{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28668/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28668","id":"gutenberg_28668","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28668","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Journals","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion and science -- Periodicals","The Christian Foundation"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Greg Bergquist and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nScientific and Religious Journal.\n\n  VOL. I.  JULY, 1880.  NO. 7.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FOUNTAIN OF HAPPINESS.\n\n\nThe source and fullness of created good is the knowledge and enjoyment\nof God. \"Give what thou wilt, without thee we are poor; and with thee\nrich, take what thou wilt away.\" The wicked are like a ship's crew at\nsea, carried by the winds upon unknown waters, without peace or safety\nuntil they can renew communications with the shore. A man alienated from\nhis God is without his proper relations, and separated from the fountain\nof happiness, is like a child unconscious of his father--an orphan,\nforced along, the sport of accident, with no hope for the future, but\ndarkness that may overshadow his pathway to the tomb. If we were at once\ndeprived of all knowledge of God where would we find hopes for support\nin the gloomy hours of adversity? What sadness would reign over the\nworld! What black despair! O, what a chasm it would make to strike the\nInfinite One out of existence! \"The angels might retire in silence and\nweep, or fly through infinite space seeking some token of the Father\nthey had lost. With unbounded grief and despair they might wing their\nway farther and farther, with their harps all unstrung, and every song\nsilent, and the soul-harrowing words, 'We have no Father, no God, a\nblind chance rules,' might be all that would break the awful silence of\nheaven. Let the glorious words once more be heard, 'God reigns, he\nlives, he reigns,' and what joy would fill the heavens and the earth.\"\nThe child of sorrow would lift up his head and say, \"Our Father who art\nin heaven.\" The heavenly songsters would string anew their harps, and\nsend the good news far and wide, \"He lives, he reigns, God over all,\nblessed forever.\"\n\n\"We are not able to estimate the effect it would produce to blot the\nknowledge of God from the universe. We can not appreciate the state of\nthat mind which labors under the impression that God is retiring.\nPerhaps we have one momentary example of the sad gloom that takes\npossession of the man under such circumstances. It is seen in the\nSavior's dying words, 'My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?'\"\n\nIn our nature and condition there are two sources of misery--the mind,\nor conscience, disturbed by sin, and the body affected by disease and\ndeath. Sinful emotions cause disquietude, uneasiness, sorrow and misery,\nbitterness, recrimination, reciprocated treachery, infuriated rage,\nmalignant and stormy passions; envy, jealousy, suspicion and unlawful\ndesires distract the mind and quench its joys. Who can be happy in such\na condition? Disquieted and corrupted affections cause the greater part\nof the unhappiness or misery of the race. The angels of light could not\nbe happy in such a murky sea. Our great ancestors were doomed to toil in\na world of disappointment and sorrow for yielding to such a guide. Haman\noccupied a high position at the court of Persia, yet he made himself\nmiserable because \"Mordecai the Jew sat at the king's gate.\" And Ahab,\non the throne of Israel, \"refused to eat bread\" because he could not get\npossession of the vineyard of Naboth. Men can not be happy with such\npassions reigning in the mind, and yet they are found in almost every\nbosom, unless it has been purified by the influence of the gospel of\nJesus the Christ. The great idols of this world are fame, pleasure and\nwealth, and the love of these is the strong passion of the heart. But it\nis the most prolific source of individual, social and public misfortune,\nthe most mischievous, contentious and demoralizing passion. The\nambitious, the voluptuous, the rich and the great are not necessarily\nhappy. Alexander wept upon the throne of the world because there was not\nanother world for him to conquer.\n\nIn the midst of seminal pleasures and corrupt passions men are always\nmiserable. The influence of the Gospel of Christ is the only remedy for\nsuch diseases. It saves men from aggravating selfishness and holds in\ncheck their fierce passions until they are extinguished. Virtuous\naffections are invariably the great sources of human happiness. They are\nfountains of living waters, which purify the mind and make their\npossessors happy. They are as rivers of water in a thirsty land.\n\nIn the teachings of Christ we learn all that pertains to true happiness,\nin what it consists and how to obtain it. There we are admonished of\nmere worldly blessings, because the desire for them is generally so\nintense that it becomes a source of corruption, and in our successes we\noften forget our highest interests. The Savior left in the background\nthe commonly received notions of men touching the sources of true\nhappiness. He said: \"Blessed are the poor in spirit,\" referring not to\nthose who are temporally poor. The wicked are poor as well as the\nrighteous. O, how dreadfully miserable are the wicked poor! a miserable\nlife here, followed by a miserable hereafter. Many poor persons are\nhaughty, ungodly, dishonest, profligate and unhappy. Neither does it\nmean voluntary poverty, or to turn mendicant monks and friars. It means\nthe humble, those who are deeply sensible of their spiritual or mental\nand moral wants; in other words, those who feel that there is a place in\ntheir spiritual nature for the blessings of the Gospel of Christ. It is\nopposed to self-righteousness. The poor in spirit come to God through\nChrist, and, putting all their trust in him, submit to the divine will\nunder all the trying dispensations of his providence.\n\nThe poor in spirit are always sensible of their need of salvation, but\nthe proud in spirit are \"clean in their own eyes.\" Their goodness is\nlike the morning cloud and the early dew, yet they say, Stand by\nthyself; I am holier than thou. \"Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed\nare the meek. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after\nrighteousness. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.\"\nWhat a sublime rebuke to the spirit of this world! It is a grand\ncontrast to the uneasy desires of greedy covetousness; to the\ndisposition of the gay; to the degradation of the impure; to the\nsenseless pleasures of the ambitious, when new fires ignite their hopes\nonly to plunge them into deeper darkness. The Bible's happiest soul is\nhe who has most of its peculiar mind and character. Not on account of\nearthly riches, for he may be one of the Lord's poor, who, like his\nblessed Master, has \"no place to lay his head.\" Not because he has\nsought and obtained honor from men, but because he sought and \"seeks the\nhonor which cometh from God only.\" Not because he has much of this\nworld, but because he is a Christian. He may not have the greatest\ncapacity, but he has a state of mind that prepares him to rightly\nestimate and enjoy all that is worth enjoying. \"To the upright there\nariseth light in the darkness.\" They are wisely guided, comforted and\nencouraged in the most gloomy wilderness. They are not oppressed with\ndoubts; sorrow does not crush them. Darkness gives place to light, and\nthe seeming evil turns to good. They often sip honey from the most\nbitter flowers. They yield not to fear, for they believe in God, and are\nassured, by a thousand contrasts, that \"all things work together for\ngood to those who love God.\" One of the never-failing sources of\nhappiness for which we are under obligations to Jesus the Christ is the\nmind and character which he requires of us. \"A good man shall be\nsatisfied from himself.\"\n\n\"Man was created for an active life. Effort is the true element of a\nwell regulated mind. Undisturbed soil becomes hard and unproductive. Its\nbosom is shut up against the dews and the rains, and also against the\nwarm rays of the sun. So it is with the mind when it is closed up and\ndeprived of healthy action; this man lives for himself alone, and only\nthe baser passions spring up in his breast. His soul is too narrow for\nChristian benevolence; sympathy and emotion are disabled and all his\nnobler faculties languish. Action, from intelligent and benevolent\nprinciples, is a great fountain of happiness. Few streams of bliss equal\nthose which flow from charitable exertions. Benevolence and well-doing\nare great inducements to future exertions, because of the fact that they\nare their own reward in a thousand different ways. The seed thus sown\nbrings back an hundred fold, and a rich harvest to others, which adds to\nthe abundance of our own happiness. But where shall we go for those\nprinciples of action? Shall we search for them in nature? Can reason\nalone discover them? Are they found in the teachings of philosophy? Are\nthey gathered from observation? Does not our world need Revelation to\nmake known the true aim and end of our being?\" Cicero said, \"Those who\ndo not agree in stating what is the chief end, or good, must of course\ndiffer in the whole system of precepts for the conduct of human life.\"\nHe also says there was so great a dissention among the philosophers,\nupon this subject, that it was almost impossible to enumerate their\ndifferent sentiments. So it came to pass that exertions for benevolent\nends were seldom, if ever, put forth by pagans in pagan lands--they knew\nnothing of the happiness springing from such a source.\n\nGreat efforts from great motives are the glory and blessedness of our\nnature. In the Bible only men have learned what great motives and\nefforts are. There we find food to sustain them and wisdom to guide\nthem. Nowhere in the pages of infidel philosophy can we find such an\ninjunction as this: \"Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, do all to the\nglory of God.\" Where else do we find this Christian maxim: \"None of us\nliveth to himself, and none of us dieth to himself; but whether we live,\nwe live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord.\" He or\nshe alone is the happy one who is taught to consider the nature and\ntendencies of human conduct, and whether it will stand the test before\nGod, and advance the ends of his truth and love in the world; who makes\nthe Lord's will the ends of his or her life and lives to please God and\nshow forth his praise. Such a life is necessarily a happy one, because\nit is one _full_ of goodness. There is daily joy in such daily activity.