diff options
Diffstat (limited to '28126-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 28126-tei/28126-tei.tei | 2027 |
1 files changed, 2027 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/28126-tei/28126-tei.tei b/28126-tei/28126-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cad9576 --- /dev/null +++ b/28126-tei/28126-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,2027 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>The Christian Foundation, April, 1880</title> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="1">Edition 1</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>February 19, 2009</date> + <idno type="etext-no">28126</idno> + <availability> + <p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and + with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it + away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg + License online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + <language id="la"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2009-02-19">February 19, 2009</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Bryan Ness, David King, and the Online Distributed + Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain + material from the Google Print project.) + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">The Christian Foundation,</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Or,</p> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">Scientific and Religious Journal</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Vol. 1. No 4.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">April, 1880.</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + + </front> +<body> + +<pb n='121'/><anchor id='Pg121'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Is There A Counterfeit Without A Genuine?</head> + +<p> +My object in this lesson is to present the myths, the ancient, +fictitious and fanciful narratives concerning the gods, in such +a manner as to enable you to see the utter absurdity of the +idea that the religion of the Bible is of mythical origin. +<emph>Myths</emph> are fictitious narratives, having an analogy more or less +remote to something real. From this definition you discover +that a myth is <emph>always</emph> a counterfeit, and as such always appears +in evidence in favor of something more or less remote, +that is true. Now, if the Bible had a mythical origin, it sustains +some analogy to something found in the mythical or fictitious +and fanciful narratives concerning the gods, and is +therefore the myth of a myth; the counterfeit of a counterfeit. +If such be the truth in the case, where do we find the +origin of the myths from which <q>Bible myths</q> have descended? +Is it found in the true God presiding over the elements +of nature and the destinies of men, as well as the events +of creation and providence? Or, can it be possible that we +have many counterfeits <emph>without a genuine</emph>? Many myths sustaining +no analogy, either near or remote, to anything real? +It is an absurdity, destructive of the term employed, because +<emph>myths</emph> cease to be <emph>myths</emph> without some near or remote relation to +realities. They <emph>must</emph> sustain some analogy to something real. +And <emph>counterfeits</emph> also cease to be <emph>counterfeits</emph> when it is shown +<pb n='122'/><anchor id='Pg122'/> +that they sustain no relation, through analogy or likeness, to +anything that is genuine. In the mythical systems of olden +times we have, in the midst of a vast deal of false and fanciful +narrative concerning subordinate and secondary gods, evidence +of a supreme God presiding over all things; and the +secondary gods performing many things which belonged to +the province of the <q>Almighty One,</q> with many degrading, +vile and corrupting habits. +</p> + +<p> +A letter written by Maximus, a Numidian, to Augustin, +reads thus: <q>Now, that there is a sovereign God, who is +without beginning, and who, without having begotten anything +like unto Himself, is, nevertheless, the Father and the +former of all things, what man can be gross and stupid +enough to doubt? He it is of whom, under different names, +we adore the eternal power extending through every part of +the world, thus honoring separately by different sorts of worship +what may be called His several members, we adore Him +entirely. May those subordinate gods preserve you under +whose names, and by whom all we mortals upon earth adore +the common Father of gods and men.</q> In this letter we +have a clear presentation of the mythical system concerning +the ancient gods, and also the <q>analagous relation</q> to the +<q>Master God.</q> Each god having his particular dominion +over place or passion, appears before us as a representative +of the supreme, or <q>Master God;</q> and by worshiping each +member or God they claimed to adore entirely the <q>common +Father of gods and men.</q> Augustin answers, In your public +square there are <emph>two statues</emph> of Mars, one naked, the other +armed; and close by the figure of a man who, with three +fingers advanced towards Mars, holds in check that divinity +so dangerous to the whole town. With regard to what you +say of such gods being portions of the only <q>true God,</q> I +take the liberty you gave me to warn you not to fall into such +a sacrilege; for that only God, of whom you speak, is doubtless +He who is acknowledged by the whole world, and concerning +whom, as some of the ancients have said, the ignorant +agree with the learned. Now, will you say that Mars, whose +<pb n='123'/><anchor id='Pg123'/> +strength is represented by an inanimate man, is a portion of +that God? That is to say, the dead statue controls Mars, and +Mars is a subordinate god representing the infinite God, and +is, therefore, a part of that God. Augustin adds, Not the +Pantheon and all the temples consecrated to the inferior gods, +nor even the temples consecrated to the twelve greater gods +prevented <q>Deus Optimus Maximus,</q> God most good, most +great, from being acknowledged throughout the empire. +Voltaire says, <q>In spite of all the follies of the people who +venerated secondary and ridiculous gods, and in spite of the +Epicurians, who in reality acknowledged none, it is verified +that in all times the magistrates and wise adored one sovereign +God.</q> Secondary gods were <emph>myths</emph>, counterfeits, sustaining +the <emph>relation</emph> of counterfeits. The ancients attributed their +own passions to the <q>Master God,</q> and had subordinate gods +representing passions. They also had a god for each part of +His dominion; and these gods they called members of the +true God, and claimed to worship Him, by worshiping all the +members or gods. Mars was the god of war; Bacchus was the +god of drunkenness. They had a god for this and a god for +that. The ancient pagans seemed to think that infinite divisibility +belonged to the <q>true God,</q> for they distinguished +between passions, and divided up the universe among the gods +until they had it crammed full of subordinate and ridiculous +gods, each one a member of Jehovah, and each member a part +of the great mythical system. +</p> + +<p> +Now, in order to establish the proposition that our religion +is of mythical origin, it is necessary to show, first, that the +Bible was written this side of or during the age of myths, and, +having done this, it is necessary to show that the Hebrew +people were a mythical people; neither of which can be accomplished. +It will not be amiss to present in this connection +a statement given by Justin to the Greeks. He says: <q>Of +all your teachers, whether sages, poets, historians, philosophers, +or law-givers, by far the oldest, as the Greek historians show +us, was Moses.... For in the times of Ogyges and +Inachus, whom some of your poets have supposed to have +<pb n='124'/><anchor id='Pg124'/> +been earth-born—that is, to have sprung from the soil, and +hence one of the oldest inhabitants—<emph>the aborigines</emph>, Moses is +mentioned as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation.</q> He +is mentioned as a very ancient and time-honored prince in the +Athenian, Attic and Grecian histories. Polemon, in his first +book of Hellenics, mentions Moses as the leader and ruler of +the Jewish nation. Ptolemæus, in his history of Egypt, bears +the same testimony. Apion, an Egyptian writer, in his book +against the Jews, says <q>Moses led them.</q> Dr. Shaw, a modern +traveler, says the inhabitants of Corondel, on the eastern +side of the Red Sea, to this day preserve the remembrance of +the deliverance of the children of Israel from their bondage +in Egypt. Diodorus, the most renowned Greek historian, who +employed thirty years epitomizing the libraries, and traveled +over Asia and Europe for the sake of great accuracy, who +wrote forty volumes of history, says he learned from the +Egyptian priests that Moses was an ancient law-giver. +</p> + +<p> +It seems to us that, no sane man, who is acquainted with the +ancient mythicals, can regard the religion of the Bible as a +child of mythical descent. It is as deadly in its influence +upon those myths, and all mythical worship, as it could be +made by an infinite mind. +</p> + +<p> +Voltaire says <q>the character of the mythical gods is ridiculous;</q> +we will add, it is ridiculous in the extreme. Listen—Hesiod, +in his theogony, says: <q>Chronos, the son of Ouranos, +or Saturn, son of Heaven, in the beginning slew his father, +and possessed himself of his rule, and, being seized with a +panic lest he should suffer in the same way, he preferred devouring +his children, but Curetes, a subordinate god, by craft, +conveyed Jupiter away in secret and afterwards bound his +brother with chains, and divided the empire, Jupiter receiving +the air, and Neptune the deep, and Pluto Hades.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Pros-er-pi-ne, Mella-nip-pe, Neptune, Pluto and Jupiter +are all set forth in the mythical writings as adulterers. +Jupiter was regarded as more frequently involved in that +crime, being set down as guilty in many instances. For the +love of Sem-e-le, it is said that he assumed wings and proved +<pb n='125'/><anchor id='Pg125'/> +his own unchastity and her jealousy. These are some of the +exploits of the sons of Saturn. Hercules was celebrated by +his three nights, sung by the poets for his successful labors. +</p> + +<p> +The son of Jupiter slew the Lion, and destroyed the many-headed +Hydra; was able to kill the fleet man-eating birds, +and brought up from hades the three-headed dog, Cerberus; +effectually cleansed the Augean stable from its refuse; killed +the bulls and stag whose nostrils breathed fire; slew the +poisonous serpent and killed Ach-e-lò-us. The guest-slaying +Bu-sí-ris was delighted with being stunned by the cymbals of +the Sat-yrs, and to be conquered with the love of women; and +at last, being unable to take the cloak off of Nessus, he +kindled his own funeral pile and died. Such are specimens of +the ancient myths. Their character is such as to leave an impassible +gulf between them and the character of the God +revealed in our religion. No development theory, seeking +the origin of our religion in the old mythical system, can +bridge across this chasm. It is as deep and broad as the distance +between the antipodes. There is no analogy between +these counterfeits or myths and the <q>true God,</q> save that remote +power of God which is divided up and parceled out +among them. Their morals were the worst. The whole +mythical system is simply one grand demonstration of human +apostacy from the <q>true God.