{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28126/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28126","id":"gutenberg_28126","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28126","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Journals","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion and science -- Periodicals","The Christian Foundation"],"text":"The Christian Foundation,\n\n                                   Or,\n\n                     Scientific and Religious Journal\n\n                              Vol. 1. No 4.\n\n                               April, 1880.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nIs There A Counterfeit Without A Genuine?\nDesign In Nature.\nAn Atheist Is A Fool.\nBlunder On And Blunder On\u2014It Is Human To Blunder.\nDraper\u2019s Conflict Between Religion And Science.\nFacts Speak Louder Than Words, Or What Christianity Has Done For\nCannibals.\nAre We Simply Animals?\nOur Relations To The Ancient Law And Prophets\u2014What Are They?\nThe Funeral Services Of The National Liberal League.\nHuxley\u2019s Paradox.\nThe Triumphing Reign Of Light.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIS THERE A COUNTERFEIT WITHOUT A GENUINE?\n\n\nMy object in this lesson is to present the myths, the ancient, fictitious\nand fanciful narratives concerning the gods, in such a manner as to enable\nyou to see the utter absurdity of the idea that the religion of the Bible\nis of mythical origin. _Myths_ are fictitious narratives, having an\nanalogy more or less remote to something real. From this definition you\ndiscover that a myth is _always_ a counterfeit, and as such always appears\nin evidence in favor of something more or less remote, that is true. Now,\nif the Bible had a mythical origin, it sustains some analogy to something\nfound in the mythical or fictitious and fanciful narratives concerning the\ngods, and is therefore the myth of a myth; the counterfeit of a\ncounterfeit. If such be the truth in the case, where do we find the origin\nof the myths from which \u201cBible myths\u201d have descended? Is it found in the\ntrue God presiding over the elements of nature and the destinies of men,\nas well as the events of creation and providence? Or, can it be possible\nthat we have many counterfeits _without a genuine_? Many myths sustaining\nno analogy, either near or remote, to anything real? It is an absurdity,\ndestructive of the term employed, because _myths_ cease to be _myths_\nwithout some near or remote relation to realities. They _must_ sustain\nsome analogy to something real. And _counterfeits_ also cease to be\n_counterfeits_ when it is shown that they sustain no relation, through\nanalogy or likeness, to anything that is genuine. In the mythical systems\nof olden times we have, in the midst of a vast deal of false and fanciful\nnarrative concerning subordinate and secondary gods, evidence of a supreme\nGod presiding over all things; and the secondary gods performing many\nthings which belonged to the province of the \u201cAlmighty One,\u201d with many\ndegrading, vile and corrupting habits.\n\nA letter written by Maximus, a Numidian, to Augustin, reads thus: \u201cNow,\nthat there is a sovereign God, who is without beginning, and who, without\nhaving begotten anything like unto Himself, is, nevertheless, the Father\nand the former of all things, what man can be gross and stupid enough to\ndoubt? He it is of whom, under different names, we adore the eternal power\nextending through every part of the world, thus honoring separately by\ndifferent sorts of worship what may be called His several members, we\nadore Him entirely. May those subordinate gods preserve you under whose\nnames, and by whom all we mortals upon earth adore the common Father of\ngods and men.\u201d In this letter we have a clear presentation of the mythical\nsystem concerning the ancient gods, and also the \u201canalagous relation\u201d to\nthe \u201cMaster God.\u201d Each god having his particular dominion over place or\npassion, appears before us as a representative of the supreme, or \u201cMaster\nGod;\u201d and by worshiping each member or God they claimed to adore entirely\nthe \u201ccommon Father of gods and men.\u201d Augustin answers, In your public\nsquare there are _two statues_ of Mars, one naked, the other armed; and\nclose by the figure of a man who, with three fingers advanced towards\nMars, holds in check that divinity so dangerous to the whole town. With\nregard to what you say of such gods being portions of the only \u201ctrue God,\u201d\nI take the liberty you gave me to warn you not to fall into such a\nsacrilege; for that only God, of whom you speak, is doubtless He who is\nacknowledged by the whole world, and concerning whom, as some of the\nancients have said, the ignorant agree with the learned. Now, will you say\nthat Mars, whose strength is represented by an inanimate man, is a portion\nof that God? That is to say, the dead statue controls Mars, and Mars is a\nsubordinate god representing the infinite God, and is, therefore, a part\nof that God. Augustin adds, Not the Pantheon and all the temples\nconsecrated to the inferior gods, nor even the temples consecrated to the\ntwelve greater gods prevented \u201cDeus Optimus Maximus,\u201d God most good, most\ngreat, from being acknowledged throughout the empire. Voltaire says, \u201cIn\nspite of all the follies of the people who venerated secondary and\nridiculous gods, and in spite of the Epicurians, who in reality\nacknowledged none, it is verified that in all times the magistrates and\nwise adored one sovereign God.\u201d Secondary gods were _myths_, counterfeits,\nsustaining the _relation_ of counterfeits. The ancients attributed their\nown passions to the \u201cMaster God,\u201d and had subordinate gods representing\npassions. They also had a god for each part of His dominion; and these\ngods they called members of the true God, and claimed to worship Him, by\nworshiping all the members or gods. Mars was the god of war; Bacchus was\nthe god of drunkenness. They had a god for this and a god for that. The\nancient pagans seemed to think that infinite divisibility belonged to the\n\u201ctrue God,\u201d for they distinguished between passions, and divided up the\nuniverse among the gods until they had it crammed full of subordinate and\nridiculous gods, each one a member of Jehovah, and each member a part of\nthe great mythical system.\n\nNow, in order to establish the proposition that our religion is of\nmythical origin, it is necessary to show, first, that the Bible was\nwritten this side of or during the age of myths, and, having done this, it\nis necessary to show that the Hebrew people were a mythical people;\nneither of which can be accomplished. It will not be amiss to present in\nthis connection a statement given by Justin to the Greeks. He says: \u201cOf\nall your teachers, whether sages, poets, historians, philosophers, or\nlaw-givers, by far the oldest, as the Greek historians show us, was\nMoses.... For in the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some of your poets\nhave supposed to have been earth-born\u2014that is, to have sprung from the\nsoil, and hence one of the oldest inhabitants\u2014_the aborigines_, Moses is\nmentioned as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation.\u201d He is mentioned\nas a very ancient and time-honored prince in the Athenian, Attic and\nGrecian histories. Polemon, in his first book of Hellenics, mentions Moses\nas the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation. Ptolem\u00e6us, in his history of\nEgypt, bears the same testimony. Apion, an Egyptian writer, in his book\nagainst the Jews, says \u201cMoses led them.\u201d Dr. Shaw, a modern traveler, says\nthe inhabitants of Corondel, on the eastern side of the Red Sea, to this\nday preserve the remembrance of the deliverance of the children of Israel\nfrom their bondage in Egypt. Diodorus, the most renowned Greek historian,\nwho employed thirty years epitomizing the libraries, and traveled over\nAsia and Europe for the sake of great accuracy, who wrote forty volumes of\nhistory, says he learned from the Egyptian priests that Moses was an\nancient law-giver.\n\nIt seems to us that, no sane man, who is acquainted with the ancient\nmythicals, can regard the religion of the Bible as a child of mythical\ndescent. It is as deadly in its influence upon those myths, and all\nmythical worship, as it could be made by an infinite mind.\n\nVoltaire says \u201cthe character of the mythical gods is ridiculous;\u201d we will\nadd, it is ridiculous in the extreme. Listen\u2014Hesiod, in his theogony,\nsays: \u201cChronos, the son of Ouranos, or Saturn, son of Heaven, in the\nbeginning slew his father, and possessed himself of his rule, and, being\nseized with a panic lest he should suffer in the same way, he preferred\ndevouring his children, but Curetes, a subordinate god, by craft, conveyed\nJupiter away in secret and afterwards bound his brother with chains, and\ndivided the empire, Jupiter receiving the air, and Neptune the deep, and\nPluto Hades.\u201d\n\nPros-er-pi-ne, Mella-nip-pe, Neptune, Pluto and Jupiter are all set forth\nin the mythical writings as adulterers. Jupiter was regarded as more\nfrequently involved in that crime, being set down as guilty in many\ninstances. For the love of Sem-e-le, it is said that he assumed wings and\nproved his own unchastity and her jealousy. These are some of the exploits\nof the sons of Saturn. Hercules was celebrated by his three nights, sung\nby the poets for his successful labors.\n\nThe son of Jupiter slew the Lion, and destroyed the many-headed Hydra; was\nable to kill the fleet man-eating birds, and brought up from hades the\nthree-headed dog, Cerberus; effectually cleansed the Augean stable from\nits refuse; killed the bulls and stag whose nostrils breathed fire; slew\nthe poisonous serpent and killed Ach-e-l\u00f2-us. The guest-slaying Bu-s\u00ed-ris\nwas delighted with being stunned by the cymbals of the Sat-yrs, and to be\nconquered with the love of women; and at last, being unable to take the\ncloak off of Nessus, he kindled his own funeral pile and died. Such are\nspecimens of the ancient myths. Their character is such as to leave an\nimpassible gulf between them and the character of the God revealed in our\nreligion. No development theory, seeking the origin of our religion in the\nold mythical system, can bridge across this chasm. It is as deep and broad\nas the distance between the antipodes. There is no analogy between these\ncounterfeits or myths and the \u201ctrue God,\u201d save that remote power of God\nwhich is divided up and parceled out among them. Their morals were the\nworst. The whole mythical system is simply one grand demonstration of\nhuman apostacy from the \u201ctrue God.