\nNo man can be wretched while acting from the principle of communicative\ngoodness. Such are happy whatever their sphere or occupation may be.\nTheir aims are high. Their objects sustain them and their impulses\nencourage or strengthen them. Their anticipations are joyous and their\nreflections are tranquil. They look backward with delight and forward\nwith hope. Their conscience approves them. They have not buried their\ntalents. They are not encumberers of the ground.\n\nThey live to bless the children of men. When they die they will to them\ntheir counsel, their example and prayers. Benevolent habits are a great\nsource of happiness, for which we are indebted to the religion of\nChrist.\n\nIt is vain to attempt to persuade ourselves that human misery does not\nexist. We can not get away from it by arming ourselves with stoical\ninsensibility. Evils lie all about us; we ourselves are made to feel\nthem. If we open our eyes upon the pages of time we see a continuous\nseries of beings who appear for a short time and then pass away. Their\nbeds are bedewed with tears, and soon the emblems of death are hung\nabout their doors. O, what wonderful scenes lie between the cradle and\nthe grave! What hours of sadness and gloom! Here, in the midst of life,\nwe realize disappointments, losses, painful diseases and heart-rending\ndiscouragements, defeated hopes and withered honors. Here are good\nreasons for the interposition of redeeming love. Does the God who loves\nus sympathize with us in our woes? We are liable at every step in life\nto great individual and domestic calamities. No hour can be free from\nthe fear that what we value the most on the earth may be snatched away\nto-morrow.\n\nTrees and flowers grow to their full stature, fill up their measure of\ntime, and pass away. Beasts and birds are more rarely cut off with\ndisease. Their lives are not embittered with the expectation of death;\nthe knowledge of the past and the present is all they have; they have no\nknowledge of the morrow; they live contented in their ignorance and\nindifference, and, at last, sink into the deep, unending night, \"being\nmade to be taken and destroyed.\"\n\nBut this is not the history of man. He perishes from the cradle to the\ntomb--\"suffers a hundred deaths in fearing one.\" He is conscious of the\ndangers that beset him. He is hedged in on every side. Death is\nconstantly destroying his fondest hopes and causing him the sorest\ngrief. It bursts the ties that bind heart to heart, and the dearest\nfellowships are severed, and the joys of a blessed life are wrapped in\nthe gloom of death. All there was of earthly bliss in the bygone now\nmakes up his anguish. Is it possible that life and death walk\n\"arm-in-arm?\" Yes; even while we are happy in the enjoyment of one, the\nother comes and casts the fearful mantle over all our earthly prospects.\nSeal up this blessed volume of life, and I know not from whence the\nlight is to spring which would cheer this gloomy picture. Without this,\nman would be in a grade of blessedness beneath the brutes that perish.\nIt would be better to be anything than rational without the religion of\nJesus Christ and the intelligence of the Bible. The Scriptures inform us\nthat these things have a cause, that they come from God's dealings with\nhis creatures, that the unseen hand which permits these trials is\nbenevolent and wise. Sorrow has its design, and it is neither unkind nor\nmalignant. These things have a moral cause; they are the great rebuke of\nGod for sin. They are also a part of the discipline of a Heavenly\nFather, designed to co-operate with the Gospel in bringing back all\nthose who are intelligently exercised thereby to their forsaken God.\n\nThe antidote for all these ills culminating in death was the tree of\nlife. When man sinned against his God he was put away from the tree of\nlife. If he had remained with it he would have been beyond the reach of\nthe motive of life, and beyond the restraining power of the fear of\ndeath. He would have lived forever, subject, like fallen angels, to\nmental suffering during the ages to come. But being placed beyond the\nreach of the tree of life he may be redeemed by the love of life to a\nhigher state. When the rebellious see and realize this great truth,\nbeing exercised by the chastening hand of God, they are often subdued to\nsubmission, to peace, and under the heaviest calamities they often look\nupward and say, \"It is the Lord, let his will be done.\" And this, of\nitself, is a source of unbounded bliss.\n\nWe often submit to present pain when counseled to do so by those in\nwhose wisdom and goodness we trust. As Christians we extend this\nprinciple to all the sufferings of this life. Doing so, we have that\nfeeling of quiet submission growing out of permanent confidence in God\nwhich supports us under all the trials to which we have been subjected\nby an all-wise Father. This principle is wonderfully fruitful in\nconsolations to the bereaved and mourning--it is the joy of all\nChristian hearts. \"The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice.\" What shall\nwe say of the hopes and prospects of bereaved souls? Is it blind\nconjecture that there is an existence beyond the shadows? Is there no\nlife to come? No great resurrection? No comforter to arrest the current\nof mourning and lamentation?\n\nHow natural it is, when reminded of our loss, to exclaim, Shall we not\nmeet them again? Is this parting to last forever? Is there a God? Has he\nnot answered this agonizing inquiry? When we sit down upon the brink of\nthose waters which have swallowed up our living treasures and weep and\ncall upon the waves of eternity to give back our dear ones, when, from\nthe shores of time, we look and gaze and listen, does no voice reach us?\n_Yes!_ To the ear of faith there is a voice. It is the voice of our God.\nWe listen. The words come ringing in our hearts, \"For if we believe that\nJesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will\nGod bring with him.\" _Our grief is allayed._ We believe and are\ncomforted. We look forward to a happy meeting. A reunion for eternity\nhovers before us like a bright star, lights up our pathway, and leads us\nforward in a living hope.\n\nNowhere in the Bible is human sorrow clothed with cold indifference. The\ncounsels of that book and its promises are so adapted to the sorrowing\nthat those who have passed through the furnace of affliction know best\ntheir value. There is no such relief from sorrow found away from the\nfaith of God and the Bible.\n\nThere is an hour when we _ourselves_ must die? Shall we trifle with the\nwill of God till then? Can we trifle with death when it comes? \"The\nsting of death is sin.\" Death never fails to bring along with it a keen\nsense of guilt to the guilty unless they are cut off in a moment, and\nthen who knows the anguish that may be experienced just beyond? What is\nthere to soothe the sorrow of the dying sinner?--of that wicked soul who\nnever obeyed his God nor did anything to make the world better for his\nexistence? Let none of us live at a distance from our God. Let none of\nus approach death without the necessary preparation for mutual\nassociation with him. Let none of us bear the burden of a guilty\nconscience in that hour. May none of us be so cruel as to leave the\nhearts that love us in doubt respecting our condition in death. May we\nnever tread its dark waters without the light of the glorious promises\nand facts of the religion of Jesus the Christ. Let us keep our souls\npure in obeying the truth through the Spirit. Let us live with and obey\nGod, do good and be happy.\n\n\n\n\nINDEBTEDNESS TO REVELATION--No. II.\n\nBY P. T. RUSSELL.\n\n\nThought, Thinkers, Things--realities with their qualities or attributes.\nThese are all connected. If the first and second are present the others\nare not far away. We only think when we perceive, and only perceive\nrealities. Nonentities are not perceivable, and therefore not thinkable.\nThoughts may be, and are, transferable from one to another by words, or\nsigns equivalent to words, yet we are only able to impart to another\nideas already in our possession.\n\nWe have no thoughts of our own but those which are the result of our\nperceiving. We have no thought of color without the eye, nor of sound\nwithout the ear, etc. Now, if we have in our possession thoughts of\npersons or things beyond the reach of our powers of observation, _i.e._,\nbeyond the reach of the five senses--seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting\nand smelling--then those thoughts can not be ours; we could not be the\nfirst to think them; they were too high for us; they were out of our\nreach. Who, then, could and did reach them and give them to us? This\nought to be the question of questions with us. Thoughts of foreign\ncountries have been given to us by the men who have seen those\ncountries. But they could only give us ideas of what they had seen or\nothers had told them. A man visiting England only could give us no\nthought of Russia, unless instructed by some one who has seen that land;\nthen, and not till then, could he give us thoughts of Russia. I am now\nready for the statement of this proposition, viz: The following trio of\nthoughts are beyond our reach. They are not our thoughts; we did not\nthink them, but we have them; then, some being who could see higher and\nlook farther than we must have given them to us. Those thoughts are the\nfollowing: First, the existence of God; second, the use of words; third,\nthe origin of religion. These I will examine in the order given above.\n\n\nTHE EXISTENCE OF GOD.\n\nWhence came the idea? This is now _the question_. In answering it I\nshall assume no ground but that which all parties say is true. The\nChristian, the Deist and Atheist will admit that we have learned all we\nknow, and that we have learned only through the aid of the five senses:\nseeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling are the porters of the\nmind. One or another of these bring to the mind every thought that it\nreceives. We obtain thoughts of odor _only_ by the sense of smell; of\nflavor only by the taste; of color by the eye alone. In these matters we\nhave no intuition. We brought no ideas into the world with us. In all\nthese things we are creatures of education. Simple or single ideas, like\nsimple words, represent simple thoughts or realities, and compound ideas\nrepresent compound thoughts or realities. Therefore it follows that\nevery thought comes from a corresponding reality. To deny this is equal\nto the affirmation that we can clearly see objects in a vacuum, that we\ncan see something where there is nothing.