</q> Homer introduces Zeus in +love, and bitterly complaining and bewailing himself, and +plotted against by the other gods. He represents the gods as +suffering at the hands of men. Mars and Venus were +wounded by Di-o-me-de. He says, <q>Great Pluto's self the +stinging arrow felt when that same son of Jupiter assailed +him in the very gates of hell, and wrought him keenest +anguish. Pierced with pain, to the high Olympus, to the +courts of Jupiter groaning he came. The bitter shaft remained +deep in his shoulder fixed, and grieved his soul.</q> In the +mythical system the gods are not presented as creators or first +causes. Homer says, They were in the beginning generated +from the waters of the ocean, and thousands were added by +deifying departed heroes and philosophers. The thought of +<pb n='126'/><anchor id='Pg126'/> +one supreme Intelligence, the <q>God of Gods,</q>, runs through +all the system of myths. It is found anterior to the myths, +and, therefore, could not have had its origin with them. The +character ascribed to our God, in our scriptures, has no place +among the ancient myths. They hold the <q>Master God</q> +before us only in connection with power, being altogether +ignorant of His true character. They even went so far as to +attribute much to Him that was ridiculous. One of the +ancients said, <q>The utmost that a man can do is to attribute +to the being he worships his imperfections and impurities, +magnified to infinity, it may be, and then become worse by +their reflex action upon his own nature.</q> This was verified in +the ancient mythical religion, without exception, and without +doubt. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The character of all the gods was simply human character +extended in all its powers, appetites, lusts and passions. +Scholars say there is no language containing words that express +the Scriptural ideas of holiness and abhorrence of sin, +except those in which the Scriptures were given, or into which +they have been translated. These attributes must be known +in order to salvation from sin, so God revealed Himself and +gave the world a pure religion, as a standard of right and +wrong, and guide in duty, and rule of life.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The history of the ancient nations of the earth gives a +united testimony that their original progenitors possessed a +knowledge of the one true and living God, who was worshiped +by them, and believed to be an infinite, self-existent +and invisible spirit. This notion was never entirely extinguished +even among the idolatrous worshipers. Greek and +Latin poets were great corrupters of theology, yet in the +midst of all their Gods there is still to be found, in their writings, +the notion of one supreme in power and rule, whom they +confound with Jupiter. +</p> + +<p> +The age of myths began with the tenth generation after the +flood. The evidence of this is given by Plato from one of the +ancient poets in these words: <q>It was the generation <emph>then the +tenth</emph>, of men endowed with speech, since forth the flood had +<pb n='127'/><anchor id='Pg127'/> +burst upon the men of former times, and Kronos, Japetus and +Titan reigned, whom men of Ouranos proclaimed the noblest +sons, and named them so, because of men <emph>endowed with gift +of speech</emph>, they were the first,</q> that is to say, they were orators, +<q>and others for their strength, as Heracles and Perseus, +and others for their art. Those to whom either the subjects +gave honor, or the rulers themselves <emph>assuming it</emph>, obtained the +name, some from fear, others from reverence. Thus Antinous, +through the benevolence of your ancestors toward their subjects, +came to be regarded as a god. But those who came +after adopted the worship without examination.</q> So testifies +one who was schooled in philosophy. Do you say there are +points of similitude between the Bible religion and the mythical? +It would be strange if there were none, seeing that the +mythical is truly what the term signifies, a counterfeit upon +the genuine, or Biblical. +</p> + +<p> +The points of disagreement, however, are such as to demonstrate +the fact that the ancient mythical people knew not the +character of the Being, whom they conceived to be the <q>God +of Gods and the Father of Gods and men.</q> Those who confound +the Bible with the ancient myths upon the score of the +analogy that exists between it and the myths, remind me of a +very learned gentleman with whom I was once walking around +an oat field, when he remarked, <q><emph>there</emph> is a very fine piece of +wheat.</q> The man had been brought up in an eastern city, and +was unable to distinguish between oats and wheat. I knew a +gentleman who asked a man, standing by the side of an old-fashioned +flax-break, what he thought it was used for? The +man took hold of the handle, lifted it up and let it down a few +times, and said: <q>It looks like it might be used to chop up +sausage meat.</q> It is very natural for us to draw comparisons, +and when we do not make ourselves familiar with things and +their uses, we are very liable to be led into error by a few +points of similitude. All the infidels with whom I have become +acquainted look upon the Bible like the man looked upon +the flax-break, and like the man looked upon the oat field. If +one had looked upon the flax-break who was familiar with it, +<pb n='128'/><anchor id='Pg128'/> +he never could have dreamed of chopping sausage meat; and +if the other had been familiar with wheat and oats, as they present +themselves to the eye in the field in the month of June, +he never would have called the oats wheat. And if any sane +man will make himself familiar with both the Bible and the +old system of myths and mythical worship, he will never confound +the two. There are a thousand things, very different in +character and origin, which have points of similitude. But +similitude never proves identity short of completeness. While +the analogy between the ancient mythical system of gods and +their worship and the true God and His worship is restricted +to power and intelligence, there exists a contrast between them +deep as heaven is high and broad as the earth in point of moral +character, virtue, and every ennobling and lovable attribute. +</p> + +<p> +There is an old myth in the Vedas—a god called <q>Chrishna.</q> +The Vedas claim that he is in the form of a man; that he is +black; that he is dressed in flowers and ribbons; that he is +the father of a great many gods. It is surprising to see the +eagerness with which some men bring up <q>Chrishna</q> in comparison +with the Greek term <q>Christos</q>—Christ, and confound +the two. The words are entirely different, save in a +jingle of sound. They are no more alike than the terms +<emph>catechist</emph>—one who instructs by questions and answers, and +the term catechu—a dry, brown astringent extract. We could +give many such examples in the history of unbelievers and +their war upon the Bible, but this must suffice for the present. +The truth is this: such men, as a general rule, neither understand +the Bible in its teachings and character, nor the ancient +mythical system. In it Jupiter, among the Romans, and +throughout every language, appears before us as the <q>Father +of Gods and men</q>—<q>the God of gods,</q> the <q>Master of the +gods.</q> Voltaire says: It is false that Cicero, or any other +Roman, ever said that it did not become the majesty of the +empire to acknowledge a Supreme God. Their Jupiter, the +Zeus of the Greeks and the Jehovah of the Phonecians, was +always considered as the master of the secondary gods. He +adds: But is not Jupiter, the master of all the gods, a word +<pb n='129'/><anchor id='Pg129'/> +belonging to every nation, from the Euphrates to the Tiber? +Among the first Romans it was <hi rend='italic'>Jov</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>Jovis</hi>; +among the Greeks, <hi rend='italic'>Zeus</hi>; among the Phonecians and Syrians and +Egyptians, <hi rend='italic'>Jehovah</hi>. The last term is the Hebrew scriptural name of +God—denoting <emph>permanent being</emph>—in perfect keeping with the +Bible title or descriptive appellation, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>I am that I am</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The ancient worshipers of the gods had lost all but the +name, <emph>power</emph> and relation, which they ever knew of Jehovah. +And they could do no more than clothe Jupiter with their own +imperfections and impurities—and then place him above all +the gods; it was necessary for them to view him as excelling +in all the characteristics of the secondary gods. And having +attributed to the gods all they knew of human passions and +corruptions, they clothed Jupiter himself with more villainy +and corruption than belonged to any other god. In this was +the great blasphemous sacrilege of ancient idolatry. They +thus demonstrated their own apostacy; and the fact that their +system of gods was a counterfeit, a mythical system. They +were destitute of any standard of right and wrong, having no +conceptions of the divine character which were not drawn +from their own imperfect and corrupt lives. The divine +character, as revealed in the revelation of Christ, and presented +to us as God manifest in the flesh, is at once the very +opposite of the characters given in the myths. The distance +between the two is the distance between the lowest degradation +of God-like power exercised in the lowest passions, and +the sublimity of Heaven's own spotless life. I love the religion +of the Scriptures, because it restores to the race the lost +knowledge of God and the additional life of Jesus—the only +perfect model known in the history of the race. It is the +life of God manifested in the flesh; make it <emph>your own</emph>, and it +will save you. Mr. English, an American infidel, said: <q>Far +be it from me to reproach the meek and compassionate, the +amiable Jesus, or to attribute to him the mischiefs occasioned +by his followers.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is now conceded that Jesus Christ was <emph>no myth</emph> by all +the great minds in unbelief. He lived. We love his life, +<pb n='130'/><anchor id='Pg130'/> +because all who would rob Him of His authority are compelled +to speak well of it. Rousseau, another infidel, says: <q>It is +impossible that he whose history the gospel records can be +but a man,</q> adding, <q rend='pre'>Does he speak in the tone of an enthusiast, +or of an ambitious sectary? What mildness! What +purity in his manners! What touching favor in his instructions! +What elevation in his maxims! What presence of +mind! What ingenuity, and what justice in his answers! +What government of his passions! What prejudice, blindness +or ill faith must that be which dares to compare Socrates +with the Son of Mary!</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>What a difference between the two! Socrates, dying without +a pain, without disgrace, easily sustains his part to the +last. The death of Socrates, philosophizing with his friends, +is the mildest that could be desired. That of Jesus, expiring +in torments, injured, mocked, cursed by all the people, is the +most horrible that can be feared. Socrates, taking the impoisoned +cup, blesses him who presents it to him with tears. +Jesus, in the midst of a frightful punishment, prays for his +enraged executioners. Yes, if the life and death of Socrates +are those of a wise man, the life and death of Jesus are those +of a God.