{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28297/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28297","id":"gutenberg_28297","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28297","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","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 5.\n\n                                May, 1880.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nThe Old Covenant.\u2014The Sabbath\u2014The Law\u2014The Commonwealth Of Israel, And\nChrist.\nInfidels Live In Doubting Castle.\nInfidelity, And The French And American Revolutions In Their Relations To\nThomas Paine.\nShall We Unchain The Tiger? Or, The Fruits Of Infidelity.\nThe Struggle.\nThe Records Respecting The Death Of Thomas Paine.\nThree Reasons For Repudiating Infidelity.\nCol. Ingersoll Is A Philosopher?\nLife Of Elder E. Goodwin.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE OLD COVENANT.\u2014THE SABBATH\u2014THE LAW\u2014THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, AND\nCHRIST.\n\n\nThe original term, rendered \u201cTestament\u201d and \u201cCovenant,\u201d occurs\nthirty-three times in the New Testament. Greenfield defines it thus: \u201cAny\ndisposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation; hence a testament,\nwill; a covenant, mutual promises on mutual conditions, or promises with\nconditions annexed.\u201d Secondly, \u201cA body of laws and precepts to which\ncertain promises are annexed, promises to which are annexed certain laws;\nthe books in which the divine laws are contained, the Old Testament, and\nespecially the Pentateuch.\u201d Upon a careful examination of these\ndefinitions it will be seen at once that the term \u201cTestament\u201d is a good\ntranslation. This is confirmed, in Paul\u2019s letter to the Hebrews, in the\ninter-changeable use of the terms \u201cWill,\u201d \u201cCovenant\u201d and \u201cTestament.\u201d Our\nSabbatarian brethren claim, that the Old Covenant, which was done away,\nwas the verbal agreement of the Children of Israel to keep the law of the\ndecalogue. But this definition is not sufficient. It excludes almost all\nthat was current in its use. It renders it improper to call it a\n\u201cTestament\u201d or \u201cWill,\u201d because fathers make testaments or wills without\nthe consent of their children, and these are called dispositions of\nestates. Their definition of the term also makes the \u201cCovenant\u201d depend\nupon the will of man, for covenants, in the sense of agreements, have\nnothing to do with those who do not enter into them. Neither can men be\nregarded as transgressing a covenant, in the sense of an agreement, unless\nthey have first placed themselves under its obligations. So, if these men\nare right in their definition of the Old Covenant, they are wrong in\ntrying to fasten its conditions upon all mankind. Their logic also\nexcludes, from all the promises of the covenant, all those who were\nincapable of making an agreement. Hence, infants were left to the\nuncovenanted mercies of God. And as for the wicked, who never agreed to\nkeep those commandments, poor souls! they must be dealt with as violators\nof a contract to which they never became a party.\n\nThese absurdities, which are legitimately drawn from their own premises,\ndrive us to the conclusion that their whole theory, upon the covenant\nquestion, is wrong. The apostle Paul says we are the children of a\ncovenant, which he denominates \u201cThe free woman.\u201d \u201cShe is the mother of us\nall.\u201d But, according to Sabbatarian logic, they are the children of two\ncovenants, or women. How is this? One good mother is sufficient. When they\ntell you that the old covenant, which was done away, was the people\u2019s\nagreement to keep the ten commandments, remember that they, by their own\nshowing, set up the same old covenant by agreeing to keep the ten\ncommandments. So it is done away, and it is not done away. That is, if the\npeople say, \u201cWe will keep and do them,\u201d it is established, but if they\nsay, \u201cWe will not,\u201d it is abolished. Again, if it was the people\u2019s\nagreement that was done away, and the ten commandments were the conditions\nof that agreement, then they also are of no force, for the conditions of\nan agreement are always void when the contract is nullified. Again, if the\nLord had nothing to do in causing the Old Covenant to be done away, how\ndid it pass away by the action of one party to it? And how can men enter\ninto it without the concurring assent of the party of the second part?\nAccept the Sabbatarian definition of the term covenant, and it\nlegitimately follows that none were ever in that covenant save those who\nheld converse with Jehovah, through Moses, saying, \u201cAll these things will\nwe observe and do.\u201d It is an old, trite saying, \u201cthat it takes two to make\nan agreement.\u201d And it also takes two to abrogate an agreement. But these\nfriends of the seventh day say, The people rendered that old covenant void\nby their wickedness, that they were at fault, that God never abrogated it,\nthat He always stood firm in reference to its conditions and promises,\nholding the people to its obligations. Then how was it done away? We will\nlet Zechariah answer this question: \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. And the Lord said unto me,\nCast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And\nI took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the\nhouse of the Lord.\u201d\n\nJudas Iscariot sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver, cast the money\ndown at the feet of the priests in the temple; the priests took it and\npurchased the potters\u2019 field to bury strangers in. And \u201cin that day\u201d the\ncovenant of God was broken by the Lord. Now, if the Lord broke that old\ncovenant, it follows that no man enters into it without one more\nconcurring action upon His part. Upon what mountain has He appeared and\nre\u00ebnacted this covenant? And if it was simply the people\u2019s agreement to\nkeep the ten commandments, how did He make it with all the people of\nIsrael, seeing many of them were incapable of entering into an agreement?\nThe truth is this, the Lord made a covenant in the sense of a \u201cTestament\u201d\nor institution. This sense alone admits of the irresponsible in its\nprovisions. In the argument from analogy, drawn from the introduction of\nthe New Testament, our position is confirmed. The Savior\u2019s death gave\nforce to this testament or will, without any concurring action upon the\npart of any man or number of men. And it is a covenant in the sense in\nwhich Greenfield defines the term, that is, in the sense of a testament,\nor will. This also admits of covenanted or bequeathed blessings for all\nthe incapable.\n\nThe Sabbatarian view of the term covenant, if applied to the \u201cNew\nCovenant,\u201d cuts off all who do not enter into this \u201ccontract.\u201d But there\nis no reason in calling either testament a \u201ccontract.\u201d An earthly father\nmay incorporate, among other things, conditions, in his testament, or\nwill, and it is in force, by his death, even though his children find\nfault with it. So it mattered not whether any man in ancient Israel was\nsatisfied with that ancient \u201ctestament.\u201d But the Bible nowhere limits the\nterm covenant to the people\u2019s agreement to keep the decalogue. On the\ncontrary, it is said, \u201cAnd He declared unto you His covenant, which He\ncommanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and He wrote them upon\ntwo tables of stone.\u201d Deut. iv, 13. These commandments were AFTER THE\nTENOR of all that was given by Moses, as we learn in the thirty-fourth\nchapter of Exodus. After Moses had given many precepts, the Lord said,\n\u201cWrite thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made a\ncovenant with thee and with Israel. And he wrote upon the tables the words\nof the covenant, the ten commandments.\u201d This covenant, or testament, like\nall other institutions which the Lord established with the children of\nmen, is accompanied with reasons for its existence, and all the laws and\ninstructions necessary to carry out its principles. The reasons were\nplaced upon the tables of stone along with the commandments. When\nSabbatarians hang up their copy of those tables, it is always a mutilated,\npartial copy. The whole is given to us in the fifth chapter of\nDeuteronomy. No Seventh-day Adventist dare exhibit the full copy before\nhis audience, unless he does it at the peril of his teaching. Here it is:\n\u201cI am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from\nthe house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other Gods before me. Thou\nshalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is\nin heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the waters\nbeneath the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them nor serve\nthem: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of\nthe fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them\nthat hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and\nkeep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in\nvain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in\nvain. Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath\ncommanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but the\nseventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do\nany work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy\nmaid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy\nstranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and maid-servant\nmay rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the\nland of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a\nmighty hand and by a stretched out arm, therefore the Lord thy God\ncommanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. Honor thy father and thy mother as\nthe Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and\nthat it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth\nthee. Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither\nshalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false-witness against thy\nneighbor. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor\u2019s wife. Neither shalt\nthou covet thy neighbor\u2019s house, his field, or his man-servant, or\nmaid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor\u2019s.\nThese words the Lord spake unto all your assembly, in the mount out of the\nmidst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick darkness, with a great\nvoice; and he added no more, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone,\nand delivered them unto you.