\n\nHaving stated premises in which all are agreed, I now state my first\nproposition:\n\nTHERE IS A TRUE AND LIVING GOD.\n\nIn sustaining this proposition I shall introduce no witnesses but those\nwhose perfect reliability is vouched for by the Atheist himself; so we\nshall have no dispute concerning the credibility and perfect reliability\nof witnesses. For the Atheist, claiming to be a votary of reason, as\nwell as a boasted free and fearless thinker, certainly can not impeach\nthe testimony of his own mind. And, being a free and fearless thinker,\nhe will not try to conceal or prevent the witness, when on the stand,\nfrom telling the whole truth. I am now ready for the evidence.\n\nThe scene changes; Christian is alone in his studio, and a rap is heard\nat the door. It is opened, and Mr. Atheist is invited to enter, and\nbeing seated, Christian addresses him thus:\n\nMr. Atheist, I am glad you have called, and if you have the leisure time\nand are perfectly free to do so, I would like to talk with you on the\nevidence of the existence of God.\n\n_Atheist_--I am not only willing, but as anxious as you can be to\nexamine this question.\n\n_Christian_--Very well. I suppose you have examined the evidence in the\npremises, and from all the testimony, carefully analyzed, made your\ndecision.\n\n_Atheist_--You do me justice in thus supposing, for I claim to be a\nreasonable being, and to follow fearlessly the lamp of reason; and,\ndoing this on scientific and philosophic principles, I have become\nsatisfied that there is no God.\n\n_Christian_--Will you allow me to state my analysis of the mind and ask\nyou if it is correct?\n\n_Atheist_--You, Mr. C., are approaching from a singular yet a pleasing\nstand-point; will you please give me your analysis? If it is good, I\nwill say so; if defective, I will point out its errors.\n\n_Christian_--It is this: The mind of man may be divided into ten parts\nor powers; five external, or the five senses; and five internal. The\nexternal I need not name. The internal may be presented thus: First,\nperception; second, reflection; third, memory; fourth, reason; fifth,\njudgment, or decision; each of these entirely dependent upon its\nimmediate predecessor for support and action. We can not judge of that\nupon which we have not reasoned, nor reason where we have not\nremembered, nor remember that of which we have not first thought;\nneither can we think of that which we have not perceived, nor perceive\nwithout the action of some one of the five senses.\n\n_Atheist_--I admire your analysis--it is scientific; but, Mr. C., I\nshould not think that you, with your present belief in the existence of\nGod, would adopt this system of mental philosophy.\n\n_Christian_--Why?\n\n_Atheist_--_Did you ever see a God?_\n\n_Christian_--If you please, I will test the question with you, and, in\norder to do so, I will personify these powers. I will suppose them to\nrepresent ten men, all of whom are Atheists, and we will rely upon their\ntestimony.\n\n_Atheist_--That is an honorable offer; I will accept it most cordially.\n\n_Christian_--Then, we are to consider the powers of the mind as so many\nmen, and hear their testimony?\n\n_Atheist_--Yes.\n\n_Christian_--Will you examine the witnesses?\n\n_Atheist_--You would more properly do that; I wish to hear you.\n\n_Christian_--Very well; I will, then, call on Mr. Judgment, and ask,\nHave you given a decision on the question of the existence of God, and\nif so, what is your decision?\n\n_Judgment_--There is no such being.\n\n_Christian_--Tell us whether you created the idea of a God, or brought\nit into the world with you, and how you obtained the material from which\nyou manufactured your verdict?\n\n_Judgment_--\"Did I bring the idea into the world with me, or create it?\"\n_What a question!_ Had anybody but a Christian asked it I would have\nthought it an insult; but, then, Christians are never thinkers. You\nought to have known that the thought could not have been created by me.\nTo say I created it would be an endorsement of your foolish idea that\n_something_ was made of _nothing_. I have no creative power, much less\nthe power _to make something out of nothing_; neither did I bring it\ninto the world with me. _We have no innate ideas._\n\n_Christian_--Then where did you get the material from which you made\nyour decision that there is no God?\n\n_Judgment_--\"_Where!_\" I have but one porter, Mr. Reason. He gives all\nthe material upon which I ever act. If you doubt this try and judge of\nanything upon which you have never reasoned. If you can not do this you\nmust agree with me that judgment can only act and decide by the aid of\nreason.\n\n_Christian_--Your argument is conclusive. Now, as you have decided that\nthere is no God, and also claim that your only aid, Mr. Reason, gave you\nthe material out of which you made your decision, will you call him and\nallow me to ask him a few questions?\n\n_Judgment_--Most willingly. We all are free thinkers, and delight in\ninvestigation. Brother Reason, please call in; Christian is here and\nwishes a little information of you.\n\n_Reason_--Mr. Christian, Brother Judgment informs me that you wish some\ninformation from me. Please state your question.\n\n_Christian_--Did you present the idea of the existence of God to your\nbrother Judgment, and if so, where and how did you come by it?\n\n_Reason_--I received it from Brother Memory, and opened it out and held\nit up so that Brother Judgment could scan it thoroughly, and he decided\nthere was no such being, and I agree with him.\n\n_Christian_--Will you call Memory, that I may learn where and how he\nobtained the idea? (_Memory enters._)\n\n_Christian_--Mr. Memory, are you an Atheist, and did you give Reason the\nidea of a God? If you did, how did you get it? Did you bring it into the\nworld with you?\n\n_Memory_--\"Bring it into the world with me.\" _What an absurd question!_\nI never had an idea only as it was given me by Brother Reflection. If\nyou doubt this, try and remember something you have never thought of, or\nthink of something you never perceived. This, then, is the truth:\nReflection received the idea from Perception and gave it to you, and you\ngave it to Memory, and he held it up to the eye of Reason, who, with\nyour aid, spread it out before the mind of your brother Judgment, and he\ngave the decision, that there is no God; so we are all Atheists. Have\nyou any more questions?\n\n_Christian_--Yes, one more at least; I wish _now_ to know how your\nbrother Perception obtained the idea of a God--will you tell me, or call\nhim?\n\n_Memory_--Oh, I can tell you; he has five porters who bring him all he\never gets, and they, with us, are all Atheists. But one or another of\nthese must have brought him the idea.\n\n_Christian_--Will you ask them which one gave it to your brother\nPerception?\n\n_Memory_--You, for some reason, are very particular. I will, however, to\ngratify you, call them, or at least some of them. Brother Eye, Christian\nwishes to know if you gave the idea of a God to Mr. Perception?\n\n_Eye_--_What a foolish question!_ You, an Atheist, ask me, another\nAtheist, if I have ever seen a living God where there is none to look\nat--you have let Christian lead you out until he has almost drawn from\nyou the proof that David told the truth about us when he called all\nAtheists fools. I have seen all visible things, but _nothing_ is too\nsmall a mark for me to discover!\n\n_Christian_--Mr. Eye, don't be in a hurry; just let me ask, do Free\nThinkers get scared and refuse to think?\n\n_Eye_--I will leave you now, and tell the other porters what a fix your\nphilosophy has led us into.\n\n_Christian_--Good-bye; I will call one month hence and hear your\nconclusion.\n\n\n\n\nDO WE NEED THE BIBLE?\n\n\nThe only creed consistent with the rejection of the Gospel of Christ is\nan eternal tomb, with the heart-shivering inscription, \"Death is an\neternal sleep.\" Americans who reject the Scriptures are as uncertain\nabout the future as the poor heathen of other lands. Some of our\nunbelievers have gathered the information from heathen oracles that the\nfuture consists in being a poor, empty, shivering, table-rapping spirit,\nflying to and fro over the country in response to the sigh of some silly\nwaiting-girl, or at the bidding of some brazen-faced, unscrupulous \"free\nlover.\" And this, \"O, ye gods!\" is all that ever shall be of the noblest\nspirits that ever left human flesh! Others, to gain rest from this\nhorrible and unsatisfying fate, fly to the theory of everlasting\nsilence, as a result of the idea that mind is simply brain action, and\nceases to exist when the brain ceases to act. Their appropriate motto\nis, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.\" It has been said that\neven this brute philosophy is reasonable compared with the dogma of a\nlarge portion of unbelievers, to wit., that blasphemers, thieves,\nprofane swearers, murderers and adulterers, will all go straight to\nheaven when they die; that men with their hearts steeped in blood will\nsit down with Abraham and Isaac in the kingdom of God. But\nSpiritualists, Pantheists, Atheists, and Deists inform us that an\nexternal revelation is useless. Their common exposition of the sentiment\nis too well known to need comment. We hear them saying, \"You need say\nnothing about the Bible to me; I know my duty well enough without it;\nand as for miracles, they will never prove anything to me. Can thunder,\nrepeated daily through centuries, make God's laws and his wisdom and\ngoodness more God-like? No! I am grown, perchance, to manhood, and do\nnot need the thunder and terror. I am not to be scared. It is not\n_fear_, but _reverence_, that shall lead me! _Revelation!_ Inspiration!\nAnd thy own God-like spirit; is not that a revelation?\" See Carlyle's\n\"Past and Present,\" page 307.\n\nNow, if Mr. Carlyle was in no need of the fear of God, somebody else\nmay be in a different mental and moral condition. There is nothing in\nwhich men differ more. If one man is above the weakness of fearing God\n(?) all men are not. Say what we may of fear, it is nevertheless true\nthat we are greatly influenced by fear. We are greatly indebted to the\nfear of sickness for health, to the fear of poverty for wealth, and to\nthe fear of death for life. Fear is to caution what knowledge is to a\nwise choice. Where there is no fear there is no caution. The love of\nlife and bliss is natural, therefore we fear sickness, poverty and\ndeath. Why say with your lips, \"I am above fear,\" while away down in\nyour heart you know it to be a lie?