThey do not all confess the _same_ sins, but they all felt the power of\n_some_ sin, and felt miserable in their guilt. And however they may\ndiffer in their external circumstances, their inward constitution, or in\ntheir views of the outward part of religion, there is no difference\namong them about the great facts of their religious experience. They all\nbelieved the faithful saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to\nsave sinners, cried to God for mercy through him, and received peace of\nmind, grace to live a new life, and to delight in the worship of God. Do\nyou know any science which has been prosecuted by one-hundredth part of\nthis number of inquirers? Which has been confirmed by one-thousandth\npart of this number of experimenters? Or any experiment tried with such\nuniform and unfailing success as this, \"_Whosoever shall call on the\nname of the Lord shall be saved?_\"[384] Why then do you hesitate to\nadmit the correctness of these facts? Is it because you perceive they\nlead to results which you dislike?\n\nThey do lead to results. They are effects and tell us of a cause. They\nare powerful effects, and proclaim a powerful cause. They are moral and\nspiritual effects, and assure us of the existence of a moral and\nspiritual agent who has caused them. They are holy effects, and convince\nyour sinful soul that they are produced by a holy being. But they are\nalso benevolent, life-giving, blessed effects, and proclaim that God is\nlove. The Lord, the Spirit, is as plainly declared in the facts of\nreligious experience, as the Creator is in the creation of the universe;\nand it were as rank Atheism to attribute these orderly and blessed\nresults to chance or to evil passions, as to attribute the Cosmos to\nblind fate, or to the beasts that perish. He is as much an enemy to his\nhappiness who denies the one, as a foe to his reason who rejects the\nother. Dear reader, why should you not believe in,\n\n6. _The only science which can make you happy?_ which can bestow peace\nof mind, nerve you to conquer your evil habits, enable you to live a\nholy and happy life, and to die with a blessed hope of a glorious\nresurrection? You know there is no science which makes any such offers,\nor which you would believe if it did. But the Bible unfolds a science\nwhich does, and enables you to believe it too. The facts of religious\nexperience give most convincing evidence of the reality and power of the\ngrace of God. It were as easy to persuade a Christian that he had\nproduced this change of heart and life by the excitement of his own\nfeelings, as that he had kindled the sun with a lucifer match. And the\ncharacter of the work and the worker assures him that it will not be\nleft unfinished. His faith receives these facts of religious experience\nas the first installments upon God's bonds, and as pledges for the\npayment of the remainder of his promises. The joy and peace which God\ngives him now, prove most satisfactorily his ability and willingness to\ngive him larger measures of these enjoyments when he is capable of\nreceiving them. Just as we have good reason to believe that he who has\nmade the sun to rise out of darkness will guide him onward in his course\nto perfect day, have we also good reason to believe that he that hath\nbegun the good work of his grace in us will perform it until the day of\nJesus Christ. Christ is in us the hope of glory. This eternal life,\nwhich is begun in our souls, is so much superior to mere animal\nvitality, that we can not doubt that he who has given us the greater,\nwill also give us the lesser, and quicken our mortal bodies also, by his\nSpirit which dwelleth in us. We know that our Redeemer liveth.\n\n7. And now, in conclusion, dear reader, we ask you not to take these\nthings on our testimony, nor yet on our experience; _but to try for\nyourself_. Oh taste and see that the Lord is good. Come see the Savior\nwho has saved us, and be saved by him too. There is nothing more\ndangerous, unless resisting the evidence of the truth as it is in Jesus,\nthan acknowledging this to be truth without immediately obeying the\ngospel. God requires your immediate and cordial acceptance of Christ to\nsave you from your sins. He tells you that the only way of escape from\nyour sins now and from hell hereafter is through him; for there is none\nother name given under heaven or among men whereby you must be saved. He\npromises to hear your prayer and give you his Holy Spirit to work in you\nthe work of faith with power, if you will only and earnestly ask. \"_Ask,\nand it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall\nbe opened unto you: What man is there of you whom if his son ask bread,\nwill he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a\nserpent? If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your\nchildren, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good\nthings to them that ask him?