appearance only.

It is the same with the conclusions of natural philosophy, when well
proved by experiment, however unaccountable for awhile may be the
discrepancy with apparently opposing phenomena. No one disbelieves the
Copernican theory now; though thousands did for awhile, on what they
believed the irrefragable evidence of their senses. Now, let us only
suppose the Copernican theory not to have been discovered by human
reason, but made known by revelation, and its reception enjoined on
faith, leaving the apparent inconsistency with the evidence of the
senses just as it was. Thousands, no doubt, would have said, that no
such evidence could justify them in disbelieving their own eyes,
and that such an insoluble objection was sufficient to overturn
the evidence. Yet we now see, in point of fact, that it is not only
possible, but true, that the objection was apparent only, and admits of
a complete solution. Thousands accordingly receive philosophy--this
very philosophy--on testimony which apparently contradicts their senses,
without even yet knowing more of it than if it were revealed from
heaven. This gives too much reason to suspect, that in other and higher
cases, the will has much to do with human scepticism. Nor do we well
know what thousands who neglect religion on account of the alleged
uncertainty of its evidence could reply, if God were to say to them,

'And yet on such evidence, and that far inferior in degree, you have
never hesitated to act, when your own temporal interests were concerned.
You never feared to commit the bark of your worldly fortunes to that
fluctuating element. In many cases you believed on the testimony of
others what seemed even to contradict your own senses. Why were you so
much more scrupulous in relation to ME?'