\u201d\n\nThus we have a _fac simile_ of the law upon the tables of stone. The terms\nemployed in this law limit it to the Jewish people, a people who were\nservants in Egypt. This was the \u201ctestament,\u201d \u201cinstitution,\u201d or \u201ccovenant\u201d\ngiven at Sinai, and it was after the _tenor_ of all the rest that was\ngiven. It is worthy of notice, that there is not a penalty in all that was\nwritten upon those tables. And yet there were terrible penalties inflicted\nfor a violation of its precepts. How is this? Was it all there was of\nGod\u2019s law? If so, where shall we go to find its penalties? This covenant\nis spoken of in Galatians, the fourth chapter. It is called \u201cthe bond\nwoman,\u201d that was cast out. In the third chapter of Corinthians it is\ntermed \u201cthe ministration of condemnation,\u201d and \u201cthe ministration of death\nwritten and engraven in stones, which was done away.\u201d Which Zechariah said\nwas broken by the Lord in the day of the terrible tragedy of the cross of\nChrist.\n\nThe multiplicity of passages in the New Testament bearing upon this great\nfact, causes our legalists in religion to shift about most wonderfully. At\none time, the people\u2019s agreement to keep the law was the covenant that was\ndone away. At another, it was the act of executing the penalty of death\nthat was set aside. At another, it was the glory of Moses\u2019 face that was\ndone away. And at another, it was none of all these, but it was the\nceremonial law of Moses that was done away.\n\nAll these positions were taken by one man, in one discussion with the\nwriter of these lines. All such turns are cheap; it requires no great\nwisdom to accommodate yourself in this manner to the force of\ncircumstances. The fact that the \u201cfirst covenant\u201d was a \u201ctestament,\u201d or a\nbody of laws with certain promises annexed, as well as penalties, is\nevident from Paul\u2019s statement in the ninth chapter of his letter to the\nHebrews. He says, \u201cThen verily the first covenant had also ordinances of\ndivine service, and a worldly sanctuary, for there was a tabernacle made;\nthe first wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the show-bread;\nwhich is called the sanctuary.\u201d The distinction which our friends make\nbetween \u201cMoses\u2019 law\u201d and \u201cGod\u2019s law,\u201d as they are pleased to express it,\nis not only unscriptural, the two phrases being inter-changeable, but also\n_absurd_. Moses gave all, that these men are pleased to term his law, in\nthe name of the Lord. The law of the passover, found in the twelfth\nchapter of Exodus, is prefaced with these words: \u201cAnd the Lord God said\nunto Moses.\u201d In the twenty-fifth chapter of the same book we have the laws\nconcerning the ark, the tabernacle, the priestly service, and all are\nintroduced with this saying: \u201cAnd the Lord spake unto Moses.\u201d Moses never\ngave a law in his own name. Neither did he give one of his own in the name\nof the Lord, because it would have cost him his life. The Lord had guarded\nthis point in the following: \u201cBut the prophet which presumes to speak a\nword in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall\nspeak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.\u201d Now one of\ntwo things is evident: first, all the laws that Moses gave in the name of\nthe Lord were His; or, secondly, Moses violated the law governing the\nprophet. And if the record is false on this account, how can we trust it\nin other respects? It is as easy to turn God out of all the pentateuch,\nand put Moses into it, as to maintain the proposition that Moses had a law\nof his own. Sabbatarians act the part of the unbeliever in getting the\nLord out of the law that was done away, and Moses into it. All that is\naccredited to the Lord was His, otherwise the record is untrustworthy. If\nour friend\u2019s position is true, it follows that Moses is the sole author of\nthe sacrificial system of blood, without which there was no remission, and\nthus the ancient remedial scheme falls, being without divine sanction. But\nthe Lord claims all that our friends hand over to Moses. The following\nphrases are uttered with reference to the priests and other things: \u201cMy\npriest,\u201d \u201cMy sacrifice,\u201d \u201cMine altar,\u201d \u201cMine offering,\u201d 1st Samuel, ii,\n27-29; \u201cThe Lord\u2019s pass-over,\u201d Exodus, xii, 11; \u201cThe feasts of the Lord,\u201d\nLev. xxiii; \u201cMy sanctuary and my Sabbaths,\u201d Ezekiel, xxiii, 38. The manner\nin which Sabbatarians emphasize the phrase \u201cMy Sabbath,\u201d and \u201cMy holy\nday,\u201d is well calculated to mislead the unsuspecting, but those who are\nschooled in biblical literature will regard it as mere _rant_, _cheap\ntheology_, _mere display_! All that Moses gave, as law, was from the Lord,\n_was His_. \u201cThe Lord came down upon Sinai, and spake to them from heaven,\nand gave them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and\ncommandments, and made known to them His holy Sabbath, and commanded\nprecepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of His servant Moses.\u201d Nehemiah,\nix, 13, 14.\n\nThe seventh-day Sabbath was not given to the Gentile world. It would\nrequire just as plain and positive legislation to bind it upon us as it\ndid to establish it in Israel. It was a sign between God and the Hebrews.\nEzek. xxxi, 13-18. \u201cMoreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign\nbetween me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah that doth\nsanctify them.\u201d If there are any Gentile Christians upon the earth who\nthink it is essential to know that it was the Lord that sanctified the\nchildren of Israel, set them apart from the surrounding nations, I would\nsay to such, It is sufficient to your salvation that you know the Lord, as\nmanifested in the flesh in the person of Christ Jesus, and that you love\nand obey him. I can not see that the seventh-day Sabbath, as a sign upon a\nGentile, would tell the truth, for the Lord never sanctified the Gentiles\nin the sense of setting them apart from the surrounding nations. Again, if\nour friends could succeed in making it universal, it would _cease to be a\nsign_. It was a national badge, or sign, between God and the Hebrews. Its\nobject was to keep in their memory that which was true of them _alone_.\n\u201cRemember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord\nthy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand and a stretched out\narm, therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to keep the Sabbath\nday.\u201d Deut. v. Can any Gentile obey this instruction? It is impossible!\nMoses said, \u201cBehold I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the\nLord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go\nto possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them, for this is your wisdom and\nyour understanding, in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these\nstatutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding\npeople. For what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and\njudgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day.\u201d\nDeut. iv, 5. The authority and glory of Christ forbid all such Judaizing\nas that which we speak against. \u201cHe was given of God to be head over all\nthings to the church.\u201d \u201cAnd He is head of all principality and power.\u201d The\nFather put all things under Him. The prophet Isaiah said, \u201cHe shall not\nfail, nor be discouraged till He hath set judgment in the earth, and the\nisles shall wait for His law.\u201d Ch. xlii, 4. And Paul said, \u201cBear ye one\nanother\u2019s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.\u201d Gal. vi, 2.\n\nThe object of law is to regulate the exemplification of principles. Some\nprinciple is exemplified in every act that man performs. And one principle\nmay be in a great variety of acts. The principle of hatred is exemplified\nin a great many different actions; and the principle of love to God is\nmanifested, or exemplified, in every act of obedience to God. So the\nspiritual may be brought out under different dispensations, and by\ndifferent laws, while it remains always the same. Indeed, principles are\nunchangeable; they belong to the nature of things. Covenants, priesthoods,\ndispensations and laws have changed, but principles, _never_. So the moral\nobjective of every law is the same, viz., to bring out and develop the\nspiritual in man. To accomplish this great end it is necessary that the\nevil principles of a carnal, or fleshly nature, should be restrained by\nthe penal sanctions of law, and the principles of man\u2019s higher nature\nbrought out by its motives of good. Such being the nature of principles,\nand the facts of law, Paul says, \u201cWe know that the law is spiritual.\u201d And\nagain, \u201cThe law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after\nthe Spirit.\u201d \u201cDo we then make void law through faith? God forbid; yea, we\nestablish law.\u201d\n\nI have left the article out of this text because it is not in the\noriginal. B. Wilson translates the verse in these words: \u201cDo we then\nnullify law through the FAITH. By no means; but we establish law.\u201d The\nnegative use of law is to restrain the evil; and the affirmative is to\nbring out the good, the spiritual. So, without any interference with _the\nspiritual_ of any law that ever was, either divine or human, we have a\nbetter covenant, or testament, than the old testament; one that is\nestablished upon better promises, which contains \u201cA new and living way\ninto the Holiest,\u201d which Paul says, \u201cIs heaven itself.\u201d This new way was\nconsecrated through the flesh of Christ. The rule of life in this way is\nthe \u201cLaw of Christ.\u201d It is a better law, for us, because its precepts are\nnot limited to our neighbor. The following is a part, at least, of the\ncontrast:\n\nTHE DECALOGUE GIVEN TO ISRAEL.\n\n\u201cNeither shalt thou bear false witness against thy _neighbor_. Neither\nshalt thou desire thy _neighbor\u2019s_ wife. Neither shalt thou covet thy\n_neighbor\u2019s_ house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant,\nhis ox or his ass, or anything that is thy _neighbor\u2019s_. Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery. Thou shalt not kill.\u201d\n\nTHE LAW OF CHRIST BOUND UPON THE WORLD.\n\n\u201cWhosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. But I say unto you, love your\nenemies. If thou mayest be made free use it rather. Be ye not the servants\nof men. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet. Whosoever\nlooketh upon a woman and lusteth after her hath committed adultery already\nin his heart.\u201d\n\nI have presented a sufficient amount of each law to show you a part of the\ngreat contrast which exists on account of the ancient law being given to a\npeople set apart from all the surrounding nations by a legal wall\ninterfering with them in their social walks in life. That law was\nsufficient for all practical purposes among the Jews. But, since that\n\u201cMiddle wall of partition\u201d has been taken down, it is utterly useless to\ntalk about a law limited to your neighbor being any longer worthy of God,\nor a perfect rule for man\u2019s conduct in his associations with all men.