Mr. Burdon goes on to say, "now a revelation of the will of God (having first proved what God is) must be clear and intelligible to all the world, or there can be no infallible criterion of such a revelation. And, considering that of the small portion of mankind who believe in the Christian revelation, not one million agree to understand it in the same sense, it follows inevitably, that it cannot come from heaven: if there never has been a revelation, the presumption is so strong as to be almost undeniable that there never will be one." But why is it necessary to prove what God is? Is the knowledge of his essence necessary to establish his existence? No more I conceive, than a knowledge of the substratum of matter or of mind is requisite for a belief in their existence; and if he be allowed to exist, (and what unprejudiced person will not allow it?) he may reveal his will to us, in what form and manner he judges most proper. And though Christians differ in their interpretation of doctrines and particular texts of scripture, yet all agree in essentials, and in believing that their religion is a revelation from God, and that too from its evidences solely. Mr. Burdon's premises therefore being, I apprehend, false, his conclusion is false also. Mr. Burdon terminates his answer with saying, "as to the direct and positive evidences of Christianity, I know not what they are. I allow that it contains many good moral precepts,". &c. Mr. Burdon is a university man, was intended for the church, a man of literature, and a scholar; and yet is ignorant of the direct and positive evidences of Christianity!!!--Why this is almost as extravagant an assertion, as that of Dupuis, Volney, and Paine,* which denies the existence of Jesus!!! to this it is unnecessary to reply; and as to whether Christianity contained good moral precepts, &c. it formed no part of my questions, and has been already answered by others. Your's, &c. Blackfriars, March 10, 1812. W. I. Though Paine in the first and second parts of his "Age of Reason" admitted the existence of Jesus, and called him a virtuous character and a reformer, yet in the third part lately published, he adopts the opinion of Dupuis and Volney. VOL. II. ON THE STABILITY OF THE LAWS OF NATURE. All this dread order break--for whom? for thee? To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, THE design of this article is to illustrate the three following propositions: in the course of which illustration, opportunities will present themselves of referring, at least incidentally, to some of the strictures which appeared in your last number, on certain communications of mine. First, That the laws of the world are, at present, absolutely fixed and uniform. Secondly, That the laws of the world always have been fixed and uniform, since the creation to this day. Thirdly, That no human testimony whatever can warrant a belief in miraculous agency, or divine interposition. IfI should succeed in establishing the foregoing particulars, the candid reader will perceive that the controversy is at an end; if I should not succeed, it will then devolve on the advocates for revelation, to show wherein I have failed. I have undertaken to prove, first, that the laws of the world are, at present, fixed and uniform. And here, by the way, I find it difficult to abstain from expressing my surprise, that, considering the advanced condition of knowledge, any gentleman, moderately instructed, should gravely beg to know, what is meant by a "law* of nature," and even to solicit a catalogue of such laws. In your next, Mr. Editor, the gentleman may very possibly desire to know, what is meant by pen, ink, and paper. The most compendious method I know of, to arrrive at this kind of knowledge, is, to furnish himself with a dictionary. However, I perhaps cannot decently complain, when called upon for definitions, who have so unsparingly condemned others, for unintelligible and careless writing; though, in the present instance, the demand should proceed only from a flippant pertness, or an insolent volubility. By a law of nature, every body means-that order according * We presume the writer is not aware that he is misrepresenting the argument, and misquoting the words of his opponent W. C. He not only substitutes the indefinite for the definite article, but uses the noun in the singular instead of the plural number, which entirely alters the construction of the sentence, and turns the point of the objection. W. C. has nowhere asked, what" a law of nature is; but he wishes to be informed what "the laws of nature are"--that is, what is their nature and extent ? The whole tenor of W. C.'s letter shows that such is the information he seeks; and we submit to the writer, whether there is not some difference between such a question, and asking--what is meant by pen, ink, and paper-Editor. to which the Deity conducts any natural operation. Thus we say it is a law of nature, that the trees, in the latitude of England, should look green and beautiful in spring; naked and deformed in winter. That the longest day in June should exceed, by several hours, the longest day in December or January. That, in all latitudes, lead should sink in water; fire burn wood; and smoke ascend upwards. And nothing surely is easier, than to demonstrate the constancy and universality of these and similar laws. Does not the farmer, the chemist, the navigator, invariably proceed on the admission, that these laws are immutable and fixed? Does any man living question their stability?-I shall conclude this branch of my subject, therefore, by relating M. Richer's very interesting and curious experiment on the vibrations of a pendulum near the equator. A pendulum, like any other falling body, is acted upon by the force of gravity. Richer, who had been sent to Cayenne by order of the French king, on a voyage of observation, found that the pendulum of his clock no longer made its vibrations so frequently as in the latitude of Paris; and that it was absolutely necessary to shorten it about a line and a quarter, to make it agree with the times of the stars passing the meridian. This singular phenomenon led to a no less singular discovery; namely, the true figure of the earth. The philosophers of that time, adhering to the constancy of the laws of nature, justly concluded, that the variation in the pendulum's movement could not be the effect of chance, but must result from a diminution in the force of gravity, near the equator: and it is now known, by mathematical calculations, that the regions of the equator are in fact elevated