\n\nLove and fear, like the Siamese twins, live and perish together. Do we\nnot _need_ \"revelation?\" Where is the shadow, and where is the sunshine?\nMay we not contrast them? The very wisest of heathen legislators\napproved of vice in some of its most heinous forms. The Carthaginian law\nrequired human sacrifices. When Agathoclas besieged Carthage two hundred\nchildren of the most noted families were put to death by command of the\nSenate, and three hundred citizens sacrificed themselves to Saturn. See\nDiodorus Siculus, b. 20, ch. 14. The laws of Sparta required theft and\nthe death of unhealthy children. The laws of Rome allowed parents to\nkill their child, if they pleased to do it. At the headquarters of\nheathen literature it was recommended that maimed infants should be\nkilled or exposed to death. Aristotle's Political Library, 7, chapter\n17. In Plato's Republic we discover an advance of society, but a\ncommunity of wives continues, and what was termed woman's rights was\nmaintained upon the condition that the women were trained to war. In war\ntimes the children were led out to look upon the struggle, and become\naccustomed and hardened to blood. The teachings of the best minds were\nimmoral. \"He may lie,\" says Plato, \"who knows how to do it.\" Profane\nswearing was enjoined by the example of their best writers. Oaths are of\ncommon occurrence in the writings of Seneca and Plato. Aristippus\ntaught that adultery and theft were commendable in a wise man, and\nCicero plead for the last dreadful tragedy--_suicide_. Such immoralities\nare eulogised in the writings of Virgil, Horace and Ovid. When Rome was\nin her glory and greatness, Trajan had ten thousand men to hew each\nother to pieces to amuse the Romans. In the face of all these facts,\nmodern Spiritualists advance along with Deists, Atheists and Pantheists,\nand gravely inform us that we have no need of any external\nrevelation--that men are wise enough without it.\n\nThey argue, that as we have physical senses to take hold of earth's\nmaterial blessings and appropriate them; so we have intellectual\nfaculties to take hold of all else that is necessary to supply our\nmental and moral wants. It is most certainly true that we have physical\nsenses and intellectual faculties. I can not tell how it is with all the\ninfidels of our country, but I do know persons having physical senses\nwho are in great need of some of the substantials of life. I have also\nknown persons who have destroyed their physical senses to such an extent\nas to be miserable objects of pity and compassion, needing some external\nhelp as well an internal. Now, if, in spite of physical senses, men and\nwomen do starve in this world on account of want, it is certainly\nallowable that persons may fail of the enjoyment of needed mental and\nmoral culture in spite of intellectual faculties. And if it is a matter\nof charity for men to put forth their hands and assist their fellow men\nwhen they are in want of material blessings, surely it is a matter of\nlove, the love of God, to present to weary, burthened souls mental and\nspiritual blessings which correlate with man's spiritual wants. Do you\ndeny the existence of such wants?\n\nTyndal said there is a place in man's soul-nature for religion. This\nfact is acknowledged by all leading writers in unbelief. He who calls it\nin question experiences the fact. Why say it is not true against the\ntestimony of your own conscience?\n\n\"Tell me,\" said a rich Hindoo who had given all his wealth to the\nBrahmans surrounding his dying bed that they might obtain pardon for his\nsins, \"tell me what will become of my soul when I die?\" \"Your soul will\ngo into the body of a holy cow.\" \"And after that?\" \"It will pass into\nthe body of a divine peacock.\" \"And after that?\" \"It will pass into a\nflower.\" \"Tell me, oh! tell me,\" cried the dying man, \"where will it go\nlast of all?\" \"Where will it go last of all? Aye, that is the question\nreason can not answer,\" said the poor Brahmans.\n\nWhere there is no vision the people perish. \"Life and immortality was\nbrought to light through the Gospel.\" Without a revelation from God, men\nknow neither how to live or die. Our ancestors trusted to the powers of\nmagic, to incantations, for health, for success in tilling the ground,\nfor finding lost articles, for preventing accidents, etc. They\nsuperstitiously regarded certain days of the week. If an infant was born\nupon a certain day it would live; if upon another it would live, but be\nsickly.\n\nDo you unceremoniously reject the Gospel of the Christ? \"Yes,\" you say,\n\"if it depends on Jesus it is not eternally true, and therefore is not\ntrue at all.\" But, I ask in all candor, is eternally true and\nsufficiently revealed _one_ and the _same_? Are we under no obligations\nto the man who first informed us of vaccination as a preventive of\nsmall-pox, simply because it would always have prevented it? Are we\nunder no obligations to men on account of scientific discoveries, just\nbecause the truths discovered are eternal truths? _Nonsense!_ You know\nit is nonsense. Then we may be under lasting obligations to the Christ\nfor the revelation of the Gospel, with its sublime precepts and\nprinciples, consolations and promises, which fill up the human spirit\nwith undying love and the hope of eternal glory.\n\nLet parents look well to this question. Let infidels set themselves to\nwork and get up some law of man capable of regenerating the hearts of\nthose men who, at their bidding, renounce the law of God and his\nauthority, and also with it all human authority. Will they do it? Can\nthey do it? Oh! There are no means outside of the sanctions of religion\nby which the heart may be reached and purified from the love and\npractice of sin.\n\nWhat right, says the Pantheist, the Atheist, the Deist, and\nSpiritualist, have you to command me?\n\nThe rejectors of the Bible made an experiment, an attempt, in trying to\ngovern France without religion. Shall the scenes of Paris and Lyons be\nrepeated, re-enacted in our own beloved America? No, we don't want it,\nand we do not think we shall experience it, for the framers of our\nDeclaration of Independence laid the rights of God in the bed-rock of\nour republic, believing that the rights of God are the basis of human\nrights. \"All men are born free and equal, and are endowed by their\nCREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG WHICH IS LIFE, LIBERTY\nAND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, ETC.\"\n\nNations destitute of the Bible ever were, and are, ignorant and wicked.\nThere are peoples in the world decently clad, well fed, and living in\ncomfortable mansions, with well tilled lands, who make powerful streams\nturn powerful wheels and run great machinery; who yoke the iron horse to\nthe market train and drive their floating palaces against the floods;\nwho erect churches in every village, and make their children more\nlearned than the priests of Egypt, or the philosophers of Greece; even\nmany of their criminals are more decent and upright than were the sages,\nphilosophers and heroes of lands destitute of the Bible. These peoples\nhave that wonderful book; and they claim that it contains a revelation\nfrom God to man; and that it teaches us how to live, and how to die.\n\n\"EVERY TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS OWN FRUITS.\"\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.\" He claims, however,\nthat something without life or intelligence produced organic nature.\nThat BLIND, DEAD, SOMETHING IS THE FOOL'S GOD.\n\n\n\n\nTHE WAY INFIDELS TREAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\nThe unreasonableness and unfairness of infidels, or otherwise their\nignorance, is manifested in their unwillingness to interpret the\nliterature of religion as they do the language of the sciences. In\nscientific literature we speak of the earth as a sphere, and infidels\nnever think of objecting that it is \"pitted with hollows deep as ocean's\nbottom,\" and \"crusted with protuberances high as the Himalaya,\" in every\nimaginable form. \"There is not an acre of absolutely level ground\" known\non the face of the earth, and yet when we speak of land, saying it is\nlevel, no infidel demurs. The waters pile themselves in waves and dash\nin breakers, yet we say, \"Level as the ocean,\" and none object.\n\nThe smallest formations present the same regular irregularities of form.\nCrystals approach the nearest to mathematical figures, but they break\nwith compound irregular fractures at their bases of attachment. Nature\ngives no perfect mathematical figures; they only approximate\nmathematical perfection. Infidels do not trouble themselves with science\non this account. \"The utter absence of any regularity or assimilation to\nthe spheroidal figure, either in meridianal, equatorial or parallel\nlines, mountain ranges, sea beaches or courses of rivers, is fatal to\nmathematical accuracy in the more extended measurements. It is only by\ntaking the mean of a great many measurements that an approximate\naccuracy can be obtained. Where this is not possible, as in the\nmeasurement of high mountains, the truth remains undetermined by\nhundreds of feet; or as in the case of the earth's spheroidal axis,\nBessel's measurement differs from Newton's by fully eleven miles.\" See\nHumboldt's Cosmos, vol. 1, p. 7, 156. \"The smaller measures are\nproportionally inaccurate.\" All these irregularities and imperfections\nin science are overlooked, considered not in the least objections to the\nuse of language which would, upon the most rigid application, cut them\nout as fables on the one hand or destroy science upon the other; but no\nsensible man thinks of either as a matter allowable.\n\nOn the other side, Infidels are \"eternally\" mouthing about\nirregularities in the lives of the ancient men of the Bible, which are\nexceptions to the general rule, just as though religious persons could\nlive lives of absolute perfection. The language, also, of the Bible,\nwhich, like the language of science, takes no notice of irregularities\nthat must be expected in the lives of the very best men upon the earth,\nis by them abused. For instance, \"Be perfect as your Father in heaven is\nperfect,\" is construed to mean that God is a man God, clothed with human\nimperfections, or, otherwise, man is imperatively required to be\nabsolutely perfect. All such abuse of language is contemptible. Many\nother examples might be adduced--such as the irregularities in the words\nemployed by the witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, which do not\naffect the evidence of the fact to be established in the least degree,\nand which are just such irregularities as are witnessed in evidence\ngiven in court rooms almost daily, and passed without so much as being\nnoticed. For example, one witness says Mary Magdalene \"came very early\nto the sepulchre,\" and another says she came \"about sunrise.