\nIndeed, it never was a law regulating a man\u2019s conduct with all men. The\nmiddle wall was taken out of the way, and Jews and Gentiles have shook\nhands in Christian fellowship under the new institution. Let us see how\nthis was brought about. When the law brings about a separation, nothing\nshort of law can undo it, and bring about the union of the parties\nseparated. But, as authority, that controls law, is alone competent to\nremove legal results, we must look for this, as a matter of necessity,\nlying at the foundation of the new institution. It is just there that we\nfind it in these words: \u201cAll authority is given unto me in heaven and in\nearth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name\nof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to\nobserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you.\u201d The result of\nobedience to this law of Christ is expressed in these words: \u201cBut now, in\nChrist Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of\nChrist. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down\nthe middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the\nenmity; even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make\nin himself of twain one new man, so making peace.\u201d Eph. ii, 13-15. The God\nof Abraham said unto Rebecca, \u201cTwo nations are in thy womb.\u201d Gen. xxv, 23.\nThis language had its fulfillment in the decendants of Jacob and Esau. The\npolitical history of the children of Jacob begins at Sinai with their\nbeginning as a nation among the surrounding nations. The law given at\nSinai was a political law, for it was addressed to a community, pertained\nto a community, and was accepted by a community.\n\nSuch is a political law in the strictest sense of the term. This law was\ngiven to the Jews, the decendants of Jacob. Moses said, \u201cThe Lord our God\nmade a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our\nfathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.\u201d\nHoreb is a synonymous with Sinai, and means, properly, ground left dry by\nwater draining off. So, Horeb and Sinai occur in the narrative of the same\nevent. The children of Jacob are known as a commonwealth, from the giving\nof the law onward until their overthrow by the Romans. Paul, speaking of\nthe Gentiles, in past times, says \u201cThey were aliens to the commonwealth of\nIsrael and strangers to the covenants of promise.\u201d The Jews called them\n\u201cdogs.\u201d This great enmity had its origin in the two-fold consideration of\nthe Jew being favored in a temporal and political point of view, and the\npride of his heart, which exalted him in his own imagination above even\nhis moral superiors. This corruption of the heart, with the liability of\nits return, being removed by the abrogation of all that was peculiar to\nthe Jews and their conversion to Christ, Paul says, \u201cThat all are one in\nChrist.\u201d Christ was the bond of union, all were joined to him. But the\nsame authority that separated them by legislation must legislate with\nreference to this grand change that was to take place between these\ndecendants of Jacob and Esau. The law of commandments separating the Jews\nlimited them in moral duties to their neighbors. It was unlawful for them\nto go in unto one of another nation. It limited them in trade and traffic\nto their own countrymen; also limited them to their own people in\nmatrimonial relations. So God must be heard again, I say, _heard!_ for He\nwas heard at the giving of the law, which is now to be taken out of the\nway. When Jesus took Peter, James and John up in a high mountain and was\ntransfigured before them, Moses and Elias, the great representatives of\nthe Patriarchial and Jewish dispensations, appeared unto them and \u201ca\nbright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice out of the cloud, which\nsaid, This is my well-beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, HEAR YE HIM.\u201d\nMath. xvii, 5. Here is the authority that gave the institution peculiar to\nthe Jews legislating with reference to Him whose doings were to end that\nsystem of things, and lead all into \u201ca new and living way.\u201d Paul says:\n\u201cGod, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto\nthe fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His\nSon.\u201d So Christ took away the first will and established the second. See\nHeb. x, 9. Paul says: \u201cAs ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk\nye in Him.\u201d This relation of duty to the reception of Christ has direct\nreference to the character in which we receive him. He was given to\n_rule_, to exercise _Lordship_. He is Lord of all. The term Lord signifies\n\u201cruler by right of possession.\u201d If He is not Lord of all there is an\nabundance of false testimony upon this one subject, and Christianity is\ndiseased in the head. And if he is Lord of all, then we should leave that\nold mountain that shook and burned with fire, and all the political\nparaphernalia of Sinai, and consider ourselves complete in Christ, who is\n\u201c_Emanuel_, God with us.\u201d If any man does this he is not troubled with the\nold \u201cbond woman.\u201d Jehovah said of Christ: \u201cI have given Him for a covenant\nof the people, for a light of the Gentiles.\u201d Isaiah xlii, 2. New duties\nappear before us in the New Testament, with new obligations lying at their\nfoundation. Jesus said: \u201cIf I had not come and spoken unto them, they had\nnot had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sins.\u201d Again: \u201cIf I had\nnot done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had\nsin; but now have they both seen and hated both Me and my Father.\u201d John\nxv, 22-24.\n\nJustification turns no longer upon the ancient law, and the sacrificial\nand typical system of blood is no longer the means of pardon. The law\ncontained a shadow of good things to come, but the body was of Christ. He\nthat believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is\ncondemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only\nbegotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into\nthe world, and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are\nevil. Everything turns in this dispensation upon Christ and his Law. Jesus\ntold his disciples to teach their converts to observe all things which He\nhad commanded them to teach, and they filled their mission. Paul said, He\n\u201cshunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,\u201d \u201ckept back nothing.\u201d\nWith reference to law, he said, \u201cIf any man think himself to be a prophet,\nor spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write are the\ncommandments of the Lord.\u201d For the glory of Christ, as his just meed of\npraise, it was written, \u201cWhatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the\nname of the Lord Jesus.\u201d \u201cChrist is the end of the Law for righteousness\nto every one that believeth.\u201d In this major proposition the minor, of the\nseventh-day Sabbath, is involved. The Lord said of Israel, \u201cI will also\ncause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her\nSabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.\u201d Hosea, ii, 11. No man is threatened,\nby Christ or any of his apostles, on account of Sabbath-breaking, or any\nof those things which are peculiar to the Jews. But men are threatened for\ndisobedience to the Gospel of Christ. The New Testament is of Christ. Its\nreligion is not \u201cthe Jews\u2019 religion,\u201d but Christ\u2019s. There was much in the\nOld Testament that is in the New, but it is there by the authority of\nChrist. Hence, we are \u201ccomplete in Him who is the head of all principality\nand power.\u201d Much in the laws of the United States was first in the laws of\nEngland, but we do nothing with reference to English authority. So it is\nwith us, as respects all who went before Christ, we do nothing in\nreference to them, but do all in reference to Christ, and for His name.\nThe Old Kingdom of Israel, with its political law, statutes and judgments,\nhas passed away, and Christ reigns \u201c_all in all_.\u201d To Him \u201cbe glory and\nmajesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.\u201d Jude, xxv.\n\n\n\n\n\nINFIDELS LIVE IN DOUBTING CASTLE.\n\n\nHaving shown that no man in his senses can be an atheist, unless he assume\nthat he comprehends the universe in his mind, with all its abstract\nessences and principles, which assumption would be to make himself\nomnipresent and eternal, a god in fact; and having seen that the\nproposition of the divine existence and perfections is demonstrable from\nthe universe, as far as it is known in all its general laws and in all its\nparts, we proceed from these prefatory considerations to other matters\nstill more intimately introductory to our design.\n\nIt is essentially preliminary to a clear and forcible display of the\nreasonableness and certainty of our faith in Jesus Christ as the author of\nimmortality to man, that we ascertain the proper ground on which the\nmodern skeptic, of whatever creed, stands when he avows his opposition to\nthe gospel. That we may duly estimate the strength of his opposition, we\nmust not only enumerate his objections or arguments, but we must exactly\nascertain the exact position which he occupies. Does he stand within a\nfortified castle, or in the open field? Presents he himself to our view in\na stronghold, well garrisoned with the invincible forces of logic, of\nscience, and of fact? or defies he armies and the artillery of light,\nrelying wholly upon himself, his own experience, without a shield, without\nan ally, without science, without history, and consequently a single fact\nto oppose?\n\nThat we may, then, truly and certainly ascertain his precise attitude,\nbefore we directly address him, we shall accurately survey his whole\npremises. Does he say that he _knows_ the gospel to be false? No, he can\nnot; for he was not in Judea in the days of the evangelical drama. He,\ntherefore, could not test the miracles, or sensible demonstrations, by any\nof his senses; nor prove to himself that Jesus rose not from the dead.\nSpeaking in accordance with the evidence of sense, of consciousness, and\nof experience, he can not say that he _knows_ the gospel to be a cunningly\ndevised fable. He has not, then, in all his premises _knowledge_, in its\ntrue and proper meaning, to oppose to the Christian\u2019s faith or hope. What\nremains?\n\nCan he say, in truth, that he _believes_ the gospel to be false? He can\nnot; because belief without testimony is impossible; and testimony that\nthe gospel facts did not occur is not found extant on earth in any\nlanguage or nation under heaven. No contemporaneous opposing testimony has\never been heard of, except in one instance, the sleeping and incredible\ntestimony of the Roman guard, which has a lie stamped indelibly on its\nforehead: \u201cHis disciples stole his dead body while we were asleep.