</q> If such be the model, the pattern, the example +which I am to follow, let me live and die a Christian. I love +the religion of Christ, because its character compels its +enemies to speak thus of it. I love it because of its practical +influence in elevating all into the moral image of Christ. I +love it because it saves men through its influence from +abominable sins and consequent sorrows that would tear up +the hearts of thousands. I love it because it is the power of +God to save the soul. I love it because it leads men into +communion and fellowship with all the good. I love it because +it leads to heaven and to God. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> + +<p> +Civilization, it is true, is an arbitrary term. Anthropologists +have not yet settled the boundary line between a savage +and a civilized people.—<hi rend='italic'>Prof. Owen, F. R. S.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='131'/><anchor id='Pg131'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Design In Nature.</head> + +<p> +It is scarcely necessary to designate instances in the works +of nature, in which there is an appearance of purpose, for +everything has this appearance. I will, however, mention +several cases as samples. +</p> + +<p> +1. The adaptation of the covering of animals to the climates +in which they live. Northern animals have thicker +and warmer coats of fur or hair than Southern ones. And +here it should be remarked that man, the only creature +capable of clothing himself, is the only one that is not clothed +by nature. Singular discrimination and care indeed for non-intelligence! +</p> + +<p> +2. The adaptation of animals to the elements in which +they live, the fish to the water, other animals to the air. +Would not an unintelligent energy or power be as likely to +form the organs of a fish for air as for water? +</p> + +<p> +3. The necessity which man has for sustenance, and the +supply of that necessity by nature. +</p> + +<p> +Here let it be noted how many things must act in unison +to produce the necessary result. The earth must nourish the +seed, the sun must warm it, the rain must moisten it, and +man must have the strength to cultivate it, and the organs to +eat it, and the stomach to digest it, and the blood-vessels to +circulate it, and so on. Is it credible that all these things +should <emph>happen</emph> without design? +</p> + +<p> +4. The pre-adaptation of the infant to the state of things +into which it enters at birth. The eye is exactly suited to the +light, the ear to sound, the nose to smell, the palate to taste, +the lungs to the air. How is it possible to see no design in +this pre-adaptation, so curious, so complicated in so many +particulars? +</p> + +<p> +5. The milk of animals suitable for the nourishment of +their young, provided just in season, provided without contrivance +on the part of the parent, and sought for without +instruction or experience on the part of its offspring! <emph>and all by +chance!!</emph> +</p> + +<pb n='132'/><anchor id='Pg132'/> + +<p> +6. The different sexes. In this case, as in the rest, there +is perfect adaptation, which displays evident design. And +there is more. What, I ask, is there <emph>in nature</emph> to cause a +difference in sexes? Why are not all either males or females? +or, rather, a compound? This case, then, I consider not only +an evidence of design, but likewise an evidence of the special +and continued <emph>volition</emph> of the Creator. +</p> + +<p> +7. The destitution of horns on the calf and of teeth in +the suckling. All other parts are perfect at the very first; +but were calves and sucklings to have teeth and horns, what +sore annoyances would these appendages prove to their dams +and dames. How is it that all the necessary parts of the +young are thus perfect at the first, and their annoying parts +unformed till circumstances render them no annoyance—unformed +at the time they are not needed, and produced when +they are, for defense and mastication? Who can fail to see +intelligence here? +</p> + +<p> +8. The teats of animals. These bear a general proportion +to the number of young which they are wont to have at a +time. Those that are wont to have few young have few teats; +those that have many young have many teats. Were these +animals to make preparations themselves in this respect, how +could things be more appropriate? +</p> + +<p> +9. The pea and the bean. The pea-vine, unable to stand +erect of itself, has tendrils with which to cling to a supporter; +but the bean-stalk, self-sustained, has nothing of the kind. +</p> + +<p> +10. The pumpkin. This does not grow on the oak; to +fall on the tender head of the wiseacre reposing in its shade, +<emph>reasoning</emph> that it should grow there rather than where it does, +because, forsooth, the oak would be able to sustain it. And +were he to undertake to set the other works of Providence to +rights which he now considers wrong, 'tis a chance if he +would not get many a thump upon his pate ere he should get +the universe arranged to his mind. And if, before completing +his undertaking, he should not find it the easier of the two to +arrange his mind to the universe, it would be because <emph>what +<pb n='133'/><anchor id='Pg133'/> +little</emph> brains he <emph>has</emph> would get thumped out of his cranium +altogether! +</p> + +<p> +11. The great energies of nature. To suppose the existence +of <emph>powers</emph> as the cause of the operations of nature—powers +destitute of life, and, at the same time, self-moving, +and acting upon matter without the intervention of extrinsic +agency, is just as irrational as to suppose such a power in a +machine, and is a gross absurdity and a self-contradiction. +But to suppose that these lifeless energies, even if possessed +of such qualities, could, void of intelligence, produce <emph>such</emph> +effects as <emph>are</emph> produced in the universe, requires credulity capable +of believing anything. +</p> + +<p> +12. The whole universe, whether considered in its elementary +or its organized state. From the simple grass to the +tender plant, and onward to the sturdy oak; from the least +insect up to man, there is skill the most consummate, design +the most clear. What substance, useless as it may be when +uncompounded with other substances, does not manifest design +in its affinity to those substances, by a union with which it is +rendered useful? What plant, what shrub, what tree has not +organization and arrangement the most perfect imaginable? +What insect so minute that contains not, within its almost invisible +exterior, adjustment of part to part in the most exact +order throughout all its complicated system, infinitely transcending +the most ingenious productions of art, and the most +appropriate adaptation of all those parts to its peculiar mode +of existence? Rising in the scale of sensitive being, let us +consider the beast of the forest, in whose case, without microscopic +aid, we have the subject more accessible. Is he a beast +of prey? Has the God of nature given him an instinctive +thirst for blood? Behold, then, his sharp-sighted organs of +vision for descrying his victim afar, his agile limbs for pursuit, +his curved and pointed claws for seizing and tearing his +prey, his sharp-edged teeth for cutting through its flesh, his +firm jaws for gripping, crushing, and devouring it, and his intestines +for digesting raw flesh. But is he a graminivorous +animal? Does he subsist on grass and herb? Behold, then, +<pb n='134'/><anchor id='Pg134'/> +his clumsy limbs and his clawless hoofs, his blunt teeth and +his herb-digesting stomach. So perfect is the correspondence +between one part and another; so exactly adapted are all the +parts to the same general objects; so wonderful is the harmony +and so definite and invariable the purpose obtaining throughout +the whole, that it is necessary to see but a footstep, or +even a bone, to be able to decide the nature and construction +of the animal that imprinted that footstep or that possessed that +bone. Ascending still higher in the scale, we come at last to +man—man, the highest, noblest workmanship of God on +earth—the lord of this sphere terrene—for whose behoof all +earthly things exist. In common with all animals, he has that +perfect adaptation of part to part, and of all the parts to general +objects, which demonstrate consummate wisdom in the +Cause which thus adapted them. His eyes are so placed as to +look the same way in which his feet are placed to walk, and +his hands to toil. His feet correspond with each other, being +both placed to walk in the direction, and with their corresponding +sides towards one another, without which he would hobble, +even if he could walk at all. His mouth is placed in the +forepart of the head, by which it can receive food and drink +from the hands. +</p> + +<p> +But the hands themselves—who can but admire their wonderful +utility? To what purpose are they not adapted? Man, +who has many ends to accomplish, in common with the beast +of the field; who has hunger to alleviate, thirst to slake, and +has likewise other and higher ends, for the attainment of which +he is peculiarly qualified by means of <emph>hands</emph>. Adapted by his +constitution to inhabit all climes, he has hands to adapt his clothing +to the same, whether torrid, temperate or frigid. Possessed +of the knowledge of the utility of the soil, he has hands +to cultivate it. Located far distant oftentimes from the running +stream, these hands enable him to disembowel the earth +and there find an abundant supply of the all-necessary fluid. +Endowed with rational ideas, pen in <emph>hand</emph> he can transmit +them to his fellows far away, or to generations unborn. Heir +and lord of earth and ocean, his hands enable him to possess +<pb n='135'/><anchor id='Pg135'/> +and control the same, without which, notwithstanding all his +reason, he could do neither, but would have to crouch beneath +the superior strength of the brute, and fly for shelter to crags +inaccessible to his beastly sovereign. +</p> + +<p> +The only creature that has the reason to manage the world, +has the physical organization to do it. No <emph>beast</emph> with man's +reason could do this, and no <emph>man</emph> with the mere instinct of a +brute could do it. How marvellous, then this adaptation! +How wondrous the adaptation of everything, and how astonishing +that any man, with all these things in view, can for one +moment forbear to admit a God. Let him try <emph>a chance experiment</emph>. +Let him take the letters of the alphabet and throw +them about promiscuously and then see how long ere they +would move of their own accord and arrange themselves into +words and sentences. He may avail himself of the whole +benefit of his scheme; he may have the advantage of an +energy or power as a momentum to set them in motion; he may +put these letters into a box sufficiently large for the purpose, +and then shake them as long as may seem him good, and when, +in this way, they shall have become intelligible language, I +will admit that he will have some reasons for doubting a +God. If this should seem too much like <emph>artificial</emph> mind, +he may take some little animal, all constructed at his hands, +and dismember its limbs and dissect its body, and then within +some vessel let him throw its various parts at random, and +seizing that vessel shake it most lustily till bone shall come to +bone, joint to joint, and the little creature be restored to its +original form. But if this could not be accomplished by mere +power, without wisdom to direct, how could the original adjustment +occur by chance? How could those very parts themselves +be <emph>formed for</emph> adjustment one to