A Letter to "London Magazine".

A LETTER

TO

THE EDITOR OF THE “LONDON MAGAZINE.”

———

SIR, 1765.

IF you please to insert in your Magazine my answer to a letter directed to me in November last, you will oblige

Your humble servant,

JOHN WESLEY.

SIR

I AM obliged to you for your queries and remarks; and so I shall be to any who will point out anything wherein they think I have been mistaken. It would not be strange if there should be many mistakes in the “Compendium of Natural Philosophy;” as philosophy is what, for many years, I have only looked into at leisure hours. Accordingly, in the preface of that trentise, I said, “I am thoroughly sensible, there are many who have more ability, as well as leisure, for such a work than me; but as none of them undertakes it, I have myself made some little attempt in the following volumes.”

Q. 1. “You say, the sun revolves upon his axis once in twenty-seven hours. Should it not be, once in twenty-seven days nearly?” Yes, it should. This was an error of the press.

Q. 2. “You say, he is supposed to be abundantly larger than the earth. Is it not demonstrable that he is so?”

I do not know whether it is or no.

Q. 3. “You tell us, the moon turns always the same side to the earth. Should it not be, nearly the same?”

Yes.

Q. 4. “You say, it does not appear that she moves round her own axes. How then do you account for her turning always the same side to the earth?”

I think, full as well without the supposition as with it. But I do not undertake to account for anything.

Q. 5. “Why do you say, the moon is supposed to be forty-five times smaller than the earth, when the moon’s bulk is nicely known?” It is not known by me, nor, I doubt, by any man else.

Q. 6. “You say, Jupiter is supposed to be twenty-five times larger than the earth; and, in the next page, that his diameter is supposed to be 130,655 miles. If so, is he not 4,096 times larger than the earth?” Undoubtedly. But I do not undertake to defend either one supposition or the other.

Q. 7. “You inform us, that even a good eye seldom sees more than a hundred stars at a time. Do you mean, at one look?”

Yes.

Remark 1. “You say, (page 148,) ‘Even with respect to the distance of the sun, it is wisest to confess our ignorance, and to acknowledge we have nothing to rest upon here but mere uncertain conjecture.’” I did not say this of the distance of the sun, in particular. My words are, “With regard to their distance from the earth, (the distance of all the bodies in the solar system, there is such an immense difference in the calculations of astronomers, even with respect to the distance of the sun, that it is wisest to confess our ignorance: “Namely, with regard to their distance. (Page 146.)

To prove that we are not ignorant hereof, you say, “The knowledge of the sun’s distance depends on finding its parallax, or the angle that the semi-diameter of the earth appears under at the sun; which angle is so very minute, that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true distance.”

It will; and therefore I doubt whether the distance of any heavenly body can ever be known by this means.

“But Mr. Keill says, ‘We are assured by various methods made use of to obtain the sun’s parallax, that his distance from us is more than twenty-eight millions of miles.’”

He may be assured; but I am not.

“He says farther, ‘Two eminent astronomers have since determined the sun’s distance to be about seventy-six millions of miles.’ Now if the least distance possible is absolutely determined, how can it be wisest to confess our ignorance;?”

If it be: But I doubt it cannot be determined at all; at least, not by the sun’s parallax, “seeing this is so very minute, that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true.”

Remark 2. “In page 143, you tell us” — the whole paragraph runs thus: “It is now almost universally supposed, that the moon is just like the earth, having mountains and valleys, seas with islands, peninsulas and promontories, with a changeable atmosphere, wherein vapors and exhalations rise and fall; and hence it is generally inferred, that she is inhabited like the earth, and, by parity of reason, that all the other planets, as well as the earth and moon, have their respective inhabitants.” (I take this to be the very strength of the cause. It was this consideration chiefly which induced me to think for many years, that all the planets were inhabited.) “But after all comes the celebrated Mr. Huygens, and brings strong reasons why the moon is not, and cannot be, inhabited at all, nor any secondary planet whatever. Then” (if the first supposition sinks, on which all the rest are built) “I doubt that we shall never prove that the primary are. And so the whole hypothesis, of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them, vanishes into air.”

In order to prove that there are innumerable suns, you say, (1.)“It is found by observations on the parallax of the earth’s orbit, that a fixed star is ten thousand times farther from the sun than we are.”

I can build nothing on these observations, till parallaxes can be taken with greater certainty than they are at present. Therefore I shall want proof, that any one fixed star is one thousand times farther from the sun than we are.

(2.)“They are fiery bodies.” I suppose they are; but this cannot be proved from their distance, till that distance itself is proved. (3.)“It is demonstrable that Sirius is as big as the sun.” Demonstrate it who can.

