Chapter II: Part 2

The author of “The System of Nature” says of the English Jesuit’s creation of eels by spontaneous generation from rye meal: “After moistening meal with water, and shutting up the mixture, it is found after a little time, with the aid of the microscope, that it has produced organized beings, of whose production the water and meal were believed to be incapable. Thus inanimate nature can pass into life, which is itself but an assemblage of motions.”—_Part 1, p. 23. For Needham’s Eels, see the Volume of Physics_.

Voltaire says: “Were this unparalleled blunder true, yet, in rigorous reasoning I do not see how it would prove there is no God.”

He says, it is really strange that men, while denying a creator should have attributed to themselves the power of creating eels. But it is yet more deplorable that natural philosophers, of better information, adopted the Jesuit Needham’s ridiculous system, and joined it to that of Maillet, who asserted that the ocean had formed the Alps and the Pyrenees, and that men were originally porpoises, whose forked tails changed in the course of time into thighs and legs. Such fancies are worthy to be placed with the eels formed by meal.

Voltaire says the ridiculous story of the spontaneous production of eels by rye meal is the foundation of D’Holbach’s “System of Nature.” He says: “We were assured, not long ago, that at Brussels a hen had brought forth half a dozen rabbits.” He then adds, “Needham’s eels soon followed the Brussels hen.” D’Holbach says: “Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert and dead, assumes action, intelligence, and life, when it is combined in a certain way.” Voltaire responds: “This is precisely the difficulty. How does a germ come to life?”

The author of the “System of Nature” says: “Matter is eternal and necessary; but its forms and its combinations are transitory and contingent.” Upon the supposition that _all is __ matter_, Voltaire answers, it is hard to comprehend, matter being, according to our author, _necessary_, and without freedom, how there can be anything contingent.

Again, the atheistic author of the “System of Nature” asserts that order and disorder do not exist. This is strongly refuted by Voltaire, who says the author is to be distrusted very often, both in physics and in morals.

Spinosa was a pantheist. He, like many modern sciolists, repudiated design in nature. Voltaire, treating upon Spinosism, says: “I am aware that various philosophers, and especially Lucretius, have denied final causes. I am also aware that Lucretius, though not very chaste, is a very great poet in his descriptions and in his morals; but in philosophy I own he appears to me to be very far behind a college porter or a parish beadle. To affirm that the eye is not made to see, nor the ear to hear, nor the stomach to digest, is not this the most revolting folly that ever entered the human mind? Doubter as I am, this _insanity_ seems to me _evident_, and _I say so_. For my part, I see in nature, as in the arts, only final causes; and I believe that an apple tree is made to bear apples, as I believe that a watch is made to tell the hour.” Voltaire charges Warburton with calumniating Cicero, by saying that Cicero said, “It is unworthy of the majesty of the empire to adore one only God.” Voltaire’s words are these: “Warburton, like his contemporaries, has calumniated Cicero and ancient Rome.” He then gives the above quotation, along with a short comment in Cicero’s defense, and closes with the following words: “It is then quite false that Cicero, or any other Roman, ever said that it did not become the majesty of the empire to acknowledge a Supreme God. Their Jupiter, the Zeus of the Greeks, the Jehovah of the Phœnicians, was always considered as the master of the secondary gods. This great truth can not be too forcibly inculcated.” Voltaire was a Deist.

Lucretius, according to Voltaire, denied design in nature. Voltaire said, in philosophy, he was very far behind a college porter or a parish beadle.

Spinosa was a Pantheist. Voltaire says, “He frequently contradicted himself; that he had not always clear ideas; that he sometimes clung to one plank, sometimes to another.”

Voltaire says: “A natural philosopher of some reputation had no doubt that this ‘Needham,’ who made the eels, ‘was a profound Atheist,’ who concluded that since eels could be made of rye meal, men might be made of wheat flour; that nature and chemistry produce all; and that it was demonstrated we may very well dispense with an all forming God.” Voltaire calls this _an unparalleled blunder_. D’Holbach, the author of the “System de la Nature,” was an Atheist, so were his assistants in the production of that work.

