{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28672/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28672","id":"gutenberg_28672","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28672","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","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 http://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\nVOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1880. NO. 9.\n\n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF OUR RELIGION AS CONCEDED BY ITS ENEMIES.\n\n\nVoltaire says, \"I am ever apprehensive of being mistaken; but all\nmonuments give me sufficient evidence that the polished nations of\nantiquity acknowledged a supreme God. There is not a book, not a medal,\nnot a bas-relief, not an inscription, in which Juno, Minerva, Neptune,\nMars, or any of the other deities, is spoken of as a creating being, the\nsovereign of all nature.\n\n\"On the contrary, the most ancient profane books that we have--Hesiod\nand Homer--represent their Zeus as the only thunderer, the only master\nof gods and men; he even punishes the other gods; he ties Juno with a\nchain, and drives Apollo out of heaven.\n\n\"The ancient religion of the Brahmins explains itself in a sublime\nmanner, concerning the unity and power of God, in these words found in\nthe 2d chapter of the Shastah, 'The Eternal, absorbed in the\ncontemplation of his own existence, resolved, in the fullness of time,\nto communicate his glory and his essence to beings capable of feeling\nand partaking his beatitude, as well as of contributing to his glory.\nThe Eternal willed it, and they were. He formed them partly of his own\nessence, capable of perfection or imperfection, _according to their\nwill_. The Eternal first created Brahma, Vishna and Siva, then Mozazor\nand all the multitude of the angels. The Eternal gave the pre-eminence\nto Brahma, Vishna and Siva. Brahma was the prince of the angelic army.\nVishna and Siva were his coadjutors. The Eternal divided the angelic\narmy into several bands, and gave to each a chief. They adored the\nEternal, ranged around his throne, each in the degree assigned him.\nThere was harmony in heaven.'\n\n\"The Chinese, ancient as they are, come after the Indians. They have\nacknowledged one only God. They have no subordinate gods. The Magi of\nChaldea, the Sabeans, acknowledge but one supreme God, whom they adored\nin the stars, which are his work. The Persians adored him in the sun.\nThe sphere placed on the frontispiece of the temple of Memphis was the\nemblem of one only and perfect God, called _Knef_ by the Egyptians. The\ntitle of Deus Optimum Maximus was never given by the Romans to any but\nJupiter.\" Voltaire adds, \"This great truth, which we have elsewhere\npointed out, can not be too often repeated. Jupiter was the translation\nof the Greek word Zeus, and Zeus a translation of the Phenician word\nJehovah.\"--_Philosophical Dictionary, vol. 1, pp. 374, 375._\n\nEver remember, that there is, in all the ancient theories of gods, the\ngrand idea of one supreme God. Unbelievers keep this great truth out of\nsight.\n\nR. Dale Owen says of Christ, \"His character and his doings, as exhibited\nin the gospel biographies--are almost as marvellous as the system he\ngave to the world. They accord neither with his country nor with his\ntime, nor--except as one illustrious example disclosing to us what man\nmay be--with that human race with which, on a hundred occasions, he\nexpressly identified himself. It were difficult in this connection, to\nimprove on the words of an anglican clergyman, whose early death was a\nmisfortune to the church he adorned. 'Once in the roll of ages, out of\ninnumerable failures, from the stock of human nature, one bud developed\ninto a faultless flower. One perfect specimen of humanity has God\nexhibited on earth. As if the life blood of every nation were in his\nveins, and that which is best and truest in every man, and that which\nis tenderest and gentlest and purest in every woman, were in his\ncharacter; he is emphatically the Son of Man.' 'Christ is the crowning\nexemplar of the Inspired; for he, while abiding among us, lived, more\nnearly than any other of God's creatures here, within sight and hearing\nof his future home. Therefore it is that his teachings are the noblest\nfruits of inspiration.'