\u201d He\nthat can believe this is not to be reasoned with. We repeat it with\nemphasis, that no living man can say, according to the English Dictionary,\nthat he _believes_ the gospel to be false.\n\nAlike destitute of knowledge and of faith to oppose to the testimony of\napostles, prophets, and myriads of contemporaneous witnesses, what has the\nskeptic to present against the numerous and diversified evidences of the\ngospel? Nothing in the universe but his _doubts_. He can, in strict\nconformity to language and fact, only say, he doubts whether it be true.\nHe is, then, legitimately no more than an inmate of Doubting Castle. His\nfortification is built up of doubts and misgivings, cemented by antipathy.\nFarther than this the powers of nature and of reason can not go.\n\nHow far these doubts are rational, scientific, and modest, may yet appear\nin the sequel; meanwhile, we only survey the premises which the infidel\noccupies, and the forces he has to bring into the action. These, may we\nnot say, are already logically ascertained to be an army of doubts only.\n\nSome talk of the immodesty, others of the folly, others of the\nmaliciousness of the unbeliever; but not to deal in harsh or uncourteous\nepithets, may we not say, that it is most unphilosophic to dogmatize\nagainst the gospel on the slender grounds of sheer dubiety. No man,\ndeserving the name of a _philosopher_, can ever appear among the crusading\nforces of pamphleteers and declaimers against the faith of Christians, for\ntwo of the best reasons in the world; he has nothing better to substitute\nfor the motives, the restraining fears to the wicked, and the animating\nhopes to the righteous, which the gospel tenders; and he has nothing to\noppose to its claims but the weakness and uncertainty of his doubts.\nFranklin was a philosopher, but Paine was a madman. The former doubted,\nbut never dogmatized\u2014never opposed the gospel, but always discountenanced\nand discouraged the infidel; the latter gave to his doubts the authority\nof oracles, and madly attempted to silence the Christian\u2019s artillery by\nthe licentious scoffings of the most extravagant and unreasonable\nskepticism.\n\nModesty is the legitimate daughter of true philosophy; but dogmatism,\nunless the offspring of infallible authority, is the ill-bred child of\nignorance and arrogance. Every man, then, who seeks to make proselytes to\nhis skepticism by converting his doubts into arguments, is anything but a\nphilosopher or a philanthropist.\n\nOne of the most alarming signs of this age is the ignorance and\nrecklessness of the youthful assailants of the Bible. Our cities, villages\nand public places of resort are thronged with swarms of these Lilliputian\nvolunteers in the cause of skepticism. Apprenticed striplings, and sprigs\nof law and physic, whose whole reading of standard authors on general\nscience, religion, or morality, in ordinary duodecimo, equals not the\nyears of their unfinished, or just completed minority, imagine that they\nhave got far in advance of the vulgar herd, and are both philosophers and\ngentlemen if they have learned at second hand, a few scoffs and sneers at\nthe Bible, from Paine, Voltaire, Bolingbroke, or Hume. One would think,\ncould he listen to their impudence, that Bacon, Newton, Locke, and all the\ngreat masters of science, were very pigmies, and that they themselves were\nsturdy giants of extraordinary stature in all that is intellectual,\nphilosophic and learned. These would-be baby demagogues are a public\nnuisance to society, whose atheistic breath not unfrequently pollutes the\nwhole atmosphere around them, and issues in a moral pestilence among that\nclass who regard a fine hat and a cigar as the infallible criteria of a\ngentleman and scholar.\n\nThese creatures have not sense enough to doubt, nor to think sedately on\nany subject; and therefore, we only notice them while defining the ground\noccupied by the unbelievers of this generation. They prudently call\nthemselves skeptics, but imprudently carry their opposition to the Bible,\nbeyond all the bounds embraced in their own definitions of skepticism. A\nskeptic can only _doubt_, never _oppugn_ the gospel. He becomes an\natheist, or an infidel, bold and dogmatic, as soon as he opens his mouth\nagainst the Bible.\n\nWere we philosophically to class society as it now exists in this country\nin reference to the gospel, we should have believers, unbelievers, and\nskeptics. We would find some who have voluntarily received the apostolic\ntestimony as true; others who have rejected it as false; and a third class\nwho simply doubt, and neither receive nor reject it as a communication\nfrom heaven. But, though, unbelievers, while they call themselves\nskeptics, often wage actual war against the faith and hope of Christians,\nstill their actual rejection of the gospel has no other foundation than\npure aversion to its restraints and some doubts as to its authenticity.\nThe quagmire of their own doubts, be it distinctly remembered, is the sole\nground occupied by all the opponents of the gospel, whether they style\nthemselves antitheists, atheists, theists, unbelievers, or\nskeptics.\u2014_Alexander Campbell, in 1835._\n\n\n\n\n\nINFIDELITY, AND THE FRENCH AND AMERICAN REVOLUTIONS IN THEIR RELATIONS TO\nTHOMAS PAINE.\n\n\nInfidels can not free themselves from the bands which tie the universe to\nits God. Every effort has been fruitless. Not one writer among all their\nhosts has been lucky enough to avoid the use of Christian terms that are\nin direct antagonism with their speculation and positions. It will be\ninteresting to review, occasionally, their literature.\n\nSpeaking of Thomas Paine, Mr. Ingersoll says: \u201cEvery American with the\nDIVINE mantle of charity, should cover all his faults.\u201d What use has Col.\nIngersoll or any other infidel for the word DIVINE? The term is thus\ndefined: Pertaining to the true God; (from the Latin DIVINUS; from DEUS, a\ngod) proceeding from God; appropriated to God; or celebrating His praise;\nexcellent in the supreme degree; apparently above what is human; godlike;\nheavenly; holy; sacred; spiritual. As a noun: one versed in divine things\nor divinity; a theologian; a minister of the gospel; a priest; a\nclergyman. _Zell\u2019s Encyclopedia._\n\nAgain, Mr. Ingersoll says, \u201cUpon the head of his father, GOD had never\npoured the DIVINE petroleum of _authority_.\u201d So much the better for the\nrace. What would infidels do if they had the authority? \u201cHume is called a\nmodel man, a man as nearly perfect as the nature of human frailty will\npermit.\u201d He maintained that pleasure or profit is the test of morals; that\n\u201cthe lack of honesty is of a piece with the lack of strength of body;\u201d\nthat \u201csuicide is lawful and commendable;\u201d that \u201cfemale infidelity, when\nknown, is a small thing; when unknown, nothing;\u201d \u201cthat adultery must be\npracticed if men would obtain all the advantages of this life; and that if\ngenerally practiced it would, in time, cease to be scandalous, and if\npracticed frequently and secretly would come to be thought no crime at\nall.\u201d\n\nLord Herbert taught that the \u201cindulgence of lust and anger is no more to\nbe blamed than thirst or drowsiness.\u201d\n\nVoltaire contended \u201cfor the unlimited gratification of the sexual\nappetites, and was a sensualist of the lowest type; nevertheless he had\nthe amazing good sense to wish that he had never been born.\u201d\n\nRousseau was, by his confession, a habitual liar and thief, and debauchee;\na man so utterly vile that he took advantage of the hospitality of friends\nto plot their domestic ruin; a man so destitute of natural affection that\nhe committed his BASE-BORN children to the charity of the public. To use\nhis own language, \u201cguilty without remorse, he soon become so without\nmeasure.\u201d\n\nThomas Paine was, according to the verdict of history, \u201caddicted to\nintemperance in his last years, given to violence and abusiveness, had\ndisreputable associates, lived with a woman who was not his wife, and left\nto her whatever remnant of fortune he had.\u201d\n\nWhat would such godless infidels give us if the Almighty God should \u201cpour\nthe petroleum of authority upon their heads?\u201d But, in all candor, what use\nhas Col. Ingersoll for the _idea of authority coming from God_? Can\u2019t he\nkeep in his own ruts. \u201cThe DIVINE petroleum of authority was never poured\nupon the head of _Thomas Paine\u2019s father_.\u201d Well, so much the better for\nthe reputation of God. But why does Mr. Ingersoll use the term God, and\nhave so much to say of Him? Let us hear him. He says, whoever is a friend\nof man is also a friend of God\u2014if there is one. Yes! \u201cIS THERE IS ONE.\u201d\nThis reminds me of an old infidel who was struggling with the cramp colic,\nand just as a minister was approaching his bedside he turned himself over\nin the bed and said, O Lord, if there is any Lord, save my soul, if I\u2019ve\ngot any soul. The minister walked out. What is the condition of those\nminds which modify their declarations with the saying \u201cif there is any\nLord,\u201d \u201cif there is one,\u201d \u201cif I\u2019ve got any soul.\u201d How much more manly is\nit to own the great universal and instinctive or inate truth, that there\nis a Master, God, or great first Living Intelligence, and cease acting\nfoolishly.\n\nOnce more, the colonel, speaking of Thomas Paine\u2019s work, says, \u201cHe was\nwith the army. He shared its defeats, its dangers, and its glory. When the\nsituation became desperate, when gloom settled upon all, he gave them the\n\u2018Crisis.\u2019 It was a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, leading the\nway to freedom, honor and glory.\u201d What use has the colonel for such\nlanguage? From whence did it come? Is he sitting upon the bones of Moses\nand making grimaces at the old prophet while he is adopting his sentences?\nInfidels blaspheme the name of Moses, and abuse his hyperboles and his\nfacts as well, and, at the same time, go to his quiver to get their very\nbest arrows.\n\n\u201cAt the close of the Revolution no one stood higher in America than Thomas\nPaine.\u201d\u2014_Ingersoll._\n\n\u201cAt that time the seeds sown by the great infidels were beginning to bear\nfruit in France.\u201d\u2014_Ingersoll._\n\n_Well, well._ To what \u201cmount\u201d have we come at last? Paine sailed to France\nin 1787. \u201cHe was elected to represent the Department of Calais in the\nNational Convention, and took his seat in that radical assembly in 1792.\u201d\nAt this time Col. Ingersoll\u2019s church had everything its own way in France.\nThere was no God to respect or devil to fear. \u201cFree thought\u201d ruled\u2014its\nreign was a reign of night. The goddess of reason was the \u201ctwin sister of\nthe Spanish Inquisition.