\u201d Homer introduces Zeus in love, and\nbitterly complaining and bewailing himself, and plotted against by the\nother gods. He represents the gods as suffering at the hands of men. Mars\nand Venus were wounded by Di-o-me-de. He says, \u201cGreat Pluto\u2019s self the\nstinging arrow felt when that same son of Jupiter assailed him in the very\ngates of hell, and wrought him keenest anguish. Pierced with pain, to the\nhigh Olympus, to the courts of Jupiter groaning he came. The bitter shaft\nremained deep in his shoulder fixed, and grieved his soul.\u201d In the\nmythical system the gods are not presented as creators or first causes.\nHomer says, They were in the beginning generated from the waters of the\nocean, and thousands were added by deifying departed heroes and\nphilosophers. The thought of one supreme Intelligence, the \u201cGod of Gods,\u201d,\nruns through all the system of myths. It is found anterior to the myths,\nand, therefore, could not have had its origin with them. The character\nascribed to our God, in our scriptures, has no place among the ancient\nmyths. They hold the \u201cMaster God\u201d before us only in connection with power,\nbeing altogether ignorant of His true character. They even went so far as\nto attribute much to Him that was ridiculous. One of the ancients said,\n\u201cThe utmost that a man can do is to attribute to the being he worships his\nimperfections and impurities, magnified to infinity, it may be, and then\nbecome worse by their reflex action upon his own nature.\u201d This was\nverified in the ancient mythical religion, without exception, and without\ndoubt.\n\n\u201cThe character of all the gods was simply human character extended in all\nits powers, appetites, lusts and passions. Scholars say there is no\nlanguage containing words that express the Scriptural ideas of holiness\nand abhorrence of sin, except those in which the Scriptures were given, or\ninto which they have been translated. These attributes must be known in\norder to salvation from sin, so God revealed Himself and gave the world a\npure religion, as a standard of right and wrong, and guide in duty, and\nrule of life.\u201d\n\nThe history of the ancient nations of the earth gives a united testimony\nthat their original progenitors possessed a knowledge of the one true and\nliving God, who was worshiped by them, and believed to be an infinite,\nself-existent and invisible spirit. This notion was never entirely\nextinguished even among the idolatrous worshipers. Greek and Latin poets\nwere great corrupters of theology, yet in the midst of all their Gods\nthere is still to be found, in their writings, the notion of one supreme\nin power and rule, whom they confound with Jupiter.\n\nThe age of myths began with the tenth generation after the flood. The\nevidence of this is given by Plato from one of the ancient poets in these\nwords: \u201cIt was the generation _then the tenth_, of men endowed with\nspeech, since forth the flood had burst upon the men of former times, and\nKronos, Japetus and Titan reigned, whom men of Ouranos proclaimed the\nnoblest sons, and named them so, because of men _endowed with gift of\nspeech_, they were the first,\u201d that is to say, they were orators, \u201cand\nothers for their strength, as Heracles and Perseus, and others for their\nart. Those to whom either the subjects gave honor, or the rulers\nthemselves _assuming it_, obtained the name, some from fear, others from\nreverence. Thus Antinous, through the benevolence of your ancestors toward\ntheir subjects, came to be regarded as a god. But those who came after\nadopted the worship without examination.\u201d So testifies one who was\nschooled in philosophy. Do you say there are points of similitude between\nthe Bible religion and the mythical? It would be strange if there were\nnone, seeing that the mythical is truly what the term signifies, a\ncounterfeit upon the genuine, or Biblical.\n\nThe points of disagreement, however, are such as to demonstrate the fact\nthat the ancient mythical people knew not the character of the Being, whom\nthey conceived to be the \u201cGod of Gods and the Father of Gods and men.\u201d\nThose who confound the Bible with the ancient myths upon the score of the\nanalogy that exists between it and the myths, remind me of a very learned\ngentleman with whom I was once walking around an oat field, when he\nremarked, \u201c_there_ is a very fine piece of wheat.\u201d The man had been\nbrought up in an eastern city, and was unable to distinguish between oats\nand wheat. I knew a gentleman who asked a man, standing by the side of an\nold-fashioned flax-break, what he thought it was used for? The man took\nhold of the handle, lifted it up and let it down a few times, and said:\n\u201cIt looks like it might be used to chop up sausage meat.\u201d It is very\nnatural for us to draw comparisons, and when we do not make ourselves\nfamiliar with things and their uses, we are very liable to be led into\nerror by a few points of similitude. All the infidels with whom I have\nbecome acquainted look upon the Bible like the man looked upon the\nflax-break, and like the man looked upon the oat field. If one had looked\nupon the flax-break who was familiar with it, he never could have dreamed\nof chopping sausage meat; and if the other had been familiar with wheat\nand oats, as they present themselves to the eye in the field in the month\nof June, he never would have called the oats wheat. And if any sane man\nwill make himself familiar with both the Bible and the old system of myths\nand mythical worship, he will never confound the two. There are a thousand\nthings, very different in character and origin, which have points of\nsimilitude. But similitude never proves identity short of completeness.\nWhile the analogy between the ancient mythical system of gods and their\nworship and the true God and His worship is restricted to power and\nintelligence, there exists a contrast between them deep as heaven is high\nand broad as the earth in point of moral character, virtue, and every\nennobling and lovable attribute.\n\nThere is an old myth in the Vedas\u2014a god called \u201cChrishna.\u201d The Vedas claim\nthat he is in the form of a man; that he is black; that he is dressed in\nflowers and ribbons; that he is the father of a great many gods. It is\nsurprising to see the eagerness with which some men bring up \u201cChrishna\u201d in\ncomparison with the Greek term \u201cChristos\u201d\u2014Christ, and confound the two.\nThe words are entirely different, save in a jingle of sound. They are no\nmore alike than the terms _catechist_\u2014one who instructs by questions and\nanswers, and the term catechu\u2014a dry, brown astringent extract. We could\ngive many such examples in the history of unbelievers and their war upon\nthe Bible, but this must suffice for the present. The truth is this: such\nmen, as a general rule, neither understand the Bible in its teachings and\ncharacter, nor the ancient mythical system. In it Jupiter, among the\nRomans, and throughout every language, appears before us as the \u201cFather of\nGods and men\u201d\u2014\u201cthe God of gods,\u201d the \u201cMaster of the gods.\u201d Voltaire says:\nIt is false that Cicero, or any other Roman, ever said that it did not\nbecome the majesty of the empire to acknowledge a Supreme God. Their\nJupiter, the Zeus of the Greeks and the Jehovah of the Phonecians, was\nalways considered as the master of the secondary gods. He adds: But is not\nJupiter, the master of all the gods, a word belonging to every nation,\nfrom the Euphrates to the Tiber? Among the first Romans it was _Jov_,\n_Jovis_; among the Greeks, _Zeus_; among the Phonecians and Syrians and\nEgyptians, _Jehovah_. The last term is the Hebrew scriptural name of\nGod\u2014denoting _permanent being_\u2014in perfect keeping with the Bible title or\ndescriptive appellation, \u201cI AM THAT I AM.\u201d\n\nThe ancient worshipers of the gods had lost all but the name, _power_ and\nrelation, which they ever knew of Jehovah. And they could do no more than\nclothe Jupiter with their own imperfections and impurities\u2014and then place\nhim above all the gods; it was necessary for them to view him as excelling\nin all the characteristics of the secondary gods. And having attributed to\nthe gods all they knew of human passions and corruptions, they clothed\nJupiter himself with more villainy and corruption than belonged to any\nother god. In this was the great blasphemous sacrilege of ancient\nidolatry. They thus demonstrated their own apostacy; and the fact that\ntheir system of gods was a counterfeit, a mythical system. They were\ndestitute of any standard of right and wrong, having no conceptions of the\ndivine character which were not drawn from their own imperfect and corrupt\nlives. The divine character, as revealed in the revelation of Christ, and\npresented to us as God manifest in the flesh, is at once the very opposite\nof the characters given in the myths. The distance between the two is the\ndistance between the lowest degradation of God-like power exercised in the\nlowest passions, and the sublimity of Heaven\u2019s own spotless life. I love\nthe religion of the Scriptures, because it restores to the race the lost\nknowledge of God and the additional life of Jesus\u2014the only perfect model\nknown in the history of the race. It is the life of God manifested in the\nflesh; make it _your own_, and it will save you. Mr. English, an American\ninfidel, said: \u201cFar be it from me to reproach the meek and compassionate,\nthe amiable Jesus, or to attribute to him the mischiefs occasioned by his\nfollowers.\u201d\n\nIt is now conceded that Jesus Christ was _no myth_ by all the great minds\nin unbelief. He lived. We love his life, because all who would rob Him of\nHis authority are compelled to speak well of it. Rousseau, another\ninfidel, says: \u201cIt is impossible that he whose history the gospel records\ncan be but a man,\u201d adding, \u201cDoes he speak in the tone of an enthusiast, or\nof an ambitious sectary? What mildness! What purity in his manners! What\ntouching favor in his instructions! What elevation in his maxims! What\npresence of mind! What ingenuity, and what justice in his answers! What\ngovernment of his passions! What prejudice, blindness or ill faith must\nthat be which dares to compare Socrates with the Son of Mary!\n\n\u201cWhat a difference between the two! Socrates, dying without a pain,\nwithout disgrace, easily sustains his part to the last. The death of\nSocrates, philosophizing with his friends, is the mildest that could be\ndesired. That of Jesus, expiring in torments, injured, mocked, cursed by\nall the people, is the most horrible that can be feared. Socrates, taking\nthe impoisoned cup, blesses him who presents it to him with tears. Jesus,\nin the midst of a frightful punishment, prays for his enraged\nexecutioners. Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a wise\nman, the life and death of Jesus are those of a God.\u201d If such be the\nmodel, the pattern, the example which I am to follow, let me live and die\na Christian. I love the religion of Christ, because its character compels\nits enemies to speak thus of it. I love it because of its practical\ninfluence in elevating all into the moral image of Christ. I love it\nbecause it saves men through its influence from abominable sins and\nconsequent sorrows that would tear up the hearts of thousands. I love it\nbecause it is the power of God to save the soul. I love it because it\nleads men into communion and fellowship with all the good. I love it\nbecause it leads to heaven and to God.\n\n\n\n\n\nCivilization, it is true, is an arbitrary term. Anthropologists have not\nyet settled the boundary line between a savage and a civilized\npeople.\u2014_Prof. Owen, F. R. S._\n\n\n\n\n\nDESIGN IN NATURE.\n\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to designate instances in the works of nature, in\nwhich there is an appearance of purpose, for everything has this\nappearance. I will, however, mention several cases as samples.\n\n1. The adaptation of the covering of animals to the climates in which they\nlive. Northern animals have thicker and warmer coats of fur or hair than\nSouthern ones. And here it should be remarked that man, the only creature\ncapable of clothing himself, is the only one that is not clothed by\nnature. Singular discrimination and care indeed for non-intelligence!\n\n2. The adaptation of animals to the elements in which they live, the fish\nto the water, other animals to the air. Would not an unintelligent energy\nor power be as likely to form the organs of a fish for air as for water?\n\n3. The necessity which man has for sustenance, and the supply of that\nnecessity by nature.\n\nHere let it be noted how many things must act in unison to produce the\nnecessary result. The earth must nourish the seed, the sun must warm it,\nthe rain must moisten it, and man must have the strength to cultivate it,\nand the organs to eat it, and the stomach to digest it, and the\nblood-vessels to circulate it, and so on. Is it credible that all these\nthings should _happen_ without design?\n\n4. The pre-adaptation of the infant to the state of things into which it\nenters at birth. The eye is exactly suited to the light, the ear to sound,\nthe nose to smell, the palate to taste, the lungs to the air. How is it\npossible to see no design in this pre-adaptation, so curious, so\ncomplicated in so many particulars?\n\n5. The milk of animals suitable for the nourishment of their young,\nprovided just in season, provided without contrivance on the part of the\nparent, and sought for without instruction or experience on the part of\nits offspring! _and all by chance!!_\n\n6. The different sexes. In this case, as in the rest, there is perfect\nadaptation, which displays evident design. And there is more. What, I ask,\nis there _in nature_ to cause a difference in sexes? Why are not all\neither males or females? or, rather, a compound? This case, then, I\nconsider not only an evidence of design, but likewise an evidence of the\nspecial and continued _volition_ of the Creator.\n\n7. The destitution of horns on the calf and of teeth in the suckling. All\nother parts are perfect at the very first; but were calves and sucklings\nto have teeth and horns, what sore annoyances would these appendages prove\nto their dams and dames. How is it that all the necessary parts of the\nyoung are thus perfect at the first, and their annoying parts unformed\ntill circumstances render them no annoyance\u2014unformed at the time they are\nnot needed, and produced when they are, for defense and mastication? Who\ncan fail to see intelligence here?\n\n8. The teats of animals. These bear a general proportion to the number of\nyoung which they are wont to have at a time. Those that are wont to have\nfew young have few teats; those that have many young have many teats. Were\nthese animals to make preparations themselves in this respect, how could\nthings be more appropriate?\n\n9. The pea and the bean. The pea-vine, unable to stand erect of itself,\nhas tendrils with which to cling to a supporter; but the bean-stalk,\nself-sustained, has nothing of the kind.\n\n10. The pumpkin. This does not grow on the oak; to fall on the tender head\nof the wiseacre reposing in its shade, _reasoning_ that it should grow\nthere rather than where it does, because, forsooth, the oak would be able\nto sustain it. And were he to undertake to set the other works of\nProvidence to rights which he now considers wrong, \u2019tis a chance if he\nwould not get many a thump upon his pate ere he should get the universe\narranged to his mind. And if, before completing his undertaking, he should\nnot find it the easier of the two to arrange his mind to the universe, it\nwould be because _what __ little_ brains he _has_ would get thumped out of\nhis cranium altogether!\n\n11. The great energies of nature. To suppose the existence of _powers_ as\nthe cause of the operations of nature\u2014powers destitute of life, and, at\nthe same time, self-moving, and acting upon matter without the\nintervention of extrinsic agency, is just as irrational as to suppose such\na power in a machine, and is a gross absurdity and a self-contradiction.\nBut to suppose that these lifeless energies, even if possessed of such\nqualities, could, void of intelligence, produce _such_ effects as _are_\nproduced in the universe, requires credulity capable of believing\nanything.\n\n12. The whole universe, whether considered in its elementary or its\norganized state. From the simple grass to the tender plant, and onward to\nthe sturdy oak; from the least insect up to man, there is skill the most\nconsummate, design the most clear. What substance, useless as it may be\nwhen uncompounded with other substances, does not manifest design in its\naffinity to those substances, by a union with which it is rendered useful?\nWhat plant, what shrub, what tree has not organization and arrangement the\nmost perfect imaginable? What insect so minute that contains not, within\nits almost invisible exterior, adjustment of part to part in the most\nexact order throughout all its complicated system, infinitely transcending\nthe most ingenious productions of art, and the most appropriate adaptation\nof all those parts to its peculiar mode of existence? Rising in the scale\nof sensitive being, let us consider the beast of the forest, in whose\ncase, without microscopic aid, we have the subject more accessible. Is he\na beast of prey? Has the God of nature given him an instinctive thirst for\nblood? Behold, then, his sharp-sighted organs of vision for descrying his\nvictim afar, his agile limbs for pursuit, his curved and pointed claws for\nseizing and tearing his prey, his sharp-edged teeth for cutting through\nits flesh, his firm jaws for gripping, crushing, and devouring it, and his\nintestines for digesting raw flesh. But is he a graminivorous animal? Does\nhe subsist on grass and herb? Behold, then, his clumsy limbs and his\nclawless hoofs, his blunt teeth and his herb-digesting stomach. So perfect\nis the correspondence between one part and another; so exactly adapted are\nall the parts to the same general objects; so wonderful is the harmony and\nso definite and invariable the purpose obtaining throughout the whole,\nthat it is necessary to see but a footstep, or even a bone, to be able to\ndecide the nature and construction of the animal that imprinted that\nfootstep or that possessed that bone. Ascending still higher in the scale,\nwe come at last to man\u2014man, the highest, noblest workmanship of God on\nearth\u2014the lord of this sphere terrene\u2014for whose behoof all earthly things\nexist. In common with all animals, he has that perfect adaptation of part\nto part, and of all the parts to general objects, which demonstrate\nconsummate wisdom in the Cause which thus adapted them. His eyes are so\nplaced as to look the same way in which his feet are placed to walk, and\nhis hands to toil. His feet correspond with each other, being both placed\nto walk in the direction, and with their corresponding sides towards one\nanother, without which he would hobble, even if he could walk at all. His\nmouth is placed in the forepart of the head, by which it can receive food\nand drink from the hands.\n\nBut the hands themselves\u2014who can but admire their wonderful utility? To\nwhat purpose are they not adapted? Man, who has many ends to accomplish,\nin common with the beast of the field; who has hunger to alleviate, thirst\nto slake, and has likewise other and higher ends, for the attainment of\nwhich he is peculiarly qualified by means of _hands_. Adapted by his\nconstitution to inhabit all climes, he has hands to adapt his clothing to\nthe same, whether torrid, temperate or frigid. Possessed of the knowledge\nof the utility of the soil, he has hands to cultivate it. Located far\ndistant oftentimes from the running stream, these hands enable him to\ndisembowel the earth and there find an abundant supply of the\nall-necessary fluid. Endowed with rational ideas, pen in _hand_ he can\ntransmit them to his fellows far away, or to generations unborn. Heir and\nlord of earth and ocean, his hands enable him to possess and control the\nsame, without which, notwithstanding all his reason, he could do neither,\nbut would have to crouch beneath the superior strength of the brute, and\nfly for shelter to crags inaccessible to his beastly sovereign.\n\nThe only creature that has the reason to manage the world, has the\nphysical organization to do it. No _beast_ with man\u2019s reason could do\nthis, and no _man_ with the mere instinct of a brute could do it. How\nmarvellous, then this adaptation! How wondrous the adaptation of\neverything, and how astonishing that any man, with all these things in\nview, can for one moment forbear to admit a God. Let him try _a chance\nexperiment_. Let him take the letters of the alphabet and throw them about\npromiscuously and then see how long ere they would move of their own\naccord and arrange themselves into words and sentences. He may avail\nhimself of the whole benefit of his scheme; he may have the advantage of\nan energy or power as a momentum to set them in motion; he may put these\nletters into a box sufficiently large for the purpose, and then shake them\nas long as may seem him good, and when, in this way, they shall have\nbecome intelligible language, I will admit that he will have some reasons\nfor doubting a God. If this should seem too much like _artificial_ mind,\nhe may take some little animal, all constructed at his hands, and\ndismember its limbs and dissect its body, and then within some vessel let\nhim throw its various parts at random, and seizing that vessel shake it\nmost lustily till bone shall come to bone, joint to joint, and the little\ncreature be restored to its original form. But if this could not be\naccomplished by mere power, without wisdom to direct, how could the\noriginal adjustment occur by chance? How could those very parts themselves\nbe _formed for_ adjustment one to another?