\"\n\nA.J. Davis says: \"He (Christ) was A TYPE OF A PERFECT MAN, both in\nphysical and spiritual qualifications. His general organization was\nindeed remarkable, inasmuch as he possessed, combined, the perfection of\nphysical beauty, mental powers and refined accomplishments. He was\ngenerally beloved during his youth for his great powers of discernment,\nhis thirst after knowledge, and his disposition to inquire into the\ncauses of mental phenomena, of the conditions of society, and of the\nvisible manifestations of nature. He was also much beloved for his PURE\nnatural sympathy for all who were suffering afflictions either of a\nphysical or mental character--It is true that at the age of twelve years\nhe was admitted to the presence of the learned doctors. There he\nmanifested some of his powers of discernment, interior and natural\nphilosophy, unsophistocated love, simplicity of expression, kindness of\ndisposition, and universal sympathy and benovolence. These he displayed\nwith all the naturalness and spontaneousness resulting from the\npromptings of an uncorrupted and purely-organized spiritual principle.\"\n\nGregg, a Deist, says: \"I value the religion of Jesus, as containing more\ntruth, purer truth, higher truth, than has ever yet been given to man.\nMuch of his teaching I unhesitatingly receive as, to the best of my\njudgment, unimprovable and unsurpassable--fitted, if obeyed, to make\nearth all that a finite and material scene can be, and man only a little\nlower than the angels. 'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord! Lord; *\n* * * * * but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.' 'By\ntheir fruits ye shall know them;' 'I will have mercy, and not\nsacrifice;' 'Be not a slothful hearer only, but a doer of the work;'\n'Woe unto ye, Scribes and Pharisees, for ye pay tithes of mint, and\nanise and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice,\nmercy, and temperance, (faith left out.)'\n\n\"'The _enforcement of purity of heart as the security for purity of\nlife, and of the government of the thoughts, as the originators and\nforerunners of action_.' 'He that looketh on a woman, to lust after her,\nhath committed adultery with her already in his heart;' 'Out of the\nheart proceed murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness, blasphemies;\nthese are the things which defile a man.'\n\n\"_Universal good-will toward men._--'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as\nthyself;' 'Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, that do ye\nalso unto them, for this is the law and the prophets.'\n\n\"_Forgiveness of injuries._--'Love your enemies; do good to them that\nhate you, pray for them which dispitefully use you and persecute you;'\n'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against\nus;' 'I say not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times\nseven;' 'If ye love them only that love you, what reward have ye? Do not\neven publicans the same?'\n\n\"_The necessity of self-sacrifice in the cause of duty._--'Blessed are\nthey which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;' 'If any man will be\nmy disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and\nfollow me;' 'If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from\nthee;' 'No man, having put his hand to the plough and looking back, is\nfit for the kingdom of God.'\n\n\"_Humility._--'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;'\n'He that humbleth himself shall be exalted;' 'He that is greatest among\nyou, let him be your servant.'\n\n\"_Genuine sincerity; being not seeming._--'Take heed that ye do not your\nalms before men, to be seen of them;' 'When thou prayest, enter into thy\ncloset and shut thy door;' 'When thou fastest, anoint thine head, and\nwash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast.' All these sublime\nprecepts need no miracle, no voice from the clouds, to recommend them\nto our allegiance, or to assure us of their divinity; they command\nobedience by virtue of their inherit rectitude and beauty, and vindicate\ntheir author _as himself the one towering perpetual miracle of\nhistory_.\"--_Creed of Christendom, pp. 318, 319._\n\n\"We hold that God has so arranged matters in this beautiful and\nwell-ordered, but mysteriously-governed universe, that one great mind\nafter another will arise from time to time, as such are needed, to\ndiscover and flash forth before the eyes of men the truths that are\nwanted, and the amount of truth that can be borne. We conceive that this\nis effected by endowing them, or by having arranged that nature and the\ncourse of events shall send them into the world endowed with that\nsuperior mental and moral organization in which grand truths, sublime\ngleams of spiritual light, will spontaneously and inevitably arise. Such\na one we believe was Jesus of Nazareth, the most exalted religious\ngenius whom God ever sent upon the earth; in himself an embodied\nrevelation; humanity in its divinest phase, 'God manifest in the flesh,'\naccording to eastern hyperbole; an exemplar given in an early age of the\nworld to show what man may and should become in the course of ages; in\nhis progress towards the realization of his destiny; an individual\ngifted with a grand, clear intellect, a noble soul, a fine organization,\nmarvelous moral intuitions, and a perfectly balanced moral being; and\nwho, by virtue of these endowments, saw further than all other men,\n'Beyond the verge of that blue sky, where God's sublimest secrets\nlie.'