\" If all\nChristians were to treat the literature of science, and science itself,\nas these would-be wise Infidels treat the literature of religion, and\nreligion itself, it would be surprising to run over the absurdities as\nwell as irregularities of scientific history. There are irregularities\nin nature, and their name is legion; they all belong to that wonderfully\nboasted harmony of nature so much talked of in our day. As for the\nmistakes made in religion since the days of the apostles of the Christ,\nthey are many; but what have they to do with the _genuine_?\n\nHow many mistakes have scientists made in the same period of time? I\nshall not try to ape the infidel, but I must be permitted to call\nattention to a few of the many scientific blunders.\n\nPerhaps the greatest blunder of the present day, upon the part of\nscientists, is their attempt to bring into disrepute the cosmogony\ngiven in the Bible by a scientific cosmogony, which leaves off as\n\"unknown\" the only active world-forming force. They arrogantly assume to\nbe acquainted with the entire history of our planet from the atoms to\nthe globe. Yet they acknowledge that the \"force which was and is in\noperation was and is unknown; that unknown force had its influence in\nframing the world,\" and its omission is always fatal to the theory which\nknows nothing about it or neglects it. There are laws also far-reaching,\nwhose omission must be equally fatal.\n\nInfidels, being sensible of this truth, have endeavored to simplify\nmatters to the level of our ignorance, by reducing all primordial\nelements to one, or at most two, simple elements, and all forces to the\nform of one universal and irrational law; but the progress of science\nutterly blasts the effort. No scientific man now dreams of one\nprimordial element. Chemistry reveals a great many different elements,\nwhich can not be reduced or changed from their simple forms, much less\nidentified as one and the self-same \"substance.\" The idea of \"one\nsubstance\" _only_ is a very great error, which grew out of an abuse of\nlanguage in confounding the two words, matter and substance. The latter\nword is equally applicable to _matter_, or _spirit_, but the former\nalways contrasts with spirit; so to confound the two is to ignore a\ndistinction upon which everything depends in any, except the\nmaterialistic, philosophy. When the term substance is used in the\ncurrency of the term matter it admits of the plural form as well as the\nsingular. Indeed, all the primordial elements known in chemistry are\nknown as so many different substances. It is unscientific and absurd to\nconfound all these elements by claiming the one-substance theory. It has\nbeen called \"the hog philosophy,\" on account of its swallowing down so\nmany _different_ substances in the single form of the word.\n\n\"Eighty theories, hostile to Christianity, developed in the course of\nforty or fifty years, were brought before the Institute of France in\n1806, all of which are repudiated\"--dead. It is useless to go further\ninto details. Science has been as much abused as religion. What benefit\nwould accrue to the human family from an effort upon our part to bring\nto the foreground all the blunders made in scientific researches which\nare to-day numbered with the old effete errors in religion? And where is\nthe propriety of infidels making a set of asses of themselves by playing\nupon the little irregularities of language and character in religion, as\nthey _themselves_ allow no man to do in science and morality.\n\n\"EQUAL HANDED JUSTICE\" TO ALL, IS OUR MOTTO.\n\n\n\n\nGEOLOGY IN ITS STRUGGLES AND GROWTH AS A SCIENCE.\n\n\nThe science of Geology in its early history is like all other sciences,\nan infant. It was not a Hercules at its birth. On the contrary, it was\nchildlike and rather crooked in many of its ways; but chastisement and\ncriticism have brought it very far toward real manhood. Its early nurses\nwere standing continually on the dark line separating the comprehensible\nfrom the incomprehensible, without any guides. They were out upon an\nunexplored sea in the mere twilight of the morning. They were opposed at\nevery step by the combative tendencies of human nature, which are ever\nseeking too much for their own gratification to admit any strange,\nstartling propositions as intruders among old and long cherished ideas.\nIn its history it appears before us, first as an enemy to religion, and\nthen as an unobjectionable science, a neutral. But since the publication\nof \"The Footprints of the Creator,\" by the lamented Hugh Miller, it\nappears in front as a fast friend and abettor. And now, since it has\napproached so near to its manhood, we do not see how we did without its\naid so long. Its first grand position touching the immense masses of the\nrock formations as results of second causes, in operation away back\nyonder before organic life appeared upon our planet, was looked upon by\nintelligent Biblical scholars of those times with suspicion, as a\nsystem at variance with the records of the Bible. This, along with\ndifference of sentiment among its friends, has been the means of a very\nrapid growth towards perfection. Curiosity was aroused and observations\nmultiplied, errors corrected and the untenable removed, until the\nscience now stands before us with its bases settled in unquestionable\nfacts. Let us all learn from this circumstance the bearings of the times\nin which we live, for a double process of elimination is now going on\nunder the providence of God, by means of which both Christianity and\nscience will have more beauty and strength of manhood to command the\nrespect of our children.\n\nGeology is exercising a wonderful influence on the side of religion in\nthe minds of those who are acquainted with its facts. In the hands of\nMiller it gives a very decisive answer against the evolution hypothesis,\nwhich is by no means a new speculation. It was, in its general form, a\nvery prominent doctrine of the Epicurean philosophy. \"The author of the\n'Vestiges,' with Professor Oken, regarded the experiment of the\nformation of cells in albumen by electric currents as the leading fact\nof the system.\" They claimed that currents of electricity in the earth's\nsurface generated and vitalized the cells, and that all organic life\nthus originated. There is nothing to save this speculation, when it is\nundressed, from contempt. \"The only patronage it ever received grew out\nof the fact that there is a species of superstition which causes people\nto take upon credit whatever assumes the name of science, and is opposed\nto the old superstition of faith in witches and ghosts.\" With this\nspeculation before us, seemingly plausible, yet false, being fraught\nwith error, we are reminded of the fact that it has been eagerly\nembraced by many who seem to think that it has a firm foundation in the\nscience of Geology, which they regard as presenting the order in which\ncreated beings appeared. The author of the \"Vestiges\" claims that the\nfirst step in the creation of life upon our earth was a\n_chemico-electric_ operation, forming simple germinal vesicles. Page\n155.\n\nThis is an item wholly unknown in the geological record and lies before\nthe beginning of any kind of similitude alluded to in this article. \"The\nidea which I form of the progress of organic life upon our earth,\" says\nthe author of the Vestiges, \"is that the simplest and most primitive\ntype gave birth to the type next above it, and this again produced the\nnext higher, and so on to the very highest.\" Page 170.\n\nOn account of the mere similitude existing between the doctrine of\nprogressive creation, as it is set forth in the geological record, and\nthe idea of progressive evolutions, as claimed by the advocates of the\nspeculation, we deem it our duty to scrutinize severely the teachings of\ngeology. But in doing this we do not concede that there is no other\nground upon which such authors may be successfully met. There is no one\npoint in their system which is not hypothetical. It is a system of\n_ifs_. There is no proof, in any single instance, that a higher has been\ndeveloped from a lower species; but the question, in proper shape, is\nthis: Has there been a succession of improvements from one geological\nperiod to another in the several divisions of the animal and vegetable\nkingdoms amounting to a change of species? Species are very similar in\nstructure and capable of some improvement, but this is no evidence of\nthe higher being developed from the lower. It is well known that the\nlowest forms are those found lowest in the geological series. Commencing\nat the bottom and running up we find, first, mollusks, then fishes,\nreptiles, birds, quadrupeds, monkeys, and at last man. But this does\nnot, by any means, settle the issue. The question naturally arises\nwhether one of those divisions, on its first appearance, was of the\nlowest organization of its class and reached the highest by a gradual\ndevelopment through successive geological periods. The geological\ntestimony is this: First, there were no animals having any structural\nresemblance to the fishes prior to their creation, and when they appear\nthey are already in possession of the highest organization and the\nlargest cerebral development.\n\nDuring the long periods of geological history there has been no advance\nin this class of animals. The science testifies to no successive steps\nhere. \"They stood at the head of the icthyic division at the outset; but\nthere has been, during these periods, a progressive _degeneracy_, so\nthat though all possessed a high organization at first, there is found\nin the after creations a _succession of lapses_ until the division of\nfishes now contains species ranking little above the earth-worm.\" \"A\nsingle well defined placoid fossil in the Bala limestone as fully proves\nthe existence of placoid fishes, during the period of its deposition, as\nif the rock were made up of placoid fossils, for it is not a question of\nnumbers, but of rank.\" The question, now, comes home to us with all its\nforce, how did fishes of this high order come to exist before any of the\ninferior class? Let some of our evolution savans answer.