Voltaire addresses the author of that work in the following words: “In the state of doubt in which we both are, I do not say to you, with Pascal, ‘choose the safest.’ There is no safety in uncertainty. We are here not to talk, but to examine; we must judge, and our judgment is not determined by our will. I do not propose to you to believe extravagant things in order to escape embarassment. I do not say to you, ‘Go to Mecca, and instruct yourself by kissing the black stone, take hold of a cow’s tail, muffle yourself in a scapulary, or be imbecile and fanatical to acquire the favor of the Being of beings.’ I say to you, ‘Continue to cultivate virtue, to be beneficent, to regard all superstition with horror, or with pity; but adore, with me, the design which is manifested in all nature, and consequently the author of that design—the primordial and final cause of all; hope with me that our monade, which reasons on the great eternal Being, may be happy through that same great Being. There is no contradiction in this. You can no more demonstrate its impossibility than I can demonstrate mathematically that it is so. In metaphysics we scarcely reason on anything but probabilities. We are all swimming in a sea of which we have never seen the shore. Woe be to those who fight while they swim! Land who can; but he that cries out to me, “You swim in vain, there is no land,” disheartens me, and deprives me of all my strength. What is the object of our dispute? To console our unhappy existence. Who consoles it—you or I? You yourself own, in some passages of your work, that the belief in a God has withheld some men on the brink of crime; for me this acknowledgment is enough. If this opinion had prevented but ten assassinations, but ten calumnies, but ten iniquitous judgments on the earth, I hold that the whole earth ought to embrace it.’ ”—_Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary._

This Voltaire says: “The laws punished public crimes; it was necessary to establish a check upon secret crimes; this check was to be found only in religion.” In the same article we find the following: “We are obliged to hold intercourse and transact business and mix up in life with knaves possessing little or no reflection; with vast numbers of persons addicted to brutality, intoxication and rapine. You may, if you please, preach to them that there is no hell, and that the soul of man is mortal. As for myself, I will be sure to thunder in their ears that if they rob me they will inevitably be damned.” His true position upon the hell question is, that it is necessary to preach hell to the blind and brutal populace, that there is a real necessity for such teaching, whether it be true or false. He seems to regard it untrue, but necessary. What an idea! The harmony and consistency of unbelievers is (?) grand. It is no wonder that Voltaire’s name should stand, along with the names of Atheists and Pantheists and Deists, above the head line upon the first page of the _Boston Investigator_.

IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF DECEPTION AND FALSEHOOD?

There is a want of fair dealing with Bible language manifested by all the enemies of our religion. The unbelievers of our time will find it very difficult for them to sustain the reputation of moral honesty and, at the same time, retain many of the old, worn out objections which they have urged against the Bible. They should remember that while the light of scientific investigation is exposing the old, unscientific and unscriptural tenets of the creeds of our forefathers, and making it hard for candid, sensible men to defend them, it is also shedding light upon Bible truth to such an extent that unbelievers are finding it equally difficult to retain their silly objections to the Bible. They have asserted from 1st Kings 32, that God kept false as well as true prophets. This charge is not only without foundation in fact, but also false and contemptible. The four hundred prophets mentioned in the sixth verse of that chapter are emphatically denominated “Ahab’s prophets,” notwithstanding they professed to be the Lord’s prophets. This wicked King of Israel had those wicked, false prophets in his service. The address of Micaiah to the two kings in verses 19-23 is a mere parable showing what, in the providence of God, would shortly take place, and the divine permission for the agents, spoken of, to act. Micaiah did not tell the mad and impious Ahab that his prophets were all liars; but he represents the whole by a parable, and, in language equally strong and inoffensive, he says that which amounts to the same thing. Unbelievers of the schools of modern spiritualism and Bostonian infidelity, both say that God inspired prophets with false messages, and violated his own word.

The charge of inspiring prophets with false messages is founded, pretendingly, upon 1st Kings 22: 22, 23, Jeremiah 4: 10, and Ezekiel 14: 9. To answer this, it is only necessary to know that it is an idiom of the original languages to express, in the imperative active, that which is simply permitted. Thus, when the devils begged permission to enter into the herd of swine, Jesus said, “_Go_”—Mat. 8: 31.