\u201d The soldiers were in power, and great hearts\nwere made to bleed. Three hundred and sixty-six men in the National\nConvention voted for the death of the king. Three hundred and fifty-five\nvoted against his execution. It is true that Tom Paine was one of the\nthree hundred and fifty-five. A year after the king\u2019s execution Tom was\nput into prison, and remained there nearly two years. When he was released\nhe wrote the second part of the Age of Reason, and in 1802 he came back to\nAmerica. What he did for American liberty was done while he was a Quaker,\nand before he wrote his detestable works against the Bible. Let some bold\ninfidel produce just one noble public act that Paine did for our country\nafter he avowed himself an infidel. _Will it be done?_\n\nThe leaders of the French revolution were the disciples of Rousseau,\nVoltaire and Diderot. They were atheists, or infidels. Tom Paine was one\nof their number, participated in their deliberations, helped to get up the\nconstitution they enacted. What they did is what the infidels of the\nUnited States wish to have done. They wiped out Christianity by vote, and\nforbade the utterance of the name of God to their children. They abolished\nthe Lord\u2019s day, and made the week to consist of _ten_ instead of seven\ndays. They took the bells from the churches and cast them into cannons.\nChaumette, a leader in the convention, came before the president \u201cleading\na courtesan with a troop of her associates.\u201d He lifted her veil, and said,\n\u201cMortals! recognize no other divinity than Reason, of which I present to\nyou the loveliest and purest personification.\u201d The president bowed and\nrendered devout adoration. The same scene was re\u00ebnacted in the cathedral\nof Notre Dame, with increased outrages upon God and common-sense. Wrong\nwas reputed right, and the distinction between vice and virtue was\nbanished.\n\nFrom this time, and onward, the test of attachment to the government was\ncontempt for religion and decency. Those suspected of disloyalty were\ngathered; one thousand and five hundred women and children were shut up in\none prison, without fire, bed, cover, or provisions, for two days. Men\nescaped by giving up their fortunes, and women escaped by parting with\ntheir virtue.\n\nSeventeen thousand perished in Paris during this reign of infidel terror.\nThis ungodly abrogation of religion in France cost the nation three\nmillion of lives\u2014_think of it!_ France\u2019s most dark and damning record was\nthe fruit of the tenets of the men that Col. Ingersoll lauds to the\nheavens. They were the fruits of the labors of the men with whom Tom Paine\nsat, and believed, and voted. \u201cHis faith was their faith.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt was the Quaker Paine who worked for our independence, and not the\ninfidel Paine. He did nothing in the interests of our national liberty\nafter he avowed his irreligious principles.\u201d Neither was he the first to\nraise the voice in favor of national liberty. Ten years before he wrote\nhis work entitled \u201cCommon Sense,\u201d at the suggestion of Franklin and Dr.\nBenjamin Rush, which was in 1776, Patrick Henry\u2019s voice was heard amid the\nassembled colonists in Virginia. He said: \u201cC\u00e6sar had his Brutus, Charles\nI. his Cromwell, and George III.\u2014\u201d Just then some one cried out,\n\u201cTreason!\u201d After a pause, Henry added,\u2014\u201cmay profit by their example.\u201d\nYears before Tom Paine came to America, even in 1748, it went to record\nthat American legislatures were tending to independence. \u201cThey were\ncharged with presumption in declaring their own rights and privileges.\u201d\nOur independence was predicted near at hand from 1758 and onwards. In\n1774, before Paine came from England, the word freedom was ringing out\nupon the air. \u201cJames Otis was hailing the dawn of a new empire\u201d in 1765.\nIn this year there were utterances of such sentiments as tended to evolve\nthe declaration of 1776, and these were heard all over the land from\nBoston to Charleston, S. C. In 1773 \u201cSamuel Adams insisted that the\ncolonies should have a congress to frame a bill of rights, or to form an\nindependent state, an American commonwealth.\u201d The North Carolinians\nrenounced their allegiance to the king of England in the Mecklenberg\ndeclaration, which was made in May, 1775. But Paine\u2019s little book,\nsuggested by Dr. Benjamin Rush and Franklin, and called \u201cCommon Sense,\u201d\nwas published in 1776. Hildreth, writing of the year 1802, says that\n\u201cPaine, instead of being esteemed as formerly, as a lover of liberty,\nwhose pen has contributed to hasten the Declaration of Independence, was\nnow detested by large numbers as the libeler of Washington.\u201d In 1795 the\n_Aurora_ put out the following language, which seems to be that to which\nHildreth alludes: \u201cIf ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American\nnation was debauched by Washington; if ever a nation was deceived by a\nman, the American nation has been deceived by Washington. Let the history\nof the federal government instruct mankind, that the mask of patriotism\nmay be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the\npeople.\u201d This, gentle reader, was from the pen of the man whom Mr.\nIngersoll would immortalize if he could.\n\nWilliam Carver addressed a private letter to Thomas Paine, dated Dec. 2,\n1806, and published in the New York _Observer_ Nov. 1, 1877, in which we\nhave the following revelations: \u201cA respectable gentleman from New Rochelle\ncalled to see me a few days back, and said that every body was tired of\nyou there and that no one would undertake to board and lodge you. I\nthought this was the case, as I found you at a tavern in a most miserable\nsituation. You appeared as if you had not been shaved for a fortnight, and\nas to a shirt, it could not be said that you had one on, it was only the\nremains of one, and this likewise appeared not to have been off your back\nfor a fortnight, and was nearly the color of tanned leather; and you had\nthe most disagreeable smell possible, just like that of our poor beggars\nin England. Do you remember the pains I took to clean you? That I got a\ntub of warm water and soap, and washed you from head to foot, and this I\nhad to do three times before I could get you clean? You say also that you\nfound your own liquors during the time you boarded with me, but you should\nhave said, \u2018I found only a small part of the liquor I drank during my stay\nwith you; this part I purchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn of\nbrandy containing four gallons, and this did not serve me three weeks.\u2019\nThis can be proved, and I mean not to say anything I can not prove, for I\nhold this as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact that you drank one\nquart of brandy per day, at my expense, during the different times that\nyou have boarded with me, the demijohn alone mentioned excepted, and the\nlast fourteen weeks you were sick. Is not this a supply of liquor for\ndinner and supper? Now sir, I think I have drawn a complete portrait of\nyour character, yet, to enter upon every minutia, would be to give a\nhistory of your life, and to develop the fallacious mask of hypocrisy and\ndeception under which you have acted in your political, as well as moral,\ncapacity of life.\u201d So much for the apostate Quaker\u2019s character after the\nclose of the American revolution.\n\nMr. Lecky, an infidel, says, \u201cIt was reserved for Christianity to present\nto the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen\ncenturies has filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has\nshown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and\nconditions; has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the\nhighest incentive of practice: amid all the sins and failing; amid all the\npriestcraft, the persecution and fanaticism which have defaced the church,\nit has preserved IN THE CHARACTER OF ITS FOUNDER AN ENDURING PRINCIPLE OF\nREGENERATION.\u201d If such be the fountain let the stream continue to flow.\n\n\n\n\n\nSHALL WE UNCHAIN THE TIGER? OR, THE FRUITS OF INFIDELITY.\n\n\n                          By Eld. A. I. Maynard.\n\n\nAn infidel production was submitted to Benjamin Franklin manuscript; he\nreturned it to the author with a letter, from which the following\nquotations are extracted: \u201cI would advise you not to attempt unchaining\nthe Tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other\nperson.... If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without\nit?\u201d He informs us that he was \u201can advocate of infidelity in his early\nyouth, a confirmed Deist.\u201d He says his \u201carguments perverted some other\nyoung persons, particularly Collins and Ralph, and when he recollected\nthat they both treated him exceedingly ill without the least remorse, and\nalso remembered the behavior of Keith, another \u2018Freethinker,\u2019 and his own\nconduct toward Vernon and a Miss Reed, which at times gave him great\nuneasiness, he was led to suspect that his theory, if true, was not very\nuseful.\u201d\n\nYouth and inexperience have been the secret of many young persons being\nled astray, like Franklin, by infidel speculations; but age and\nobservation have convinced many of them that all infidel speculations are\nempty and worthless. Look at the history of infidelity in France and\nScotland, and then look at liberalism in America, with Col. Ingersoll\nleading the van. Can\u2019t you see that its only tendency is to loosen the\nrestraints of morality and \u201cunchain the Tiger?\u201d\n\nThe inconsiderate and inexperienced youth of both sexes, have need of all\nthe motives of religion to lead them from vice, to support their virtue,\nand retain them in its practice until it becomes habitual.\n\nUnbeliever, if you read this article, and remember that you have prepared\none sentence to cut one cord that helps to hold the Tiger, _burn it_. Do\nnot unchain the animal. Would you substitute infidelity for Christianity,\nfor the religion of the Bible? Would you do that in this country? The\nenemies of this religion confess that its code of morals is holy, just and\ngood, its doctrine is dignified and glorious; its tendency is to purity\nand peace; \u201cit is pure, peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full\nof mercy and good fruits; without partiality, and without hypocrisy.\u201d\nMontesquieu, the publisher of the Persian letters and president of the\nparliament of Bordeaux, says: \u201cThe Christian religion, which ordains that\nmen should love each other, would, without doubt, have every nation\nblessed with the best political and civil laws, because these, next to\nreligion, are the greatest good that men can have.\u201d\n\nThe Congress of 1776, speaking of religion, declared it was the \u201conly\nsolid basis of public liberty and happiness.\u201d General Washington said it\nwas \u201cone of the great pillars of human happiness, and the firmest prop of\nthe duties of men and citizens.