\n\nThe same thing may be said of other organic divisions. It has gone to\nrecord that the shell-fish of the Silurian system are the lowest\ndivision of the molluscous animals. While the statement is received as\ntrue, it must be remembered that there is some diversity of structure in\nthis lower division, and that the earliest molluscs are not the lowest,\nbut the highest in the division. The most important point, however, is,\nthat while Brachiopoda were most abundant, the highest molluscs existed\nalso, their remains being found in the Bala limestone, which is the\nlowest bed of molluscous fossils. (See Silurian System, p. 308.) The\nnumber of these higher species is not important. They existed, few or\nmany, as early as any other of the mollusca. If the lower had not an\nanterior existence, the higher were not developed from them. It is also\na conclusive argument against the system, that while the intermediate\nmollusca are very numerous, the cephalopoda, which were so early\nintroduced, and are the higher forms that were so numerous at certain\ntimes, are now narrowed down to a few species.\n\nLyell was the first to drop a word of caution against \"inferring too\nhastily from the absence of mammalian fossils in the older rocks that\nthe higher class of vertebrata did not exist in those remote times.\"\n\"The remains of vertebrate animals are already found in the lowest\nfossiliferous rocks, and, in addition to that, the highest forms of\neach class appear first.\"\n\nThere is nothing so well evinced in all the realms of scientific\ninvestigation as the utter impossibility of getting, by the light of\nnature, away from the idea of the Christian's God. _Everywhere_ we trace\nhis footsteps. Traveling through the ages to the beginning, in thought,\nour first view is that of \"an unlimited expanse of unoccupied space,\"\nor, if aught exists, it lies hidden in the invisible state. But all at\nonce, as if by magic, and in obedience to the will of the Eternal\nIntelligence, the invisible becomes visible, worlds exist and become\nobedient to law. The divine perfections are to be displayed through\nfuture ages. And now, if we look out upon the surging billows of the\nocean, our mind swells with the thought that God is there in all his\nmajesty. With our thoughts confined to our earth we pass from age to age\ntracing the divine power from the laws of motion to chemical action and\ncrystallization, until we behold a wonderful change upon the face of\nnature. And now, for the first time, a new principle is manifested, a\nnew order springs into being--it is vegetable life and being in all its\nlovely grandeur. It matters not to us whether it came about gradually or\nall at once, for wisdom is there. All nature seems to turn to this new\nprinciple. \"The elements of the inorganic world are subserving the\npurposes of organic life.\" The Creator has bound them to organic life.\nEvery plant selects its food from the elements of earth by a chemistry\nof its own. The atmosphere around us is no less to the vegetable kingdom\nthan a great pasture field. Every leaf is feasting, and every fiber is\ntouched by the light. What wonderful correlations meet us at every turn!\nWhat adaptation of means to ends! Above all the beauty and grandeur of\nthe vegetable kingdom we find the glorious animal, with man at the head,\nas lord over all below him. With man the moral government of God begins;\nphysical creation is over. The subsequent manifestations of the divine\nglory are to be realized in the training and discipline of men and women\nas moral beings; and their mutual association with him, in the eternal\nworld, is the ultimate.\n\n  C. R.\n\n\n\n\nPANTHEISM IS DECEPTION AND HYPOCRISY.\n\n\n\"Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be\nwise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the\neye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall he be not\ncorrect? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?\"--Psalm\nxciv, 8, 9.\n\nPantheism, personified, is a hypocrite, a deceiver. The name God, as a\nproper name in the English language, means the Divine Being, Jehovah,\nthe Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator and Lord of the universe.\nPantheists say they believe in God, but they tell you, when pressed,\nthey mean by that name \"everything\"--_God is everything._ The term\n\"Pantheist\" is from _pan_, all, and _theos_, God. Webster defines the\nterm thus: \"One that believes the universe to be God; a name given to\nthe followers of Spinoza.\"\n\nHas any man the right to pervert language, fixing new meanings to words\nin common use which are in direct opposition to established usage? The\nman who knows the meaning of a word and uses it in a contrary sense is\nguilty of an abuse of language; and if he fails to make known the fact\nthat he is using the term in a sense differing from established usage,\nhe is, then, a deceiver. Pantheists are simply Atheists in disguise, the\nonly difference being in their professions. The Pantheist says, \"I\nbelieve in a God;\" but this saying is only a distinction without a\ndifference. The atheist is the frank, outspoken man of the two.\n\nWhat must we think of the man who says, \"I believe in God,\" and then\nexplains himself to mean, by the name God, heat, steam, electricity,\nforce, animal life, the soul of man, magnetism, mesmeric force, and, in\none word, the sum of all the intelligences and forces in the universe,\nat the same time denying the proper currency of the term God by denying\nthe existence of a personal God. All Christians should demand that\nChristian terms be used in their own proper currency. But infidels will\nalways do as they have hitherto, will often get out of their own \"ruts,\"\nby the most perfect abuse of language. They can not, it seems, leave off\nthe use of language which is only appropriate to the Christian idea.\nTheir divinity, by their own confession, differs essentially from God,\nand let them use a different word to describe it. Let them do like their\nheathen brethren in India, call it Brahma, or whatever else they please,\nand cease \"stealing Heaven's livery to serve the devil.\" Let them cease\nto profane religion and offend common sense by giving the name of the\nglorious Father of Spirits to their million-headed nondescript.\nPantheism dethrones Jehovah and places no other intelligence in his\nplace as Creator and Ruler of the universe; and, being conscious of the\nodium that necessarily attaches itself to Atheism, on account of its\neverlasting foolishness, they steal the name of God to cloak their\nAtheism.\n\n_Pantheism is demoralizing._ It cuts a man loose from all the sanctions\nof moral law, by denying the resurrection, the judgment and the future\nretribution. It annihilates from the mind of its votary the idea of\nGod's moral government. If man, as it avows, be the highest intelligence\nin the universe of worlds, to whom will he render an account? Who will\ncall upon him to answer? If men and women are simply developments of\nGod, will God be offended with himself? \"Evil is good,\" we are told, \"in\nanother way, we are not skilled in.\" See the author of \"Representative\nMen,\" Festus, page 48. \"Evil\" was held by some of the old heathen\nphilosophers to be \"good in the making.\" They argued that it was the\ncarrion in the sunshine, converting into grass and flower. And then, to\napply their figure, man in the brothel, jail, or on gibbets, is in the\nway to all that is lovely and true. Such reminds us of the ravings of\nlunatics. It is the climax of profanation of the moral government of\nGod. Let those who fear no God, but have wives and children and property\nto lose, reflect upon the propriety of lending their influence to a\nsystem fraught with such consequences. The system positively denies the\ndistinction between good and evil. It declares that we can not sin;\nthat we are God, and God can not offend against himself; that sin is all\nsimply an old lie; that impiety, immorality and vice of frightful mien\nare wedded in eternal decrees, and that man can not sever them.\n\n_Pantheism is veiled Atheism._ It is not necessary to argue this\nproposition at length. Pantheists often speak of the great being, which,\naccording to Pantheism, is composed of all the intelligences of the\nuniverse. Can any man conceive of such a being? Can intelligences be\npiled one upon another, like brick and mortar, and thus be compounded?\nAnd if my spirit be the highest intelligence in the universe, did it\ncreate itself? Does it govern itself? Did it create the universe? Does\nit govern it? Some Pantheists have gone to this length! M. Comte says:\n\"At this present time, for minds properly familiarized with true\nastronomical philosophy, the heavens display no other glory than that of\nHipparchus, or Kepler, or Newton, and of all who have helped to\nestablish these laws.\" \"Establish these laws!\" They were laws governing\nthe planets thousands of years before these astronomers were born.\n\nPantheists often express very high respect for the Christian religion.\nSome of the more vulgar sort, however, speak of it as a superstition.\nBut the wiser ones have reached the perfection of Jesuitism, that is to\nsay, they indulge in hypocrisy and deception to effect a purpose. They\ngrant that the Christian religion is the highest development of humanity\nyet attained by a majority of the race. The heathen of every grade of\ncharacter, and the Christian, with all others who may not be classified\nby us with either, are all, in their scheme, so many successive\ndevelopments of humanity. It is a trick of their trade to clothe their\nabominations in Bible language by wresting the Scriptures. They speak of\nthe \"beauty of holiness in the mind, that surmounted every idea of a\npersonal God;\" and of \"God dwelling in us, and his love perfected in\nus,\" when they maintain that he dwells in every creature and thing. They\nsay they can accept the Bible--that is their phrase--notwithstanding it\npronounces death upon the fools who, \"professing to be wise, change the\ntruth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than\nthe Creator,\" as a mystic revelation of the Pantheism which leaves us to\n\"erect everything into a God,\" provided it is none, inasmuch as \"every\nproduct of the human mind is a development of Deity.