another? +</p> + +<p> +Mathematicians tell us wondrous things in relation to these +hap-hazard concerns. And they demonstrate their statements +by what will not lie—figures. Their rule is this: that, as +one thing admits of but one position, as, for example, <hi rend='italic'>a</hi>, so +two things, <hi rend='italic'>a</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>b</hi>, are capable of two +positions, as <hi rend='italic'>ab</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>ba</hi>. But +if a third be added, instead of their being susceptible of only +<pb n='136'/><anchor id='Pg136'/> +one additional position, or three in all, they are capable of +six. For example, <hi rend='italic'>abc</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>acb</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>bac</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>bca</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>cab</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>cba</hi>. Add another +letter, <hi rend='italic'>d</hi>, and the four are capable of twenty-four positions or +variations. Thus we might go on. Merely adding another letter, +<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>, and so making <emph>five</emph> instead of four, would +increase the the number of variations <emph>five</emph>-fold. They would then amount +to one hundred and twenty. A single additional letter, <hi rend='italic'>f</hi>, making +<emph>six</emph> in all, would increase this last sum of one hundred and +twenty <emph>six</emph>-fold, making seven hundred and twenty. Add a <emph>seventh</emph> +letter, <hi rend='italic'>g</hi>, and the last-named sum would be increased +<emph>seven</emph>-fold, making the sum of five thousand and forty. If we go on +thus to the end of the alphabet, we have the astonishing sum +of six hundred and twenty thousand four hundred and forty-eight +trillions, four hundred and one thousand seven hundred +and thirty-three billions, two hundred and thirty-nine thousand +four hundred and thirty-nine millions and three hundred and +sixty thousand!!! Hence it follows that, were the letters of the +alphabet to be thrown promiscuously into a vessel, to be afterwards +shaken into order by mere hap, their chance of being +arranged, not to say into words and sentences, but into their +alphabetical order, would be only as <emph>one</emph> to the above number. +All this, too, in the case of only twenty-six letters! Take +now the human frame, with its bones, tendons, nerves, muscles, +veins, arteries, ducts, glands, cartilages, etc.; and having +dissected the same, throw those parts into one promiscuous +mass; and how long, I ask, would it be ere Chance would put +them all into their appropriate places and form a perfect man? +In this calculation we are likewise to take into the account +the chances of their being placed bottom upwards, or side-ways, +or wrong side out, notwithstanding they might merely +find their appropriate places. This would increase the chances +against a well-formed system to an amount beyond all calculation +or conception. In the case of the alphabet, the chances +for the letters to fall bottom up or aslant are not included. +And when we reflect that the blind goddess, or <q>unintelligent +forces,</q> would have to contend against such fearful odds in +the case of a single individual, how long are we to suppose it +<pb n='137'/><anchor id='Pg137'/> +would be, ere from old Chaos she could shake this mighty +universe, with all its myriads upon myriads of existences, into +the glorious order and beauty in which it now exists. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>An Atheist Is A Fool.</head> + +<p> +He can't believe that two letters can be adjusted to each +other without design, and yet he can believe all the foregoing +incredibilities. +</p> + +<p> +I might swell the list to a vast extent. I might bring into +view the verdure of the earth as being the most agreeable of +all colors to the eye; the general diffusion of the indispensibles +and necessaries of life, such as air, light, water, food, +clothing, fuel, while less necessary things, such as spices, gold, +silver, tin, lead, zinc, are less diffused; also, the infinite +variety in things—in men, for instance—by which we can distinguish +one from another. But I forbear. Is it reasonable +to conclude that, where there are possible appearances of +design, still no design is there? or even that it is probable +there is none? +</p> + +<p> +I have said that there is as much evidence of purpose in +the works of nature as in those of art. I now say that there +is more, <emph>infinitely</emph> more. Should the wheels of nature stop +their revolutions, and her energies be palsied, and life and +motion cease, even then would she exhibit incomparably +greater evidence of design, in her mere construction and +adaptation, than do the works of art. Shall we then be told +that when she is in full operation, and daily producing millions +upon millions of useful, of intelligent, of marvelous +effects, she still manifests no marks of intelligence! In +nature we not only see all the works of art infinitely exceeded, +but we see, as it were, those works self-moved and performing +their operations without external agency. To use a faint +comparison, we see a factory in motion without water, wind or +steam, its cotton placing itself within the reach of the picker, +the cards, the spinning-frame and the loom, and turning out +in rolls or cloth. Such virtually, nay, far more wonderful, is +<pb n='138'/><anchor id='Pg138'/> +the universe. Not a thousandth part so unreasonable would +it be to believe a real factory of this description, were one to +exist, to be a chance existence, as to believe this universe so. +Sooner could I suppose nature herself possessed of intelligence +than admit the idea that there is <emph>no</emph> intelligence concerned +in her organization and operations. There must be a +mind within or without her, or else we have no data by which +to distinguish mind. There must be a mind, or all the results +of mind are produced without any. There must be a mind, +or chaos produces order, blind power perfects effects, and non-intelligence +the most admirable correspondence and harmony +imaginable. Skeptics pride themselves much on their reason. +They can't believe, they say, because it is unreasonable. +<emph>What</emph> is unreasonable? To believe in a mind where there +is every appearance thereof that can be? Is it more reasonable +to believe, then, that every appearance of mind is produced +without any mind at all? Skeptics are the last men in +all this wide world to pretend reason. They doubt against +infinite odds; they believe without evidence against evidence, +against demonstration, and then talk of reason!—<hi rend='italic'>Origin Bachelor's +Correspondence with R. D. Owen.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Blunder On And Blunder On—It Is Human +To Blunder.</head> + +<p> +Are all the mammoths one or two hundred thousand years +old, as Sir Charles Lyell conjectured? It was stated, in the +bygone, that the <q>diluvium</q> was very old, on account of the +absence of human remains, but since man's remains have been +found there, it is inferred that man is very ancient; whereas, +the truth is, the mammoth is <emph>very recent</emph>. In many instances +their bones are so fresh that they contain twenty-seven per +cent. of animal substance; in some instances the flesh is still +upon their bones, with their last meal in their stomachs. +</p> + +<p> +Mr. Boyd Dawkins has furnished us with a thrilling narrative +of the discovery of a mammoth in 1846, by Mr. Benkendorf, +close to the mouth of the Indigirka. This mammoth +<pb n='139'/><anchor id='Pg139'/> +was disentombed during the great thaw of the summer. The +description is given in the following language: <q rend='pre'>In 1846 there +was unusually warm weather in the north of Siberia. Already +in May unusual rains poured over the moors and bogs; storms +shook the earth, and the streams carried not only ice to the +sea, but also large tracts of land. We steamed on the first +day up the Indigirka, but there were no thoughts of land; +we saw around us only a sea of dirty brown water, and knew +the river only by the rushing and roaring of the stream. The +river rolled against us trees, moss, and large masses of peat, +so that it was only with great trouble and danger that we +could proceed. At the end of the second day we were only a +short distance up the stream; some one had to stand with the +sounding-rod in hand continually, and the boat received so +many shocks that it shuddered to the keel. A wooden vessel +would have been smashed. Around us we saw nothing but +the flooded land.... The Indigirka, here, had torn +up the land and worn itself a fresh channel, and when the +waters sank we saw, to our astonishment, that the old river-bed +had become merely that of an insignificant stream.... +The stream rolled over and tore up the soft, wet ground +like chaff, so that it was dangerous to go near the brink. While +we were all quiet, we heard under our feet a sudden gurgling +and stirring, which betrayed the working of the disturbed +water. Suddenly our jagger, ever on the look-out, called +loudly, and pointed to a singular and unshapely object, which +rose and sank.... Now we all hastened to the +spot on shore, had the boat drawn near, and waited until the +mysterious thing should again show itself. Our patience was +tried, but at last a black, horrible giant-like mass was thrust +out of the water, and we beheld a colossal elephant's head, +armed with mighty tusks, with its long trunk moving in the +water in an unearthly manner, as though seeking for something +lost therein.... I beheld the monster hardly +twelve feet from me, with his half-open eyes yet showing the +whites. It was still in good preservation....</q> +</p> + +<pb n='140'/><anchor id='Pg140'/> + +<p> +<q>Picture to yourself an elephant with a body covered with +thick fur, about thirteen feet in height and fifteen in length, +with tusks eight feet long, thick, and curving outward at their +ends, a stout trunk of six feet in length, colossal limbs of one +and a half feet in thickness, and a tail naked up to the end, +which was covered with thick tufty hair. The animal was fat +and well grown; death had overtaken him in the fulness of his +powers. His parchment-like, large, naked ears lay turned up +over the head; about the shoulders and on the back he had +stiff hair, about a foot in length, like a mane. The long outer +hair was deep brown and coarsely rooted. The top of the head +looked so wild and so penetrated with pitch that it resembled +the rind of an old oak tree. On the sides it was cleaner, and +under the outer hair there appeared everywhere a wool, very +soft, warm and thick, and of a fallow-brown color. The giant +was well protected against the cold. The whole appearance +of the animal was fearfully strange and wild. It had not the +shape of our present elephants. As compared with our Indian +elephants, its head was rough, the brain-case low and narrow, +but the trunk and mouth were much larger. The teeth were +very powerful. Our elephant is an awkward animal, but compared +with this mammoth, it is an Arabian steed to a coarse, +ugly dray horse. I had the stomach separated and brought on +one side. It was well filled, and the contents instructive and +well preserved. The principal were young shoots of the fir +and pine; a quantity of young fir cones, also in a chewed state, +were mixed with the moss.