And so we are to understand, John 13: 27, where Jesus says to Judas Iscariot, “What thou dost, _do quickly_.” No man is thoroughly posted as a Bible scholar who is honest in making the above charge. It is either ignorance or dishonesty that causes men to thus oppose the record. As we are not justifiable in saying that Jesus commanded his own betrayal, so we are not justifiable in saying God commanded lying. Correct principles of interpretation do not justify the unbeliever in any such blasphemy. When an evil spirit offered himself to be a lying spirit in the mouth of a wicked prophet—false prophet—God said, “Go forth and do so,” which only signifies permission, not command. In Jeremiah 4: 10, where the prophet complains that God had deceived them, saying, “They should have peace, when the sword reached to the soul,” we are to understand that God permitted the false prophets to deceive him, prophesying peace to the people, as appears from the history (Ezekiel 14: 9). _I_, the _Lord_, have deceived that prophet, that is, permitted him to be deceived, and permitted him to deceive the people, as the legitimate result of their own wickedness, and a just judgment upon them for their rejection of the testimony of his true prophets. There is nothing strange about all this; for as sure as there is a God, so sure it is that he permits wicked lying men to be deceived in our own day. He has done this in all ages of the world. In fact, it belongs to his ordained plan to permit, or suffer, men, individually or collectively, to fall in their own deceptions and wickedness. This he threatened in the above case, as you may see in the fifth verse of Ezekiel 14, in these words, “I will take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols; because they have chosen to themselves false Gods, I will _suffer them to be deceived_ with _false prophets_; and I will stretch out my hand _upon him_, and I will _destroy him_ from the midst of my people.” _Destroy whom?_ Ans.—_The false prophet._

When the prophet of God mistook the promise of God, who told him, when he commissioned him, that he would be with him, by which he understood that he would be saved from all evils, he said, “Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.” This prophet was now a derision, the people mocking him, and in his passion and weakness he breaks forth in the above language. It was simply his own mistake, or misunderstanding of God’s promise. God had not promised him that he should not meet with scorn and opposition and persecution, but simply that they should not prevail against him, as we may learn from the latter part of the first chapter. The second objection, that the Lord violated his promise, is also founded in ignorance or dishonesty; it is based upon the statements found in Joshua 13: 1, and Judges 2: 20, 21, compared with Genesis 15: 18 and 18: 19, 20. In Joshua 13, it is said that there remained very much land yet unconquered, which they had not taken possession of, notwithstanding the Lord had promised to be with them, and to give them all the land remaining yet in the possession of their enemies.

In Judges 2: 20, it is said that the people did not perform their part of the covenant, and this is given as the reason why the Lord had not driven out any more of the nations before them.

The covenant with Abraham was in consideration of his past faith and obedience; yet it was suspended upon the future obedience of his posterity. See Deut. 7: 12, 13 and 11: 22 to 24; and Judges 2 to 20. The Lord gives the following as the reason why he had not given them a complete fulfillment of the covenant upon his part, “Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not harkened to my voice, I also will not henceforth drive out any of the nations which Joshua left when he died.” There are none so blind as those who will not see. When we find a promise from the Lord, and it is in the positive form, that is, when its terms are not rested upon an expressed condition, we are authorized to supply the condition which involves the moral element in the divine government, viz: obedience upon the part of man, or men, as the case may be. See Ezekiel 33: 13.

DARWINISM WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES.