\"--_Creed of Christendom, pp. 306, 307._\n\nWe regard him * * as the perfection of the spiritual character, as\nsurpassing all men of all times in the closeness and depth of his\ncommunion with the Father. In reading his sayings, we feel that we are\nholding converse with the wisest, purest, noblest being that ever\nclothed thought in the poor language of humanity. In studying his life\nwe feel that we are following the footsteps of the highest ideal yet\npresented to us upon earth.\n\nBy the very next sentence Gregg's eulogy upon Christ becomes an eulogy\nupon the Old Testament. He says the Old Testament contained his\nteaching; it was reserved for him to elicit, publish and enforce\nit.--_Creed of Christendom, pp. 300, 310._\n\n\"But it must not be forgotten that though many of the Christian precepts\nwere extant before the time of Jesus, yet it is to him that we owe them;\nto the energy, the beauty, the power of his teaching, and still more to\nthe sublime life he led, which was a daily and hourly exposition and\nenforcement of his teaching.\"--_Gregg, C.C._\n\nStrauss allows that it was not possible that the early Christians should\nhave looked upon Christ as their Redeemer and Mediator between God and\nmen, if the apostles had not proclaimed this very doctrine; and the\napostles could not have preached it if Jesus himself had not designated\nhimself as the Redeemer from sin, guilt and death, and demanded faith in\nhimself as a religious act. He asserts that the distinguishing features\nof the Christian church must be traced to Christ, his ministry and\nteachings about himself; that Christ claimed the power to secure peace\nto his followers. He also claims that the moral and religious character\nof Christ is above every suspicion, and unequaled in its kind. He says,\n\"The purely spiritual and ethical conceptions of God as the '_only\none_,' he owed to his Jewish education, and, also the purity of his\nbeing. But the Greecian element in Jesus was his cheerfulness, arising\nfrom his _unsullied mind_.\" Again he says, Jesus, by cultivating a frame\nof mind that was cheerful, in union with God, and embracing all men as\nbrethren, had realized the prophetic ideal of a New Covenant with the\nheart inscribed law; he had to speak with the poet, received God into\nhis will; so that for him the Godhead had descended from its throne, the\nabyss was filled up, all fear was vanished. His beautifully organized\nnature had but to develop itself to be more fully and clearly confirmed\nin its consciousness of itself, but needed not to return to begin a new\nlife.\n\nGregg, the Deist, after presenting Jesus as the \"one towering, perpetual\nmiracle of history,\" says, \"Next in perfection come the views which\nChristianity unfolds to us of God in his relation to man, which were\nprobably as near the truth as the minds of men could in that age\nreceive. God is represented as our Father in heaven, to be whose\nespecial children is the best reward of the peace-makers, to see whose\nface is the highest hope of the pure in heart, who is ever at hand to\nstrengthen his true worshipers, to whom is due our heartiest love, our\nhumblest submission, whose most acceptable worship is righteous conduct\nand a holy heart, in whose constant presence our life is passed, to\nwhose merciful disposal we are resigned by death. His relation to us is\nalone insisted on. All that is needed for our consolation, our strength,\nour guidance, is assured to us. The purely speculative is passed over\nand ignored.\" It may be that the prospect of an \"exceeding, even an\neternal weight of glory\" may be needed to support our frail purposes\nunder the crushing afflictions of our mortal lot. It may be that, by the\nperfect arrangements of Omnipotence, the sufferings of all may be made\nto work out the ultimate and supreme good of each. He next makes this\ngrand concession: To the orthodox Christian, who fully believes all he\nprofesses, cheerful resignation to the divine will is comparatively a\n_natural_, _an easy_, _a simple thing_. To the religious philosopher\n(meaning such as himself) it is the highest exercise of intellect and\nvirtue. The man who has realized the faith that his own lot is so\nregulated by God as unerringly to work for his highest good--with such a\nman, resignation, patience, nay cheerful acquiescence in all suffering\nand sorrow, appear to be in fact only the simple and practical\nexpression of his belief. If, believing all this, he still murmers and\nrebels at the trials and contrarieties of his lot, he is of the\nchildishness of the infant which quarrels with the medicine that is to\nlead it back to health and ease.