\" So the Bible, in\nthe conclusion of their system, is on a level with Thomas Paine's\nwritings as respects inspiration and origin. The great Pantheistic\ndivinity is spoken of by Pantheists as the great soul of the universe,\nwhile the more materialistic look upon it as the universe itself, body\nand soul. With them the soul is the fountain of all the imponderable\nforces, vegetable and animal life, the mesmeric influences, galvanism,\nmagnetism, electricity, light and heat; and the body the sum of all the\nponderable substances; in one word, \"God is everything, and everything\nis God.\" This system is called \"Monotheistic Pantheism.\" It is a vast\ngeneralization of everything into a higher unity, which exalts men and\npaving stones, and cats, dogs and reptiles, and monkeys, to the same\nlevel of God-head, or divinity. Man, the soul of men, as the system\nwould term it, is the greatest manifestation of the divine essence. Yes!\nDIVINE ESSENCE! for, with Pantheists, there is no _personal_ hereafter.\nThis system of Pantheism is an old, worn-out theory; it has putrefied\nand rotted with the worshippers of cats, monkeys, and holy cows and\nbulls, and pieces of sticks and stones on the Ganges more than two\nthousand years ago. It is now dragged up from the dung-hill and\npresented as a new discovery of modern philosophy, sufficient to\nsupplant the Ruler of the universe. How strange it is that men of\nordinary intelligence will embrace the idea, rather than submit to the\ndictates of conscience and the Bible! This world of ours is not an\nabstraction in philosophy that consists of one simple substance called\nmatter, nor yet of one substance, for there are many different material\nsubstances, such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, aluminum and\niron, and more than fifty others already discovered.\n\nNow, let us suppose that all these elements or substances existed as a\ncloud of atoms millions of ages in the past; are we, then, any nearer\nthe solution of the great problem of world making than we were before?\nThe atoms must be material, for a material world is to be made of them;\nand they must have extension; each one of them must have length, breadth\nand thickness; and, as inertia is a property of each and every atom, the\nPantheist has only multiplied the difficulty by millions, for matter can\nnot begin, _of itself_, to move. Did the dead atoms dance about and\njumble themselves together as we now find them? Is the one substance\ntheory correct? Monotheistic Pantheism _is scientifically false in\nfact_. Some of these men who tell us of a world without an intelligence\nin the past, who have such implicit confidence in the powers of matter,\ntell us, that \"millions of ages\" in the past the world existed as a\ngreat cloud of fire mist, which, after a long time cooled down into\ngranite; and this, by dint of earthquakes, broke up on the surface, and\nwashed with rain until, after ages upon ages had passed, clays and soil\nwere formed, from which plants, of their own accord, sprang up without a\ngerm; in other words, germs came into being spontaneously and grew up,\nas we see them, developed in all their grandeur. This chance life,\nsomehow, chanced to assume animal form and fashion until, in the\nmultitude of its changes it reached the fashion of the monkey; and then,\nat last, the fashion of man, both male and female. Truly, the Atheists\nand Pantheists of our country need not complain of any want of power to\nbelieve while such is their basis of faith upon the subject of world\nmaking. But they, to avoid the difficulty that nothing made something,\ntell us \"the fire mist was eternal,\" that it did not make itself. Very\nwell, let us have it that way; then we must be allowed to ask, how an\neternal red hot mist cooled off? And also what there was to cool it,\nwhen it was all there was, and it was red hot, and always had been? In\nother words, how could an eternal red hot cool down without something\nelse in existence to cool it? Why should it cool at all? And why did it\nbegin to cool just when it did? The utmost that any scientist can do is\nto show that such a change took place, but he can not tell you why it\ntook place. Change _it did_! But change is an effect, and requires a\ncause. And, according to their theory, there could be no cause outside\nof the fire mist; for they say there was nothing else in the universe.\nThen the cause was inside of the fire mist. But how can red hot cool\nwhen all there is, is red hot? Had this first mist, to say nothing of\norganic life, a mind? Did it become sensible and resolve to cool off a\nlittle, and settle itself into orderly worlds? What became of its mind?\nDid it divide, and a part go to each planet? Has each planet a great\n\"soul of the world,\" as well as our earth? If so, had we not as well\nbuild an altar to each planet and go back to the religion of our\nbanana-fed ancestors, who burned their children alive in sun worship?\n\nThe Christian religion is so fearfully demoralizing (?) that it is a\ngreat pity that these Godless, Christless souls called Pantheists and\nAtheists can't get some solution of the great problem of world-making\nthat would dispense with the Bible. How well they could get along\nif--if--if--they only had this great question settled.\n\n\"IN GOD WE TRUST.\"\n\n\n\n\nSUBSTANCE OR SUBSTANCES--WHICH?\n\nOR,\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND MIND.\n\n\n\"_Substance_ is that which is and abides;\" \"that which subsists of or by\nitself; that which lies under qualities; that which truly is--or\n_essence_.\" \"It is opposed to _accident_.\" \"In its logical and\nmetaphysical sense it is that nature of a thing which may be conceived\nto remain when every other nature is removed or abstracted from it; the\nultimate point in analyzing the complex idea of any object. _Accident_\ndenotes all those ideas which the analysis excludes as not belonging to\nthe mere being or nature of the object.\" It is said that our first idea\nof _substance_ is, possibly, derived from the consciousness of self, the\nconviction that, while our sensations, thought and purposes are\nchanging, we continue the same. \"We see bodies also remaining the same\nas to quantity or extension, while their color and figure, their state\nof motion or rest may be changed.\" It has also been said that\n_substances_ are either primary, that is singular, individual\n_substances_; or secondary, that is genera, and species of _substance_.\n\nSubstances have been divided into complete and incomplete, finite and\ninfinite. But it is to be remembered that these are merely divisions of\nbeing. Substance is properly divided into matter and spirit, or that\nwhich is extended and that which thinks.\n\n\"The foundation principle of substance is that law of the human mind by\nwhich every quality or mode of being is referred to a substance,\" or the\nconsciousness of a cause for every effect. \"In everything which we\nperceive or can imagine as existing, we distinguish two parts, qualities\nvariable and multiplied; and a being one and identical; and these two\nare so united in thought that we can not separate them in our\nintelligence, nor think of qualities without a _substance_.\" So it is a\nself-evident or first truth, that there is a subjective or inner man\nwhich thinks, reflects and reasons, for memory recalls to us the many\nmodes of our mind; its many qualities and conditions. What variety of\nmental conditions have we not experienced? These are all so many\nevidences of an internal _substance_ that we call spirit. That spirit is\nto be distinguished from thought as cause is from effect is evident; and\nalso from matter lying in the accident or quality of body, is certain,\nfrom the fact of its being subject to such rapid and instantaneous\nchanges of condition. Amidst all the different modes, qualities, or\naccidents of mind, we believe ourselves to be the same individual being;\nand this conviction is the result of that law of thought which always\nassociates qualities with things.\n\nIn the world around us phenomena, qualities or accidents are continually\nchanging, but we believe that these, all, are produced by causes which\n_remain, as substances, the same_. And as we know ourselves to be the\ncauses of our own acts, and to be able to change, within a moment, the\nmodes of our own mind, so we believe the changes of matter, which take\nplace _more slowly_, to be produced by causes which belong to the\n_substances of matter_. And underlying all causes, whether of the\nqualities of matter or mind, we conceive of one absolute cause, one\nsubstance, in itself persistent and upholding all things in nature. This\nsubstance we are pleased to call spirit; and this spirit we call God. To\ndeny this is to strike down a grand law of thought, the foundation\nprinciple of substance, and make the testimony of our own consciousness\nA LIE! The inorganic forces, about which \"unbelievers\" have so much to\nsay are altogether operative in the realm of _substance_; that is to\nsay, they belong to the _invisible_. Organic and inorganic are the same\nas visible and invisible. We know matter by its qualities, and we know\nmind by its qualities. These two, in qualities or attributes, contrast\nwith each other like life and death. One is extenuated and the other\nextended; one is invisible the other is visible. Of the existence of\nthese substances and their laws we have evidence in conscious knowledge,\nin that we know that we have no control over the involuntary or\nsympathetic nervous system, and have the most perfect control over the\nvoluntary nerves. The forces controlling are as different as these\nqualities themselves. If man is simply a material organism, why this\ncontrast? We are told that _life itself_ is a group of co-ordinated\nfunctions. But what correllates that force?\n\nIt is very common for the advocates of the evolution hypothesis to\nmeasure the period between this and the origin of life by the phrase,\n\"Millions and millions of years.\" The only object that such writers have\nin view in so doing is to bridge the gulf between the _assumed_ origin\nof life and mind and the evidence necessary to its establishment as a\nfact in science. They tell us that \"life is a property which certain\nelements of matter exhibit when united in a special form under special\nconditions.\" But when we ask them to give us those certain elements of\nmatter, they immediately inform us that \"matter has about sixty-three\nelements; that each element has special properties, and that these\nelements admit of an _infinite variety of combinations_, each\ncombination having peculiar properties.\" This, as a fort, is a stand\nbehind the dark, impenetrable curtain of an _infinite variety of\ncombinations_. It is just as dark and as destitute of proof as any\npope's assumed infallibility.