\n\nMathematicians tell us wondrous things in relation to these hap-hazard\nconcerns. And they demonstrate their statements by what will not\nlie\u2014figures. Their rule is this: that, as one thing admits of but one\nposition, as, for example, _a_, so two things, _a_ and _b_, are capable of\ntwo positions, as _ab_, _ba_. But if a third be added, instead of their\nbeing susceptible of only one additional position, or three in all, they\nare capable of six. For example, _abc_, _acb_, _bac_, _bca_, _cab_, _cba_.\nAdd another letter, _d_, and the four are capable of twenty-four positions\nor variations. Thus we might go on. Merely adding another letter, _e_, and\nso making _five_ instead of four, would increase the the number of\nvariations _five_-fold. They would then amount to one hundred and twenty.\nA single additional letter, _f_, making _six_ in all, would increase this\nlast sum of one hundred and twenty _six_-fold, making seven hundred and\ntwenty. Add a _seventh_ letter, _g_, and the last-named sum would be\nincreased _seven_-fold, making the sum of five thousand and forty. If we\ngo on thus to the end of the alphabet, we have the astonishing sum of six\nhundred and twenty thousand four hundred and forty-eight trillions, four\nhundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty-three billions, two\nhundred and thirty-nine thousand four hundred and thirty-nine millions and\nthree hundred and sixty thousand!!! Hence it follows that, were the\nletters of the alphabet to be thrown promiscuously into a vessel, to be\nafterwards shaken into order by mere hap, their chance of being arranged,\nnot to say into words and sentences, but into their alphabetical order,\nwould be only as _one_ to the above number. All this, too, in the case of\nonly twenty-six letters! Take now the human frame, with its bones,\ntendons, nerves, muscles, veins, arteries, ducts, glands, cartilages,\netc.; and having dissected the same, throw those parts into one\npromiscuous mass; and how long, I ask, would it be ere Chance would put\nthem all into their appropriate places and form a perfect man? In this\ncalculation we are likewise to take into the account the chances of their\nbeing placed bottom upwards, or side-ways, or wrong side out,\nnotwithstanding they might merely find their appropriate places. This\nwould increase the chances against a well-formed system to an amount\nbeyond all calculation or conception. In the case of the alphabet, the\nchances for the letters to fall bottom up or aslant are not included. And\nwhen we reflect that the blind goddess, or \u201cunintelligent forces,\u201d would\nhave to contend against such fearful odds in the case of a single\nindividual, how long are we to suppose it would be, ere from old Chaos she\ncould shake this mighty universe, with all its myriads upon myriads of\nexistences, into the glorious order and beauty in which it now exists.\n\n\n\n\n\nAN ATHEIST IS A FOOL.\n\n\nHe can\u2019t believe that two letters can be adjusted to each other without\ndesign, and yet he can believe all the foregoing incredibilities.\n\nI might swell the list to a vast extent. I might bring into view the\nverdure of the earth as being the most agreeable of all colors to the eye;\nthe general diffusion of the indispensibles and necessaries of life, such\nas air, light, water, food, clothing, fuel, while less necessary things,\nsuch as spices, gold, silver, tin, lead, zinc, are less diffused; also,\nthe infinite variety in things\u2014in men, for instance\u2014by which we can\ndistinguish one from another. But I forbear. Is it reasonable to conclude\nthat, where there are possible appearances of design, still no design is\nthere? or even that it is probable there is none?\n\nI have said that there is as much evidence of purpose in the works of\nnature as in those of art. I now say that there is more, _infinitely_\nmore. Should the wheels of nature stop their revolutions, and her energies\nbe palsied, and life and motion cease, even then would she exhibit\nincomparably greater evidence of design, in her mere construction and\nadaptation, than do the works of art. Shall we then be told that when she\nis in full operation, and daily producing millions upon millions of\nuseful, of intelligent, of marvelous effects, she still manifests no marks\nof intelligence! In nature we not only see all the works of art infinitely\nexceeded, but we see, as it were, those works self-moved and performing\ntheir operations without external agency. To use a faint comparison, we\nsee a factory in motion without water, wind or steam, its cotton placing\nitself within the reach of the picker, the cards, the spinning-frame and\nthe loom, and turning out in rolls or cloth. Such virtually, nay, far more\nwonderful, is the universe. Not a thousandth part so unreasonable would it\nbe to believe a real factory of this description, were one to exist, to be\na chance existence, as to believe this universe so. Sooner could I suppose\nnature herself possessed of intelligence than admit the idea that there is\n_no_ intelligence concerned in her organization and operations. There must\nbe a mind within or without her, or else we have no data by which to\ndistinguish mind. There must be a mind, or all the results of mind are\nproduced without any. There must be a mind, or chaos produces order, blind\npower perfects effects, and non-intelligence the most admirable\ncorrespondence and harmony imaginable. Skeptics pride themselves much on\ntheir reason. They can\u2019t believe, they say, because it is unreasonable.\n_What_ is unreasonable? To believe in a mind where there is every\nappearance thereof that can be? Is it more reasonable to believe, then,\nthat every appearance of mind is produced without any mind at all?\nSkeptics are the last men in all this wide world to pretend reason. They\ndoubt against infinite odds; they believe without evidence against\nevidence, against demonstration, and then talk of reason!\u2014_Origin\nBachelor\u2019s Correspondence with R. D. Owen._\n\n\n\n\n\nBLUNDER ON AND BLUNDER ON\u2014IT IS HUMAN TO BLUNDER.\n\n\nAre all the mammoths one or two hundred thousand years old, as Sir Charles\nLyell conjectured? It was stated, in the bygone, that the \u201cdiluvium\u201d was\nvery old, on account of the absence of human remains, but since man\u2019s\nremains have been found there, it is inferred that man is very ancient;\nwhereas, the truth is, the mammoth is _very recent_. In many instances\ntheir bones are so fresh that they contain twenty-seven per cent. of\nanimal substance; in some instances the flesh is still upon their bones,\nwith their last meal in their stomachs.\n\nMr. Boyd Dawkins has furnished us with a thrilling narrative of the\ndiscovery of a mammoth in 1846, by Mr. Benkendorf, close to the mouth of\nthe Indigirka. This mammoth was disentombed during the great thaw of the\nsummer. The description is given in the following language: \u201cIn 1846 there\nwas unusually warm weather in the north of Siberia. Already in May unusual\nrains poured over the moors and bogs; storms shook the earth, and the\nstreams carried not only ice to the sea, but also large tracts of land. We\nsteamed on the first day up the Indigirka, but there were no thoughts of\nland; we saw around us only a sea of dirty brown water, and knew the river\nonly by the rushing and roaring of the stream. The river rolled against us\ntrees, moss, and large masses of peat, so that it was only with great\ntrouble and danger that we could proceed. At the end of the second day we\nwere only a short distance up the stream; some one had to stand with the\nsounding-rod in hand continually, and the boat received so many shocks\nthat it shuddered to the keel. A wooden vessel would have been smashed.\nAround us we saw nothing but the flooded land.... The Indigirka, here, had\ntorn up the land and worn itself a fresh channel, and when the waters sank\nwe saw, to our astonishment, that the old river-bed had become merely that\nof an insignificant stream.... The stream rolled over and tore up the\nsoft, wet ground like chaff, so that it was dangerous to go near the\nbrink. While we were all quiet, we heard under our feet a sudden gurgling\nand stirring, which betrayed the working of the disturbed water. Suddenly\nour jagger, ever on the look-out, called loudly, and pointed to a singular\nand unshapely object, which rose and sank.... Now we all hastened to the\nspot on shore, had the boat drawn near, and waited until the mysterious\nthing should again show itself. Our patience was tried, but at last a\nblack, horrible giant-like mass was thrust out of the water, and we beheld\na colossal elephant\u2019s head, armed with mighty tusks, with its long trunk\nmoving in the water in an unearthly manner, as though seeking for\nsomething lost therein.... I beheld the monster hardly twelve feet from\nme, with his half-open eyes yet showing the whites. It was still in good\npreservation....\n\n\u201cPicture to yourself an elephant with a body covered with thick fur, about\nthirteen feet in height and fifteen in length, with tusks eight feet long,\nthick, and curving outward at their ends, a stout trunk of six feet in\nlength, colossal limbs of one and a half feet in thickness, and a tail\nnaked up to the end, which was covered with thick tufty hair. The animal\nwas fat and well grown; death had overtaken him in the fulness of his\npowers. His parchment-like, large, naked ears lay turned up over the head;\nabout the shoulders and on the back he had stiff hair, about a foot in\nlength, like a mane. The long outer hair was deep brown and coarsely\nrooted. The top of the head looked so wild and so penetrated with pitch\nthat it resembled the rind of an old oak tree. On the sides it was\ncleaner, and under the outer hair there appeared everywhere a wool, very\nsoft, warm and thick, and of a fallow-brown color. The giant was well\nprotected against the cold. The whole appearance of the animal was\nfearfully strange and wild. It had not the shape of our present elephants.\nAs compared with our Indian elephants, its head was rough, the brain-case\nlow and narrow, but the trunk and mouth were much larger. The teeth were\nvery powerful. Our elephant is an awkward animal, but compared with this\nmammoth, it is an Arabian steed to a coarse, ugly dray horse. I had the\nstomach separated and brought on one side. It was well filled, and the\ncontents instructive and well preserved. The principal were young shoots\nof the fir and pine; a quantity of young fir cones, also in a chewed\nstate, were mixed with the moss.