\n\nHuxley says: \"The belief that the divine commands are identical with the\nlaws of social morality has left infinite strength to the latter in all\nages. The lover of moral beauty, struggling through a world full of\nsorrow and sin, is surely as much the stronger for believing that\nsooner or later a vision of perfect peace and goodness will burst upon\nhim, as the toiler up a mountain for the belief that beyond crag and\nsnow lie home and rest.\"--_Modern Symposium, page 250, 1._\n\nBaldwin Brown, of the Liberal School, speaking of a very singular effort\nof Mr. Harrison, says: \"I rejoice in the passionate earnestness with\nwhich he lifts the hearts of his readers to ideals which it seems to\nme--that Christianity which as a living force in the Apostles' days\nturned the world upside down, that is right side up, with its face\ntoward heaven and God--alone can realize for man. I recall a noble\npassage written by Mr. Harrison some years ago: 'A religion of action, a\nreligion of social duty, devotion to an intelligible and sensible head,\na real sense of incorporation with a living and controlling force, the\ndeliberate effort to serve an immortal humanity--this, and this alone\ncan absorb the musings and the cravings of the spiritual man.' A.J.\nDavis speaking of the first century, says: 'Jesus Christ and his\napostles were at this time establishing the only true religion.'\"\n\nNow, I wish to say a few things in view of all that I have given from\nthe opposite side. And first, as it is the part of science to find a\ncause for every effect, we will look after the causes as given by those\nmen who reject the essential divinity of the religion of Christ, and\nalso look after the strength or weakness of their cause, as the case may\nbe:\n\n1. What is the cause of the character they ascribe to the Christ? We\nwill begin with the Deist Gregg. He claims that God has endowed men\ndifferently--has endowed some with brains so much larger and finer than\nthose of ordinary men as to enable them to see and originate truths\nwhich are hidden from the mass; and that when it is his will that\nmankind should make some great step forward, should achieve some\npregnant discovery, that is, discovery loaded with benefits to our race,\nhe calls into being some cerebral organization of more than ordinary\nmagnitude and power, as that of David, Isaiah, Plato, Shakespeare,\nBacon, Newton, Luther, Pascal. _Here we discover the cause of the\nsuperior character of Christ as a teacher_, which is assigned by all\nthe leading spirits in modern unbelief, viz: a finely endowed cerebral\norganization, and a Jewish education; these are constantly presented as\nsufficient to meet the scientific demand for the cause of his life and\nteachings, _or the cause of Christianity_. But there is a scientific\ndemand lying behind all this, viz: what is the cause of this fine\ncerebral organization, which was so wonderful as to produce the most\nwonderful character of all ages? The answer, given in the clear-cut\nwords of all except Atheists, who say there is no God, _is this_, \"The\nall-wise disposer of all things sends just such men into our race, when\nany great step forward is necessary to be made--that he endows them with\ndirect reference to the discoveries and achievements to be made.\" So the\ngreat cause, after all, is, upon their own showing, the will and power\nof God; for if he endowed him, as they claim, with direct reference to\nhis teachings and achievements, it follows of necessity, that he willed\nthat those very teachings and achievements should not only be made, but\nbe made just when they were, and just as they were; so Christianity\nfinds its origin in God, and is a manifestation from God, according to\nthe showing of _Gregg_ and _Strauss_. For Strauss will have it that the\nfinite must not be separated from God. But you must remember that\nStrauss is a Pantheist, and that he, as such, claims that the infinite,\nor God, who with him is not a person, but _all-pervading_ life, receives\nthe finite into itself, and so it becomes a part of the idea of the\nGodhead; in such a manner, however, that it is not peculiar to Jesus\nalone, but to humanity as such. So Strauss reaches the same thought that\nGregg expresses--so far as the relation of Christ to Godhead is\nconcerned. While he and Strauss differ upon the subject of the Godhead,\none being a Deist and the other a Pantheist, they find their agreement\nin naturalism, that is to say, they account for the Christ character\nupon the score of his being more finely organized and endowed by\nrelation to the Godhead; Gregg claims that this is attributable to an\nall-wise Godhead, and Strauss claims that it is attributable to the\nall-pervading life, or Pantheistic Godhead, and both include as a\nsecond cause of his character his education.