\u201d What could we gain by exchanging it for\nDeism, or Atheism, or Ingersollism? Infidelity proposes to break down the\naltars of prayer, take away our Bibles and our days of worship, shut up\nthe doors against all our Sunday-schools and turn more than a million of\nchildren into the streets, away from sweet song and moralizing influences,\nand the pure morals of the gospel of Christ. This would bereave the living\nof his rule of life, and rob the dying of the antidote of death.\n\nShall we \u201cunchain the Tiger\u201d\u2014_unbelief_? What would it bring us in return?\nIts doctrines are vague speculations, founded on neither data nor\nevidence; some of its supporters believe in some kind of a God, while some\ndeny every God; some few believe in the immortality of the soul, while a\nmajority, with the French infidels, write over the gates of their\ncemeteries, \u201cDeath is eternal sleep.\u201d\n\nIn looking over the various infidel productions I think of the old saying,\n\u201cBe sure you are right, and then go ahead.\u201d There is no certainty in their\nspeculations. They do not agree even in their so-called moral code, nor,\nas yet, in their doctrinal speculations.\n\nLord Herbert and the Earl of Shaftesbury thought that the light of nature\nwould teach all men, without the aid of revelation, to observe the\nmorality of the Bible. Spinosa and Hobbes, one believing in a God, and the\nother an Atheist, agreed that there was nothing that was either right or\nwrong in its own nature; and also agreed \u201cthat every man had a right to\nobtain, either by force or fraud, everything which either his reason or\nhis passions prompted him to believe was useful to himself\u2014duties to the\nState were his only duties.\u201d\n\nBlount, another Freethinker, supposed \u201cthat the moral law of nature\njustified self-murder.\u201d Lord Bolingbroke claimed that it enjoined\npolygamy; and neither Blount nor Bolingbroke prohibited fornication, or\nadultery, or incest, except between parents and children.\n\nBut the vagueness and uncertainty of the doctrinal speculations of\ninfidelity, and the looseness and immorality of its rules of life, are not\nthe only objections to it. Its tendency, wherever it has been introduced\nin the history of our world, has been evil, and _only_ evil. France, at\nthe commencement of her revolution in 1789, was an infidel nation. The\nprofligacy of the Catholic priesthood, and the demoralizing example of the\nRegent, Duke of Orleans, and the infidel publications of Voltaire and his\nassociates, had produced a contempt for religion through every rank of\nsociety. The people of France were taught by their literati that the Bible\nwas at war with their liberties; and that they could never expect to\noverturn the throne till they had, first, broken down the \u201caltar.\u201d HERE\nTHE TIGER WAS UNCHAINED!\n\nThe lusts and passions of man were set free from the restraints of\nChristianity, and the bloody history of that nation, in its devotion to\ninfidelity, should convince every man that infidelity only \u201c_unchained the\ntiger_\u201d! It did France no good, _but much evil_. In this state of things\nFrance needed revolution, as America did, and had she engaged in it, with\nas pious reliance upon God, \u201cand with the hearts of her people deeply\nimbued with the morality of the Bible, the scion of liberty, carried in\nthe honored Lafayette from this country,\u201d would have taken deep root, and\nspread forth its branches; and ere this time the fairest portion of Europe\nmight have reposed under its shadow. But her principles poisoned her\nmorals, and her immorality disqualified her for freedom. After expending\nan incredible amount of treasure, and sacrificing more than two million of\nmen, she consented to be ruled by a despot in hope of some protection from\nher own people, and in hope of some security against the animal which she\nhad unchained.\n\nWith such facts before us, let us Americans decide, not merely as\nChristians, but as \u201cpatriots and fathers,\u201d whether we will cling to the\npure \u201cGospel of Jesus Christ,\u201d given to us in the love of Heaven, and in\nthe blood of Jesus, rather than accept in its stead the empty, Godless,\nChristless, good-for-nothing negative of God and Christ and Christianity.\nThe chief article in the unbeliever\u2019s creed is in these words, \u201cI believe\nin all unbelief.\u201d\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nWill not our friends take interest enough in the JOURNAL to increase its\ncirculation. There is no reason why it should not be immediately doubled,\nand thus placed upon a solid basis. It is our intention to make it a\nthorough defense of the truth, so much so that all will relish it, and\nremember it with delight.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE STRUGGLE.\n\n\n    \u201cPassion riots; reason then contends,\n    And on the conquest every bliss depends.\u201d\n\n\nThere are two different periods in the history of the race; in the history\nof a nation; in the history of the church; in the history of moral\ninstitutions, and in the history of families. In one the intellect\npredominates, governs; in the other the emotional nature, or passion,\nrules. The fatal day in the history of a nation is the day in which,\nthrough party strife or otherwise, a nation of people becomes a seething\nmass of heated passion. Such a nation is like a vessel tossed upon the\nwaves above the falls of some mighty river, liable to be buried in the\nwhirlpool of destruction. Men who are governed by their emotional nature\nare most liable to disappointments, to troubles, and difficulties of every\nkind. Select all the miserable families in your community, tell me where\nthey are, and I will show you every family in which passion reigns.\n\nTroubles are generally legitimate children of passion. Who has not heard\nsome one say, repentingly, \u201cIf I had taken a second, sober thought I would\nnot have done it.\u201d Intellect belongs to our higher nature, and emotion\nbelongs to our lower. Intelligence is always at a discount where the\nemotional nature governs\u2014it is subordinated to passion. When the intellect\ngoverns, the emotional is subjected to thought; when either one\npredominates, the other is brought under and enslaved. These are the two\nconflicting elements in man\u2019s nature which are generally at war with each\nother, leading to different and antagonistic results. During the dark\nages, which were ushered in through the repudiation of intelligence and\nthe predominance of passion, the emotional reigned, and men were governed\nby their passions in religious as well as state affairs. The shadows of\nthose ages still linger with some communities, and with many persons in\nalmost all communities. Our fathers had a long and hard struggle in\ngetting away from an emotional to an intellectual state, both in civil as\nwell as religious affairs. To-day, if we consider this matter in\nconnection with our people as a nation, we may safely say that we are in\nan intellectual period\u2014mind predominates. This is an age of investigation.\nThe time was, in the history of our fathers, when a man was fined fifty\npounds of tobacco if he refused to have his innocent child christened.\n_See the_ \u201c_old Blue Laws._\u201d The time was when innocent persons were\ntried, condemned, and put to death for being, in the estimation of men,\nclothed with disgraceful ignorance, _witches_. Who has not heard of the\n\u201cSalem witchcraft?\u201d\n\nThe emotional nature of man, as a ruling sovereign, is losing its\n\u201clegal-tender value\u201d daily. The time was when it brought a premium in the\nmost of the churches in our country. An aged father, who is now \u201cacross\nthe river,\u201d once said to me, \u201cI was bewildered, and mentally lost for\nthirty years of my life.\u201d I asked him for the facts. He, answering, said:\n\u201cDuring all that period of time I was a church member, and, like some\nothers, I was a quiet, still kind of a soul; I paid my honest debts; told\nthe truth about my neighbors, and lived a moral life to the very best of\nmy abilities. There were others of the same character. The preachers\nfrequently called us Quakers\u2014the Quakers were a very still people in those\ndays. There were others who were reckless; would not always tell the\ntruth, and would not always pay their honest debts, but they were,\nnevertheless, very noisy in the church, and the preacher always made most\nof those noisy fellows. Now,\u201d said the aged father, \u201cI never could\nunderstand that.\u201d The old man lived to learn the secret, and changed his\nreligious relations and began a new life in religion.\n\nThe scenes of the \u201cCane Ridge revival,\u201d down in Kentucky, have not been\nrepeated in all our country for more than twenty years, and it is probable\nthat they never will be. There are many things in the past history of\nreligion in our country that will never be repeated. Did you ever witness\na panic in a large congregation of people? If you have, you may go with me\nto \u201cCane Ridge.\u201d Before we start I wish to remind you of the fact that\nsome of the most fearful panics known to men took place where, and when,\nthere was no reason for them outside of existing ignorance. Fright or\nfear, coupled with ignorance, produced them. Now let us go to \u201cCane\nRidge.\u201d There we find the people in the emotional period in the history of\nreligion. They are laboring under the conviction that Jehovah has\nconcentrated all the powers of His Spirit at Cane Ridge\u2014it is the common\nconviction. The people all over the country believe that God is there. The\nexcitement runs high, and yet higher; it becomes contagious\u2014a religious\nepidemic\u2014the ruling element being the thought of the presence of the\nDivine Majesty, and the emotional nature of man the field of its\noperations. All the ignorance of a genuine panic is there. There were no\nwell-informed unbelievers there to tear off the veil, nor better-informed\nChristians to remove it, not even so much as a Wesley to exonerate God by\nsaying, \u201cI am constrained to believe that it is the devil tearing them as\nthey are coming to Christ.\u201d No! There is one conviction at Cane Ridge\u2014it\nis this: _Jehovah is here._ It was a wonderful panic\u2014a wonderful time.\nPersons going on to the ground immediately fell down like dead men; got up\nwith the jerks; barked like dogs. Women went backwards and forwards,\nmaking singular gestures; their heads were bobbing with the jerks, and\ntheir long hair cracking like whips. The scene was beyond description. The\nwhole country flocked to the place, and all were confounded with amazement\nand astonishment.\n\nIf such operations were religion, our country has been without it for a\nlong time. Then our old-fashioned camp-meetings\u2014where are they? They are\nthings of the past. I recollect leaving a camp-ground at a late hour of\nthe night, just as the congregation divided up into groups, and the groups\nwent out into the woods in different directions to engage in secret\nprayer. We heard them when we were three miles away\u2014_strange secret\nprayer_! Do you know anything of that kind of secret prayer at the present\ntime?