\u201d\n\nMammoth bones are found in great abundance in the islands off the northern\ncoast of Siberia. The remains of the rhinoceros are also found. Pallas, in\n1772, obtained from Wiljuiskoi, in latitude 64\u00b0, a rhinoceros taken from\nthe sand in which it had been frozen. This carcass emitted an odor like\nputrid flesh, part of the skin being covered with short, crisp wool and\nwith black and gray hairs. Professor Brandt, in 1846, extracted from the\ncavities in the molar teeth of this skeleton a small quantity of\nhalf-chewed pine leaves and coniferous wood. And the blood-vessels in the\ninterior of the head appeared filled, even to the capillary vessels, with\ncoagulated blood, which in many places still retained its original red\ncolor.\n\nWe find that Mr. Boyd Dawkins and Mr. Sanford assert that the cave-lion is\nonly a large variety of the existing lion\u2014identical in species. Herodotus\nsays: \u201cThe camels in the army of Xerxes, near the mountains of Thessaly,\n_were attacked by lions_.\u201d\n\nSir John Lubbock, in his Prehistoric Times, page 293, says the cave-hyena\n\u201cis now regarded as scarcely distinguishable specifically from the _Hy\u00e6na\ncrocuta_, or spotted hyena of Southern Africa,\u201d while Mr. Busk and M.\nGervais identify the _cave-bear_ with the _Ursus ferox_, or grizzly bear\nof North America. What is the bearing of these facts on the question of\nthe antiquity of the remains found in the bone caverns?\n\nDo these facts justify men in carrying human remains, found along with the\nremains of these animals in the caves, back to the remote period of one or\ntwo hundred thousand years?\u2014a long time, this, for flesh upon the bones\nand food in the stomach to remain in a state of preservation.\n\n\u201cSo fresh is the ivory throughout Northern Russia,\u201d says Lyell,\n_Principles, vol. 1, p. 183_, \u201cthat, according to Tilesius, thousands of\nfossil tusks have been collected and used in turning.\u201d\n\nMr. Dawkins says: \u201cWe are compelled to hold that the cave-lion which\npreyed upon the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros and musk-sheep in Great\nBritain, is a mere geographical variety of the great carnivore that is\nfound alike in the tropical parts of Asia and throughout the whole of\nAfrica.\u201d Popular Science Review for 1869, p. 153. It has been customary to\nspeak of all these animals as \u201c_the great extinct_ mammalia,\u201d and to\nregard them all as much larger than existing animals of the same kind, but\nthree of the most important still exist, and the cave-lions, at least some\nof the specimens, were smaller than the lion of the present. According to\nSir John Lubbock the \u201cIrish elk, the elephants and the three species of\nrhinoceros are, perhaps, the only ones which are absolutely extinct.\u201d\nPrehistoric Times, p. 290. \u201cOut of seventeen principal \u2018pal\u00e6olithic\u2019\nmammalia, ten, until recently, were regarded \u2018extinct;\u2019 but it is now\nbelieved that the above-mentioned elk, elephants and rhinoceros are the\nonly extinct mammalia. Dr. Wilson affirms that skeletons of the Irish elk\nhave been found at Curragh, Ireland, in marshes, some of the bones of\nwhich were in such fresh condition that the marrow is described as having\nthe appearance of fresh suet, and burning with a clear flame.\u201d\n\nProfessor Agassiz admits the continuance of the Irish elk to the\nfourteenth century to be \u201cprobable.\u201d It is certain that this elk continued\nin Ireland down to what is claimed as the age of iron, and possibly in\nGermany down to the twelfth century. It is also certain that it was a\ncompanion of the mammoth and of the woolly rhinoceros. The aurochs, or\nEuropean bison, whose remains are found in the river gravel and the older\nbone caves, is mentioned by Pliny and Seneca. They speak of it as existing\nin their time; it is also named in the Niebelungen Lied. It existed in\nPrussia as late as 1775, and is still found wild in the Caucasus. The\npresent Emperor of Russia has twelve herds, which are protected in the\nforests of Lithuania. During the session of the International\nArch\u00e6ological Congress at Stockholm, in 1874, the members of the body made\nan excursion to the isle of Bjorko, in Lake Malar, near Stockholm, where\nthere is an ancient cemetery of two thousand tumuli. Within a few hundred\nyards from this is the site of the ancient town. Several trenches were run\nthrough this locality, and many relics obtained by the members of the\ncongress. On the occasion Dr. Stolpe, who was familiar with the previous\ndiscoveries at this point, delivered a lecture on the island and its\nremains. They all, he stated, belong to the second age of iron in Sweden,\nand consisted of implements of iron, ornaments of bronze, and animal\nbones; Kufic coins have been found, along with cowrie-shells, and silver\nbracelets. The number of animal bones met with is immense, more than fifty\nspecies being represented, and what is especially noteworthy, _the marrow\nbones were all crushed or split_, just as in the pal\u00e6eolithic times. The\nprincipal wild beasts were the lynx, the wolf, the fox, the beaver, the\nelk, the _reindeer_, etc. Dr. Stolpe refers the formation of this\n\u201cpre-historic\u201d city to \u201cabout the middle of the eighth century after\nChrist,\u201d and says it was probably destroyed \u201cabout the middle of the\neleventh century.\u201d\n\n\u201cDuring this period the reindeer existed in this part of Sweden.\u201d\n\nRecent scientific discovery demands that we should almost modernize the\nanimals we used to regard as belonging to a period of a hundred thousand\nyears ago.\n\n\u201cScientists have been addicted to unwise and inconsiderate haste in the\nannouncement of new theories touching alleged facts; they have blundered\nrepeatedly in their efforts to confound the Christian and set aside Moses.\nNo less than eighty theories touching that many facts and discoveries have\nbeen developed during the period of fifty years, that were brought before\nthe Institute of France in 1806, and not one of them survives to-day.\u201d\nTruly the history of scientific investigation reveals the same fallibility\nof human nature that is known in the many errors found in the line of\ntheological investigation. Truth, in science and religion, stands true to\nher God\u2014_man alone deviates_.\n\n\n\n\n\nDRAPER\u2019S CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.\n\n\nNo one idea has produced a greater sensation among skeptics and\nunbelievers than the idea of a conflict between science and Christianity.\nThe history of the affair reminds us of the ghost stories that frighten\npeople in their boyish days. There was, in truth, no foundation for the\nsensation. Mr. Draper never intended that his work entitled \u201cConflict\nbetween Religion and Science,\u201d should be construed to mean Conflict\nbetween the Bible and Science, or between Christianity, as set forth by\nthe primitive Christians and science, but conflict between apostate\nreligion and science; or, rather, between corruptors of the ancient\nreligion and science.\n\nHe says, \u201cI have had little to say respecting the two great Christian\nconfessions, the protestant and the Greek churches. As to the latter, it\nhas never, since the restoration of science, arrayed itself in opposition\nto the advancement of knowledge. On the contrary, it has always met it\nwith welcome. It has observed a reverential attitude to truth, from\nwhatever quarter it might come. Recognizing the apparent discrepancies\nbetween its interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of\nscience, it has always expected that satisfactory explanations and\nreconciliations would ensue, _and in this it has not been disappointed_.\u201d\nWill all who read these lines take notice that Mr. Draper takes the\nChristian\u2019s side in the above statement. \u201c_In this it has not been\ndisappointed._\u201d In what? Answer\u2014Its expectation that satisfactory\nexplanations and reconciliations would follow the discoveries of science,\nby means of which apparent discrepancies between the church\u2019s\ninterpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of science would\ndisappear. Mr. Draper adds, \u201cIt would have been well for modern\ncivilization if the Roman church had done the same.\u201d He guards his readers\nby the following: \u201cIn speaking of Christianity, reference is generally\nmade to the Roman church, partly because its adherents compose the\nmajority of Christendom, partly because its demands are the most\npretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought to enforce those\ndemands by the civil power. None of the protestant churches have ever\noccupied a position so imperious, none have ever had such widespread\npolitical influence. For the most part they have been averse to\nconstraint, and except in very few instances their opposition has not\npassed beyond the exciting of theological odium.\u201d Preface, pp. 10, 11.\n\nOn pages 215 and 216, speaking upon the great question of the proper\nrelations of Christianity and science, Mr. Draper says: \u201cIn the annals of\nChristianity the most ill-omened day is that in which she separated\nherself from science. She compelled Origen, at that time (A. D. 231) its\nchief representative and supporter in the church, to abandon his charge in\nAlexandria and retire to C\u00e6sarea. In vain through many subsequent\ncenturies did her leading men spend themselves in, as the phrase then\nwent, \u2018drawing forth the internal juice and marrow of the scriptures for\nthe explaining of things.\u2019 Universal history from the _third_ to the\n_sixteenth_ century shows with what result. The dark ages owe their\ndarkness to this fatal policy.\u201d\n\nThe pure Christianity, as well as Christians of 231 years, are exonerated\nby Mr. Draper. Unbeliever, will you remember this? Many unbelievers, like\ndrowning men catching at straws, have endeavored to make it appear that\nMr. Draper\u2019s book, entitled \u201cConflict Between Religion and Science,\u201d makes\na square fight between the Bible and science. So far is this from the\ntruth that, on the contrary, it does not even set up a square issue\nbetween Protestantism and science; its issue lies between Roman Catholic\nreligion and science. Hear him: \u201cThen has it, _in truth_, come to this,\nthat Roman Christianity and science are recognized by their respective\nadherents as being absolutely incompatible; they can not exist together;\none must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice\u2014it can not have\nboth. While such is, perhaps, the issue as regards Catholicism, a\nreconciliation of the reformation with science is not only possible, but\nwould easily take place if the protestant churches would only live up to\ntheir maxim taught by Luther and established by so many years of war. That\nmaxim is the right of private interpretation of the scriptures. It was the\nfoundation of intellectual liberty.