_\"[385]\n\nThus you will come to possess an actual experimental knowledge of the\nmost excellent of the sciences. In the present begun enjoyment of\neternal life you will, not merely believe in, but positively _know_, its\nAuthor, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. You will\nrest in no fallible and erring testimony of man's wisdom, but your faith\nwill stand in the power of God. You will be able to say, \"_Now we\nbelieve not because of thy sayings: for we have heard him ourselves,\nand_ KNOW _that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the\nWorld._\"[386]\n\nHear God's own warrant and invitation to your poor, thirsty soul, to\nforsake your vanities and come and be eternally blessed in Christ. Have\nthe witness in yourself and be a living proof of the blessed reality of\nreligion.\n\n     \"Ho every one that thirsteth! Come ye to the waters!\n     And he who hath no money! Come ye, buy and eat!\n     Yea, come! Buy wine and milk without money and without price.\n     Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread?\n     And your labor for that which satisfieth not?\n     Hearken diligently unto me and eat ye that which is good,\n     And let your soul delight itself in fatness.\n     Incline your ear and come unto me:\n     Hear and your soul shall live:\n     And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,\n     Even the sure mercies of David.\n     Behold! I have given him for a witness to the people,\n     A leader and a commander to the people:\n     Behold! thou shall call nations that thou knowest not,\n     And nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee,\n     Because of the Lord thy God,\n     And for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee.\n\n     \"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found,\n     Call ye upon him while he is near:\n     Let the wicked forsake his way,\n     And the unrighteous man his thoughts;\n     And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him,\n     And to our God for he will abundantly pardon.\n     For my thoughts are not your thoughts,\n     Neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.\n     For as the heavens are higher than the earth,\n     So are my ways higher than your ways,\n     And my thoughts than your thoughts.\n     For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven,\n     And return not thither again,\n     But water the earth, and cause it to bring forth and bud,\n     That it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater;\n     So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:\n     It shall not return unto me void,\n     But it shall accomplish that which I please,\n     And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.\n     For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace.\n     The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing,\n     And all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands.\n     Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree,\n     And instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree:\n     _And it shall be to the Lord for a name,\n     For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off._\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[322] Holyoak's Discussion with Grant and Tonney.\n\n[323] Bacon Novum Organum, I. xlix. xlvi.\n\n[324] Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures, I. 53.\n\n[325] Journal of Speculative Philosophy, I. 20.\n\n[326] Humboldt, _Cosmos_, Vol. I. p. 7, 156.\n\n[327] Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, 356.\n\n[328] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852.\n\n[329] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852.\n\n[330] _Cosmos_, 4, 518. Dick's _Celestial Scenery_, chap. III. Sec. 7.\n\n[331] _Cosmos_, 1, 75. Loomis' _Progress of Astronomy_, pp. 34, 40\n\n[332] Loomis' _Progress of Astronomy_, p. 34, etc.\n\n[333] _Outlines of Astronomy_, III. Sec. 13, 140.\n\n[334] Thus several of the best telescopes in the world are rendered\nnearly useless by the passage of heavy railroad trains in their\nvicinity.