\n\nThe common pulpit teaching of those times was wonderful(?), but it was the\nbest they had. It was common for preachers to make war upon education.\nThey often boasted of their ignorance. They claimed that education was not\nnecessary to qualify a man for the pulpit. The best school teachers in our\ncountry received twelve and fifteen dollars per month for teaching, and\nboarded themselves. Teachers who now pay five dollars per week for board,\ncan\u2019t see how those old teachers got along upon such wages. In those times\nit was very common for teachers to get their board for seventy-five cents\nper week. The farmers claimed that it was unnecessary to educate their\ndaughters, and only necessary to educate their sons sufficiently well to\nenable them to keep their accounts. Beyond this it was often claimed that\nan education was of no value\u2014that it only made rascals. I recollect a very\nzealous old man who preached for the German Baptists; he is now \u201cacross\nthe waves.\u201d Once, in my presence, he disposed of a grammatical argument\nthat was put against him, by saying, \u201cIt is the wisdom of the world, and\nit is sensual and devilish.\u201d It was common forty years ago for preachers\nto say, \u201cI don\u2019t know what I shall say, but just as the Lord gives it to\nme I will hand it to you.\u201d As a general thing those men knew no better,\nand the masses of the people knew no better. The people were living in an\nEmotional period, with the exception of a few brave thinkers, and they\nwere governed by their emotions.\n\nProsperity grew with the growth of our country, and the standard of\neducation was elevated. The free-school system took the place of the\nold-fashioned subscription schools, which were worth twelve dollars per\nmonth to the whole community, and the brave thinkers continued stirring up\nthought in religion, and giving the fathers and mothers trouble about this\nthing of confounding religion with passion, and our country is now fairly\nat sea in an Intellectual period. Religion is now a thing to be learned\nand lived\u2014_to be done_. Those brave men who advocated an intelligent\nreligion forty years ago, were denounced, from almost every pulpit in our\ncountry, as a set of \u201cwhitewashed infidels,\u201d having no religion, and\n\u201cwithout God in the world.\u201d\n\nBut that day is past, and we are in a period in which mind generally\npredominates. The language of the emotional is seldom heard. In that\nperiod it was common to hear men ask: \u201cHow did you get religion?\u201d \u201cwhere\ndid you get religion?\u201d \u201cwhere did you get religion?\u201d \u201cdescribe it;\u201d \u201cO I\ncan\u2019t, it is better felt than expressed.\u201d Such language was in keeping\nwith a very common idea which was held sacred in those days. It was this,\nthe Lord made general provision for the salvation of men, but He makes a\nspecial application to the sinner. Of course, all to whom salvation was\nnot especially applied, were, in the estimation of those people, _lost_.\nThere are a few communities yet that are away back in the emotional\nperiod. There are men and women in every community who are yet governed by\ntheir emotional nature in matters of religion. Those persons have no use\nfor an intelligent, argumentative preacher. They want a preacher who will\nsay smoothe things; and there is now and then a preacher who has no\nstrength outside of the emotional.\n\nWe have an emotional nature. I am glad that we have. I would not be an\nintellectual wooden-man if I could. But if you say, the Almighty Father\nintended that we should be intellectually subordinated to our emotional\nnature, and therefore governed by our passions, or feelings, I shall deny\nit. He never intended that we should be governed by our passions. To-day\nthere are strong intellects in unbelief flooding our country with their\nliterature. How shall they be met? Mr. Moody says, \u201cShow them that you are\nfull of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.\u201d Very well. Can you do that\nwithout the truth? can you do that without word or wisdom? can you do it\nwithout \u201ccontending earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the\nsaints?\u201d In the days of Christ and His apostles the men who were full of\nthe Holy Spirit had a mouth and wisdom which none of their adversaries\nwere able to resist or gainsay. The antichrists of our day can not be met\nsuccessfully without reason, without argument, without meeting the\nintellectual demands of the times.\n\nThere are intellectual men and women in almost every community throughout\nour country\u2014men and women with whom intelligence governs\u2014who want the whys\nand wherefores upon every subject. This class is on the increase at a\nrapid rate. It does no good to set ourselves against reason, and oppose\nthe current of thought with our emotional nature. In that way we may\nsucceed with those who are governed by their emotional nature, but the\nwork, when it is done, is a work upon the passions, and will soon pass\naway, unless the intellect was at the same time enlisted. The men who stir\nthe world with thought, and give intellectual cast to the age in which we\nlive, are to be met with thought, met with reason, met with truths tried\nin the crucible.\n\nChristianity has nothing to fear in the great struggle that is being\ncarried on for the truth\u2019s sake. But it has lost much for want of\ninvestigation. Our free school and Sunday-school systems are making the\nrising generation better acquainted with both science and the Bible, and a\nthorough acquaintance with both is the one thing most needed in order to a\nbetter future in religion, as well as in every other human interest. The\ntime is come when men will no longer be content to listen to grave errors\nand keep silence. Every truth is being put to the test of logic, as well\nas fact. It is natural to abhor a contradiction, and it is right. All\ntruth is harmonious. I am glad that harmony is demanded in religious\nteaching; I often think of pulpit teaching away back thirty and forty\nyears ago. It used to be very popular in some parts to tell people that\nthey could do nothing to better their condition in a future state, and, at\nthe same time, exhort them to do better.\n\nI heard of three brothers, George, William and James. George and William\nwere \u201cHard-shell Baptist\u201d preachers; James made no profession. His wife\nwas a member of George\u2019s congregation. She was a great \u201cscold.\u201d One day\nJames failed to do just as she wished him, and, as a matter of course, he\nreceived quite a lecture; finally the woman told him that it was a great\npity that he could not be a good man, like his brother George or brother\nWilliam, and fell to exhorting him to do better. He finally became\nimpatient and said, \u201cYes! George and William were too lazy to work, and I\ncalled them to preach. They both stood it until the third call, and then\nput on their hats and went. You belong to George\u2019s church, and I go there\nwith you to hear him preach. He tells me that I can do nothing, and you\ntell me that I can do nothing; and, now, what in the h\u2014l do you want me to\ndo?\u201d Such inconsistent teaching was always repugnant to common sense and\nnatural reason. There are many persons yet teaching the old falsehood that\nman is passive in his conversion, notwithstanding the fact that men are\nimperatively commanded to convert\u2014turn, that their sins may be blotted\nout. Men are yet found in some Protestant pulpits who spend a great deal\nof their time praying the Lord to convert sinners. It is often the case,\nin their own estimation, that the Lord gives no heed to their prayers; but\nthis has happened so frequently that it does not seem to trouble them. It\nhas been a very short time since I heard a minister advocating what he was\npleased to call \u201cmiraculous conversion.\u201d I thought, if you are right in\nthat matter, why did the Heavenly Father command his love, commended in\nthe Savior\u2019s death, preached to every creature, and still refuse to\nconvert every creature? What difference does it make to me whether the\nLord passed me by before He made Adam, or passed me by on yesterday? And\nif He refuses to send His spirit and convert me until the last, and I die\nin my sins and am lost, who is to blame? What is the difference between\nHis neglect to convert me and the old Calvinistic idea that Christ did not\ndie for me? What is the difference between the spirit of God being partial\nto communities\u2014going into one and converting a great many persons and\npassing others by\u2014and God Himself being partial? And why does the Spirit\nnot convert all the unwilling sinners in the community where it does\nconvert sinners? These are questions that have been asked in a great many\nhearts before they yielded themselves up to skepticism and infidelity.\n\nIn the present stage of critical investigation it is well for all\npreachers to remember that there is but one question involving this whole\nmatter of conversion and pardon, and that is the question coupled with the\nJudgment; it is not, How much did the Heavenly Father love me? He loved\nall men. It is not, How much did Jesus do for _me_? He tasted death for\nevery man. It is not, How much has the Spirit done for me? It gave the\ngospel to all nations, as the power of God unto salvation to every man\nthat believeth. The one, and only, question in the Judgment is, What have\nI done for myself? What are the deeds done in my body? the deeds which _I\nhave done_.\n\nChristianity is right thinking and doing; all that is to be attained in\nthe religion of Christ is enjoyed in an upright life. Every theory that\nconflicts with this grand sentiment is smoked with the darkness of the\ndark ages. The Father of Spirits made us with the power of choice\u2014gave us\nthe liberty to choose\u2014and we all may have, in the future, just such a\nstate as we will. The Father loved all; the Son died for all; and the\nSpirit says to all, COME!\n\nThe great struggle that is now going on between Christianity and unbelief\nis accomplishing two good things: First, it is making it hard for\nprofessors of religion to hold their errors, or cover up hypocrisy; and\nsecond, it is making it hard for infidels and skeptics to hold on to their\nflimsy objections to the Christian religion. Let the struggle go on!\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RECORDS RESPECTING THE DEATH OF THOMAS PAINE.\n\n\nThat he bitterly regretted the writing and the publishing of the _Age of\nReason_ we have incontestable proof. During his last illness he asked a\npious young woman, Mary Roscoe, a Quakeress, who frequently visited him,\nif she had ever read any of his writings, and being told that she had read\nvery little of them he inquired what she thought of them, adding, \u201cFrom\nsuch a one as you I expect a true answer.