Voltaire, which might have been pardonable fifty years ago, though never appropriate, and now wholly unjust to our scientific men, and equally injurious to the interests of religion.

The great body of the scientific men of our time and country is reverential, and we may say religious, in its bent. And we should not forget that at least as much genius and learning are devoted to scientific as to any other pursuits. It is of great consequence, then, to ascertain what is the general testimony of these men as to the evidences of religion. Happily for the interests of mankind it is favorable, entirely so, we may say, so far as it goes. This is the tone of the generalizations of Humboldt. It is still more true of the writings of Agassiz, at least in their bearing on the great question before us, the indications of a Creator in the Cosmos.

The leading sentiment developed so far in the volumes already published of what promises to be the greatest work of this distinguished naturalist is, that nature is animate with proofs of the Divine Existence and a Divine Plan. The studies of his life lead him to the conclusion that the Cosmos is an "expression of the Divine thought." Indeed, Agassiz delights to introduce his convictions of this sublime truth, and dilates on it with an exuberance of expression and emotion, as well as tenacity of purpose, which must be truly refreshing to those who are disappointed at not finding it in Humboldt.

But after all, these great naturalists are fellow-workers of the same school, both successors and disciples of Cuvier, for which reason we have introduced the name of that most illustrious savant of France in connection with theirs, a splendid triumvirate, the French Cuvier, the German Humboldt, the Swiss Agassiz, all men of the highest genius and attainment, witnesses, each in his way, for the fundamental truth of relig ion, the existence and providence of one. God, the absolute Creator and infinite Personality, and sole Cause of the Cosmos.

In this Cosmos, then, we are to search for palpable proofs of the personality, the power, the wisdom and goodness of Him, who is the spring of all its order, beauty, and harmony. This was the doctrine of St. Paul, and is no less the testimony of science. This, though uttered but in "reason's ear," is never

theless, as we believe, both explicit and satisfactory. To him who heeds it, it is scarcely less clear than proof from Holy Writ, or would be so, were it not for the blinding and pervert. ing effects of sin in the heart and understanding.

The argument for Monotheism in opposition to Polytheism, Pantheism, and Atheism, may be stated thus: One absolute Cause or Mind is necessary to account for and sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, its endless forms and varieties; in short, all the phenomena, both of matter and of mind.

If this can be made out, it virtually settles the question of one personal God in opposition to Polytheism, Pantheism, and Atheism, for all that the exactest science demands of a theory which offers itself to her for approval is, that it be able to account for all the facts in the sphere of its application.

The doctrine of one only God, whose existence is a personal existence, as real as ours, (and more so as absolute and underived,) more than complies with this requisition, for while it is sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the universe, the investigations of naturalists and philosophers have led to the discovery of numerous facts of the most interesting character, each by itself unmistakably pointing to a Divine Original, and when brought together, all combining to form a great scheme most evidently planned and executed by one Infinite Mind.

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul."

Every object is in its constitution either simple or complex. If all objects were absolutely simple, it would be clearly inconsistent to assign more than one cause to each, for how can there be more than one cause of an effect absolutely simple, an effect which has neither parts nor degrees? Now we have such an object in the ultimate particles of matter, according to the atomic theory of the ancients, reinstated in its pristine authority by Boscovich, and accepted by modern chemists generally.

Equally favorable to our present argument is the Dynamical Theory of the Universe, a theory which first receiving its VOL. VI.-44

scientific form from the plastic genius of Leibnitz, has from that time been slowly supplanting all other hypotheses, and appears destined ultimately to supersede them all.

The peculiarity of this theory is, that in their last analysis it resolves both mind and matter into forces or indivisible monads. All monads are alike in that they equally contain an inward energy by virtue of which they develop themselves spontaneously, but they are different, inasmuch as each has certain peculiarities agreeably to which it develops. Thus the material universe is composed of unconscious monads, the soul of a brute is an indistinctly conscious, and that of a man a distinctly conscious, monad.

Recondite as is this theory, and subtle as is the analysis on which it is founded, it surpasses all others in simplicity, consistency, and unity; perhaps in all those conditions most in harmony with the tendencies of metaphysical philosophy in the nineteenth century.

At any rate, so far as accepted, it must be regarded as highly favorable to our present argument. The conception of a monad (whether conscious or unconscious) is that of an invisible, uncompounded force-a simple, absolute unit, and as such could have had, of course, but one absolute cause.

And not only this, but any theory of the human mind which supposes its indivisibility, furnishes a proof of the same sort for the existence of one God.

Even if, on any hypothesis, the simplicity and consequent indiscerptibility of the mind is incapable of proof, it is certain that the idea of our personality revealed in consciousness, is that of an indivisible personality, a simple effect proving to a demonstration, that it is to be ascribed to one cause, and only one, and that an intelligent personal Cause.

In the external universe, intimations of an absolute unity are no less numerous or decisive. The law of gravitation furnishes an example both corroborative and suggestive. To cite a passage from Humboldt relating to it, (one of many equally pertinent which abound in the Cosmos :) "The immortal anthor of the Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Newton) succeeding in embracing the whole uranological por

tion of the Cosmos in the casual connection of its phenomena, by the assumption of one all-controlling, fundamental, moving force. He first applied physical astronomy to solve a great problem in mechanics, and elevated it to the rank of a mathematical science. The quantity of matter in every celestial body gives the amount of its attracting force; a force which acts in an inverse ratio to the square of the distance, and determines the amount of the disturbances, which not only the planets but all the bodies in celestial space exercise on each other. But the Newtonian theory of gravitation, so worthy of our admiration from its simplicity and generality, is not limited in its cosmical application to the uranological sphere, but comprises also telluric phenomena, in directions not yet fully investigated; it affords the clue to the periodic movements in the ocean and the atmosphere; and solves the probblems of capillarity, of endosmosis, and of many chemical, electro-magnetic, and organic processes. Newton even distinguished the attraction of masses, as manifested in the motion of cosmical bodies, and in the phenomena of the tides, from molecular attraction, which acts at infinitely small distances, and in the closest contact.

"Thus we see that among the various attempts which have been made to refer whatever is unstable in the sensuous world to a single fundamental principle, the theory of gravitation is the most comprehensive and the richest in cosmical results. It is indeed true that, notwithstanding the brilliant progress that has been made in recent times in stachiometry, (the art of calculating with chemical elements, and in the relations of volume of mixed gases,) all the physical theories of matter have not yet been referred to mathematically determinable principles of explanation. Empirical laws have been recog nized, and by means of the extensively diffused views of the atomic or corpuscular philosophy, many points have been rendered more accessible to mathematical investigation; but owing to the unbounded heterogeneousness of matter, and the manifold conditions of aggregation of particles, the proofs of these empirical laws can not as yet by any means be developed from the theory of contact-attraction, with that certainty

which characterizes the establister
empirical laws derived from the the
masses or gravitation

But, further, where there is no al

unity in an effect, as in the estru

steam-engine, in which all the rare mal testni de

end. In such an organisın te

irresistibly proves the miy of is the

Now the universe is surt at efen

which all the parts are exer

electricity, chemical story, mamma 29 de m

forces which by their muted

a constant equilberm

the

(N‹

brata, files,

mammalla se f

form structure in the beginning

.: