{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26278/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26278","id":"gutenberg_26278","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26278","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion and science -- Periodicals","The Christian Foundation"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Annie McGuire and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n               +--------------------------------------------+\n               |            Transcriber's Note              |\n               |Spelling, punctuation and inconsistencies   |\n               |in the original journal have been retained. |\n               +--------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n  Scientific and Religious Journal.\n\n\n  VOL. I.      JANUARY, 1880.      NO. 1.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONFLICT.\n\n\nThe pyramids, temples and palaces of Thebes are monuments of the ancient\nintellects of our race. Great thinkers only were capable of giving to\nthe world the Vedas, the Apollo Belvidere and the Parthenon. The arts\nand astronomy of Egypt harmonize very poorly with the idea that modern\nscientists have all the wisdom and intelligence known in the history of\nthe ages. Among the wonderful characters of olden times we find\nEpictetus, Josephus, Strabo, Pliny, Seneca, Virgil, Aristotle, Plato,\nTacitus, Thucydides and Herodotus.\n\nThe \"Speculation of Evolution of Species\" was advocated among the Greeks\nsix hundred years before the birth of Christ. Two thousand and three\nhundred years ago the entire system of German philosophy, along with\nmodern pantheism, was advocated by the Buddhists and Brahmins.\n\nIn many very important respects the ancients were in advance of us,\nespecially in the arts, and we can not boast of superiority in either\nletters or philosophy. \"The gentlemen of modern materialistic schools do\nnot compare favorably with Plato and Cicero in the elevation and\nreverence of their opinions.\" \"Science has certainly made some\nadvancement, but where is the warrant for the boasting\" of sciolists of\nmodern times?\n\nBuddhists taught the most perfect outline of materialism in general.\n\"They believed in a supreme force, but denied the existence of a Supreme\nBeing. They rejected inquiry into first causes as unscientific,\"\nmaintaining that facts alone were to be dealt with in all our\ninvestigations.\n\nThe Brahmin contemplated the moment when his spirit would flow back into\nthe great \"Pantheistic Being.\"\n\nModern materialists say, \"We deal only with facts.\" \"We never\nspeculate.\" The Buddhists, and the unbelievers who figure so boastingly\nupon the rostrum in modern times, speak alike. They say: \"As many facts\nand second causes as you please, but ask no questions about first\ncauses; _that_ is unscientific.\" We should ask no questions (?) about\nthe invisible. They have been very true (?) to their own principles.\n\nThere is nothing speculative (?) in the hypothesis that General George\nWashington was evolved from a crustacean. There never was a more absurd\nand wild speculation. It is an old speculation. Anaximander, who lived\nsix centuries before Christ, advocated the assumption. His words are the\nfollowing: \"The sun's heat, acting on the original miry earth, produced\nfilmy bladders or bubbles, and these, becoming surrounded with a prickly\nrind, at length burst open, and as from an egg, animals came forth. At\nfirst they were ill-formed and imperfect, but subsequently they\nelaborated and developed.\" This has the genuine ring of the language of\nmodern unbelievers.\n\nChristianity, in its beginning, had to encounter this \"speculation\"\nalong with the current literature and philosophy of a civilization which\nwas semi-barbarous and centuries old, but it triumphed over all, and in\nthe third century it triumphed everywhere. Since that time one effort\nhas been made upon the part of paganism to regain her former strength in\nthe old world. Julian made that effort. He tried to revive and establish\nthe supremacy of pagan thought by the power of the state. Subsequent to\nthis it disappeared in the east, and has only plead for toleration in\nthe west. But the dark ages came on in all their hideousness, and\nunbelief developed itself about the close of the fifteenth century, all\nover Europe. Paganism, as the result, was fostered near the bosom of\nthe church. The fifth Lateran Council proclaimed anew the tenet of the\nimperishability of the spirit of man. The Padua University adopted a\nsystem of materialism taught in the works of Alexander, of Aphrodisias.\nA form of pantheism known in the philosophy of Averroes soon became a\ncenter of skepticism.\n\nIn the latter part of the seventeenth century modern unbelievers began\ntheir assaults. Lord Herbert and Hobbs in England, Spinoza in Holland,\nand Bayle in France.\n\nIn seventeen hundred and thirteen Anthony Collins published a discourse\nfor the encouragement of a \"clique\" called \"Free-thinkers.\" This\ndiscourse was thoroughly answered by Bently. In seventeen hundred and\ntwenty-seven Woolston made an effort to rationalize the miracles out of\nexistence, interpreting them after the style of Mr. Strauss. Three years\nlater Tyndal got out his dialogue called \"Christianity as old as the\nCreation.\" The world received in return for this \"Butler's Analogy of\nNatural and Revealed Religion.\" In seventeen hundred and thirty-seven\nMorgan's \"Moral Philosophy\" made its appearance, claiming the\nsufficiency of the moral law without any other religion. Warburton's\n\"Divine Legation of Moses\" was gotten up in reply to this philosophy.\nThomas Chubb wrote a discourse upon reason, and got out a few other\nsmall tracts denying the utility of prayer, and calling in question the\ntruth of the Scriptures of both Testaments, in the line of Morgan's\nphilosophy. Bolingbroke, ignorant of the law, \"that the greatest good of\nthe greatest number is to be sought after,\" even at the expense of the\nlives of a few wicked Canaanites, assailed the justice and the\nbenevolence of the Bible God after Col Ingersoll's style, and boldly\navowed that the miracles of the New Testament never transpired; said,\n\"If they did occur they attested the Revelation.\" Voltaire lived between\n1694 and 1788. He made himself busy in France, while Bolingbroke and\nTyndal and Woolston, and Hume and Morgan were at work in England. Then\nDidoret, of France, made his appearance upon the stage as a bold\ndefender of Atheism. Next comes D'Holbach, the leading author of the\n\"Systeme de la Nature,\" which came out in 1774. Its object was to strike\ndown the idea of a God, of an intelligence separate from matter, of\nfree-will, and of immortality. Didoret and others are accused of\nassisting in getting this book before the world. Rousseau lived in those\ntimes, and assailed Christianity after the manner of Hume. To all these\nenemies of Christianity we must add Condillac, who originated the\nmaterialistic philosophy of France.\n\nGibbon and Paine came into notice after Bolingbroke, and the terrible\nstrife continued. Christianity was pronounced dead, and a prostitute was\nchosen to impersonate the \"Goddess of Reason\" in the national\nconvention. God being dethroned in France, we should naturally look\nthere for the \"absolute liberty\" which unbelievers talk so much about.\nBut how was it? Were the people without a religious nature? Could they\nthink more freely? Were they in any sense better off? No, they \"followed\nthe prostitute into the church of 'Notre Dame' in a grand procession and\nseated her upon the high altar, where she was worshiped by the\naudience.\" This was the result of the labors of all the authors to which\nI have called your attention. It was a wonderful gain? In all the public\ncemeteries this inscription was read: \"Death is an eternal sleep.\"\nCabanis, Destutt de Tracy and Volney close up the seventeenth century,\nbut just about this time the \"Critique of Pure Reason,\" a work which is\nthe bed-rock of modern metaphysics, makes its appearance. According to\nits teachings there are no realities in the world.\n\nThe struggle is passed in England. In France all are dull, drowsy. In\nGermany all are hungry for the food that satisfies unbelievers. The\n\"Critique of Pure Reason\" was followed by the labors of Fitche. He was\nsucceeded by Schelling, and he by Hegel. All forms of torture must be\nadded to this account of the conflict if we would get a glimpse of the\nstrength of the Christian religion and of the religious element in man's\nnature, from the amount of resistance which they have defied. Eusebius\nsays, \"The swords became dull and shattered\" under Diocletian. \"The\nexecutioners became weary and had to relieve each other.\" This would not\nlook as though Christianity would take the throne in four score years,\nbut it did in spite of all those cruel murders. Through Constantine it\nbecame the state religion of the Roman Empire. Paganism crumbled down\nand Christianity triumphed over all the opposition of the old world. The\nbooks of the Old and New Testaments have all been thoroughly tested,\nover and over in the fiery furnace of criticism, but Christianity still\nlives to bless the hearts of widows and orphans; to bless the\ndisappointed and disconsolate. To-day there are more Christians in the\nworld than ever before.\n\nWhat has unbelief to give to the people of our age more than it offered\ncenturies ago? Nothing! Nothing!! Nothing!!!\n\n\"There is nothing new under the sun.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE--THE BACKGROUND AND THE PICTURE.\n\n\nThis book is admired and respected above all others for its antiquity,\nits usefulness, its conflicts, and character. It has been expressly\ndenominated \"The book of books.\" Its professions are such that no\nreasonable man can consistently lay it aside without giving it a careful\nexamination. The nature of every question determines its claims upon our\nintelligence. If it professes to involve only a small interest its\nclaims are not so pressing.\n\nThe questions of the Bible hold in their principles the present and\neternal interests of our humanity, and therefore challenge the attention\nof the world. Thousands of the wisest and best men of the ages have been\nintensely interested in its contents. Its great influence and reputation\nare evidences of its trustworthiness, and of the consistency and\nintelligence of those who give it their attention; for sensible men do\nnot disregard questions of great importance. This book contains a\nrecord of many ugly, dark and wicked deeds, known in the lives of wicked\nmen and nations, with imperfections and apostacies of individuals in\nhigh places. This is what we must look for in a book of its pretensions.\nIt professes to contain a revelation of God and his will to man. The\nugly, wicked, licentious, and bloody things constitute the background of\nthe picture, representing man in all his ways. It is also shaded with\nall there was, and is, of moral and noble character in the human. God\nwith his attributes, as the true, grand and glorious Bible picture,\nshines out through this human background. The justice of God, with his\nlove, long suffering and tender mercies, his approbation and\ndisapprobation, must in the very nature of things be revealed in\nconnection with human character as it presents itself in iniquity and\ncrime, in piety and virtue, both individual and national, in order that\nthe revelation may be complete, full and perfect. The history of men and\nnations must also be true, sufficiently full to call out, in the divine\ndealings, all there is in the divine character; otherwise, the\nrevelation would be partial and imperfect.\n\nNo physician ever revealed his skill without his patients. No court has\never revealed its justice without its cases. The doctor's dealings with\nhis patients measure the extent of his known skill. Allowing that he\nunderstands himself and the conditions of his patients perfectly, and\ndoes his whole duty, the revelation of his skill must be perfect, to the\nfull extent of its connection with the diseases treated. So it is with\nthe revealed justice of the court. This rule is a necessary law,\ngoverning all revelations of character, both human and divine; otherwise\nwe are left in the dark with reference to the true character of the one\nwho makes the revelation. Our common sense is such that we are always\nled astray by improper action, unless our superior wisdom enables us to\nknow that the action is improper. Improper action upon the part of a\ndoctor reveals imperfect skill; on the part of the court it reveals\nimperfect justice, if it is not an entire want of skill and justice.\n\nNo such imperfection belongs to our God; therefore the revelation which\nhe made needs only to be understood and it will never mislead us. These\ngreat principles of common sense are to be applied in the revelations of\nGod to the nations as the God of nations. Such being the case, we have a\nvery interesting field of thought before us in the bloody scenes that\nare known in the history of nations, as it is given in the Bible. Where\nis the morality and righteousness of the wars of which we read? Where is\nthe justice and goodness of God in the bloody wars of Israel? Where is\nthe righteousness of capital punishment? A great many persons say, in\ntheir ignorance, there is no righteousness in those things. Friend,\ntravel slowly over this ground. \"Take the shoes off thy feet, for it is\nholy ground.\" Go into the Bible and look! God is there. You knew it not.\nPrinciples never change. Circumstances change and necessitate changes of\nlaw, but that which was right at any time in the history of our race is\nright at all times, under the same circumstances. Is there such a thing\nas morality carried into public relations? Is there such a thing as\njurisprudence? Yes; jurisprudence is morality carried into public\nrelations in the following law: \"That course of conduct which pertains\nto the greatest good of the greatest number is right.\" This law is of\nuniversal application. It belongs to men in all their relations, both\npublic and private, collectively and individually. In the relation of\nthe State to its citizens it taxes them for the support of government,\nit fines, imprisons and puts them to death for crime. In the relation of\nnation to nation it imposes tariffs and declares war, filling history\nwith scenes of blood and woe. The common sense of mankind approves this\nlaw, and the Bible declares it just. Wars were approved of God, when\nthey were for the greatest good of the greater number. It was upon the\nsame principle that all the divine judgments were administered, from the\ndestruction of the Antediluvians down to the overthrow of Jerusalem by\nTitus.\n\nThis law is the substratum in moral righteousness, underlying all that\nis right. Such is its wonderful latitude and longitude that, in order to\ncarry it out, it sometimes becomes necessary to tilt a nation into a\nsea of blood and replace it with a better people. Unbelievers and\nskeptics who admit this are guilty of wresting Bible facts from their\nproper places and testing them upon the plane of morality, regardless of\nthe laws of jurisprudence.\n\nThis erroneous method of reasoning leads the minds of many ignorant and\nunsuspecting persons away from the right ways of God. The guilty\nreasoner justifies taxation, fines, imprisonment and wars in the history\nof his own country.\n\nIt sometimes seems cruel to carry out this great moral principle of\nwhich we are treating; it is nevertheless right, and men who abuse its\nfacts and turn things upside down are guilty of opposing the right.\n\nUnbelievers are guilty of selecting from the Bible all that can be\ntortured out of its place in the laws of jurisprudence and made to look\nugly out of its proper relations, and are continually holding such\nthings up before the people, turning them into ridicule, and at the same\ntime they have been through all the bloody scenes of war and justify\nthemselves, wishing to be known in many instances as Major, General or\nColonel. We have some such in our own country. They seem to have never\nlearned that many things which are good for humanity are very ugly out\nof their proper relations. I am glad that God has revealed himself in\nthe jurisprudence of nations, for the facts given inspire confidence in\nrulers and officials, strength to judges upon the bench, and nerve to\nwarriors who are acting with direct reference to the \"greatest good of\nthe greatest number.\"\n\nA history of God in his dealings with states and nations in order to a\nperfect revelation of himself necessitates a history of states and\nnations so far as it is necessary to make known the approbation and\ndisapprobation of God in connection with all that may ever enter into\nnational or state character. Without this we would find states and\nnations where God did not see fit to show himself. We must find him\nwherever we find man, approving or disapproving. This is just what we do\nin the Bible. We do it in no other book. But let us ever remember that\nall that is wicked had its origin with wicked men and demons, and that\nthe Divine Being, with all his attributes, appears in the foreground in\nall his relations to men and their conduct, as the grand Bible picture\nshining out through all the darkness and gloom, surrounded with the\nvirtues and noble deeds of all his worshipers, and that he is building\nup and throwing down as his righteous judgment approves or disapproves.\nThis revelation of God is like the sun at noonday bursting through dark\nand heavy clouds and blessing the earth with its rays. In making this\nrevelation, which is related negatively or affirmatively to all there is\nin human history, God saw fit to communicate his will through man, and\nin his own language, except in the gift of the great charter of the\nnational existence of the children of Israel and the great foundation\ntruth of the church of God. These he uttered with his own wonderful\nvoice.\n\nWas it reasonable to expect a revelation from God? Is it necessary to\nthe greatest good of the greatest number? If so, it is a thought at once\ninvolving the moral character of God and necessitating a revelation of\nhimself. In answering these questions intelligently we must look after\nthe demands for such a communication. Where shall we find them? Answer,\nin the wants of our humanity. Here two kinds of light are needed for two\npair of eyes in order that we may be happy in two respects. First,\nphysical light for the physical eyes, in order to the enjoyment of\nphysical life in a material world. Second, the light of knowledge for\nthe eyes of the understanding, in order to the enjoyment of spiritual\nlife in a spiritual world. It is universally conceded that there are\nmeans provided in nature to meet man's physical wants and adaptations\nthat manifest the wisdom that belongs to God; also, that it would have\nbeen the work of a demon to create man with these wants, like so many\nempty vessels, without any provision to satisfy or fill them. Without\nthose supplies our suffering would be great and our wretchedness\nunendurable. Is there no liability to mental suffering? Are there no\nspiritual wants consequent upon the nature of mind?\n\nIs it not unreasonable to allow that \"Infinite wisdom\" provided for all\nour physical wants and left our spirits with all their demands, like so\nmany children away out in the darkness without hope, uneasy, restless,\nalways dissatisfied, and ever trying to get into the possession of the\nknowledge of the unseen and future, without one ray of mental light\nshining out from the heavens upon our relations to perfect our condition\nand declare the glorious goodness of an all-wise Creator? Volney says,\n\"Provident nature having endowed the heart of man with inexhaustible\nhope, he set about finding happiness in this world, and failing in his\nefforts, he set out in his imagination and created a world for himself,\nwhere, free from tyrants, he could have all his wrongs redressed and\nenjoy unsullied bliss.\" This is Volney's account of the origin of\nreligion, the tap-root of the tree. It contains a most wonderful\nconcession, one that Tyndal made when he said, \"There is a place in\nman's psychological nature for religion.\" Is there a place in man's\nphysical nature for bread and meat, for food of every variety that man's\nsoul desires? Do we attribute all the mercies of physical life to a\nsupreme intelligence? Has that intelligence created us and left us\nendowed with \"Inexhaustible hope,\" to be disappointed forever, and the\nonly result, the \"imaginary\" creation of the Christian's happy heaven.\nBut Volney makes another grand concession in the quotation which I have\ngiven, and that is the nature of the Christian's future world in its\nrelations to wrongs as well as tyrants, neither are to exist there. That\nthe Christian's religion, with its beautiful world, does fill up the\nsoul's demands is a fact unintentionally conceded by Volney, and known\nthroughout the land in the contentment and bliss and heroism of the\ndying Christian. In this hope alone man's spiritual wants are met. This,\nwith all that pertains to it, is in the revelation that God has made to\nour race. How could this be made? I answer, it was made by the spirit of\nGod. \"Holy men of old spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit.\"\nThis is what we call _inspiration_. This word is a translation of\n\"_Theopneustos_,\" which is from \"Theos,\" _God_, \"pneuma,\" _spirit_,\n_Spirit of God_. Is it reasonable to allow that this revelation could be\ngiven by the spirit of God through holy men? I will let an infidel\nanswer this question. Bolingbroke said, \"It is just as easy to\ncomprehend the operation of the spirit of God upon the mind of a prophet\nin order to give his will to us as it is to comprehend the operations of\nour own spirits upon our physical nature in order to an expression of\nour own thoughts.\" Has such a revelation been made? From all we know of\nman, his wants, and the adaptation of means in nature to those wants, we\nare driven to the conclusion that it has, presenting the means adapted\nto our spiritual wants so perfectly as to enable us to realize fully\nwhat Volney declares our very nature, as creatures of hope, impelled us\nto create \"in our imaginations for ourselves.\" There is no consistent\nground that any man can occupy between Christianity and Atheism. And if\nthere is no God, \"nature,\" or the \"forces,\" or whatever lies behind\nthem, to which they belong, as the manifest energies of the same, call\nit what you may, has made a very unreasonable, bungling mistake in\ngiving in the very nature of man's mind an empty vessel that is to be\nfilled only by the false whims of the imagination of an ever restless\nand dissatisfied spirit, which, in that case, is to be eternally\ndisappointed and plunged deeper down by the realization of the fact that\nall its anxieties and hopes were only so many misleading demons.\n\nIn order to a perfect revelation of God to man it was necessary that the\nentire page, the \"background\" as well as the \"foreground,\" or the human\nas well as the divine, should be truth, and in every case, all the truth\nthat was necessary to enable man to realize and understand the whys and\nwherefores of the divine procedure; and also to call out in word or\naction the Divine Being in all his relations to the conduct of the\nchildren of men. Such a record is found in the Bible, given to us by men\nwho were impelled and borne by the Holy Spirit when they wrote and\nspoke. But it was not necessary that anything upon the dark human\n\"background\" of this picture should have its origin with God; it was\nonly necessary that, having originated with man, men or demons, it\nshould be put to record just as it was in all its heinousness and\nwickedness in order that we might see the true character of God in his\nrelations to it. If a wise physician should undertake to make himself\nknown to the world he would not give us a history of all he did with\nevery patient, and at the same time fail to give us just so much of the\ntrue history of each patient as would be necessary to enable us to\nunderstand him in all that he did, for both stand or fall together. So\nit is in the Bible revelation of God to man. Take away the \"background\"\nof the picture, and the picture itself is destroyed. That which skeptics\nin their ignorance are always trying to ridicule is just as essential to\na revelation of God in his justice, purity, love and power as the word\nof God himself. That is to say, the revelation has an objective as well\nas a subjective side. The subjective is God in his attributes, and the\nobjective is man in his works. It was the objective that drew out the\nsubjective, because all was done for the objective. Take either side\naway and the revelation ceases to exist. On the subjective side all is\nof God in its origin, is charged up to him, being spoken by him, and in\nhis name, or done by him, or by his authority. The indices to this great\ntruth are in these or similar phrases, \"Hear, O, Israel, thus saith the\nLord, thy God,\" \"Thus saith the Lord,\" \"And the Lord said,\" \"The Lord\nspake, saying,\" \"The Lord said unto me,\" \"The word of the Lord came unto\nme,\" \"The Lord commanded,\" \"The burthen of the word of the Lord to,\"\n\"The Lord answered, saying.\" We are not authorized to charge, as many\nthrough their ignorance or wickedness have done, all that we read about\nin the Bible to God as the author. The words and doings of wicked men\nand demons are truthfully recorded there, and they are often licentious\nand blasphemous. The words and doings of good men and angels are there,\nand the words and doings of God are there. We are authorized to charge\nto God's account that only which is spoken in his name, or by his\ninstructions, along with that which was done by him, or by his\nauthority, or approved by him. When we get outside of these\ncommon-sense thoughts in our interpretations of Bible history we are\nacting upon our own responsibility, and are liable to be found doing\nviolence to the divine will. If we contradict the record we call in\nquestion the veracity of the spirit which controlled the writer, whether\nthe statement relates to God, man or demons. But this statement does not\napply to mistranslations, for it is one thing to contradict an\nuninspired translator, and another altogether to contradict the\nstatement of one controlled by the spirit of God. We fearlessly assert\nthat the Bible is just the book that common-sense and reason demands\nthat it should be in order to contain a revelation of God to man. We\nwould as soon attempt to destroy the divine and lovely side, as change\nits character, so far as to take from its pages its record of\nwickedness, misery and woe, for it amounts to the same thing. One more\nquestion of importance bearing on this subject demands our attention,\nand that is the question of miracles. Men have, without any authority\nfrom the Bible, treated all miracles as violations of natural law. But\nit would be well for us to determine the extent of our knowledge of\nnatural laws before we thus dogmatize. That which we call miracle may be\nin perfect harmony with law that lies just beyond our knowledge.\nOmniscience seems to be a necessary qualification for such theorizing as\nasserts that miracles are violations of the laws of nature. Omnipotence\nis an essential attribute of the Ruler of the universe. But in order to\nits existence, the Infinite one must be above the laws which he has\nestablished, able to take hold of those laws and handle them as he sees\nproper, otherwise he is not all-powerful. On the simple plane of nature\nwe get lost. Who can account for \"Partheno Genesis,\" or generation\nwithout any known sexual organs, which obtains in the animal kingdom.\n\"The spirit of God moved upon,\" \"brooded over\" the face of the great\ndeep and life filled the waters. \"The Holy Spirit overshadowed the\nVirgin\" and the Nazarene was begotten. The original expresses the same\nidea in both cases. Scientists who are radical materialists admit this\nwonderful feat in the animal kingdom as a natural affair, and yet,\nwithout any authority from the Bible, speak of the birth of Christ as\nthe result of \"Miraculous conception,\" in the sense of a violation of\nnatural law. What natural law is violated in \"Partheno Genesis?\" With me\nit is allowable that a thousand more just such beings might be, and if\nnecessary to the accomplishment of the great purposes of God, would be\nproduced under the same circumstances and by the same instrumentalities.\nThe feature of the question of miracles which bears on the subject of a\ndivine revelation must now be considered. It is this, would a book\ncontaining such a record as that which we have in the Bible, except the\nrecord of miracles, reveal God in his attributes to our world? We lay it\ndown as a correct proposition that we must have creative and life-giving\npower manifested in order to a revelation of God.\n\nIf the Bible contained no record of the exercise of powers above the\nhuman it would reveal only a human God, which would be no God; and\ncommon sense would declare, \"It is a book treating of, and presenting\nman in his attributes.\" Those facts upon its pages which are in the\npower of God alone confirm, that is, make sure, the revelation of God to\nman. Without this feature of the book common sense would have at least\none good excuse for rejecting its claims. The Master recognizes this\nfact in the saying, \"If I do not the works of my Father believe me not,\nbut if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may\nknow and believe that the Father is in me and I in him.\" Here we have\nthe fact of \"God revealed in the flesh,\" evinced by the works which the\nSavior performed. The foundation of faith, or the obligation to believe,\nis identified with those works. They were a greater evidence of his\ndivinity than the words of any prophet, although those words were the\nwords of the Divine Spirit. Jesus said, \"I have greater witness than\nthat of John, for the works which the Father hath given me to finish,\nthe same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent\nme.\" \"If I had not done among them the works which none other man did,\nthey had not had sin; their rejection of my claims would be justifiable\nbut for the fact that my divinity is demonstrated in the works which I\ndo.\" The same thought accompanies the introduction of the gospel of\nJesus Christ in the preaching of the Apostles. Paul said, \"Our gospel\ncame not unto you in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Spirit.\"\n\"They went everywhere preaching the word; the Lord working with them and\nconfirming the word with signs following.\" The confirmation was not in\nthe simple fact that miracles were wrought, but in their character. The\nmiracles of Christ were not in the power of false prophets, magicians,\nor demons. They were in the power of God. Peter said, \"God anointed\nJesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,\" and that \"He\nwent about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed of the devil;\nfor God was with him.\" The presence of God was manifested in his\nmiracles.\n\nThe question is often asked, \"Why were they not continued throughout the\nChristian dispensation?\" Answer: If they had been continued, they would\nhave lost all their power over the mind by becoming ordinary, and then\nthey would cease to have any bearing whatever in the establishment of a\ndivine proposition. It was not necessary to continue them beyond the\nwitnesses whose testimony closed up the revelation of God. \"A covenant\nonce confirmed no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.