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mammoth bones are found in great abundance in the islands +off the northern coast of Siberia. The remains of the rhinoceros +are also found. Pallas, in 1772, obtained from Wiljuiskoi, +in latitude 64°, a rhinoceros taken from the sand in +which it had been frozen. This carcass emitted an odor like +putrid flesh, part of the skin being covered with short, crisp +wool and with black and gray hairs. Professor Brandt, in +1846, extracted from the cavities in the molar teeth of this +skeleton a small quantity of half-chewed pine leaves and coniferous +wood. And the blood-vessels in the interior of the +<pb n='141'/><anchor id='Pg141'/> +head appeared filled, even to the capillary vessels, with coagulated +blood, which in many places still retained its original +red color. +</p> + +<p> +We find that Mr. Boyd Dawkins and Mr. Sanford assert +that the cave-lion is only a large variety of the existing lion—identical +in species. Herodotus says: <q>The camels in the +army of Xerxes, near the mountains of Thessaly, <emph>were attacked +by lions</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Sir John Lubbock, in his Prehistoric Times, page 293, +says the cave-hyena <q>is now regarded as scarcely distinguishable +specifically from the <hi rend='italic'>Hyæna crocuta</hi>, or spotted hyena of +Southern Africa,</q> while Mr. Busk and M. Gervais identify +the <emph>cave-bear</emph> with the <hi rend='italic'>Ursus ferox</hi>, or grizzly bear +of North America. What is the bearing of these facts on the question +of the antiquity of the remains found in the bone caverns? +</p> + +<p> +Do these facts justify men in carrying human remains, +found along with the remains of these animals in the caves, +back to the remote period of one or two hundred thousand +years?—a long time, this, for flesh upon the bones and food +in the stomach to remain in a state of preservation. +</p> + +<p> +<q>So fresh is the ivory throughout Northern Russia,</q> says +Lyell, <hi rend='italic'>Principles, vol. 1, p. 183</hi>, <q>that, according to Tilesius, +thousands of fossil tusks have been collected and used in +turning.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mr. Dawkins says: <q>We are compelled to hold that the +cave-lion which preyed upon the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros +and musk-sheep in Great Britain, is a mere geographical +variety of the great carnivore that is found alike in the +tropical parts of Asia and throughout the whole of Africa.</q> +Popular Science Review for 1869, p. 153. It has been customary +to speak of all these animals as <q><emph>the great extinct</emph> +mammalia,</q> and to regard them all as much larger than existing +animals of the same kind, but three of the most +important still exist, and the cave-lions, at least some of the +specimens, were smaller than the lion of the present. According +to Sir John Lubbock the <q>Irish elk, the elephants +and the three species of rhinoceros are, perhaps, the only +<pb n='142'/><anchor id='Pg142'/> +ones which are absolutely extinct.</q> Prehistoric Times, p. +290. <q>Out of seventeen principal <q>palæolithic</q> mammalia, +ten, until recently, were regarded <q>extinct;</q> but it is now believed +that the above-mentioned elk, elephants and rhinoceros +are the only extinct mammalia. Dr. Wilson affirms that +skeletons of the Irish elk have been found at Curragh, +Ireland, in marshes, some of the bones of which were in such +fresh condition that the marrow is described as having the appearance +of fresh suet, and burning with a clear flame.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Professor Agassiz admits the continuance of the Irish elk +to the fourteenth century to be <q>probable.</q> It is certain that +this elk continued in Ireland down to what is claimed as the +age of iron, and possibly in Germany down to the twelfth +century. It is also certain that it was a companion of the +mammoth and of the woolly rhinoceros. The aurochs, or +European bison, whose remains are found in the river gravel +and the older bone caves, is mentioned by Pliny and Seneca. +They speak of it as existing in their time; it is also named in +the Niebelungen Lied. It existed in Prussia as late as 1775, +and is still found wild in the Caucasus. The present Emperor +of Russia has twelve herds, which are protected in the forests +of Lithuania. During the session of the International Archæological +Congress at Stockholm, in 1874, the members of the +body made an excursion to the isle of Bjorko, in Lake Malar, +near Stockholm, where there is an ancient cemetery of two +thousand tumuli. Within a few hundred yards from this is +the site of the ancient town. Several trenches were run through +this locality, and many relics obtained by the members of the +congress. On the occasion Dr. Stolpe, who was familiar with +the previous discoveries at this point, delivered a lecture on +the island and its remains. They all, he stated, belong to the +second age of iron in Sweden, and consisted of implements of +iron, ornaments of bronze, and animal bones; Kufic coins have +been found, along with cowrie-shells, and silver bracelets. +The number of animal bones met with is immense, more than +fifty species being represented, and what is especially noteworthy, +<emph>the marrow bones were all crushed or split</emph>, just as in +<pb n='143'/><anchor id='Pg143'/> +the palæeolithic times. The principal wild beasts were the +lynx, the wolf, the fox, the beaver, the elk, the <emph>reindeer</emph>, etc. +Dr. Stolpe refers the formation of this <q>pre-historic</q> city to +<q>about the middle of the eighth century after Christ,</q> and +says it was probably destroyed <q>about the middle of the +eleventh century.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>During this period the reindeer existed in this part of +Sweden.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Recent scientific discovery demands that we should almost +modernize the animals we used to regard as belonging to a +period of a hundred thousand years ago. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Scientists have been addicted to unwise and inconsiderate +haste in the announcement of new theories touching alleged +facts; they have blundered repeatedly in their efforts to confound +the Christian and set aside Moses. No less than eighty +theories touching that many facts and discoveries have been +developed during the period of fifty years, that were brought +before the Institute of France in 1806, and not one of them +survives to-day.</q> Truly the history of scientific investigation +reveals the same fallibility of human nature that is known in +the many errors found in the line of theological investigation. +Truth, in science and religion, stands true to her God—<emph>man +alone deviates</emph>. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Draper's Conflict Between Religion And Science.</head> + +<p> +No one idea has produced a greater sensation among skeptics +and unbelievers than the idea of a conflict between science +and Christianity. The history of the affair reminds us of the +ghost stories that frighten people in their boyish days. There +was, in truth, no foundation for the sensation. Mr. Draper +never intended that his work entitled <q>Conflict between Religion +and Science,</q> should be construed to mean Conflict +between the Bible and Science, or between Christianity, as +set forth by the primitive Christians and science, but conflict +<pb n='144'/><anchor id='Pg144'/> +between apostate religion and science; or, rather, between +corruptors of the ancient religion and science. +</p> + +<p> +He says, <q>I have had little to say respecting the two great +Christian confessions, the protestant and the Greek churches. +As to the latter, it has never, since the restoration of science, +arrayed itself in opposition to the advancement of knowledge. +On the contrary, it has always met it with welcome. It has +observed a reverential attitude to truth, from whatever quarter +it might come. Recognizing the apparent discrepancies +between its interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries +of science, it has always expected that satisfactory explanations +and reconciliations would ensue, <emph>and in this it has not +been disappointed</emph>.</q> Will all who read these lines take notice +that Mr. Draper takes the Christian's side in the above statement. +<q><emph>In this it has not been disappointed.</emph></q> In what? +Answer—Its expectation that satisfactory explanations and +reconciliations would follow the discoveries of science, by +means of which apparent discrepancies between the church's +interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of +science would disappear. Mr. Draper adds, <q>It would have +been well for modern civilization if the Roman church had +done the same.</q> He guards his readers by the following: <q>In +speaking of Christianity, reference is generally made to the +Roman church, partly because its adherents compose the majority +of Christendom, partly because its demands are the +most pretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought +to enforce those demands by the civil power. None of the +protestant churches have ever occupied a position so imperious, +none have ever had such widespread political influence. +For the most part they have been averse to constraint, and +except in very few instances their opposition has not passed +beyond the exciting of theological odium.</q> Preface, pp. 10, 11. +</p> + +<p> +On pages 215 and 216, speaking upon the great question of +the proper relations of Christianity and science, Mr. Draper +says: <q>In the annals of Christianity the most ill-omened +day is that in which she separated herself from science. She +compelled Origen, at that time (A. D. 231) its chief representative +<pb n='145'/><anchor id='Pg145'/> +and supporter in the church, to abandon his charge +in Alexandria and retire to Cæsarea. In vain through +many subsequent centuries did her leading men spend +themselves in, as the phrase then went, <q>drawing forth the +internal juice and marrow of the scriptures for the explaining +of things.</q> Universal history from the <emph>third</emph> to the <emph>sixteenth</emph> +century shows with what result. The dark ages owe their +darkness to this fatal policy.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The pure Christianity, as well as Christians of 231 years, +are exonerated by Mr. Draper. Unbeliever, will you remember +this? Many unbelievers, like drowning men catching at +straws, have endeavored to make it appear that Mr. Draper's +book, entitled <q>Conflict Between Religion and Science,</q> makes +a square fight between the Bible and science. So far is this +from the truth that, on the contrary, it does not even set up +a square issue between Protestantism and science; its issue lies +between Roman Catholic religion and science. Hear him: +<q>Then has it, <emph>in truth</emph>, come to this, that Roman Christianity +and science are recognized by their respective adherents as being +absolutely incompatible; they can not exist together; one must +yield to the other; mankind must make its choice—it can not +have both. While such is, perhaps, the issue as regards +Catholicism, a reconciliation of the reformation with science +is not only possible, but would easily take place if the protestant +churches would only live up to their maxim taught by Luther +and established by so many years of war. That maxim +is the right of private interpretation of the scriptures. It was +the foundation of intellectual liberty.