\u201d (Did Luther say the foundation of\nintellectual liberty?) But if a personal interpretation of the book of\nRevelation is permissible, how can it be denied in the case of the book of\nnature? In the misunderstandings that have taken place, we must ever bear\nin mind the infirmities of men. The generations that immediately followed\nthe reformation may perhaps be excused for not comprehending the full\nsignificance of cardinal principle, and for not on all occasions carrying\nit into effect. When Calvin caused Servetus to be burnt he was animated,\nnot by the principles of the reformation, but by those of Catholicism,\nfrom which he had not been able to emancipate himself completely. And when\nthe clergy of influential protestant confessions have stigmatized the\ninvestigators of nature as infidels and atheists, the same may be said.\n(No man should be called by a name that does not truthfully represent\nhim.) Now listen to Mr. Draper: \u201cFor Catholicism to reconcile itself to\nscience, there are formidable, perhaps insuperable obstacles in the way.\nFor protestantism to achieve that great result there are not.\u201d\u2014_Conflict\nBetween Religion and Science_, pp. 363, 364. Thus Draper speaks for\nhimself.\n\n\n\n\n\nFACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, OR WHAT CHRISTIANITY HAS DONE FOR\nCANNIBALS.\n\n\nThe Fijians, a quarter of a century ago, were noted for cannibalism. The\nfollowing scrap of history may be of importance as a shadow to contrast\nwith the sunshine. It is taken from Wood\u2019s History of the Uncivilized\nRaces:\n\nThe Fijians are more devoted to cannibalism than the New Zealanders, and\ntheir records are still more appalling. A New Zealander has sometimes the\ngrace to feel ashamed of mentioning the subject in the hearing of an\nEuropean, whereas it is impossible to make a Fijian really feel that in\neating human flesh he has committed an unworthy act. He sees, indeed, that\nthe white man exhibits great disgust at cannibalism, but in his heart he\ndespises him for wasting such luxurious food as human flesh.... The\nnatives are clever enough at concealing the existence of cannibalism when\nthey find that it shocks the white men. An European cotton grower, who had\ntried unsuccessfully to introduce the culture of cotton into Fiji, found,\nafter a tolerable long residence, that four or five human beings were\nkilled and eaten weekly. There was plenty of food in the place, pigs were\nnumerous, and fish, fruit and vegetables abundant. But the people ate\nhuman bodies as often as they could get them, not from any superstitious\nmotive, but simply because they preferred human flesh to pork.... Many of\nthe people actually take a pride in the number of human bodies which they\nhave eaten. One chief was looked upon with great respect on account of his\nfeats of cannibalism, and the people gave him a title of honor. They\ncalled him the Turtle-pond, comparing his insatiable stomach to the pond\nin which turtles are kept; and so proud were they of his deeds, that they\neven gave a name of honor to the bodies brought for his consumption,\ncalling them the \u201cContents of the Turtle-pond.\u201d ... One man gained a great\nname among his people by an act of peculiar atrocity. He told his wife to\nbuild an oven, to fetch firewood for heating it, and to prepare a bamboo\nknife. As soon as she had concluded her labors her husband killed her, and\nbaked her in the oven which her own hands had prepared, and afterward ate\nher. Sometimes a man has been known to take a victim, bind him hand and\nfoot, cut slices from his arms and legs, and eat them before his eyes.\nIndeed, the Fijians are so inordinately vain that they will do anything,\nno matter how horrible, in order to gain a name among their people; and\nDr. Pritchard, who knows them thoroughly, expresses his wonder that some\nchief did not eat slices from his own limbs.\n\n\u201cCannibalism is ingrained in the very nature of the Fijian, and extends\nthrough all classes of society. It is true that there are some persons who\nhave never eaten human flesh, but there is always a reason for it. Women,\nfor example, are seldom known to eat \u2018bakolo,\u2019 as human flesh is termed,\nand there are a few men who have refrained from cannibalism through\nsuperstition. Every Fijian has his special god, who is supposed to have\nhis residence in some animal. One god, for example, lives in a rat,\nanother in a shark, and so on. The worshiper of that god never eats the\nanimal in which his divinity resides, and as some gods are supposed to\nreside in human beings, their worshipers never eat the flesh of man.\u201d\n\nRecent History Of The Same People In Brief.\n\n\u201cIn the Fiji islands, where half a century ago the favorite dish of food\nwas human flesh, there are at present eight hundred and forty-one chapels,\nand two hundred and ninety-one other places where preaching is held, with\nfifty-eight missionaries busily engaged in preparing the way for others.\nThe membership numbers twenty-three thousand two hundred and seventy-four\npersons.\u201d _The Evangelist of January 29, 1880._ It is possible that some\ninfidel might have been literally eaten up had it not been for the\ninfluence of the Bible. \u201cAccording to the accounts of some of the older\nchiefs, whom we may believe or not as we like, there was once a time when\ncannibalism did not exist. Many years ago some strangers from a distant\nland were blown upon the shores of Fiji, and received hospitably by the\nislanders, who incorporated them into their own tribes, and made much of\nthem. But, in process of time, these people became too powerful, killed\nthe Fijian chiefs, took their wives and property, and usurped their\noffice.\u201d\n\nIn the emergency the people consulted the priests, who said that the\nFijians had brought their misfortunes upon themselves. They had allowed\nstrangers to live, whereas \u201cFiji for the Fijians\u201d was the golden rule, and\nfrom that time every male stranger was to be killed and eaten, and every\nwoman taken as a wife. The only people free from this law were the\nTongans.\n\nThe state of the Fijians is wonderfully changed\u2014even an American infidel\nmay now visit those people without being flayed and roasted and devoured.\n\n\u201cThe Samoan islands have been entirely christianized. Out of a population\nof forty thousand, thirty-five thousand are connected with Christian\nchurches.\n\n\u201cIn 1830 the native Christians in India, Burmah, and North and South\nCeylon numbered 57,000. Last October there were 460,000. Facts similar in\ncharacter might be given of Madagascar, South Africa and Japan.\u201d\n_Evangelist._ What a curse (?) the Bible is to the poor heathen. It robs\nthem of their \u201clong-pig,\u201d human flesh, as well as their cruel, murderous\nhabits, and curses them (?) with virtue and the hope of \u201cHEAVEN.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nARE WE SIMPLY ANIMALS?\n\n\nWhat is man? The materialist says, \u201cHe is the highest order of the animal\nkingdom, or an animal gifted with intelligence.\u201d If such be true, it may\nbe said with equal propriety, that animals are men without reason. Are\nthey? Does manhood consist in mere physical form? Can you find it in\nsimple physical nature? Man holds many things in his physical nature in\ncommon with the animal; but is he, on this account, to be considered as a\nmere animal? There are plants that seem to form a bridge over the chasm\nlying between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Are those plants animals\nwithout sensation? Why not? What is the logical and scientific difference\nbetween saying plants, which make the nearest approach to the animal are\nanimals without sensation, and saying animals are men without\nintelligence? Let it be understood at all times, that if man is simply an\nanimal endowed with the gift of reason, an animal may be simply a\nvegetable endowed with the gift of sensation. \u201cThe bodies of mere animals\nare clothed with scales, feathers, fur, wool or bristles, which interpose\nbetween the skin and the elements that surround and affect the living\nanimal.\u201d All these insensible protectors \u201cally animals more closely to the\nnature of vegetables.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe body of a human being has a beautiful, thin, highly sensitive skin,\nwhich is not covered with an insensitive, lifeless veil.\u201d Man\u2019s body is in\nnoble contrast with all mere animals. It is so formed that its natural\nposition is erect. \u201cThe eyes are in front; the ligaments of the neck are\nnot capable of supporting, for any considerable length of time, the head\nwhen hanging down; the horizontal position would force the blood to the\nhead so violently that stupor would be the result. The mouth serves the\nmind as well as the body itself. According to the most critical\ncalculation, the muscles of the mouth are so movable that it may pronounce\nfifteen hundred letters.\u201d What a wonderful musical instrument.\n\nThe mouth of the mere animal serves only physical purposes.\n\nMan turns his head from right to left, from earth to sky, from the slimy\ntrail of the crustacean in the ocean\u2019s bottom to the contemplation of the\ninnumerable stars in the heavens. The human body was created for the mind;\nits structure is correlated with mind. The animal has a sentient life; man\nan intelligent, reasoning nature.\n\nWhen animals are infuriated and trample beneath their feet everything that\nlies in their way, we do not say they are _insane_, but _mad_. \u201cMan is an\nintelligent spirit,\u201d or mind, \u201cserved by an organism.\u201d We know that mind\nexists by our consciousness of that which passes within us. The propriety\nof the sayings of Descartes, \u201c_I think, therefore I am_,\u201d rests upon the\nconsciousness that we are thinking beings. This intelligence is not\nobtained by the exercise of any of the senses. It does not depend upon\nexternal surroundings. Its existence is a fact of consciousness, of\ncertain knowledge, and hence a fact in mental science.\n\nWe are continually conscious of the existence of the mind, which makes its\nown operations the object of its own thought; that it should have no\nexistence is a contradiction in language.