(4.)“Seeing the fixed stars are not much less than the sun, they are to be esteemed so many suns.” “Not much less!” How is this proved? To argue from the distance is to prove ignotum per æque ignotum. 39

“You see, Sir, the hypothesis of innumerable suns is so far from vanishing into air, that it is almost altogether founded on demonstration.” Indeed I do not see one tittle of demonstration yet, from the beginning to the end.

In order to prove that the planets are inhabited, you say,

(1.) “The earth is spherical, opaque, enlightened by the sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving round it in a time exactly proportioned to its distance. The other planets resemble the earth in all these particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited.” I cannot allow the consequence.

(2.) “The earth has a regular succession of day and night, summer and winter. So probably have all the planets. Therefore they are inhabited.” I am not sure of the antecedent. But, however that be, I deny the consequence.

(3.) “Jupiter and Saturn are much bigger than the earth.” Does this prove that they are inhabited?

(4.) “The earth has a moon, Jupiter has four, Saturn five, each of these larger than ours. They eclipse their respective planets, and are eclipsed by them.” All this does not prove that they are inhabited.

(5.) “Saturn’s ring reflects the light of the sun upon him.” I am not sure of that. And, till the fact is ascertained, no certain inference can be drawn from it.

(6.) “But is it probable God should have created planets like our own, and furnished them with such amazing apparatus, and yet have placed no inhabitants therein?” Of their apparatus I know nothing. However, if all you assert be, the probability of their being inhabited, I contend not.

(7.) “They who affirm, that God created those bodies, the fixed stars, only to give us a small, dim light, must have a very mean opinion of the divine wisdom.”

I do not affirm this; neither can I tell for what other end He created them: He that created them knows. But I have so high an opinion of the divine wisdom, that I believe no child of man can fathom it. It is our wisdom to be very wary hour we pronounce concerning things which we have not seen.

Remark 10. “Suppose some intelligent beings in one of the planets, who were

Slaves to no sect, who sought no private road,

But look’d through nature up to nature’s God, viewed the earth from thence; they would argue it must be inhabited, as we argue the other planets are. But the superstitious would oppose this doctrine, and call it mere uncertain conjecture.”

I see no argument in this: But perhaps I do not understand it. Are you applauding the supposed inhabitants of Venus for not being slaves to the Christian sect? Otherwise, what has superstition to do in the case? Why is this dragged in by head and shoulders? If there be superstition here, it is on your side, who believe because you will believe; who assent to what you have no evidence for, and maintain what you cannot prove. At present you are the volunteer in faith: You swallow what chokes my belief. Remark 3. “You quote Dr. Rogers:”

But I do not undertake to defend his hypothesis, or any other. “Our best observators could never find the parallax of the sun to be above eleven seconds.”

But I cannot depend on their observations; especially when I find one of the chief of them in computing the distance of the sun, to stride from twenty-eight millions to seventy-six; near fifty millions of miles at once! After this, let any impartial man judge what stress is to be laid on parallaxes.

“But Dr. Rogers supposes the parallax of the sun to be five minutes, which others cannot find to be above eleven seconds. Why, Doctor, if this be true,” (namely, that the parallax which lately was but eleven seconds is now increased to five minutes,) “the earth has approximated thirty times nearer” (a little harmless tautology) “to the sun.”

That is, if both the computation of Mr. Keill, and that of Dr. Rogers, be true. But whoever supposed this? If the one be true, the other is undoubtedly false.

“To conclude: Since there is no arguing against facts, and since the sun’s parallax is not found to exceed eleven seconds, ought you not to give up that hypothesis as absurd and ridiculous?”

Yes; as soon as any of those facts appear. Till then, I neither espouse nor give it up. But I still look upon it as ingenious, and as probable as any other.

Before I conclude, permit me, Sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be not so positive; especially with regard to things which are neither easy nor necessary to be determined. I ground this advice on my own experience. When I was young, I was sure of everything: In a few years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I was not half so sure of most things as I was before: At present I am hardly sure of anything but what God has revealed to man.

Upon the whole, an ingenious man may easily flourish on this head: “How much more glorious is it for the great God to have created innumerable worlds, than this little globe only!” But, after all, I would only ask this one plain question: Suppose there are more worlds than there are sands on the sea shore; is not the universe finite still. It must be; unless it be God. And if it be finite, it can still bear no proportion to Him that is infinite; no more than this ball of earth does. How large soever it be, still, compared to Him, it is as nothing; as the small dust of the balance. Do you ask, then, “What is this spot to the great God?” Why, as much as millions of systems. Great and little have place with regard to us; but before Him they vanish away. Enlarge the bounds of creation as much as you please; still it is as but a drop to the Creator: —

And still the power of His almighty hand

Can form another world from every sand!

Yet, were this done, there would be no more proportion than there is now between Him and His creatures. In this respect, one world and millions of worlds are just the same thing. Is the earth a cipher, a nothing, to the infinitely great, glorious, wise, and powerful God? So is any number of worlds which can be conceived: So is all finite being to the infinite.