\" A continual\nrepetition of the evidence of confirmation was not necessary in order to\ngive faith in a communication already confirmed and left in a historic\nage for the faith of the world. It is true of sense that the continual\nsensuous experience causes the object experienced to lose its\ncontrolling power, but the opposite is true of faith. So he who knew\nbest what man's nature required ordained that the just should walk by\nfaith and not by sense. And to this end he confirmed \"once\" the\nrevelation of himself and his will, and left it in the world as his\nwitness to produce faith. \"If we receive the witness of men the witness\nof God is greater; for this is the witness of God which he hath\ntestified of his Son. He that believeth hath the witness in himself; he\nthat believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not\nthe _record_ that God gave of his Son.\" Is it not a dangerous thing to\nmake God a liar? Is it not a great insult? All unbelievers are thus\nguilty before God. Our Savior did not speak unadvisedly when he said:\n\"He that believeth not shall be condemned.\"\n\n\"Life and immortality are brought to light through the Gospel.\" Is it\nnot strange that dying men will reject the motive of life? \"This is the\nrecord, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his\nSon; he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God\nhath not life.\" Jesus \"came to his own and his own received him not, but\nas many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of\nGod.\" Will we possess him through faith and live, or shall we make God a\nliar, die in our sins, be condemned and banished from the presence of\nGod and the glory of his power?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe practice of dating from the Christian era was first introduced about\nthe year 527, by Dionisius, surnamed \"Exiguus,\" but better known as\nDeny's le Petit, a monk of Scythia and a Roman abbot. It was not\nintroduced into Italy until the sixth century. It was first used in\nFrance in the seventh century; it was universally established in France\nin the eighth century. It was used in England in 680; it was in general\nuse in the eighth century. The years of the Christian era are described\nin ancient documents as the years \"of Grace,\" of \"the Incarnation,\" of\n\"our Lord,\" of \"the Nativity,\" etc.--_Chambers._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe cardinal virtues are Justice, Prudence, Temperance and Fortitude.\n_Cardinal_ signifies, in a general sense, principal or pre-eminent. It\ncomes from the Latin word _cardo_, a hinge. Take cardinal things away\nfrom any science and its foundation is gone. Everything in science turns\nupon cardinal things, as the word _cardo_ signifies.\n\n\n\n\nA FUNERAL ORATION.\n\nBY COL. G. DE VEVEU.\n\n\n     Of the future, the hereafter, we are as ignorant as we are of the\n     infinite conditions through which we have passed during the\n     eternity which has preceded our brief present existences. If we\n     could know the history of our past we might get a glimpse of our\n     future; but no message ever reached man from beyond the grave. The\n     past is a mere sealed book, the future is a blank. No records are\n     left to us save those written in the rocks and the evidences\n     brought before our senses; they tell their own stories. Whence came\n     we? Whither are we tending? Ah! who can tell? Some profess to know,\n     but they know not. Where have last summer's roses gone? What will\n     become of yon dry leaf, torn from its parent stem by this wintry\n     blast? Like us they disappear and are merged into the ocean of\n     matter from which they are evolved, ready to be re-combined into\n     new forms of beauty; for although individual existences perish,\n     matter is imperishable; having had no birth it will have no death.\n     Like time and space, it is infinite and eternal. Brought forth into\n     this world without being consulted, we are hurried out of it\n     without our consent. Like that leaf, which was the hope of spring,\n     the pride and glory of summer, we are rudely torn away, the sport\n     of destiny, to return to the elements of nature from which we\n     spring--dust to dust. The past is beyond recall; the future is\n     veiled in obscurity and in doubt; the present alone is ours.\n\nThe above is from the Boston _Investigator_. It has gone the rounds of\nthe press, and it is regarded as a very fine literary production. But\nall is not gold that glitters. This oration was delivered as a tribute\nof respect to the memory of Mrs. Boulay. It is a curiosity when viewed\nfrom the speaker's standpoint. The man was evidently broken down in the\npresence of death. I have sometimes thought it would be well for the\nunbelievers to adopt the custom of delivering funeral sermons, for it is\ncertain, from all that is known of man, that no strong defense of\nunbelief, nor even a respectable presentation of it, is made in the\npresence of death. When an unbeliever speaks at his brother's grave of\nthe \"rustling of wings,\" I intuitively think of the old trite saying,\n\"It is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.\" That step is\nfrom the \"rustling of wings\" to \"infidelity.\" Col. G. Veveu, in the\nabove oration, sticks close to his unbelief, but smashes _his science_.\nIf our incredulous friends will continue to respect the dead enough to\nremember them with an oration at their graves, I think it will be but a\nshort time till the people all over the country will see the hollow,\nempty, good-for-nothing character of unbelief.\n\nMr. Veveu says, \"Although individual existences perish, matter is\nimperishable; having had _no birth_ (_italics mine_) it will have _no\ndeath_.\" A wonderful discovery! _Matter had no birth_; organisms are\nborn. They existed, however, prior to their birth. The matter that\ncomposed them existed before it entered into organic forms. The living\nelement, spirit, or whatever you please to name it, took hold of the\nelements of matter and built the organism. The life existed before the\norganism. Why should it perish with it? Matter exists before birth and\nafter death. Spirit also exists before birth and after death. Why affirm\nthe eternity of matter and deny the eternity of spirit? These\nunbelievers, being materialists, advocate the one substance theory. Yet\nthey talk about the \"unknown\" which they know, and know it to be the\n\"invisible,\" the \"wonderful,\" the life, and the cause, at least, of all\nintelligence and order. They are compelled to deify this. Does this pass\nout of being with death? Does matter pass out of being with death? No,\nnothing passes out of being except the organic form. The body returns to\nthe dust, _as it was_, and the spirit to God who gave it. Next, we have\nthis statement with reference to matter, \"Like time and space, it is\ninfinite and eternal.\" Why? The answer is, because it can not be\nannihilated; death has simply destroyed an organization, changed the\ncondition of matter, the matter of the organism, and changed the\nrelations of the intelligent, living spirit; neither matter nor spirit\nceases to be. If matter is therefore infinite and eternal, spirit is\ntherefore infinite and eternal. The sooner scientists learn the fact\nthat birth simply brings us into certain relations, and death takes us\nout of those relations, the better it will be for all who are concerned\nin this interesting subject.\n\nThe next item in that eloquent effusion is that man is \"like the leaf,\"\nthe mere \"sport of destiny,\" returning in his \"autumn\" \"to the elements\nof nature from which he sprang: dust to dust.\"\n\nThis orator asks the questions, \"Whence came we?\" \"Whither are we\ntending?\" \"Who can tell?\" To them he gives two answers. First, he says,\n\"Some profess to know, but they know not.\" \"The past is a mere sealed\nbook.\" \"The future is a blank.\" \"Of the future, the hereafter, we are as\nignorant as we are of the infinite conditions through which we have\npassed during the eternity which has preceded our brief present\nexistences. If we could know the history of our past, we might get a\nglimpse of our future,\" \"The past is a mere sealed book.\" Conclusion,\n\"The future is a mere sealed book.\" The man is lost in the unbeliever's\n\"narrow vale lying between two cold, bleak, barren eternities,\" viz:\nlife. Lost (?) in the narrow vale. Yes! He knows nothing about his\norigin. He knows nothing about his destiny. So he says, and we have no\nright to contradict him. He is lost! But here he is again, listen!\nSpeaking of the autumn leaves, he says, \"LIKE US, they disappear and are\nmerged into the ocean of matter from which they are evolved, ready to be\nRE-COMBINED into new forms of beauty.\" (Capitals mine.) Once more he\nsays, \"LIKE THAT LEAF which was the hope of spring, the pride and glory\nof summer, we are rudely torn away, the sport of destiny, to return to\nthe elements of nature from which we sprung: dust to dust.\"\n\nHow he contradicts himself! But we must make all due allowances. He is\nin the presence of death. He says, \"The past is beyond recall; the\nfuture is veiled in obscurity and in doubt; the present alone is ours.\"\nHere confusion is confounded; but let us ever remember that this was a\nfuneral occasion, and the friends of the deceased were present, and this\nman Veveu was there, for the purpose, ostensibly, of giving a small\namount of consolation to bereaved and broken hearts. Oh, how barren, how\ncold, how gloomy and God-dishonoring the consolation given! Those empty\nvessels of ours, hearts \"endowed with inexhaustible hope,\" must turn\naway from the grave (?) _empty still_. No, not necessarily. God has\nprovided a fountain. Go to it and fill your vessels. Let us not be too\nsevere upon the man. There he stands amid bleeding hearts, and the open\ntomb just before him. Show pity, Lord! The man says, \"No message ever\nreached man from beyond the grave.\" How very singular it is that many\nmen repudiating God make a god of themselves. What kind of a being must\nI be to know that \"no message ever reached man from beyond the grave?\"\nHow much must I know? Away back yonder in the past, in that \"mere sealed\nbook,\" is a grand and glorious message from beyond the grave. But to our\nfriend it is a \"sealed book.\"\n\nWhat becomes of evolution?\n\nWhat becomes of natural selection?\n\nWhat becomes of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest?\n\n\n\n\nTHE MOTIVE THAT LED MEN TO ADOPT DARWINISM.\n\n\nBefore presenting the motive that led some of the great minds in\nunbelief to advocate the Darwinian theory of creation, it will not be\namiss to remind the reader of the fact that the author of the \"Vestiges\nof Creation\" presented the evolution theory about twenty years before\nMr. Darwin excited the public mind with the \"hypothesis.\" Men who read\nthe \"Vestiges\" looked upon the assumption as a speculation, but refused\nits adoption until Mr. Darwin, for the purpose of setting aside the\nidea of separate creations of species, improved so far upon the\n\"Vestiges of Creation\" as to repudiate design in nature. Having done\nthis, many of the leading spirits in skepticism, with a few great minds\nin unbelief, at once accepted the wild speculation. Their motive may be\nseen in the following quotations: \"The eye was not made for the purpose\nof seeing, or the ear for the purpose of hearing. Organisms, according\nto Darwin, are like grape-shot, of which one hits something and the rest\nfall wide.\" (Lay sermons, p. 331.) According to the above it appears\nthat Huxley regarded the evolution of species, as advocated by Darwin,\nas identical with the old, effete idea that circumstances have\ndetermined everything. Buchner says, \"According to Darwin the whole\ndevelopment is due to the gradual summation of innumerable minute and\naccidental operations.\" This is the same idea. Carl Vogt says, \"Darwin's\ntheory turns the Creator, and his occasional intervention in the\nrevolutions of the earth and in the production of species, without any\nhesitation, out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest\nroom for the agency of such a being.\" Haeckel says, \"The grand\ndifficulty in the way of the mechanical theory was the occurrence of\ninnumerable organisms, apparently, at least, indicative of design.\" He\nfurther says, \"Some who could not believe in a creative and controlling\nmind, to get over the difficulty of apparent design, adopted the idea of\na metaphysical ghost called vitality.\" He then presents his estimate of\nthe service of Darwin in the following words: \"The grand service\nrendered by Darwin to science is that his theory enables us to account\nfor the appearances of design without assuming final causes, or, a mind\nworking for a foreseen and intended end.\"\n\nStrauss, after making the admission that the evolution theory is a mere\nguess, that it is no explanation of the cardinal points in descent,\nadds: \"Nevertheless, as he has shown how miracles may be excluded, he is\nto be applauded as one of the greatest benefactors of the human\nrace.\"--_Old Faith and New, p. 177._\n\nThe same author says: \"We philosophers and critical theologians have\nspoken well when we decreed the abolition of miracles; but our decree\nremained without effect, because we could not show them to be\nunnecessary, inasmuch as we were unable to indicate any natural force to\ntake their place. Darwin has provided or indicated this natural force,\nthis process of nature; he has opened the door through which a happier\nposterity may eject miracles forever.\"\n\nHelmholtz says: \"Adaptation in the formation of organisms may arise\nwithout the intervention of intelligence by the blind operation of\nnatural law.\" This author confounds law with cause or agent. \"Law is\nnothing without an agent to operate by it.\" Law is simply a rule of\naction. Let us hear Strauss once more: \"Design in nature, especially in\nthe department of living organisms, has ever been appealed to by those\nwho desire to prove that the world is not SELF-EVOLVED (capitals mine),\nbut the work of an intelligent Creator.\"--_Old Faith and New, p. 211._\nOn page 175 Strauss says of those who ridicule Darwin's evolution\nhypothesis and yet deny miracles: \"How do they account for the origin of\nman, and, in general, the development of the organic out of the\ninorganic? Would they assume that the original man, as such, no matter\nhow rough and unformed, but still a man, sprang immediately out of the\ninorganic, out of the sea or the slime of the Nile? They would hardly\nventure to say that; then they must know that there is only the choice\nbetween miracle, the divine hand of the Creator, and Darwin.\" According\nto this statement every man is left to one of three conclusions, viz:\n\n1. That man came up immediately _as man_ from the inorganic, or from the\nslime of the Nile, or from some other slimy place. Or,\n\n2. That man was evolved from the lowest forms of life, according to\nDarwinism. Or,\n\n3. That man was created by the divine hand, according to Christian\nbelief.\n\nReader, which will you accept. Will you dethrone the Creator?\n\nChoose you this day between the Creator and the slime of the sea with\nthe sun's rays. What does Darwin know about the origin of life and\nmind? I am informed that he believes in a God, who, by miracle, gave the\nliving unit at the base of his evolutionary series, but it seems to be\nan admission for the sake merely of avoiding disaster, for he says: \"In\nwhat manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest\norganisms is as _hopeless an inquiry_ as how life itself _first\noriginated_. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever\nto be solved by man.\"--_Descent of Man, p. 66._ This is an open\nconfession; in it all is given up.\n\nI am now reminded of one of the last sayings of Strauss; here it is: \"We\ndemand for our universe the same piety which the devout man of old\ndemanded for his God.\" This brings us to the same standard of piety.\nThen why the opposition?\n\nStrauss denied a personal God. Of his mental condition we learn\nsomething from these words: \"In the enormous machine of the universe,\namid the incessant whirl and hiss of its jagged iron wheels, amid the\ndeafening crash of its ponderous stamps and hammers--in the midst of\nthis whole terrific commotion, man, a helpless and defenseless creature,\nfinds himself placed, not secure for a moment, that on an imprudent\nmotion a wheel may not seize and rend him, or a hammer crush him to a\npowder. This sense of abandonment is at first SOMETHING AWFUL.\"\n(Capitals mine.) Reader, the religion of Jesus Christ will save you from\nthe terrible mental condition which is legitimate from a denial of God\nand his Christ. Will you accept it and experience the fact?\n\n\n\n\nSHALL WE ABANDON OUR RELIGION?\n\n\nThere is no counterfeit without a genuine. Even a myth is related to\nsomething, near or remote, to which it bears some resemblance. There is\nnothing of great value that is not counterfeited. There is nothing that\nis not abused. Civil government has been wonderfully abused; in this\nrespect it has fared no better than religion. There are many forms of\ncivil government. There are many forms of religion. Let us ever seek the\nbest form in each.\n\nWe are often pointed to the blood that has been shed in religious wars;\nbut do unbelievers value civil government less because of the blood\nwhich they have cost? No. That blood speaks better things. May we not\nestimate civil government and religion both by the blood they have cost?\n\nUnbelievers are very industrious in keeping before us the disagreements\namong Protestants. They say, Look! they can't agree among themselves.\nWell, is there any better agreement among politicians, or in civil\ngovernments? Is there any agreement among unbelievers which would serve\nas a model for us poor souls to imitate? I confess that the way is open\nfor improvement among Protestants in this respect, but is it not just as\nopen for a similar improvement among unbelievers in the scientific field\nof thought? There we find Atheists, Pantheists, Deists, Polytheists and\nTheists. In their history will be found an immense mass of contradictory\nopinions.\n\nMan is imperfect in many of his attainments. A few men are more perfect\nthan others, but all are liable to mistakes. Errors are found in all the\nhistories of humanity; shall we therefore discard science and civil\ngovernment? or shall we turn misanthropists? No; we will do neither. We\nare in a progressive age. We were capacitated for progression. We would\nnot be men without this capacity. Let us ever remember that man is,\nafter all his mistakes, the noblest creature of God, having God-like\nattributes. Do you doubt this? Then tell us why it is that a falsehood\nis always detestible to the mind. Why do men strenuously avoid\ncontradictory propositions? The God-like in man is the great secret of\nhis progression. He is a progressive being. Shall we on this account\ncondemn all that in which man has and does progress? Shall we condemn\nChristianity on account of man's failures? Shall we discourage his\nhonest efforts by keeping those failures always before him? Have men\nmade no mistakes in science? Shall we repudiate on account of mistakes?\nThen there will be no end to repudiations. Let us remember and talk of\nthe many mistakes that have been made in both science and religion, like\nthe man \"who visits the shadows in the deep ravines, in order that he\nmay more fully realize the fact that the sun shines;\" that is to say,\nlet us talk of old, effete dogmas in science and in religion only to\nmore fully realize the fact that the sunlight of truth is shining. Yes!\nMan has progressed. \"Science and religion both stand true to their God.\"\nMan alone deviates. How often do we hear men say, \"Science is\nprogressive?\" Scientific truth is always the same. Man is not always the\nsame. Shall we keep his many deviations from truth and principle before\nhim in order to cause greater deviations? Who will \"deliver\" the\nunbelievers of our country \"from this dead body?\" It contains all the\nerrors of the ages. Their name is \"legion.\" Among them we behold laws in\nthe early history of our own country that to-day would shock the common\nsense of our country. Examine the old \"Blue Laws of Connecticut.\" Among\nthe errors of the past we find the \"rack,\" the \"thumb-screw,\" the\n\"inquisition\"--I was going to add the cross, but I recollect that\nunbelievers do not put that in their list. They do not sympathize with\nChrist, so they leave the cross out; in fact they do not like to talk\nabout it. \"It is their stumbling stone; the rock of their offense.\" I am\ntempted to say more about the errors of scientists in the bygone, but I\nmust forbear; for in so doing I would ape the unbelievers. I have no\ngreat love for apes. So far as old, effete, erroneous opinions and\nfaiths are concerned, with the old instruments of torture belonging to\nthe shadows of the dark ages, we should say, disturb not the dead.