\n\nExperience teaches us that the materialistic theory of the existence of\nthe mind is utterly false. In an act of perception I distinguish the pen\nin my hand, and the hand itself, from my mind which perceives them. This\ndistinction is a fact of the faculty of perception\u2014a particular fact of a\nparticular faculty. But the general fact of a general distinction of which\nthis is only a special case, is the distinction of the _I_ and _not I_,\nwhich belongs to the consciousness as the general faculty. He who denies\nthe contrast between mind-knowing and matter-known is dishonest, for it is\na fact of consciousness, and such can not be honestly denied. The facts\ngiven in consciousness itself can not be honestly doubted, much less\ndenied.\n\nMaterialists have claimed that mind is simply the result of the molecular\naction of the brain. This theory is as unreal as Banquo\u2019s ghost\u2014it will\nnot bear a moment\u2019s investigation. It is simply confounding the action of\nthe mind upon the brain with the mind itself. Every effect must have a\ncause. When I make a special mental effort what is the cause lying behind\nthe effort? Is it the molecular action of the brain? I _will to_ make the\neffort, and do it. Then will power lies behind brain action. But power is\na manifest energy; there is something lying behind it to which it belongs\nas an attribute; what is it? Answer, _will_. But, where there is a _will_\nthere must of a necessity be that which _wills_. What is it that _wills_\nto make a special mental effort\u2014that lies away back \u201cbehind the throne\u201d\nand controls the helm? It is evidently the I, _myself_, the \u201cinner man,\u201d\n_the spirit_. On one occasion, when some of the disciples of the Nazarene\nwere sleepy, Jesus said to them, \u201cThe spirit indeed is willing, but the\nflesh is weak.\u201d It is the spirit that _wills_ to make a special mental\neffort. Here is the \u201c_font_\u201d of all our ideas. \u201cWhat man knoweth the\nthings of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?\u201d 1 Cor., ii, 11.\n_Will_, as an effect, belongs to the spirit of man, as _the cause_ lying\nbehind. Beyond this no man can trace this subject, short of crossing over\nfrom the spirit of man to the invisible Father of spirits. The spirit of\nman is a _wonderful intelligence_! \u201cThe body without the spirit is dead,\nbeing alone.\u201d When we analyze the physical structure back to the germ and\nsperm-cells we are brought face to face with the invisible builder. Call\nit what you may, it still remains the same invisible architect, which,\nbeing matter\u2019s master, built the organism. We live, and breathe; we die,\nand cease breathing. Dead bodies do not breathe. Therefore, life lies\nbehind breath, and spirit behind life. So life and breath are both\neffects, which find their ultimate or cause in _spirit_. This at once sets\naside all that materialists have said in order to show that spirit and\nbreath are one and the same. The original term, translated by the term\nspirit has, in its history, away back in the past, a _physical_ currency.\nThe old-fashioned materialist or \u201csoul-sleeper\u201d finds his fort in this\nfact. His entire aim is to get the people back to an old and obsolete\ncurrency of the term \u201c_pneuma_.\u201d If we lay aside words which were used in\na physical sense, in times gone by, we will not have many words to express\nthe ideas embraced in mental science. In ancient times \u201c_pneuma_\u201d\nsignified both mind and wind, or air. In later times it lost its physical\ncurrency, and no longer signifies, in its general currency, breath or air.\nThe adjective, \u201c_pneumatikos_,\u201d is _never used_ in a physical sense. It\ncame into use too late.\n\nWe have many examples of old meanings passing away from words.\n\u201c_Sapientia_,\u201d in Latin originally meant only the power of tasting. At\npresent it means _wisdom_, _prudence_, _discretion_, _discernment_, _good\nsense_, _knowledge_, _practical wisdom_, _philosophy_, _calmness_,\n_patience_. The word \u201c_sagacitas_,\u201d originally meant only the faculty of\n_scenting_, now it means the power of seeing or perceiving anything\neasily. In old literature we may read of the sagacity of dogs; keenness of\nscent. But it is now sharpness of wit; keenness of perception, subtilty,\nshrewdness, acuteness, penetration, ingenuity. The terms, \u201cattentio,\u201d\n\u201cintentio,\u201d \u201ccomprehensio,\u201d \u201capprehensio,\u201d \u201cpenetratio,\u201d and understanding\nare all just so many bodily actions transferred to the expression of\n_mental energies_. There is just the same reason for giving to all these\nterms their old, obsolete, physical currency that there is for giving to\npneuma, or spirit, the old obsolete currency of wind or air. You must ever\nremember that it is the business of lexicographers in giving the history\nof words, to set before you the first as well as the latest use of terms.\nIn strict harmony with all this Greenfield gives \u201c_pneuma_\u201d _thus_:\n\n1. Wind, air in motion, breathing, breath, expiration, respiration,\nspirit, i. e. the human soul, that is, the vital principle in man, life.\nMatthew xxvii, 50; Rev. xiii, 15.\n\n2. Of the rational soul, mind, that principle in man which thinks, feels,\ndesires, and wills. Matthew v, 3, 26, 41.\n\n3. Of the human soul after its departure from the body, a spirit, soul.\nActs xxiii, 8, 9; Hebrews xii, 23.\n\n4. Spc. Spirit, that is, temper, disposition, affections, feelings,\ninclination, qualities of mind.\n\n5. Construed with \u201c_mou_\u201d and \u201c_sou_\u201d (_I_ and _thou_), it forms a\nperiphrasis for the corresponding personal pronoun. Mark ii, 8; Luke i,\n47. A spirit, that is, A SIMPLE, SPIRITUAL, INCORPOREAL, INTELLIGENT\nBEING. Spoken of God. John iv, 24. Of angels. Hebrews i, 14. Of evil\nspirits, Matthew viii, 16; Mark ix, 20. A divine spirit, spoken of the\nspiritual nature of Christ. 1 Corinthians xv, 45; 1 Peter iii, 18. Of the\nHoly Spirit. Matthew iii, 16-28; John xv, 26; Acts i, 8; Romans ix, 1.\n\nRobinson, in his Lexicon, sums up the history of its use thus:\n\n1. Pneuma, from pneo, to breathe. A breathing, breath.\n\n1. Of the mouth or nostrils, a breathing, blast. The destroying power of\nGod. Isaiah xi, 4; Psalm xxxiii, 6. The breath. Revelations xi, 11.\n\u201cBreath of life.\u201d Genesis vi, 17; vii, 15-22.\n\n2. Breath of air. Air in motion, a breeze, blast, the wind.\n\n3. The spirit of man, that is, the vital spirit, life, soul.\n\n4. The rational spirit, mind, soul (Latin _animus_), generally opposed to\nthe body or animal (disposition) spirit. 1 Thessalonians v, 23; 1\nCorinthians xiv, 14.\n\n5. It implies will, council, purpose. Matthew xxvi, 41; Mark xiv, 38; Acts\nxviii, 5; xix, 21; 1 Chronicles v, 26; Ezra i, 1.\n\n6. It includes the understanding, intellect. Mark ii, 8; Luke i, 80, and\nii, 40; 1 Corinthians ii, 11, 12; Exodus xxviii, 3; Job xx, 3; Isaiah\nxxix, 24.\n\n7. A spirit, that is, a simple, incorporeal, immaterial being, possessing\nhigher capacities than man in his present state. Of created spirits, the\nhuman spirit, soul, after its departure from the body and as existing in a\nseparate state. Hebrews xii, 23; that is, to the spirits of just men made\nperfect. Robinson renders it thus: \u201cTo the spirits of the just advanced to\nperfect happiness and glory.\u201d\n\nIt is spoken of God in reference to his immateriality. John, iv, 24. Of\nChrist in his exalted spiritual nature in distinction from his human\nnature. In Hebrews, ix, 14, in contrast with perishable nature. \u201cThe\n_eternal spirit_,\u201d Holy spirit, spirit of God.\u2014_Robinson\u2019s Lexicon._\n\nFrom all this it will be seen that it is impossible to limit the term\nspirit to its ancient _physical_ currency. Our term _mind_ is, for two\nreasons, a better word for its place in modern literature. First, it never\nhad a physical application. Second, the terms are used indifferently in\nthe New Testament when they relate to man. See Romans, i, 9 and vii, 25.\nAll spirits are _one_ in kind; in _character_ the difference lies; that\nis, spirits are all _imperishable_. It is not in the nature of a spirit to\ncease to be. If it is, then there is no imperishable nature that is\nrevealed to man. I submit for consideration the thought that there is no\ndifference in the final results between the man who denies the existence\nof spirits altogether and the man who allows that spirits may cease to\nexist.\n\n\u201cWe are cognizant of the existence of spirit by our direct consciousness\nof feelings, desires and ideas, which are to us the most certain of all\nrealities.\u201d\u2014_Carpenter._\n\n\u201cThe body continually requires new materials and a continued action of\nexternal agencies. But the mind, when it has been once called into\nactivity and has become stored with ideas, may remain active and may\ndevelop new relations and combinations among these, after the complete\nclosure of the sensorial inlets by which new ideas can be excited \u2018ab\nexterno.\u2019 Such, in fact, is what is continually going on in the state of\ndreaming.... The mind thus feeds upon the store of ideas which it has laid\nup during the activity of the sensory organs, and those impressions which\nit retains in its consciousness are working up into a never ending variety\nof combinations and successions of ideas, thus affording new sources of\nmental activity even to the very end of life.\u201d\u2014_Carpenter._\n\nIn death the spirit returns to God, who gave it, retaining, doubtless, all\nits store of ideas and all its own inherent activities, which will\ncontinue while eternity endures.\n\n\n\n\n\nOUR RELATIONS TO THE ANCIENT LAW AND PROPHETS\u2014WHAT ARE THEY?\n\n\nThe above questions can not be answered intelligently without a knowledge\nof the character of the law, and of its relations to humanity, as well as\na knowledge of the relations of the ancient prophets. The law given at\nSinai as a \u201ccovenant,\u201d with all the laws contained in the \u201cBook of the\nLaw,\u201d was political in character; that is to say, it pertained to a\ncommunity or nation. Such law is _always_ political in its character. The\nancient law pertained to the nation of the Jews. It was given to them as a\ncommunity, and to no other people. Moses said, \u201cAnd the Lord spake unto\nyou out of the midst of fire: Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no\nsimilitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant,\nwhich he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote\nthem upon two tables of stone.\u201d Deut. iv, 12, 13. \u201cAnd the Lord said unto\nMoses, Write thou these words; for after the _tenor_ of these words I have\nmade a covenant _with thee_ and _with Israel_.... And he wrote upon the\ntables _the words of the covenant_, the ten commandments.