Reply to Bro. Hutchins.
By M. E. Cornell
I THINK the report in New Hampshire concerning what I said of the time of total eclipses, not exactly correct. I have usually reasoned about as follows: "The darkness of may 19, 1780, was not caused by an eclipse, 1. Because it was at the time of full moon, 2. Because a total eclipse does not occur, or could not occur AT THAT TIME, in the month of May." About the three months in which a total eclipse could not occur, I have no recollection. But whatever my statement was, it was made on the authority of a lecturer on astronomy with whom I conversed. I am glad it has been called in question, for I have never seen any necessity for any point of our faith to be supported by doubtful testimony. I shall take pains to ascertain the facts in relation to it. Does the lady you refer to claim that the phenomenon of May 19, 1780, was the result of an eclipse? If so, let her grapple with the well-known astronomical fact that the moon had just fulled, and that there never can be a total eclipse of the sun at the time of full moon. But if our main statement was true, and it cannot be disproved, it must be evident to every person that all this ado concerning a probable mistake in an incidental remark, not at all essential to the argument, is only for the sake of cavil, and to show a fault in the preacher because none can be found in the truth. Does the opposer imagine that the foundation of the house is gone, because a shingle has blown off the roof? While I regret that I should have brought forward doubtful testimony to support that which was already abundantly proven, I rejoice that truth rests upon its own immutable basis. Hoping to be so guarded in the future that I shall give no unnecessary occasion for our good to be evil spoken of, I shall still pray, "Truth is the gem for which we seek,
O, tell us where shall it be found?"