\n\nA man making his appearance among us as a lecturer, condemning all the\nsciences, presenting to the public mind the hundred and one old false\nideas known in the history of scientific investigation, would be hissed\nout of literary circles.\n\nAn orator coming before the American people as a speaker, loaded with\nall the imperfections of our government, with its errors in legislation,\nits wicked and corrupt men accepting bribes, its mistakes on the fields\nof battle, resulting in great loss of life, as an open enemy to our\ncountry, breathing out treason, would subject himself to the anathemas\nof our government. The course pursued by unbelievers against the\nreligion of Jesus Christ is without a parallel in the fields of science,\ncivil governments and morals, yet the way is equally open in all those\ndirections for a similar effort.\n\nWhat is the value of the religion of Christ? What is the estimate placed\nupon it by the best minds of America? Andrew Jackson said, in his last\nhours, \"That book, sir,\" pointing to the Bible, \"is the rock on which\nour republic rests.\"\n\nBenjamin Franklin said, \"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you\nparticularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as\nhe left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to\nsee.\"\n\nJohn Adams said, \"The Bible is the best book in the world.\"\n\nHenry Clay said, \"I always have had, and always shall have, a profound\nregard for Christianity, the religion of my fathers, and for its rites,\nits usages and observances.\"\n\nU. S. Grant said, \"Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of our\nliberties; write its precepts on your hearts, and practice them in your\nlives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for the progress\nmade in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the\nfuture.\"\n\nGeneral George Washington said, \"It is impossible to govern the world\nwithout God. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more\nthan wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his\nobligation.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE DOMAIN OR PROVINCE OF SCIENCE.\n\n\nThe Greeks used the word \"epistasin\" to express the idea that we express\nby the word science. Our word means certain knowledge. Theirs was\nunderstood to mean \"coming to a stand,\" from \"epi,\" upon, and \"staseo,\"\nto stand. Science takes account of phenomenon and seeks its law. When\nyou apprehend a phenomenon and discover its law you have accomplished\nall that the term indicates, even though you fail to comprehend the whys\nand wherefores of the law. \"Certain knowledge,\" this phrase indicates\nlimitation. All that it demands is that you know that which you profess\nto know. It therefore follows that the word \"science\" is equally\napplicable to the comprehensible and incomprehensible. The word is from\n\"scio,\" _I know_. As men's knowledge, in the present state, at least, is\nlimited, so science, as presented by man, is also limited; but, as men\nare progressive beings, science and the sciences may increase, adding\nmore and more of truth. There are, however, shores beyond which science\nwill never carry us, but on the contrary will leave us to settle down,\nto rest forever in content or discontent, just as we choose.\n\nThe modern hypothesis of materialistic unbelievers is that there is but\none substance in the universe, and that is matter. If this be so, then\nall knowledge pertains to matter, and when you have reasoned yourself to\nthe last element known, or knowable, in physical analysis, which will be\nthe point of departure as well as your ultimate truth behind which you\ncan not go, then, of course, you are where you must rest satisfied or\ndissatisfied; you have come to the Rubicon beyond which you will never\npass. The mere physicist finds, as a legitimate result of his hypothesis\nof but one substance, his rest in the ultimate of eternal matter and\nblind force. The Christian, recognizing spiritual substance also, finds\nhis ultimate or resting place in God, who is the last element in vital\nand mental analysis, and also the Christian's starting point in his\ninductive reasonings. We realize that scientific knowledge is\nprofitable, even in the field of matter, but if we refuse to science any\ndomain above matter she will lead us to the dust of the grave, there to\nforsake us forever amid its gloom and sorrow. Here Colonel Ingersoll's\n\"night birds\"--for angels he has no use--move with \"rustling of wings.\"\nWhen such men reason themselves back to the germ cells and sperm cells,\nand stand there upon the last element in the analysis of the human body,\nthey are not able to take another step until they acknowledge the\nexistence of spiritual substance as matters master, which ever was, and\nis above matter, which takes hold of matter and builds germ cells and\nsperm cells and inhabits them, as the inherent fore which superintends\nthe building, differentiating the species, and determining the sex.\n\nAsk the unbeliever, the materialist, what this vital principle is, and\nhe answers: \"It is the all-pervading force that is modified by the\norganic structure.\" That is, in his philosophy, the \"vital force is\nproduced by the organism,\" and the \"organism is produced by the vital\nprinciple?\" So, being at the last limit of the physical analysis of the\norganic being, he is involved in a contradiction, while the Christian\nwho believes in a spiritual substance refers all to spirit, and claims a\ncontinuation of his identity as an intelligent spirit, resting in his\nultimate or starting point, viz: God. Do you say I am lost in God? Well,\nto be thus lost in God is to be saved from corruption and from the dust\nof the grave; but to be lost in the dust of the grave and in the\nceaseless changes of matter is to be lost to God and to spiritual being.\nLet me be with God rather than lost amid the dark waves of oblivion.\n\nHas science no prerogatives above the physical? Tread lightly here; you\nmight step on holy ground. Do you use the old cry that all outside of\nmatter belongs to the \"unknown\" and \"unknowable?\" Exchange the terms for\nthe terms the \"uncomprehended\" and the \"incomprehensible,\" and we will\nwalk side by side. We know many things which we do not comprehend. Do we\ncomprehend all that belongs to the physical sciences? Do we comprehend\nmatter? I know that I know, but do I comprehend that knowledge? If I\nshould say I know the unknowable, I am guilty of a contradiction in\nlanguage. Do you say matter is infinite? Can I comprehended the\ninfinite? If science be that certain knowledge which is the equivalent\nof comprehension, then one of two things is true: First, there is no\nsuch thing as physical science; or, secondly, I may have certain\nknowledge of the infinite--may comprehend the infinite. How is this?\nWhere is the difficulty? It is here: the knowledge which constitutes\nscience is not necessarily that knowledge which is the equivalent of\nthe comprehension of the thing known. Hence the incomprehensible is not\nto be excluded from the field of scientific investigation. If matter be\ninfinite, and if it belongs to the field of scientific knowledge, then\nthe infinite and incomprehensible belong, also, to the domain of\nscientific investigation. If the infinite can not be comprehended,\nmatter can not be comprehended, and if all that can not be comprehended\nshould be dismissed from scientific investigation, then matter should be\ndismissed.\n\nIn physical science we know the vital force exists which builds the germ\nand sperm cells, but we do not comprehend it. If you ask physical\nscience to explain this invisible force or power, she will say,\nGentlemen, I have given you an introduction to this wonderful builder;\nyou see it is there at the threshold of organic being, but I can not\ntell you why it is there, nor what its properties are; if it has any,\nthey are outside of my domain. I deal with matter. You must ask at the\ngate of the unseen, ask the science of the spiritual, the mental and\nvital. I am in wonderful contrast with mind, with life also. I am\ninertia. Some of my votaries have tried to give you the answer which you\nso much desire. They have said, \"It is the all-pervading force which was\nlying away back in the antechambers of eternity.\" Have said, \"It was\nburdened with a universe of worlds.\" Have said, \"It was destitute of\npersonality.\" Have said, \"It was not, and is not, an intelligence.\" Have\nsaid, \"It was without will, purpose or desire.\" Have said, \"All beauty,\nharmony and order were its results.\" Have also said, \"It was,\" away back\nin the ages past, groaning and heaving, travailing, in great anxiety to\nbe delivered. Speaking of it in the light of \"natural selection,\" they\nhave deified it, giving to it all the mental operations of an\nintelligent, living God. On this account some of my lovers are\nPantheists. They deify nature; deify everything, and call it all God. A\nfew ignorant Christians, on this very account, are ready to give up\ntheir warfare with Pantheists. But the battle is not won because the\nword \"God\" is pronounced; for sober reason says, If nature is _all_\nGod, she is _a_ God, who is no God; or a nature without a God, just as\nyou choose to express it. After all, it remains an axiom, that \"you can\nnot get more out of a thing than there is in it.\" So, of necessity,\nthere must be, somewhere in this universe, _Eternal life and mind_.\nReader, \"how readest thou?\"\n\n\n\n\nBLIND FORCE OR INTELLIGENCE, WHICH?\n\n\nIn the discussion of this question I think it proper to submit a few\naxiomatic or common-sense truths which are universally admitted by the\nunbiased mind.\n\n_First._ \"Every effect must have a cause.\"\n\n_Secondly._ \"Every series must have a unit lying at its base.\"\n\n_Thirdly._ \"In every beginning there must be that which began.\"\n\n_Fourthly._ \"Something is eternal.\"\n\n_Fifthly._ \"There can not be an endless succession of dependent things.\"\n\n_Sixthly._ \"There must be that upon which the first dependent link in\nthe chain of dependent things depended.\"\n\n_Seventhly._ \"That thing, whatever it may be, upon which the first\ndependent thing depended, must be eternal.\"\n\nWas it blind force or intelligence, which?\n\nThe existence of a supreme intelligence is the first great leading\nthought made known in the Bible.\n\nThe first that is made known in unbelief, is the existence of \"the\nunknown.