\n\nMr. Haeckel says: \"As a matter of course, to the _infinite varieties_\npresented by the organic forms and vital phenomena in the vegetable and\nanimal kingdoms, correspond an equally _infinite variety_ of chemical\ncomposition in the protoplasm. The most minute homogeneous constituents\nof this life substance, the protoplasm molecules, must in their chemical\ncomposition present an _infinite number_ of extremely delicate\ngradations and variations. According to the plastic theory recently\nadvanced (?) the great variety of vital phenomena is the consequence of\nthe _infinitely delicate_ chemical difference in the composition of\nprotoplasm, the sole active life substance.\" What a multitude of\ninfinities. But then, an _infinite number_, and an _infinite variety_ of\n_infinitely delicate_ gradations and variations, with millions and\nmillions of years, do not remove further from sight life in its origin\nthan does the materialistic philosophy of one substance. They constitute\nthe _web_ and _filling_ of the _blanket of oblivion_ used by\nmaterialistic doctors to cover up their ignorance of life and its\norigin. A half dozen \"INFINITIES,\" and \"MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS!\"\nWhat! should I care if my ancestors were \"tadpoles,\" when they are HID\nAWAY IN THE CENTER OF INFINITIES, and laid _away back yonder_, so far\noff as \"MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS?\"\n\nWhen we ask our friends for the proof necessary to establish this\nspeculation as a fact among facts, they find it very convenient to\nbetake themselves to _infinities_, and _millions_ and _millions of\nyears_.\n\nBut we Christians do not ask them to give us an _infinite variety_,\netc., but to give us the \"certain elements\" of which \"life is a\nproperty,\" and the \"special form in which these certain elements were\nunited,\" and the \"special conditions\" that existed when life first made\nits appearance by spontaneous generation. When we do this we are\nimmediately carried away into the _infinities_. The result is that the\nsolution of the problem of the origin of life by spontaneous generation,\nas a property of \"certain elements of matter, united in a special form,\nunder special conditions,\" is buried forever out of sight. This same\ndefinition of life is found on page 69 of a work entitled, \"The System\nof Nature,\" published by D. Holbach, a French Atheist, in 1774, in these\nwords: \"Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert\nand dead assumes action, intelligence and life when it is combined in a\ncertain way.\"\n\nVoltaire answered: \"This is precisely the difficulty. How does a germ\ncome to life? Is not this definition very easy--very common? Is not life\norganization with feeling? But,\" says Voltaire, \"that you have these two\nproperties from the motion of matter alone: it is impossible to give any\nproof, and if it can not be proved why affirm it? Why say aloud, 'I\nknow,' while you say to yourself, 'I know not?'\"\n\nOur Atheistic friends say: \"The forms of life vary because of the\ndifference in their molecular construction, resulting from different\nphysical conditions to which the various forms have been subjected.\"\n\nWonderful discovery! Does it explain the evidence of design which is\npresented in pairing off male and female in the same form of life?\n\nDr. Parvin is often referred to as \"frankly admitting that the doctrine\nof the evolution of species is accepted by three-fourths of the\nscientific men,\" and that this doctrine has, in their minds, \"rendered\nnugatory the hypothesis of a vital immaterial principle as a causal\nfactor in the phenomena of life and mind.\" Allowing this statement its\nfull force, it is still true that none but Atheists can possibly be\nincluded in the \"three-fourths.\" So much the worse for them. But it is\nan Atheistic trick to try to succeed by a misrepresentation of facts.\nOne of their number recently said, \"It is now almost universally\nbelieved by those who have investigated the subject that life\noriginated from natural agencies without the aid of a creative\nintelligence. Then those who have investigated the subject are almost\nuniversally _Atheists_?\"\n\nIt is said that \"vital activity, whether of body or mind, is a mode of\nmotion, the correllate of antecedent motion.\" But what correllated the\nforce? According to this logic life came from the antecedent motion;\nthat is, from the motion of dead atoms. But motion itself is the\nmanifestation of energy, and there must of necessity be something behind\nit to which it belongs as an attribute. Do you say it was dead atoms, or\nmatter without life? Then dead atoms set dead atoms into motion and\nproduced life! Can you believe this? If you can, you need find no\ntrouble in believing in the most orthodox hell. Can you get more out of\na thing than there is in it? We don't think so. But we do think that\nthere is credulity enough, even blind credulity, in the advocates of\nspontaneous generation to enable them to believe anything they may\nhappen to wish true. We are told that \"life in its higher forms is not\nan immaterial entity, _nor the result_ of a special form of _force\ntermed vital_, but, that it is a group of co-ordinated functions.\" Then\nwhat correllated the force? If it was not vitality what was it? But this\nis just equivalent to saying that life does not proceed from life. So,\nin the realm of inertia or death, without a God and without life, some\nkind of a mechanical operation among dead atoms took place which\nproduced \"a certain chemico-physical constitution of amorphous\nmatter--on that albuminous substance called sarcode or protoplasm,\"\nwhich evolved more than was involved, or brought organic life out of\ndead inorganic matter. But life is simply a \"mode,\" or \"degree of\nmotion?\" But we are curious to know just here whether the advocates of\nthis system of things do not believe that there always was a degree of\nmotion. Perchance they do, but then they certainly can't believe that\nthis particular degree or mode of motion which they called _life_ was\neternal. So, then, a degree of motion is life, and a degree of motion is\nnot life. This thing of confounding life with motion I'm thinking leads\nto difficulty. I can see how motion may be the result of life, but just\nhow it is _life itself_ I can't see quite so well. Is cause and effect\nthe same?\n\nWe have a most remarkable, and yet a natural, concession made in the way\nin which men who feel the weakness of their cause generally make\nconcessions. It is a statement said to be made by Baron Liebig; it is\nthis: \"Geological investigations have established the fact of a\nbeginning of life (?) upon the earth, which leaves no doubt that it can\nonly have arisen naturally and from inorganic forces, and _it is\nperfectly indifferent whether or not we observe such a process now_.\"\nThis statement is untrue as respects geological facts. But the\nconcession is, that spontaneous generation is not to be an observed\nfact. \"Perfectly indifferent whether or not we observe such a process\nnow?\" Well, it never was observed. Mr. Liebig's statement doubtless\nproceeds from the conviction that the system is never to be established\nby observation. It is simple imagination. Virchow says: \"We can _only\nimagine_ that at certain periods of the development of the earth unusual\nconditions existed, under which the elements entering into new\ncombinations acquired in statu nascente vital motions, so that the usual\nmechanical conditions were transformed into vital conditions.\" In this\nstatement it is well for us to remember that it is not only simple\nimagination, but also that vital motions were the cause, bringing about\nvital conditions, that is to say, life, before life was, transformed\nmechanical conditions into vital conditions. So, in this very singular\nimaginary hypothesis touching the origin of life we have the usual\ncircle suicide of the system. \"Vital motions transform mechanical\nconditions into vital conditions,\" and vital conditions fill the world\nwith \"vital motions,\" and life itself is only a degree \"or mode of\nmotion.\" _Such_ is their travel around the circle.\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nCan you believe that _vital motion_ transformed mechanical conditions\ninto _vital conditions_, without _life_ being the cause of those _vital\nmotions_?\n\n\n\n\nDIFFICULTY WITH FIRE.\n\n\nLa Place, in his solution of how our planet was made, supposed that the\ncooling, and consequently contracting rings of the fire cloud planet,\nearth, did not break up into pieces, but retained their continuity; but,\nin opposition to all experience and reason, he supposed that the cooling\nrings kept contracting and widening out at the same time. According to\nthe nebular hypothesis--_or guess_--the fire mist was cooling and\nshrinking up, while the rings of the same heat and material were cooling\n_faster_ and widening out from it: a piece of disorder equal to a\nmiracle, for it can not be duplicated among solids or fluids in heaven\nor earth, or under the earth; for everything narrows down upon\ncooling--_contracts_!\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nTHE INFIDEL'S OFFSET.--An unbeliever once said to a man who advocated\nthe doctrine of total depravity: \"The ground for my rejection of all\nresponsibility for belief is the acknowledged necessitated nature of\nbelief. Show me,\" said he, \"that it is not necessitated, and I am\nanswered. When you show me that it is controlled by a will, equally\nnecessitated, I am not answered. If a necessitated faculty or operation\ncan not be responsible, then neither will nor volition can be\nresponsible. You,\" said the infidel, \"go through the whole circle of\nmental faculties, and find necessity everywhere and responsibility\nnowhere.\"\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nThrough the kindness of Brother J. M. Mathes we are in possession of a\ncopy of the life of Brother Elijah Goodwin. It has the merit of being\nmainly Brother Goodwin's own production. His many friends will regard it\nas a grand \"keepsake.\" It is neatly bound in cloth, contains 314 pages,\nand is in beautiful type. Send $1.50 by postoffice order to Elder J. M.\nMathes, Bedford, Lawrence county, Indiana, and receive a copy in return.\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nThe punctuation and spelling from the original text have been faithfully\npreserved. Only obvious typographical errors have been corrected.","title":"The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, Volume I, No. 7, July, 1880","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14475}