\u201d She told him, when very young\nshe had read his _Age of Reason_, but the more she read of it the more\ndark and distressed she felt, and she threw it into the fire. \u201cI wish all\nhad done as you,\u201d he replied, \u201cfor if the devil ever had an agency in any\nwork, he has had it in writing that book.\u201d\u2014_Journal of Stephen Grellet,\n1809._\n\nDr. Manley, who was with him during his last hours, in a letter to\nCheetham, in 1809, writes: \u201cHe could not be left alone night or day. He\nnot only required to have some person with him, but he must see that he or\nshe was there, and if, as it would sometimes happen, he was left alone, he\nwould scream and halloo until some person came to him. There was something\nremarkable in his conduct about this period, which comprises about two\nweeks immediately preceding his death. He would call out during his\nparoxysms of distress, without intermission, \u2018O Lord, help me! God, help\nme! Jesus Christ, help me! O Lord, help me!\u2019 etc., repeating the same\nexpressions without the least variation, in a tone of voice that would\nalarm the house. It was this conduct which induced me to think that he\nabandoned his former opinions, and I was more inclined to that belief when\nI understood from his nurse, who is a very serious, and I believe pious\nwoman, that he would occasionally inquire, when he saw her engaged with a\nbook, what she was reading, and being answered, and at the same time asked\nwhether she should read aloud, he assented, and would appear to give\nparticular attention. The doctor asked him if he believed that Jesus\nChrist is the Son of God? After a pause of some minutes he replied, \u2018I\nhave no wish to believe on that subject.\u2019 \u2018For my own part,\u2019 says the\ndoctor, \u2018I believe that had not Thomas Paine been such a distinguished\ninfidel he would have left less equivocal evidences of a change of\nopinion.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThe Roman Catholic Bishop, Fenwick, says: \u201cA short time before Paine died\nI was sent for by him.\u201d He was prompted to do this by a poor Catholic\nwoman who went to see him in his sickness, and who told him if anybody\ncould do him any good it was the Catholic priest. \u201cI was accompanied by F.\nKohlman, an intimate friend. We found him at a house in Greenwich, now\nGreenwich street, New York, where he lodged. A decent-looking, elderly\nwoman came to the door, and inquired whether we were the Catholic priests;\n\u2018for,\u2019 said she, \u2018Mr. Paine has been so much annoyed of late by other\ndenominations calling upon him, that he has left express orders to admit\nno one but the clergymen of the Catholic church.\u2019 Upon informing her who\nwe were, she opened the door and showed us into the parlor. \u2018Gentlemen,\u2019\nsaid the lady, \u2018I really wish you may succeed with Mr. Paine, for he is\nlaboring under great distress of mind every since he was told by his\nphysicians that he can not possibly live, and must die shortly. He is\ntruly to be pitied. His cries, when left alone, are heart-rending. \u201cO\nLord, help me!\u201d he will exclaim during his paroxysms of distress: \u201cGod,\nhelp me! Jesus Christ, help me!\u201d Repeating these expressions in a tone of\nvoice that would alarm the house. Sometimes he will say, \u201cO God, what have\nI done to suffer so much?\u201d Then shortly after, \u201cbut there is no God,\u201d then\nagain, \u201cyet if there should be, what would become of me hereafter?\u201d Thus\nhe will continue for some time, when, on a sudden, he will scream as if in\nterror and agony, and call for me by name. On one occasion I inquired what\nhe wanted. \u201cStay with me,\u201d he replied, \u201cfor God\u2019s sake, for I can not bear\nto be left alone.\u201d I told him I could not always be in the room. \u201cThen,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201c_send even a child to stay with me, for it is a hell to be\nalone._\u201d _I never saw_,\u2019 she continued, \u2018_a more unhappy, a more forsaken\nman. It seems he can not reconcile himself to die._\u2019\n\n\u201cSuch was the conversation of the woman, who was a Protestant, and who\nseemed very desirous that we should afford him some relief in a state\nbordering on complete despair. Having remained some time in the parlor, we\nat length heard a noise in the adjoining room. We proposed to enter, which\nwas assented to by the woman, who opened the door for us. A more wretched\nbeing in appearance I never beheld. He was lying in a bed sufficiently\ndecent in itself, but at present besmeared with filth; his look was that\nof a man greatly tortured in mind, his eyes haggard, his countenance\nforbidding, and his whole appearance that of one whose better days had\nbeen one continued scene of debauch. His only nourishment was milk punch,\nin which he indulged to the full extent of his weak state. He had partaken\nvery recently of it, as the sides and corners of his mouth exhibited very\nunequivocal traces of it, as well as of blood which had also followed in\nthe track and left its mark on the pillow. Upon their making known the\nobject of their visit, Paine interrupted the speaker by saying, \u2018That\u2019s\nenough, sir, that\u2019s enough. I see what you would be about. I wish to hear\nno more from you, sir; my mind is made up on that subject. I look upon the\nwhole of the Christian scheme to be a tissue of lies, and Jesus Christ to\nbe nothing more than a cunning knave and imposter. Away with you, and your\nGod, too! Leave the room instantly! All that you have uttered are lies,\nfilthy lies, and if I had a little more time I would prove it, as I did\nabout your imposter, Jesus Christ.\u2019 Among the last utterances that fell\nupon the ears of the attendants of this dying infidel, and which have been\nrecorded in history, were the words, \u2018My God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me?\u2019 \u201d\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\n\u201cSome thousand famous writers come up in this century to be forgotten in\nthe next. But the silver cord of the Bible is not loosened, nor its golden\nbowl broken, though time chronicles his tens of centuries passed by....\nYou can trace the path of the Bible across the world, from the day of\nPentecost to this day. As a river springs up in the heart of a sandy\ncontinent, having its father in the skies; as the stream rolls on, making\nin that arid waste a belt of verdure wherever it turns its way; creating\npalm groves and fertile plains, where the smoke of the cottage curls up at\neventide, and marble cities send the gleam of their splendor far into die\nsky\u2014such has been the course of the bible on earth.\u201d\u2014_Theodore Parker._\n\n\u201cI must die\u2014abandoned of God and of men.\u201d\u2014_Voltaire._\n\n\n\n\n\nTHREE REASONS FOR REPUDIATING INFIDELITY.\n\n\nBishop Whipple says, \u201cI once met a thoughtful scholar who told me that for\nyears he had read every book which assailed the religion of Jesus Christ.\nHe said he would have been an infidel if it had not been for three things:\n\n\u201c \u2018First, I am a man. I am going somewhere. I am to-night a day nearer the\ngrave than last night. I have read all that they can tell me. There is not\none solitary ray of light upon the darkness. They shall not take away the\nonly guide and leave me stone blind.\n\n\u201c \u2018Secondly, I had a mother. I saw her go down into the dark valley where\nI am going, and she leaned upon an unseen arm as calmly as a child goes to\nsleep upon the breast of a mother. I know that was not a dream.\n\n\u201c \u2018Thirdly, I have three motherless daughters. They have no protector but\nmyself. I would rather kill them than leave them in this sinful world if\nyou could blot out from it all the teachings of the Gospel.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL IS A PHILOSOPHER?\n\n\nCol. Ingersoll tells us that \u201cintellectual liberty, as a matter of\nnecessity, forever destroys the idea that belief is either PRAISE OR\nBLAMEWORTHY, and is wholly inconsistent with every creed in Christendom.\u201d\nAgain, he says, \u201cNo man can control his belief.\u201d Notwithstanding all this,\nhis whole occupation consists in traveling over the country and blaming\nmen, women and children for their belief. He is consistent? He is a\nScientist, you know? He does nothing that is absurd? He is a philosopher,\nsitting on the bones of Moses and making grimaces at the faith of Moses,\nwhen neither Moses nor his friends could control their belief? He works\nhard for no purpose if men can\u2019t control their belief, and does men\ninjustice, IF HE BLAMES THEM FOR THEIR FAITH?\n\n\u201cNo man can control his belief.\u201d Then why labor to make your brother of\nhumanity believe that he is but\u2014\n\n\n        The pilgrim of a day?\n    Spouse of the worm and brother of the clay,\n    Frail as the leaf in autumn\u2019s yellow bower,\n    Dust in the wind, or dew upon the flower?\n\n        A child without a sire;\n    Whose mortal life and transitory fire\n    Light to the grave his chance-created form,\n    As ocean wrecks illuminate the storm.\n\n\nAnd then\u2014\n\n\n    To-night, and silence sinks forevermore!\n\n\nIf these\u2014\n\n\n    The pompous teachings ye proclaim,\n    Lights of the world and demi-gods of fame,\n    The laurel wreaths that murderers rear,\n    Blood-nursed and watered by the widow\u2019s tears,\n    Seems not so foul, so tainted, and so dread,\n    As the daily night-shade round the skeptic\u2019s head.\n\n\n_Think of Ingersoll at his brother\u2019s grave!_\n\n\n\n\n\nLIFE OF ELDER E. GOODWIN.\n\n\nThis interesting volume will be ready for delivery in a few days, as it is\nnow in the hands of the binder. It is a neat volume of 314 pages, on good\npaper, and substantially bound in cloth. Price, $1.50.\n\nSome two months ago we issued a prospectus for this book, proposing to\nmake a work of 300 pages, and putting the price at $1.25, and these papers\nhave been in the hands of agents for some time, and quite a large number\nof persons have subscribed for the book at that price. Of course all who\nhave subscribed to date shall have the book in good faith at $1.25, as\nunderstood, but we are compelled to raise the price to all new subscribers\nfrom this date to $1.50, on account of the advance in all book stock and\nthe increased size of the book.\n\nAll our old agents, and all persons desiring an agency for this work, will\nplease correspond with us at this place\u2014Bedford, Lawrence County, Indiana.\n\nApril 2, 1879.\nJ. M. MATHES.\n\nElder Mathes, also, keeps on hand a full supply of all the publications of\nthe Christian church. Address all orders for any good book in the market\nto Elder James M. Mathes, Bedford, Lawrence County, Indiana. Send money by\npostal money order, bank draft, or registered letter.\n\nJ. M. MATHES.","title":"The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, May, 1880","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14936}