\"\n\nWhen a man adopts the idea of the unknown, he lays down all his strength\nto oppose the idea of a supreme intelligence, for what right has he to\ndogmatize about the unknown? The use of the word force will not help us\nto a better understanding of things. Force is simply the manifestation\nof energy, and there must, necessarily, be something lying behind it to\nwhich it, as an attribute or quality, belongs. That \"something\" the\nBible calls \"spirit.\" It has never been christened with a name by the\nunbeliever. Force is the bridge between it and matter, and the bridge\nbetween it and all things upon which it operates. The unbeliever's\n\"unknown\" lies behind force. Has he ever given it a name?\n\nSo far as science is concerned, it is paying her proper respect to say\nshe demands an intelligence in order to account for the wonderful things\nwith which she has to deal. Laycock, treating upon the questions of mind\nand brain, says: \"The phenomena of life present a vast series of\nadjustments and modifications to fill certain purposes and bring about\nends.\"--_Mind and Brain, vol. 1, p. 222 to 224._\n\nSystematic action in the use of means to accomplish certain ends or\npurposes we regard as the evidence of intelligence. By what other means\ndo we distinguish between the rational and the insane? Winchel says, in\nhis \"Religion and Science,\" p. 102, \"Without God we can not account for\nthe correlation presented by the world of structural part to structural\npart, of structural part to intelligible end, of structural part to\npersistent plans or archetypes, of correlations which show that they\nwere anticipated.\"\n\nBeal, on Protoplasm, p. 104 to 107, says, \"Living matter overcomes\ngravitation and resists and suspends chemical affinity.\" He adds, \"It is\nin direct opposition to chemical affinities that organized beings\nexist.\"\n\nWhat power is that which lies behind chemical affinities, and controls\nthem with direct reference to organic being? Will some bold unbeliever\nanswer?\n\nCarpenter says, \"The most universal and fundamental attribute of life is\nthe mode of vital activity manifesting itself in the development of the\ngerm into the complete organism and type OF ITS PARENT, and the after\nmaintenance of the organism in its integrity at the expense of materials\nderived from external sources. The life in the germ is the controlling\nagency, superintending the building, charged with the working out the\ndesign of the architect.\" Who is the architect? Or, if you prefer it,\nwhat is the architect? Whoever he or whatever it may be, the design and\ndecrees of nature are with that official. All the changes that can be\nmade in environments or food will not change the organism from the type\nof its parent. Then the structure of the male and the female with\nreference to future living organisms, or procreation, is in very poor\nharmony with the idea that the architect is \"blind force.\"\n\nThe same milk from one and the same animal, with the same heat and air,\nwill build up bodies of different types, one as well as another, making\nhuman flesh in the human body, and dog's flesh in the dog's body, and\nsheep's flesh in the sheep's body. If the living germinal organism has\nits paternity in a dog, it will remain a dog in spite of food and\nenvironments.\n\nCarpenter says, \"The vital force,\" in the germ, \"is not the entire force\nor means of growth; heat is a constructive stimulus, but amounts to\nnothing where there is no life. Food is material for the building, but\nlike heat, it is of no consequence in the absence of life.\"\n\nThe constructing force in the germ manifests itself, in the plant, in\nthe conversion of the insoluble starch of the seed into sugar, and in an\nadditional change of a part of that sugar so as to set at liberty a\nlarge amount of carbon, which, uniting with the oxygen of the air, forms\ncarbonic acid, and this process is attended with a liberation of heat\nwhich supplies the germ with stimulus.\n\n\"It is different with the advanced plant. The organic compounds required\nto extend the fabric, are formed by the plant, instead of being supplied\nfrom without. The tissues of the green surface of the stem and leaves\nhave the peculiar power, when acted on by light, of generating, at the\nexpense of carbonic acid, water and ammonia, with various ternary and\nquarternary organic compounds, such as chlorophyll, starch, oil and\nalbumen. A part goes to build new tissues, and a part is stored up in\nthe cavities of tissues for food for parts to be developed in the\nfuture.\" Mr. Carpenter says, \"Of the source of this peculiar power we\nhave no right to speak confidently.\" Is it a blind force that\nanticipates growth in the plant, and lays away food, in the tissues,\nfor future use? Why should it be different with the young plant?\n\nSixteen simple substances are known to exist in vegetable organisms, and\nmany of them are more strongly inclined to unite with substances which\nhave no existence in vegetable cells; so they separate, in violation of\nchemical laws, and unite in vegetable cells in utter disregard of the\naffinities which are known to be their strongest. How do unbelievers\nmanage such objections to the hypothesis that chemical laws explain\neverything in vegetable life? How is all this accounted for? We,\nChristians, answer, \"The course of nature is the art of God.\" This\nanswer is equivalent to the thought that vegetable life is the result of\nthe union existing between God and the vegetable kingdom. The force that\nlies behind all chemical affinities and controls them, together with the\nwisdom displayed in that kingdom, belongs to God.\n\n\n\n\nSPECIES, OR UNITS OF NATURE.\n\n\nAre millions of years adequate as a cause, when associated with all the\nforces known in nature, to produce new species and extirpate old ones?\nThe teachings of Darwin require an answer in the affirmative.\n\nThe survival of the fittest is one of Darwin's emphasized laws of\nnatural selection. He says: \"In all cases the new and improved forms of\nlife tend to supplant the old and unimproved forms. New varieties\ncontinually take the place of and supplant the parent form. New and\nimproved varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the\nolder.\"--_Origin of Species, pp. 264, 266, 413._\n\nDo the facts sustain this assumption? The little animals whose remains\ncompose the great chalk-beds are alive and working. Inarticulate or\nmolluscan life is seen in a sub-fossil condition in the Post Pliocene\nclays of Canada. They are just as they were in the beginning of their\nhistory. Species seem to be immutably fixed. The demand for millions of\nyears, in order to get old species out and new ones in, breaks down with\nthe mollusk of the Pliocene in the clays of Canada. The Pliocene species\nare the more recent; such is, in fact, the meaning of the term in\ngeology. The mollusk of Canada Pliocene clay has undergone no change\nsince its first appearance upon our globe.\n\nIn order to account for ancient life, that passed away, as far back as\nthe carboniferous age, it is claimed that millions of years passed\nbefore that age began. But here are the very first species of mollusca\nin the more recent clays unchanged, and here are the same little animals\nthat floored so much territory in the bygone with chalk. How does this\nlook by the side of the last quotation from Darwin?\n\nCrabs or lobsters, cuttle-fish, jelly-fish, star-fish, oysters, snails,\nand worms lived contemporary with the first vertebrates. I have recently\nread an article in which it is said by an advocate of the Darwinian\nhypothesis, that man in his original condition was a cannibal, feasting,\nordinarily, upon snails and worms. Now, it is claimed that millions of\nyears have passed, and that millions of years inevitably destroy old\nspecies and introduce new ones; and yet here are the same old pesky\nsnails and worms. If millions of years have passed the system is false.\nAnd if millions of years have not passed the system is false; so it is\ncertainly false.\n\nHybrids are wonderfully in the way of the hypothesis. They can not be\nsaved. All artificial varieties return to their simple form. Mr. Huxley\nrecognizes this as an objection that can not be surmounted. He says,\n\"While it remains Darwin's doctrine, must be content to remain a mere\nhypothesis;\" that is, a mere guess.\n\nIn the latest productions of Agassiz we have this statement: \"As a\npalaeontologist I have from the beginning stood aloof from this new\ntheory of transmutation, now so widely admitted; its doctrines, in fact,\ncontradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth\ntell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the\nglobe.\"\n\nThe first vertebrates are sharks, ganoids and garpikes, which are the\nhighest in structure of all known fishes. Darwin's hypothesis demands\nthis order _reversed_.\n\nWhen you ask an evolutionist for the links connecting new and old\nspecies, as he is pleased to denominate them, you receive the\nsatisfactory (?) answer, \"They are lost.\" A painter presented a man with\na red canvass, claiming that it represented the children of Israel\ncrossing the Red sea. The question was asked, \"Where are the\nIsraelites?\" The painter answered, \"They have crossed over.\" \"But,\" said\nthe man, \"where are the Egyptians?\" \"O, my dear sir,\" said the artist,\n\"they are under the sea.\" This is a very fine illustration of facts, if\nDarwinism may boast of facts, for the connecting links between species\nare \"under the sea\" of oblivion, never to be found, and the old species\n\"have passed over.\" Mr. Darwin's apology is in these words: \"Every one\nwill admit that the geological record is imperfect; but very few can\nbelieve that it is so very imperfect as my theory demands.\" This is a\ngrand concession. The \"wild speculation\" has no support from geology.\nThe blanket of oblivion, which Mr. Darwin and his friends spread over\nthe difficulty, is \"millions of years.\" In that length of time the\nmissing species, or links, would, of course, all pass out of sight. Is\nthis true? No. In the geological record millions of specimens are\nfossilized and laid away in nature's great cabinet. Why not find a few\nof the missing links there? Just one. \"One fact, gentlemen, if you\nplease.\" Science is certain knowledge. Is there certain knowledge of\nmissing links? Gentlemen, just bridge one gulf for us; the gulf lying\nbetween any _two species_ will do. We get impatient, standing and\ngazing. Look! Can you see across?\n\nMr. Darwin says, \"Professor Haeckel, in his general Morphology and other\nworks, has brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he\ncalls phylogeny or the lines of descent of all organic beings.