above those of the poles nearly thirty-five miles. I now proceed to show, in the second place, that the laws of the world always have been fixed and uniform. shall have occasion frequently to employ the word experience; as much has been said in regard to the proper signification of this term, I shall here, once for all, acquaint the reader with the precise meaning which I shall annex to it. By experience, then, I mean, our knowledge of those occurrences, which fall under our own immediate observation, and which are capable of being verified by a repetition, or an appeal to experiment. Very closely allied to this, is the knowledge we derive from the experience of other people, when that experience implies nothing contradictory to our own experience of the laws of nature, and the usual succession of events. This simple statement will fortunately remove at once several objections which have been urged by our opponents, with a warmth and ostentation, certainly far beyond their merit. "And what are those laws of nature, (says the bishop of Lan * daff), which, you think, can never be suspended? are they not different to different men, according to the diversities of their comprehension and knowledge? and if any one of them (that, for instance, which rules the operations of magnetism or electricity) should have been known to you or to me alone, whilst all the rest of the world were unacquainted with it; the effects of it would have been new, and contrary to [different from the experience of mankind; and therefore ought not, in your opinion, to have been believed."-"Suppose that one of our modern aeronauts should tell a party of Indians, that, in England, seated in a convenient vehicle, he had frequently ascended from the earth, pierced the clouds, and travelled through the air with the utmost safety," &c. To these and all similar objections, the proper reply is, let the experiment be made before competent witnesses; and the testimony received or rejected accordingly. And even in cases where a direct experiment is not possible, we may often make considerable approaches towards certainty, by reflecting on the particular circumstances of the case in point, and by combining these ticular circumstances with the known and acknowledged course of nature. For example; we gather from the writings of Tacitus, Pliny, and others, that the climate of 1taly 2000 years ago was much colder, than it is at present. This, at first view, appears to contradict experience; but when it is recollected that, at the period referred to, gloomy forests and wide extended morasses covered a great portion of Italy, we not only admit the possibility of the fact, but we are quite sure, from the constancy of the laws of nature, that it must have been so, Wherever woods are cleared, and morasses drained, the climate uniformly becomes warmer. This is a law of nature. : par In this way, it is by no means difficult to connect our own experience with the experience of past ages; and so to accumulate a force of proof which nothing can overcome. Galileo, in a former age, discovered the solar spots and Cassini remarked, that these spots moved from east to west; the sun revolving on its own axis in twenty-five days, fourteen hours, and eight minutes. This is accurately the time in which the sun performs one of his revolutions now; and the spots also are still there, and may be seen by any one, with a good telescope, to-day or to-morrow. Several conjunctions and eclipses of the sun and moon are mentioned by ancient astronomers, (by Ptolemy for instance), which we know, from exact computations, must have taken place at the time specified and these computations are founded upon the laws by which these great bodies are guided at this day. The diurnal and an *See Bishop Watson's Letters to Mr. Gibbon. See p. 143 of last number. : nual revolution of our own planet; the ebb and flow of the tides; the essential properties of air, and light, and water, and fire; the colour and smell of many plants and flowers; the shape and disposition of a multitude of animals; these all appear to have been always the same. And since the more solid and durable parts of nature exhibit unequivocal marks of steadiness and constancy, hence it follows, by irresistible necessity, that the inferior and dependant parts of nature must have always exhibited similar marks of constancy and steadiness. Nor will any one. I presume, hazard the violation of the rules of logical and just reasoning, so far as to assert, that, prior to the date of authentic history, the Creator probably governed the world by a different set of laws and regulations. That a being infinitely wise and powerful should set out with governing the world by one system of laws, and then suddenly change his mind, and govern the same world for the future by another system, is a supposition so big with every thing that is prepos terous, not to say impious, that, for the honour of the human understanding, I will not suppose it possible to find any one capable of entertaining it. Thus by a very natural train of thinking, we connect our own experience with the experience of former ages and demonstrate the general stability of the laws of nature. I said general stability; not that I mean to make any concession, or to recede, in the smallest degree, from the proposition with which I set out; but only to intimate that 1 am aware of the distinction that is sometimes made in this part of the argument, namely, that the general stability does not exclude occa sional disturbances, or miraculous agency. But this brings me to the third and last division of my subject, which is ; That no human testimony whatever, can warrant a belief in miraculous agency, or divine interpositiou. A miracle has very properly been defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity. This appears to be a convenient place to remark, that nothing can be more injudicious, as well as incorrect, on the part of gentlemen on the other side, than to represent a miracle as depending, sometimes, on the suspension or violation of a known law; and sometimes, on the efficacy and operation of an unknown one. An uncommon appearance, resulting from the action of a concealed or unknown law, is not a miracle, if we would speak intelligibly. It may strike the ignorant beholder, indeed, as a miracle; but it can strike no one else as such subsequent philosophers see clearly, that the supposed miracle was either the effect of a law at that time not perfectly understood, or the consequence of a singular combination of incidents. But to return. |