Scientists who claim to be followers of Darwin in scientific investigation are known as evolutionists. The majority of them seem to enjoy themselves very much in opposing the statements of Moses respecting the creation. It might be well for them to remember that Darwin himself was compelled by his better sense to declare that science demands a miracle in order to the existence of the living unit lying at the base of the series of evolution. So after all it remains a fact that Darwinism is chained to miracle. If Strauss had remembered this he need not have said, Darwin deserves to be praised as one of the benefactors of the race because of having learned us how to get rid of miracles. If there is any value in evolution against the Bible it lies in the use that men make of it to destroy the idea that God created man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Where does Darwinism take you to to study the origin of man? To the dust of the earth? _Not exactly!_ It takes you to the _slime_ of the sea, or the _mud_ of the Nile, just one step behind the pulpy mass of protoplasm, or the moneron. God is there working a miracle; such is Darwinism. According to Moses, He was doing just as well yonder in Eden working a miracle with the dust of the earth. Now, in all candor, tell us which statement is most worthy of God, the one that finds the origin of man in the Eden earth with a miracle wrought upon the _dust_ of the ground, or the one that finds his origin in a miracle wrought upon the _mud of the Nile or the slime of the sea_? The one that stands him up erect, a man, with Godlike attributes, or the one that lays him down in the slimy mass to pass through ages upon ages in order to get out of his low, slimy paternity and beastly traits of mere instinct, with groveling habits of life? Darwin, conscious of the axiomatic truth that no more can be evolved than there is involved, teaches the doctrine that variation or change of species is brought about by causes which already existed in the common progenitor. Such being true, we ask: In what link below man, in the great evolutionary chain, is intellect and moral nature to be found? Sensible men are turning, however, away from the old, threadbare, worn-out guess-work. The time is not far distant when it will retire once more from scientific thought. It is very old. Pliny, eighteen centuries ago, said: “The various kinds of apes offer an almost perfect resemblance to man in their physical nature.” This is just equal to Huxley’s statement made in our own nineteenth century, that, “So far as structure is concerned, man differs to no greater extent from the animals which are immediately below him, than these do from other members of the same order.” Hence his conclusion: “Man has proceeded from a modification or an improvement of some lower animal, some simpler stock.” This idea was fully expressed in the early Pagan mythologies. Their satyrs or forest divinities were creatures blending the animal with the human. So Anaximander, although an advocate of the old hypothesis of evolution, was not the originator of the thought. The old _guess-up_ had its origin in Pagan mythology. The Fauns of the Roman legend were supposed to be the transition species, or bridge across the chasm between the brute creation and man—a notion found in Hawthorne’s “Marble Faun.” So it is plain that evolution, in Darwin’s sense of the term, does not lie between new discoveries in science and old dogmas in religion, but it does lie between speculation in science and old dogmas in paganism—poor science, she carries much that does not belong to her! Evolution of species from other species is an idea found in heathen mythology; it is also found in the ancient heathen cosmogonies. The God of flocks and shepherds among the Greeks was a compound creature having the horns and feet of a goat and the face of a man. He was, doubtless, as near an approach to man as Darwin’s imaginary link at some imaginary point in his imaginary evolution.

This question is not one of progressive order in the same species, but a question relative to one species rising out of another of lower grade, and especially the development of man from the lower animals. Agassiz says, “Some have mistaken the action and reaction which exists everywhere in one and the same species for a _causal_ connection,” that is to say, these influences produced the species, whereas the species must exist before any such action and reaction can take place. The action of physical influences, or external surrounding, _or environments_ upon species could not take place unless the species _first existed_. Action and reaction in one and the same species already existing, furnishes no evidence upon the manner in which the species was first brought into existence. Darwin says: “The creation of organic matter having already taken place, my object is to show in consequence of what laws, or what demonstrable properties of organic matter, and of its environments, such states of organic nature as those with which we are acquainted must have come about.” Well, Mr. Darwin will never get nearer the truth upon this great question than he was when he marched boldly up to miraculous intervention in order to get his first unit, or living organism to place at the beginning of his evolutionary series, unless he comes back to Moses and takes Christian ground. Geology does not teach that species have been evolved from lower species. Geology declares that new forms are new expressions of creative power. All the physical forces that were operating upon our earth in the inorganic period, are in operation now. Why, O why, has it been that the experience and observation of the ages, as well as the record in the rocks, have failed to give, in all the earth, one sensible demonstration in support of the proposition that man, or any other species, was evolved from an inferior species? The answer is easy—blind physical forces were, and are, insufficient to bring into existence living being. Throughout every department of creation there are evidences of invisible or spiritual powers that lie behind the events that come under observation in science. Chemical affinity lies behind, and produces important changes that take place in organic matter. But chemical affinities do not explain living, organic, being; for we have our existence at the expense of chemical affinities. The living force, whatever it may be, lies behind chemical affinities, and controls them. Instinct influences many of the manifestations in animal life, and intelligence controls the sober conduct of men. Yet above all these there is that wonderful builder and overseer of the organism called life. As nature was perfect in all her elementary principles during the inorganic period, and as inertia was, and is, a property of matter, it follows, necessarily, that life was a new principle, from an immaterial source, otherwise inertia is not a property of matter; for a thing can not be—exist and not be at the same time.