</q> (Did Luther say the +foundation of intellectual liberty?) But if a personal interpretation +of the book of Revelation is permissible, how can it +be denied in the case of the book of nature? In the misunderstandings +that have taken place, we must ever bear in mind +the infirmities of men. The generations that immediately followed +the reformation may perhaps be excused for not comprehending +the full significance of cardinal principle, and for not +on all occasions carrying it into effect. When Calvin caused +Servetus to be burnt he was animated, not by the principles of +<pb n='146'/><anchor id='Pg146'/> +the reformation, but by those of Catholicism, from which he +had not been able to emancipate himself completely. And +when the clergy of influential protestant confessions have stigmatized +the investigators of nature as infidels and atheists, the +same may be said. (No man should be called by a name that +does not truthfully represent him.) Now listen to Mr. Draper: +<q>For Catholicism to reconcile itself to science, there are formidable, +perhaps insuperable obstacles in the way. For protestantism +to achieve that great result there are not.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Conflict +Between Religion and Science</hi>, pp. 363, 364. Thus Draper +speaks for himself. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Facts Speak Louder Than Words, Or What Christianity +Has Done For Cannibals.</head> + +<p> +The Fijians, a quarter of a century ago, were noted for cannibalism. +The following scrap of history may be of importance +as a shadow to contrast with the sunshine. It is taken +from Wood's History of the Uncivilized Races: +</p> + +<p> +The Fijians are more devoted to cannibalism than the New +Zealanders, and their records are still more appalling. A New +Zealander has sometimes the grace to feel ashamed of mentioning +the subject in the hearing of an European, whereas it is +impossible to make a Fijian really feel that in eating human +flesh he has committed an unworthy act. He sees, indeed, +that the white man exhibits great disgust at cannibalism, but +in his heart he despises him for wasting such luxurious food +as human flesh.... The natives are clever enough at +concealing the existence of cannibalism when they find that it +shocks the white men. An European cotton grower, who had +tried unsuccessfully to introduce the culture of cotton into +Fiji, found, after a tolerable long residence, that four or five +human beings were killed and eaten weekly. There was plenty +of food in the place, pigs were numerous, and fish, fruit and +vegetables abundant. But the people ate human bodies as +often as they could get them, not from any superstitious motive, +<pb n='147'/><anchor id='Pg147'/> +but simply because they preferred human flesh to pork.... +Many of the people actually take a pride in the +number of human bodies which they have eaten. One chief +was looked upon with great respect on account of his feats of +cannibalism, and the people gave him a title of honor. They +called him the Turtle-pond, comparing his insatiable stomach +to the pond in which turtles are kept; and so proud were they +of his deeds, that they even gave a name of honor to the bodies +brought for his consumption, calling them the <q>Contents of +the Turtle-pond.</q> ... One man gained a great name +among his people by an act of peculiar atrocity. He told his +wife to build an oven, to fetch firewood for heating it, and to +prepare a bamboo knife. As soon as she had concluded her +labors her husband killed her, and baked her in the oven +which her own hands had prepared, and afterward ate her. +Sometimes a man has been known to take a victim, bind him +hand and foot, cut slices from his arms and legs, and eat them +before his eyes. Indeed, the Fijians are so inordinately vain +that they will do anything, no matter how horrible, in order +to gain a name among their people; and Dr. Pritchard, who +knows them thoroughly, expresses his wonder that some chief +did not eat slices from his own limbs. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Cannibalism is ingrained in the very nature of the Fijian, +and extends through all classes of society. It is true that +there are some persons who have never eaten human flesh, but +there is always a reason for it. Women, for example, are seldom +known to eat <q>bakolo,</q> as human flesh is termed, and there +are a few men who have refrained from cannibalism through +superstition. Every Fijian has his special god, who is supposed +to have his residence in some animal. One god, for +example, lives in a rat, another in a shark, and so on. The +worshiper of that god never eats the animal in which his +divinity resides, and as some gods are supposed to reside in +human beings, their worshipers never eat the flesh of man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Recent History Of The Same People In Brief. +</p> + +<p> +<q>In the Fiji islands, where half a century ago the favorite +dish of food was human flesh, there are at present eight hundred +<pb n='148'/><anchor id='Pg148'/> +and forty-one chapels, and two hundred and ninety-one +other places where preaching is held, with fifty-eight missionaries +busily engaged in preparing the way for others. The +membership numbers twenty-three thousand two hundred and +seventy-four persons.</q> <hi rend='italic'>The Evangelist of January 29, 1880.</hi> +It is possible that some infidel might have been literally +eaten up had it not been for the influence of the Bible. <q>According +to the accounts of some of the older chiefs, whom we +may believe or not as we like, there was once a time when +cannibalism did not exist. Many years ago some strangers +from a distant land were blown upon the shores of Fiji, and +received hospitably by the islanders, who incorporated them +into their own tribes, and made much of them. But, in process +of time, these people became too powerful, killed the +Fijian chiefs, took their wives and property, and usurped +their office.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In the emergency the people consulted the priests, who said +that the Fijians had brought their misfortunes upon themselves. +They had allowed strangers to live, whereas <q>Fiji for +the Fijians</q> was the golden rule, and from that time every +male stranger was to be killed and eaten, and every woman +taken as a wife. The only people free from this law were +the Tongans. +</p> + +<p> +The state of the Fijians is wonderfully changed—even an +American infidel may now visit those people without being +flayed and roasted and devoured. +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>The Samoan islands have been entirely christianized. +Out of a population of forty thousand, thirty-five thousand +are connected with Christian churches.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>In 1830 the native Christians in India, Burmah, and North +and South Ceylon numbered 57,000. Last October there +were 460,000. Facts similar in character might be given of +Madagascar, South Africa and Japan.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Evangelist.</hi> What a +curse (?) the Bible is to the poor heathen. It robs them of +their <q>long-pig,</q> human flesh, as well as their cruel, murderous +habits, and curses them (?) with virtue and the hope of +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>heaven</hi>.</q> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='149'/><anchor id='Pg149'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Are We Simply Animals?</head> + +<p> +What is man? The materialist says, <q>He is the highest +order of the animal kingdom, or an animal gifted with intelligence.</q> +If such be true, it may be said with equal propriety, +that animals are men without reason. Are they? Does manhood +consist in mere physical form? Can you find it in simple +physical nature? Man holds many things in his physical +nature in common with the animal; but is he, on this account, +to be considered as a mere animal? There are plants that +seem to form a bridge over the chasm lying between the vegetable +and animal kingdoms. Are those plants animals +without sensation? Why not? What is the logical and +scientific difference between saying plants, which make the +nearest approach to the animal are animals without sensation, +and saying animals are men without intelligence? Let it be +understood at all times, that if man is simply an animal endowed +with the gift of reason, an animal may be simply a +vegetable endowed with the gift of sensation. <q>The bodies of +mere animals are clothed with scales, feathers, fur, wool or +bristles, which interpose between the skin and the elements +that surround and affect the living animal.</q> All these insensible +protectors <q>ally animals more closely to the nature of +vegetables.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The body of a human being has a beautiful, thin, highly +sensitive skin, which is not covered with an insensitive, lifeless +veil.</q> Man's body is in noble contrast with all mere animals. +It is so formed that its natural position is erect. <q>The eyes +are in front; the ligaments of the neck are not capable of +supporting, for any considerable length of time, the head when +hanging down; the horizontal position would force the blood +to the head so violently that stupor would be the result. The +mouth serves the mind as well as the body itself. According +to the most critical calculation, the muscles of the mouth are +so movable that it may pronounce fifteen hundred letters.</q> +What a wonderful musical instrument. +</p> + +<pb n='150'/><anchor id='Pg150'/> + +<p> +The mouth of the mere animal serves only physical purposes. +</p> + +<p> +Man turns his head from right to left, from earth to sky, +from the slimy trail of the crustacean in the ocean's bottom to +the contemplation of the innumerable stars in the heavens. +The human body was created for the mind; its structure is +correlated with mind. The animal has a sentient life; man +an intelligent, reasoning nature. +</p> + +<p> +When animals are infuriated and trample beneath their feet +everything that lies in their way, we do not say they are <emph>insane</emph>, +but <emph>mad</emph>. <q>Man is an intelligent spirit,</q> or mind, <q>served +by an organism.</q> We know that mind exists by our consciousness +of that which passes within us. The propriety of +the sayings of Descartes, <q><emph>I think, therefore I am</emph>,</q> rests upon +the consciousness that we are thinking beings. This intelligence +is not obtained by the exercise of any of the senses. It +does not depend upon external surroundings. Its existence +is a fact of consciousness, of certain knowledge, and hence a +fact in mental science. +</p> + +<p> +We are continually conscious of the existence of the mind, +which makes its own operations the object of its own thought; +that it should have no existence is a contradiction in language. +</p> + +<p> +Experience teaches us that the materialistic theory of the +existence of the mind is utterly false. In an act of perception +I distinguish the pen in my hand, and the hand itself, +from my mind which perceives them. This distinction is a +fact of the faculty of perception—a particular fact of a particular +faculty. But the general fact of a general distinction +of which this is only a special case, is the distinction of the <emph>I</emph> +and <emph>not I</emph>, which belongs to the consciousness as the general +faculty. He who denies the contrast between mind-knowing +and matter-known is dishonest, for it is a fact of consciousness, +and such can not be honestly denied. The facts given +in consciousness itself can not be honestly doubted, much less +denied. +</p> + +<p> +Materialists have claimed that mind is simply the result of +the molecular action of the brain. This theory is as unreal as +<pb n='151'/><anchor id='Pg151'/> +Banquo's ghost—it will not bear a moment's investigation. It +is simply confounding the action of the mind upon the brain +with the mind itself. Every effect must have a cause. When +I make a special mental effort what is the cause lying behind +the effort? Is it the molecular action of the brain? I <emph>will +to</emph> make the effort, and do it. Then will power lies behind +brain action. But power is a manifest energy; there is something +lying behind it to which it belongs as an attribute; +what is it? Answer, <emph>will</emph>. But, where there is a <emph>will</emph> there +must of a necessity be that which <emph>wills</emph>. What is it that <emph>wills</emph> +to make a special mental effort—that lies away back <q>behind +the throne</q> and controls the helm? It is evidently the I, +<emph>myself</emph>, the <q>inner man,</q> <emph>the spirit</emph>. On one occasion, when +some of the disciples of the Nazarene were sleepy, Jesus said +to them, <q>The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.