\u201d Exodus xxxiv,\n27, 28. \u201cThe Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord _made\nnot_ this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who _are_ all of us here\nalive this day.\u201d Deut. v, 2, 3. \u201cBehold, I have taught you statutes and\njudgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in\nthe land whither ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for\nthis is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations,\nwhich shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is\na wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great who\nhath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we\ncall upon him for? And what nation is there so great that hath statutes\nand judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this\nday.\u201d Deut. iv, 5, 8.\n\nThe law or covenant, as written upon the two tables of stone, is given in\nfull in one place, and only one, in all the book of the law, and I will\nnow transcribe it from the fifth chapter of Deut. Here it is: \u201cI am the\nLord, thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house\nof bondage; thou shalt have none other gods before me; thou shalt not make\nthee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven\nabove, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath\nthe earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them or serve them, for I,\nthe Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers\nupon the children unto the third and fourth _generation_ of them that hate\nme, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my\ncommandments.\n\n\u201cThou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain; for the Lord\nwill not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.\n\n\u201cKeep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord, thy God, hath commanded\nthee. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh is\nthe Sabbath of the Lord, thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou,\nnor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor\nthine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy\ngates, that thy man-servant and maid-servant may rest as well as thou; and\nremember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord,\nthy God, brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched\nout arm; THEREFORE, THE LORD, THY GOD, COMMANDED THEE TO KEEP THE SABBATH\nDAY.\n\n\u201cHonor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee;\nthat thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the\nland which the Lord thy God giveth thee.\n\n\u201cThou shalt not kill.\n\n\u201cNeither shalt thou commit adultery.\n\n\u201cNeither shalt thou steal.\n\n\u201cNeither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.\n\n\u201cNeither shalt thou desire thy neighbor\u2019s wife, neither shalt thou covet\nthy neighbor\u2019s house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant,\nhis ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor\u2019s.\n\n\u201cThese words the Lord spake unto _all your assembly_ in the mount, out of\nthe midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick darkness, with a\ngreat voice; and he _added no more_. And _he wrote them in two tables of\nstone_, and delivered them unto me.\u201d\n\nThis is the covenant as it was written upon the tables of stone. It is, by\nits facts, limited to the Jews, for they are the only people who were ever\ndelivered from bondage in Egypt. The abrogation of this covenant is\nclearly presented in the following language, found in Zechariah, the\neleventh chapter and tenth verse: \u201cAnd I took my staff, even Beauty, and\ncut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with _all\nthe people_. And it was broken in that day; and so the poor of the flock\nthat waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. And I said unto\nthem, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they\nweighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.\u201d This language had its\nfulfillment in the sale which Judas Iscariot made of his Lord and the\nabrogation of the ancient covenant or law.\n\nThe prophets were not confined to the kingdom of Israel, or to any one\nkingdom, nor yet to any one dispensation.\n\nThey bore the word of the Lord to all the nations, as we learn from such\nlanguage as this: \u201cThe burden of the word of the Lord to Ninevah, to\nSidon, to Tyre, to Idumea, to Babylon, to Samaria, to Egypt,\u201d and to many\nothers. It is very remarkable that no such latitude or longitude of\nrelationships belongs to the ancient law. It was confined to the\nIsraelites.\n\nThe Heavenly Father spake not to the ancients by his Son, but by the\nprophets. And much of that which they spake pertained to our own\ndispensation and to our own religion.\n\nMuch, very much, of that which they gave lies in the very foundation of\nour religion. We should always distinguish, _carefully_, between the Law\nand the prophets, and between these two and the psalms, remembering,\nhowever, that prophesy belongs also to many of the psalms. The abrogated\ncovenant, or law, that was done away, was written upon stones. It, with\nall the laws which were after its _tenor_, was supplanted by the law of\nChrist. It was added because of transgression _till Christ, _\u201cthe seed,\u201d\nshould come. When he came it expired by limitation, and through his\nauthority the neighborly restrictions or limitations were taken off from\nmoral precepts, which were re-enacted by him.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE FUNERAL SERVICES OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL LEAGUE.\n\n\nThe decent members of the Liberal League, who formed it to express their\nconvictions, and who withdrew and formed a rival League when they found\nthat the old organization had gone over to the defense of indecency, who\ngave to the League all the character it had, and who had great hopes at\none time of destroying the influence of the preachers of the Gospel of\nChrist, and thereby ridding our country of that terrible pest called the\nBible, have given up their name. Their \u201cpriests\u201d have adopted the\nfollowing arraignment of their old organization, a legitimate child of\ntheir own:\n\n\u201cVoted that, in the judgment of this Board, the name \u2018National Liberal\nLeague\u2019 has become so widely and injuriously associated in the public mind\nwith attempts to repeal the postal laws prohibiting the circulation of\nobscene literature by mail, with the active propagandism of demoralizing\nand licentious social theories, and with the support of officials and\nother public representatives who are on good grounds believed to have been\nguilty of gross immoralities, that it has been thereby unfitted for use by\nany organization which desires the support of the friends of \u2018natural\nmorality.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThus the child went into a far country and fed among swine, and, failing\nto come to itself and return to its father\u2019s house, the old gentleman\ndisinherited it, _once_ and forever. A younger son, however, is christened\n\u201cLiberal Union,\u201d and whether it will remain at home to take care of the\nold man in his dotage remains to be seen.\n\n\n\n\n\nHUXLEY\u2019S PARADOX.\n\n\n\u201cThe whole analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing\nan argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary\ncauses, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe, that, in\nview of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,\nand between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can\nsee no reason for doubting that all are co-ordinate terms of nature\u2019s\ngreat progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the\norganic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will.\u201d _Huxley\u2019s\nEvidence of Man\u2019s Place in Nature_, London, 1864, p. 107.\n\nA writer in the _Spectator_ charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. The\nprofessor replies, in the number of that paper for February 10, 1866,\nthus: \u201cI do not know that I care very much about popular odium, so there\nis no great merit in saying that if I really saw fit to deny the existence\nof a God I should certainly do so for the sake of my own intellectual\nfreedom, and be the honest Atheist you are pleased to say I am. As it\nhappens, however, I can not take this position with honesty, inasmuch as\nit is, and always has been, a favorite tenet that Atheism is as absurd,\nlogically speaking, as Polytheism.\u201d In the same sheet, he says: \u201cThe\ndenying the possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as\nAtheism.\u201d Is Huxley in conflict with Huxley?\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRIUMPHING REIGN OF LIGHT.\n\n\nThe next psychic cycle, it seems to me, will witness a synthesis of\nthought and faith, a recognition of the fact that it is impossible for\nreason to find solid ground that is not consecrated ground; that all\nphilosophy and all science belong to religion; that all truth is a\nrevelation of God; that the truths of written revelation, if not\nintelligible to reason, are nevertheless consonant with reason; and that\ndivine agency, instead of standing removed from man by infinite intervals\nof time and space, is, indeed, the true name of those energies which work\ntheir myriad phenomena in the natural world around us. This\nconsummation\u2014at once the inspiration of a fervent religion and the\nprophecy of the loftiest science\u2014is to be the noontide reign of wedded\nintellect and faith, whose morning rays already stream far above our\nhorizon.\u2014_Winchell._ Re. and Sci. p. 84.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\n\u201cExperience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert and\ndead, assumes action, intelligence, and life, when it is combined in a\ncertain way.\u201d\u2014_Atheist._\n\n\u201cBut how does a germ come to live?\u201d\u2014_Deist._\n\n\u201cLife is organization with feeling.\u201d\u2014_Atheist._\n\n\u201cBut that you have these two properties from the motion of\u201d dead atoms, or\nmatter alone, it is impossible to give any proof; and if it can not be\nproved, why affirm it? Why say aloud, \u201cI know,\u201d while you say to yourself,\n\u201cI know not?\u201d\u2014_Voltaire._\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nWhen you venture to affirm that matter acts of itself by an eternal\nnecessity, it must be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid, otherwise\nyou rest your system only on a perhaps. What a foundation for that which\nis most interesting to the human race!\u2014_Voltaire._","title":"The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, April, 1880","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14341}