\n\n[335] Somerville's Physical Sciences, VI.\n\n[336] Cosmos IV. 477. Phillips' Address to the British Association,\n1865.\n\n[337] North British Review, LXV.\n\n[338] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, 158.\n\n[339] Cosmos I. 109.\n\n[340] Cosmos IV. 501.\n\n[341] Cosmos IV. 378.\n\n[342] Harper's Magazine, June, 1872, p. 149.\n\n[343] Annual Scientific Discovery, 1864, 134.\n\n[344] Cosmos III. 40; IV. 363. Annual, 1861, 395, 396.\n\n[345] Cosmos IV. 474.\n\n[346] Kendall's Uranography, p. 11.\n\n[347] Cosmos, 443-5.\n\n[348] North British Review, No. LXV.\n\n[349] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852, 119.\n\n[350] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1854, 150.\n\n[351] Cosmos III. 115.\n\n[352] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860.\n\n[353] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1852, 139.\n\n[354] Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, 166.\n\n[355] Plurality of Worlds, XII.\n\n[356] North British Review, LXV.\n\n[357] God's Glory in the Heavens, 168.\n\n[358] Annual Scientific Discovery, 1863, 324.\n\n[359] Cosmos IV. 378.\n\n[360] See this proved chapter XI., _Daylight Before Sunrise_.\n\n[361] See the possibility of such a source of volcanic action, of such a\nformation of plutonic rocks, proved by Lyell. _Principles_, chaps.\nXXXII. and XII.\n\n[362] Sir David Brewster, K. H., D. C. L., F. R. S., _More Worlds than\nOne_, p. 56.\n\n[363] _Rudiments of Geology_, W. & R. Chambers, p. 10.\n\n[364] Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, p. 3.\n\n[365] Miller, _Old Red Sandstone_, p. 25.\n\n[366] Hugh Miller, _Footprints of the Creator_, p. 313.\n\n[367] American Cyclopaedia, 1863, p. 374. Annual of Scientific Discovery,\n1861, p. 351.\n\n[368] London Quarterly Review, 1866, No. 51, p. 240.\n\n[369] Lyell's Second Visit to the United States.\n\n[370] _The Advance_, Chicago, May 28, 1868.\n\n[371] Geological Time.\n\n[372] _Principles_, Chaps. III. and IV.\n\n[373] _Principles_, chap. XI.\n\n[374] _Principles_, p. 530.\n\n[375] _Principles_, chap. XXXI.\n\n[376] Chambers' Cyclopaedia Art. Appalachians.\n\n[377] Types of Mankind, 329, 335, 338.\n\n[378] The American Journal of Science and Art, edited by Profs. Silliman\nand Dana, XXVI. 235, 300.\n\n[379] Frazer--Blending Lights, p. 113.\n\n[380] De Vore's _Modern Magic_, 58.\n\n[381] Isaiah, chap. xlviii. 22.\n\n[382] John, chap. iii.\n\n[383] 2 Timothy, chap. iii. Read the whole chapter.\n\n[384] Romans, chap. x. Read the chapter.\n\n[385] The Sermon on the Mount. Read it all.\n\n[386] John, chap. iv.\n\n\n[THE END.]\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\nMissing punctuation, including periods, hyphens, and commas, has been\nadded.\n\nObvious typographical errors have been corrected.\n\nVariations in spelling have been left as in the original in the\nfollowing words:\n\n     coveredst         coverest\n     orang-otang       orang-outang\n     water-skin        waterskin\n\nThe following words use an oe ligature in the original:\n\n     foetus            Phoenician\n     Phoebus           Phoenicians\n     Phoenicia\n\nThe spelling of the last name of Scottish astronomer John Pringle Nichol\nhas been corrected throughout the text.\n\nThe spelling of the last name of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck\nhas been corrected throughout the text.\n\nThe spelling of the last name of French physicist Claude-Servais-Mathias\nPouillet has been corrected throughout the text.\n\nThe spelling of the last name of Hellenistic astrologer Vettius Valens\nhas been corrected throughout the text.\n\nThe spelling of the last name of French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph\nLe Verrier has been corrected throughout the text.\n\nA series of three asterisks * * * represents an ellipsis in the text.\nShorter and longer rows of asterisks have been standardized to three\nasterisks.\n\nThe carat ^ character indicates that the following numbers (enclosed in\n{} brackets) are superscripted in the original.\n\nThe mathematical formula 4+3/2 is rendered 4 + 1-1/2 in the original.\n\nFootnote 15 reads \"Origin of Species, 4, 10, 127, 9, 97, 100, 409, 410,\n415, 423. Descent of Man, 192, 204, and II.--15, 257.\" The page number\n\"9\" is probably a typographical error, but it has been left as in the\noriginal.","title":"Fables of Infidelity and Facts of Faith: Being an Examination of the Evidences of Infidelity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":174492}