</q> +It is the spirit that <emph>wills</emph> to make a special mental effort. +Here is the <q><emph>font</emph></q> of all our ideas. <q>What man knoweth +the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?</q> +1 Cor., ii, 11. <emph>Will</emph>, as an effect, belongs to the spirit of +man, as <emph>the cause</emph> lying behind. Beyond this no man can +trace this subject, short of crossing over from the spirit of +man to the invisible Father of spirits. The spirit of man is a +<emph>wonderful intelligence</emph>! <q>The body without the spirit is dead, +being alone.</q> When we analyze the physical structure back to +the germ and sperm-cells we are brought face to face with the +invisible builder. Call it what you may, it still remains the +same invisible architect, which, being matter's master, built +the organism. We live, and breathe; we die, and cease +breathing. Dead bodies do not breathe. Therefore, life lies +behind breath, and spirit behind life. So life and breath are +both effects, which find their ultimate or cause in <emph>spirit</emph>. +This at once sets aside all that materialists have said in order +to show that spirit and breath are one and the same. The +original term, translated by the term spirit has, in its history, +away back in the past, a <emph>physical</emph> currency. The old-fashioned +materialist or <q>soul-sleeper</q> finds his fort in this fact. +His entire aim is to get the people back to an old and obsolete +<pb n='152'/><anchor id='Pg152'/> +currency of the term <q><emph>pneuma</emph>.</q> If we lay aside words +which were used in a physical sense, in times gone by, we +will not have many words to express the ideas embraced in +mental science. In ancient times <q><emph>pneuma</emph></q> signified both +mind and wind, or air. In later times it lost its physical currency, +and no longer signifies, in its general currency, breath +or air. The adjective, <q><emph>pneumatikos</emph>,</q> is <emph>never used</emph> +in a physical sense. It came into use too late. +</p> + +<p> +We have many examples of old meanings passing away +from words. <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Sapientia</foreign>,</q> in Latin +originally meant only the power of tasting. At present it means <emph>wisdom</emph>, +<emph>prudence</emph>, <emph>discretion</emph>, <emph>discernment</emph>, +<emph>good sense</emph>, <emph>knowledge</emph>, <emph>practical wisdom</emph>, +<emph>philosophy</emph>, <emph>calmness</emph>, <emph>patience</emph>. The word +<q><foreign rend='italic'>sagacitas</foreign>,</q> originally meant only the faculty +of <emph>scenting</emph>, now it means +the power of seeing or perceiving anything easily. In old +literature we may read of the sagacity of dogs; keenness of +scent. But it is now sharpness of wit; keenness of perception, +subtilty, shrewdness, acuteness, penetration, ingenuity. The +terms, <q>attentio,</q> <q>intentio,</q> <q>comprehensio,</q> <q>apprehensio,</q> +<q>penetratio,</q> and understanding are all just so many bodily +actions transferred to the expression of <emph>mental energies</emph>. +There is just the same reason for giving to all these terms +their old, obsolete, physical currency that there is for giving +to pneuma, or spirit, the old obsolete currency of wind or air. +You must ever remember that it is the business of lexicographers +in giving the history of words, to set before you the +first as well as the latest use of terms. In strict harmony with +all this Greenfield gives <q><foreign rend='italic'>pneuma</foreign></q> +<emph>thus</emph>: +</p> + +<p> +1. Wind, air in motion, breathing, breath, expiration, +respiration, spirit, i. e. the human soul, that is, the vital principle +in man, life. Matthew xxvii, 50; Rev. xiii, 15. +</p> + +<p> +2. Of the rational soul, mind, that principle in man which +thinks, feels, desires, and wills. Matthew v, 3, 26, 41. +</p> + +<p> +3. Of the human soul after its departure from the body, a +spirit, soul. Acts xxiii, 8, 9; Hebrews xii, 23. +</p> + +<p> +4. Spc. Spirit, that is, temper, disposition, affections, feelings, +inclination, qualities of mind. +</p> + +<pb n='153'/><anchor id='Pg153'/> + +<p> +5. Construed with <q><hi rend='italic'>mou</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>sou</hi></q> +(<emph>I</emph> and <emph>thou</emph>), it +forms a periphrasis for the corresponding personal pronoun. +Mark ii, 8; Luke i, 47. A spirit, that is, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a simple, spiritual, +incorporeal, intelligent being</hi>. Spoken of +God. John iv, 24. Of angels. Hebrews i, 14. Of evil spirits, +Matthew viii, 16; Mark ix, 20. A divine spirit, spoken of +the spiritual nature of Christ. 1 Corinthians xv, 45; 1 Peter +iii, 18. Of the Holy Spirit. Matthew iii, 16-28; John xv, 26; +Acts i, 8; Romans ix, 1. +</p> + +<p> +Robinson, in his Lexicon, sums up the history of its use +thus: +</p> + +<p> +1. Pneuma, from pneo, to breathe. A breathing, breath. +</p> + +<p> +1. Of the mouth or nostrils, a breathing, blast. The destroying +power of God. Isaiah xi, 4; Psalm xxxiii, 6. The +breath. Revelations xi, 11. <q>Breath of life.</q> Genesis vi, 17; +vii, 15-22. +</p> + +<p> +2. Breath of air. Air in motion, a breeze, blast, the +wind. +</p> + +<p> +3. The spirit of man, that is, the vital spirit, life, soul. +</p> + +<p> +4. The rational spirit, mind, soul (Latin +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>animus</foreign>), generally +opposed to the body or animal (disposition) spirit. 1 +Thessalonians v, 23; 1 Corinthians xiv, 14. +</p> + +<p> +5. It implies will, council, purpose. Matthew xxvi, 41; +Mark xiv, 38; Acts xviii, 5; xix, 21; 1 Chronicles v, 26; +Ezra i, 1. +</p> + +<p> +6. It includes the understanding, intellect. Mark ii, 8; +Luke i, 80, and ii, 40; 1 Corinthians ii, 11, 12; Exodus +xxviii, 3; Job xx, 3; Isaiah xxix, 24. +</p> + +<p> +7. A spirit, that is, a simple, incorporeal, immaterial being, +possessing higher capacities than man in his present state. Of +created spirits, the human spirit, soul, after its departure from +the body and as existing in a separate state. Hebrews xii, +23; that is, to the spirits of just men made perfect. Robinson +renders it thus: <q>To the spirits of the just advanced to +perfect happiness and glory.</q> +</p> + +<p> +It is spoken of God in reference to his immateriality. John, +<pb n='154'/><anchor id='Pg154'/> +iv, 24. Of Christ in his exalted spiritual nature in distinction +from his human nature. In Hebrews, ix, 14, in contrast with +perishable nature. <q>The <emph>eternal spirit</emph>,</q> Holy spirit, spirit of +God.—<hi rend='italic'>Robinson's Lexicon.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +From all this it will be seen that it is impossible to limit the +term spirit to its ancient <emph>physical</emph> currency. Our term <emph>mind</emph> +is, for two reasons, a better word for its place in modern literature. +First, it never had a physical application. Second, the +terms are used indifferently in the New Testament when they +relate to man. See Romans, i, 9 and vii, 25. All spirits are +<emph>one</emph> in kind; in <emph>character</emph> the difference lies; that is, +spirits are all <emph>imperishable</emph>. It is not in the nature of a spirit to cease +to be. If it is, then there is no imperishable nature that is revealed +to man. I submit for consideration the thought that +there is no difference in the final results between the man who +denies the existence of spirits altogether and the man who +allows that spirits may cease to exist. +</p> + +<p> +<q>We are cognizant of the existence of spirit by our direct +consciousness of feelings, desires and ideas, which are to us the +most certain of all realities.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Carpenter.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The body continually requires new materials and a continued +action of external agencies. But the mind, when it +has been once called into activity and has become stored with +ideas, may remain active and may develop new relations and +combinations among these, after the complete closure of the +sensorial inlets by which new ideas can be excited <q>ab externo.</q> +Such, in fact, is what is continually going on in the +state of dreaming.... The mind thus feeds upon the store of +ideas which it has laid up during the activity of the sensory +organs, and those impressions which it retains in its consciousness +are working up into a never ending variety of combinations +and successions of ideas, thus affording new sources of +mental activity even to the very end of life.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Carpenter.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +In death the spirit returns to God, who gave it, retaining, +doubtless, all its store of ideas and all its own inherent activities, +which will continue while eternity endures. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='155'/><anchor id='Pg155'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Our Relations To The Ancient Law And Prophets—What Are They?</head> + +<p> +The above questions can not be answered intelligently without +a knowledge of the character of the law, and of its relations +to humanity, as well as a knowledge of the relations of the +ancient prophets. The law given at Sinai as a <q>covenant,</q> +with all the laws contained in the <q>Book of the Law,</q> was +political in character; that is to say, it pertained to a community +or nation. Such law is <emph>always</emph> political in its character. +The ancient law pertained to the nation of the Jews. It was +given to them as a community, and to no other people. +Moses said, <q>And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst +of fire: Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; +only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his +covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; +and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.</q> +Deut. iv, 12, 13. <q>And the Lord said unto Moses, Write +thou these words; for after the <emph>tenor</emph> of these words I have +made a covenant <emph>with thee</emph> and <emph>with Israel</emph>.... +And he wrote upon the tables <emph>the words of the covenant</emph>, the +ten commandments.</q> Exodus xxxiv, 27, 28. <q>The Lord our +God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord <emph>made +not</emph> this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who <emph>are</emph> all of +us here alive this day.