\"--_Origin\nof Species, p. 381._\n\nThis author, Mr. Haeckel, has \"lines of descent\" which involves the idea\nof a plurality of beginnings in the history of organic being; that is,\nMr. Haeckel claims a vertebrate series with a vertebrate lying at the\nbase of the series, and an articulate series with an articulate lying at\nits base. So there must be A SPECIAL CREATION AT LAST. Hear him: \"There\nappears, indeed, to be a limit given to the adaptability of every\norganism by the type of its tribe or phylum. Thus, for example, no\nvertebrate animal can acquire the ventral nerve chord of articulate\nanimals instead of the characteristic spinal marrow of the vertebrate\nanimals.\"--_History of Creation, vol. 1, p. 250._ So the vertebrate must\nforever remain a vertebrate, and the articulate forever an articulate.\nWere they both evolved from the same unit? We are anxious to know, how\nfrom a pulpy mass of flesh, from a moneron, a creature of one substance,\n_vertebrates_ were evolved. We would like to know, also, how a creature\nof more than one substance could be evolved from a creature of one\nsubstance without more being gotten out of the thing than there was in\nit. Here spontaneous generation passes into a wreck. Do you see? The\npulpy mass of flesh, or moneron, from which so much has been \"evolved\"\nwas the result of \"the sun's rays falling upon the sea slime,\" and was\nand is a creature of one substance, homogeneous. \"Natural selection\"\ncould not operate in the vertebrate type before it existed. It was\n\"limited to the type or phylum.\" That is to say, natural selection could\nevolve new species without limitation from each type, but could never\nevolve a vertebrate from an articulate, nor an articulate from a\nvertebrate. Then, how are the two series from the same unit; or, if they\nare connected with two different units, how are those units the effect\nof the same unintelligent cause? How are we going to cross this chasm\nlying between the sun's rays and the sea slime upon the one hand, and\nthe articulate and the vertebrate upon the other? Darwin says, \"Judging\nfrom the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will\ntransmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.\" Well, how is it\nwith the past? We are told that millions of years are the demand for the\nchanges already brought about. Millions of years would certainly be\nenough to constitute a \"distant futurity.\" How is it now? Is there not\none species having its likeness represented by a species in the distant\npast? Yes; the genus lingula, the species appearing in all the ages, was\n\"connected by an unbroken series of generations from the lowest Silurian\nstratum to the present day.\"--_Origin of Species, pp. 293, 294, 428._\n\nDarwin's \"theory\" claims that the first forms of all life still exist,\nand are known and named. The ape, if it could talk like a man, would\nboast of a history reaching all the way back to time prior to the\nexistence of the greater number of the mammals. To get rid of the\ndifficulty of first forms still existing, Mr. Darwin cuts off his unit\nfrom the law of \"the survival of the fittest,\" or \"the inevitable\ndestruction of the parent form.\" He says: \"A very simple form, fitted\nfor very simple conditions of life, might remain for indefinite ages\nunaltered, or unimproved; for what would it profit an infusorial\nanimalcule, or an intestinal worm, to become highly organized?\"--_Animals\nand Plants, vol. 1, p. 19._ \"Under very simple conditions of life a\nhigher organism would be of no service.\"--_Origin of Species, p. 100._\n\nHow are we to reconcile the conflicting ideas in this speculation? At\none time we are taught that all forms of life were, originally, very\nsimple forms, existing under very simple conditions. At another time we\nare taught that \"new and improved forms _inevitably_ supplant and\ndestroy parent forms.\" At another we are taught, at great length, the\ndoctrine of the survival of the fittest.\n\nAt another we are taught that all things have worked, and do work,\nwithout designs upon the part of a present intelligence.\n\nAt another we are taught that very simple forms of life, under the very\nsimple conditions of life, have continued to the present day, because of\nthe fact that it would be of NO SERVICE for them to become highly\norganized. No service to whom? To what end?\n\nOut of thine own mouth will I condemn thee. What! Is there an end in\nview that has governed in the great question of evolution of species,\nand the survival of the fittest? Darwin seems to think so. The\nwonderful \"machine\" that Strauss talked about in connection with the\n\"smashing\" and \"crashing\" that destroys parent forms did not smash the\nsimplest forms of life. Why? The answer is, \"It would be of no service\nfor them to become highly organized.\" Then all the smashing and crashing\nknown in the doctrine of \"the survival of the fittest\" and in \"the\ndestruction of the parent form\" was under the supervision of some\ncontrolling power, having an end to accomplish.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf we see a member of the church of Christ living in obedience to the\n\"law of Christ,\" we say he is a Christian, and speak of him as such; on\nthe other hand, if we know he is in works denying Christ, being\ndisobedient, we tacitly assume that he is not a Christian, yet a\n_mawkish charity_ keeps us, in too many instances, from speaking out in\nthis matter, and also keeps us from earnestly trying to distinguish the\ntrue Christian; and this is one of the great sins of the church in our\ntimes, for thus the wicked are not put to shame, and others are caused\nto hesitate in their graces by the conduct of those whom, in mawk\ncharity, are called Christians.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Mouth-glue is made of pure glue, as parchment glue, or gelatine and\ncoarse brown sugar. Take pure glue and add one-quarter or one-third of\nits weight of brown sugar. Put both into a sufficient quantity of water\nto boil and reduce the mass to a liquid, then cast into thin cakes on a\nflat surface _very slightly_ oiled, and, as it cools, cut up into pieces\nof a convenient size. When you wish to use it moisten one end in the\nmouth, and rub it on any substance you wish to join; a piece kept in the\nwork-box is very convenient.\"--_Chambers._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Christian's faith was not intended to sit him down in ease, but to\nstimulate him to the discharge of his duties. So the work of faith is a\nnoble work, a life of labor.\n\n\n\n\nMISCELLANEOUS.\n\n\nThe oft-repeated story that man had his beginning in a low state of\nbarbarous cannibalism is a groundless assumption.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat is the difference between getting more out of a thing than there is\nin it and creating something out of nothing?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"If the religious foundations and sanctions of morality are to be given\nup, what is to be substituted for them?\"--_Lord Selborne._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Orang and Pongo monkeys, which are classed with those which make the\nnearest approach to man, have three vertebra fewer than man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Live while we may;\" \"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,\" are\nnatural corollaries from the teachings of modern as well as ancient\ninfidels.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFinding human skeletons with the skeletons of extinct animals\nnecessitates the bringing of those animals forward, for specimens have\nbeen found in modern times with the flesh upon their bones and food in\ntheir stomachs.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf all organized animal life was evolved from the moneron, a creature of\none substance, homogeneous, how were creatures of more than one\nsubstance evolved without more being _evolved_ than was _involved_? Let\nsome of our scientific \"wise-acres\" solve this problem.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPaul says, \"Things which are seen were not made of things which do\nappear.\" Every negative has its affirmative. The affirmative of the\nabove is this, \"Things which are seen were made of unseen things.\" The\nBible does not teach that anything was made of nothing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Chimpanzee has thirteen pair of movable thoracic ribs. Man has two.\nIf man lived up in the bushes, like the Chimpanzee and other apes, he\nwould need more movable ribs so that he might not be ruined by broken\nribs every time he might happen to fall. Is there no evidence of design\nhere?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAll unbelievers who advocate the idea of spontaneous generation try to\nget more out of matter than there was in it, viz: life, sensation,\nintelligence and moral nature. Can you get more out of a thing than\nthere is in it? Is there life without antecedent life, etc.? Unbeliever,\nare you mocking the Bible because somebody said the Lord created\nsomething of nothing, and at the same time advocating spontaneous\ngeneration, and thereby professing to get more _evolved_ than was\n_involved_?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe idea that stone implements are an index to man in the beginning of\nhis existence is an unwarranted conceit; they may point to a degeneracy.\nThe lost arts are indicative of that which might have been repeated many\ntimes. Stone implements might have been used, as we know they have been,\nin times of great civilization. They are an uncertain index of\ncivilization among the tribes who used them, and no index of the\ncivilization of other tribes who lived at the same time in other parts\nof the earth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nProfessor Huxley says, \"I understand and I respect the meaning of the\nword soul, as used by Pagan and Christian philosophers, for what they\nbelieve to be the imperishable seat of human personality, bearing\nthroughout eternity its burden of woe, or its capacity for adoration and\nlove. I confess that my dull moral sense does not enable me to see\nanything base or selfish in the desire for future life among the spirits\nof the just made perfect; or even among a few poor fallible souls as one\nhas known here below.\"--_Modern Symposium, vol. 1, p. 82._","title":"The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, Volume 1, January, 1880","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14364}