Vogt reasons in favor of evolution of species from a few abnormal—that is deteriorated—human beings, which is the mistake spoken of by Agassiz, that action and reaction in one and the same species produce species. Action and reaction does not produce the species, nor yet _another species_. Men and apes have lived side by side for thousands of years. Why is it that apes have made no advance towards the human form? Poor fellows! An ape is always an ape, and a man is always a man. The geological record upon the rocks is in favor of man’s existence as man by creative interposition. The evolution hypothesis rests its conclusions upon effects that well-known causes have never been known to produce, for the evolution of species from lower species was never known anywhere in history or fact. In reference to Darwin’s ideas upon the origin of species, Mr. Huxley said: “That, notwithstanding the clearness of the style, those who attempt fairly to digest the book find much of it a sort of intellectual pemmican—a mass of facts crushed and pounded into shape, rather than held together by the ordinary medium of a logical bond.” The impossibility of a scientific test is admitted, for vast periods of time in the infinite past are claimed for the work of natural selection. Countless ages form the basis of the system, without which it could not have brought about the present order of things. But an infinite series of life forms upon our earth could not be possible, for it has been shown, allowing that the heat has passed out of our earth uniformly, as it does at present, that inside of a comparatively limited period in the past, it must have been so intensely hot as to have been capable of melting a mass of rock equal to the bulk of the whole earth. Yet Darwin has his half developed—imaginary animals strewn along there in the infinite ages of the past. Men may get around this difficulty by disregarding the facts of science and of common sense, or by doing as Tyndall did; that is, by taking up the mechanism of the human body, the mind itself, emotion, intellect, will and all their phenomena, and _latentizing_ them in a fire cloud. Tyndall says: “They were once _latent_ in a fiery cloud.” Farewell to common sense or Darwinism—which shall it be? Darwin’s idea that all the causes of evolution were placed in a common progenitor, by a miraculous creation of that common progenitor is in very poor harmony with his denial of design in nature, and also in poor harmony with the idea of environments contributing so extensively to the change of species; for if all the causes were placed in a common progenitor, of course, they are not to be found in the least degree in environment. If all was placed in a common progenitor, brought into existence by a miracle, as Darwin teaches, how is design to be excluded from nature? Imperfections in nature are urged against design in nature by all the school of evolutionists. But what kind of imperfection is that which is involved in the idea of God creating a common progenitor, lying at the base of Darwin’s series of evolution, possessing all the causes of all effects in nature, without designing those effects? What wonderful undesigned results!

There are those, among unbelievers, who profess to see no evidences of a designing intelligence in all the harmonies of nature, and yet profess to see the far off man behind the old stone ax. What wonderful intelligence they have! There is no want of intelligence; it is want of something else, which Christianity requires. I think so much of your common sense that I will leave you to say what that is. Socrates said: “When I was young it was surprising how earnestly I desired that species of science which they call physical, for it appeared to me pre-eminently excellent in bringing us to know the causes of each, through what each is produced and destroyed. But happening to hear some one read in a book, that it is intelligence which is the parent of order and cause of all things, I considered that, if it were so, the ordering intelligence placed each thing where it was best.”

Is mind a development upward from the instinct of the brute creation, or is it an offspring from God? Man’s reasoning intelligence separates him from the brute by a chasm that no man can carry the reasoning powers of mind across. _All on that side is brutish._ The science of the Bible, dealing with intelligence as its subject, is the highest order of science known to man. To limit the term science to physical phenomena is unjustifiable, unless matter is the only substance in the universe, and unless it be true, also, that some things resulting from matter lie outside of science; for if matter is the one, and only, substance, and if science deals with all there is, or may be, connected with that substance, then, according to materialists themselves, its province is to deal with life, mind and religion. But matter is not the only substance, unless a thing can be, exist, and not be at the same time; for if life is a property of matter inertia is not, and if mind is a property of matter it must be with all matter everywhere, or the thing is and is not at one and the same time.