</q> Deut. v, 2, 3. <q>Behold, I have taught +you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded +me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to +possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your +wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, +which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great +nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation +is there so great who hath God so nigh unto them, as the +Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? +And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments +so righteous as all this law which I set before you this +day.</q> Deut. iv, 5, 8. +</p> + +<pb n='156'/><anchor id='Pg156'/> + +<p> +The law or covenant, as written upon the two tables of +stone, is given in full in one place, and only one, in all the +book of the law, and I will now transcribe it from the fifth +chapter of Deut. Here it is: <q rend='pre'>I am the Lord, thy God, +which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house +of bondage; thou shalt have none other gods before me; thou +shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything +that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, +or that is in the waters beneath the earth; thou shalt not bow +down thyself unto them or serve them, for I, the Lord, thy +God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers +upon the children unto the third and fourth <emph>generation</emph> of +them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of +them that love me and keep my commandments.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in +vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his +name in vain.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord, thy God, +hath commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labor and do all +thy work, but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord, thy +God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor +thy daughter, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine +ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy +gates, that thy man-servant and maid-servant may rest as well +as thou; and remember that thou wast a servant in the land +of Egypt, and that the Lord, thy God, brought thee out +thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; +<hi rend='smallcaps'>therefore, the Lord, thy God, commanded thee to +keep the Sabbath day</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God +hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and +that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy +God giveth thee.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Thou shalt not kill.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Neither shalt thou commit adultery.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Neither shalt thou steal.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='157'/><anchor id='Pg157'/> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt +thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his man-servant, +or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is +thy neighbor's.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>These words the Lord spake unto <emph>all your assembly</emph> in the +mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the +thick darkness, with a great voice; and he <emph>added no more</emph>. +And <emph>he wrote them in two tables of stone</emph>, and delivered them +unto me.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This is the covenant as it was written upon the tables of +stone. It is, by its facts, limited to the Jews, for they are +the only people who were ever delivered from bondage in +Egypt. The abrogation of this covenant is clearly presented +in the following language, found in Zechariah, the eleventh +chapter and tenth verse: <q>And I took my staff, even +Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant +which I had made with <emph>all the people</emph>. And it was +broken in that day; and so the poor of the flock that waited +upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. And I said +unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, +forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.</q> +This language had its fulfillment in the sale which Judas +Iscariot made of his Lord and the abrogation of the ancient +covenant or law. +</p> + +<p> +The prophets were not confined to the kingdom of Israel, +or to any one kingdom, nor yet to any one dispensation. +</p> + +<p> +They bore the word of the Lord to all the nations, as we +learn from such language as this: <q>The burden of the word +of the Lord to Ninevah, to Sidon, to Tyre, to Idumea, to +Babylon, to Samaria, to Egypt,</q> and to many others. It is +very remarkable that no such latitude or longitude of relationships +belongs to the ancient law. It was confined to the +Israelites. +</p> + +<p> +The Heavenly Father spake not to the ancients by his Son, +but by the prophets. And much of that which they spake +pertained to our own dispensation and to our own religion. +</p> + +<p> +Much, very much, of that which they gave lies in the very +<pb n='158'/><anchor id='Pg158'/> +foundation of our religion. We should always distinguish, +<emph>carefully</emph>, between the Law and the prophets, and between +these two and the psalms, remembering, however, that prophesy +belongs also to many of the psalms. The abrogated +covenant, or law, that was done away, was written upon stones. +It, with all the laws which were after its <emph>tenor</emph>, was supplanted +by the law of Christ. It was added because of transgression +<emph>till Christ, <q>the seed,</q></emph> should come. When he came it expired +by limitation, and through his authority the neighborly restrictions +or limitations were taken off from moral precepts, which +were re-enacted by him. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>The Funeral Services Of The National Liberal League.</head> + +<p> +The decent members of the Liberal League, who formed it +to express their convictions, and who withdrew and formed a +rival League when they found that the old organization had +gone over to the defense of indecency, who gave to the +League all the character it had, and who had great hopes at +one time of destroying the influence of the preachers of the +Gospel of Christ, and thereby ridding our country of that terrible +pest called the Bible, have given up their name. Their +<q>priests</q> have adopted the following arraignment of their +old organization, a legitimate child of their own: +</p> + +<p> +<q>Voted that, in the judgment of this Board, the name +<q>National Liberal League</q> has become so widely and injuriously +associated in the public mind with attempts to +repeal the postal laws prohibiting the circulation of obscene +literature by mail, with the active propagandism of demoralizing +and licentious social theories, and with the support of +officials and other public representatives who are on good +grounds believed to have been guilty of gross immoralities, +that it has been thereby unfitted for use by any organization +<pb n='159'/><anchor id='Pg159'/> +which desires the support of the friends of <q>natural morality.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +Thus the child went into a far country and fed among +swine, and, failing to come to itself and return to its father's +house, the old gentleman disinherited it, <emph>once</emph> and forever. A +younger son, however, is christened <q>Liberal Union,</q> and +whether it will remain at home to take care of the old man in +his dotage remains to be seen. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Huxley's Paradox.</head> + +<p> +<q>The whole analogy of natural operations furnish so complete +and crushing an argument against the intervention of +any but what are called secondary causes, in the production of +all the phenomena of the universe, that, in view of the intimate +relations of man and the rest of the living world, and +between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I +can see no reason for doubting that all are co-ordinate terms +of nature's great progression, from formless to formed, from +the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect +and will.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Huxley's Evidence of Man's Place in Nature</hi>, +London, 1864, p. 107. +</p> + +<p> +A writer in the <hi rend='italic'>Spectator</hi> charged Professor Huxley with +Atheism. The professor replies, in the number of that paper +for February 10, 1866, thus: <q>I do not know that I care +very much about popular odium, so there is no great merit in +saying that if I really saw fit to deny the existence of a God +I should certainly do so for the sake of my own intellectual +freedom, and be the honest Atheist you are pleased to say I +am. As it happens, however, I can not take this position +with honesty, inasmuch as it is, and always has been, a favorite +tenet that Atheism is as absurd, logically speaking, as Polytheism.</q> +In the same sheet, he says: <q>The denying the +possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as +Atheism.</q> Is Huxley in conflict with Huxley? +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='160'/><anchor id='Pg160'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>The Triumphing Reign Of Light.</head> + +<p> +The next psychic cycle, it seems to me, will witness a +synthesis of thought and faith, a recognition of the fact that +it is impossible for reason to find solid ground that is not consecrated +ground; that all philosophy and all science belong +to religion; that all truth is a revelation of God; that the +truths of written revelation, if not intelligible to reason, are +nevertheless consonant with reason; and that divine agency, +instead of standing removed from man by infinite intervals +of time and space, is, indeed, the true name of those energies +which work their myriad phenomena in the natural world +around us. This consummation—at once the inspiration of a +fervent religion and the prophecy of the loftiest science—is +to be the noontide reign of wedded intellect and faith, whose +morning rays already stream far above our horizon.—<hi rend='italic'>Winchell.</hi> +Re. and Sci. p. 84. +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +<q>Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard +as inert and dead, assumes action, intelligence, and +life, when it is combined in a certain way.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Atheist.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q>But how does a germ come to live?</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Deist.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Life is organization with feeling.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Atheist.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q>But that you have these two properties from the motion +of</q> dead atoms, or matter alone, it is impossible to give any +proof; and if it can not be proved, why affirm it? Why +say aloud, <q>I know,</q> while you say to yourself, <q>I know +not?</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Voltaire.</hi> +</p> + +<milestone unit='tb' rend='rule: 50%'/> + +<p> +When you venture to affirm that matter acts of itself by +an eternal necessity, it must be demonstrated like a proposition +in Euclid, otherwise you rest your system only on a +perhaps. What a foundation for that which is most interesting +to the human race!—<hi rend='italic'>Voltaire.</hi> +</p> +</div> +</body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> |