The mind, in all its faculties, lies outside of the domain of the physical sciences. Each man gets his knowledge of his own mental and moral self-hood, not through the senses, but by his consciousness. So there is a mental science that looks inward, and a physical science that looks outward. Break down consciousness and philosophy is ruined. But some ignoramus is ready to say: What care I for philosophy? Poor fellow! He does not know what philosophy is; his ignorance is his trouble. Philosophy simply tells us _how things are_; it answers the question, _how is it_? There is nothing in which we are more interested than we are in the _how is it_? Let us not ruin philosophy; consciousness is her foundation with us; for in order to knowledge there must be primary and intuitive beliefs; the man who has no faith in his own ability to see truth, when it is presented through the medium of the senses, will never come to any definite conclusions about any thing. So mind is innate, and lies in consciousness, or self-hood, and is at the bottom of all our knowledge; otherwise we would not, and could not, be men.

Mind is above matter, and virtue and morals are above both in their results. The certainties are not all confined to physical nature, and hence science should not be. Personality and the freedom of the will, possessed in consciousness, are as certain as any facts in the physical world. Truth, justice, right and wrong are equally certain.

WAS IT POSSIBLE?

The miracle of the sun and the moon standing still in the days of Joshua is urged as contrary to the philosophy of nature, and therefore untrue. That which is simply above the ordinary is not necessarily contrary to the ordinary. The objection is without value until it be proven that there is no God; for it is in his power to control the planets. Otherwise he is not omnipotent. On this very account, it is true, that there is no consistent ground between Christianity and atheism; for the moment we admit the existence of God, that moment we concede the existence of the power adequate to the accomplishment of all the miracles of the Bible. Joshua went to the aid of the Gibeonites against the confederate kings; went up to Gilgal _all night_, and came instantaneously upon the enemy; having thrown them into confusion with great slaughter, and chased them from Gibeon to Beth-horon, in a westerly direction, the Lord co-operating in their destruction by a great hail-storm, which slew more than the swords of the Israelites, but touched not the Israelites. In this situation of things the sun appears over Gibeon eastward and the moon over Ajalon westward. When Joshua saw it, moved by a grand impulse, he said: “_Sun_, stand thou still over Gibeon; and thou, moon, over the valley of Ajalon.” See Joshua 10: 1 to 28.

The entire machinery of nature is no more in the hands of an Omnipotent God than a clock or watch in the hands of a man. How absurd it is for a man, who believes in God’s existence, to be emptying out his wicked ridicule, the result of his ignorance or otherwise, of his dishonesty, upon this miracle? Is not God above his laws? Can not he manipulate, take hold of and handle the laws of nature?

It is claimed that the miracle was contrary to the philosophy of nature. _God out_, it would be true, but _God in_, it is not. It is conceded by the best of minds that the Bible is in perfect accord with the Newtonian system; that the sun is the center of the solar system; and the earth, and all other planets, move round the sun in certain periodical times; that the sun revolves around his own axis, and round the common center of gravity included in his own surface; that the solar influence is the _cause_ of the annual and diurnal motions of the earth, and that the motions of the earth must continue while the solar influence continues to act upon it; that no power but that of Jehovah can change this solar influence; that he can suspend the operation of this influence; that he can and does manipulate—handle the laws which he has established—whenever his wisdom sees proper. It would be degrading to allow that the Almighty One threw this universe of his under laws over which he has no controlling power.

The miracle wrought upon this occasion was altogether worthy of God. Joshua spoke as if he knew all about the effect of the solar influence upon our planet; it is this influence that gives to our earth its diurnal motion, and the arresting of this influence would arrest the motion of the earth and the day would be lengthened out.

It is objected that if the sun should stand still one moment everything upon the earth would be swept from existence. It is the objection that is at fault, for there is no evidence that it was an instantaneous miracle. A few seconds is all that is necessary when a carriage is in rapid motion to enable its occupants to light out with perfect safety when an instantaneous pause would hurl them over the dash. At the equator the rotation of the earth is at the rate of fourteen hundred and twenty-six feet per second; twelve hundred and twelve feet at Jerusalem. It is the speed of a ball at the moment of leaving a cannon’s mouth, discharged by one-fifth of its own weight of powder. This power is allowed to be sufficient to elevate its ball to the height of twenty-four thousand feet, deducting the effect of atmospheric resistance. Yet a child of six summers could destroy all this force by the elastic and continued action of its fingers inside of two-thirds of a minute. This last objection is entirely worthless until it be shown that the miracle under consideration was instantaneous, for eighteen minutes is time enough to stop, gradually, our planet in its motion, so effectually that you would not feel that anything had happened. “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”