\n\nWe then systematize as follows: first, the Deist who accepts the\ncharacter of Christ as exhibiting a superior life. His first cause for\nthe existence of Christianity is the fine organization of Christ. His\nsecond cause is his education. The pantheist has it as follows: first\ncause for the existence of Christianity, the fine organization of\nChrist. Second cause, his education; both, however, must find a cause\n_behind_ that fine organization, and that cause, they claim, is the\nGodhead, however much they may differ about that Godhead.\n\nThis relation between Christ and the true Godhead is the fundamental\narticle in the Christian religion, and becomes at once, by common\nagreement, the first great cause of the origin and existence of the\nChristian religion. No Pantheist, or Deist, or Naturalist gets away from\nthis conclusion without avowing Atheism. What does it amount to? Answer:\n_Christianity is of God._ The reason is this, the fine cerebral\norganization of Christ was of God. Hence we have it, first cause, God;\nsecond cause, Christ; effect, Christianity. Common admission, Christ is\nthe grandest character, the purest life, the finest teacher, finest\norganization ever yet given to the race. The Christian says, _Amen!_ But\nscience must find a cause for every effect. What was the cause of the\nteachings of the apostles, whose sincerity was such that they died for\ntheir religion? Well, Strauss says, It is inconceivable that they should\nhave done it if Jesus himself had not designated himself as the Redeemer\nfrom sin, guilt and death, and required faith in his person as a\nreligious duty, claiming the power to secure peace in the Holy Spirit.\nAccording to Strauss, we have this arrangement:\n\nFirst, the infinite--the Godhead took the finite Jesus into itself.\n\nSecond, he was above suspicion--the finest, purest specimen of all ever\nknown among men. A.G. Davis, R.D. Owen, Renan and Gregg, and Tom Paine,\nand a host of others in unbelief say _Amen!_ Gregg says God sent him,\nand sent him to do _just that_ which he did do. Strauss says, He taught\nhis desciples, and they consequently taught the world.\n\n\n\n\nOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO REVELATION.\n\nTHE TEN SCEPTICS IN COUNCIL--No. 3.\n\nBY P.T. RUSSELL.\n\n\n_Christian._ Gentlemen; I am happy to meet you again. Be seated. Have\nyou weighed the matter I gave you in our last interview? If you have, I\nwould like to hear your objections, if you have any.\n\n_Reason._ We think we have some valid objections. First, we are\nsatisfied that your position is unscientific, although it is ingeniously\ntaken. Among scientific men it is conceded that nature reveals her own\nbirth, and declares her creation. Now, if it is true that Nature\n_herself_ tells the history of her origin, then your idea that God the\ncreator told this, is to us unreasonable, for there is no need of the\nsame story being told to the same auditors by two different parties; so\nwe must regard your position as untrue.\n\n_Christian._ Are you sure that Nature ever gave the history of her\norigin, of her birth? do you read it in the book of Nature, or does she\ntell it vocally?\n\n_Reason._ Tell it vocally? No! Nature has no power of speech! She wrote\nthe history of her origin upon the pages of her own book, and the eye of\nthe Scientist reads it there.\n\n_Christian._ Are you certain of this? how was she qualified to do so?\nCould you write the history of your origin, of your birth, without the\naid of some one older than yourself? Did you have the powers of\nobservation in active exercise, watching every movement among the causes\nthat brought you into being? Now, if man could not be an eye-witness to\nhis own origin, upon this planet of ours, was there anything else in\nnature that could be, and so gave that history, which you know you could\nnot? Is it not possible that you have obtained your intelligence from\nanother source--from what I call the revelation of the Creator? May it\nnot be true that you have thus borrowed your information, and falsely\ncredited it to Nature? If you found it in the book of Nature and read it\nthere, you can tell me on what page it is written? will you do this so\nthat I may read it too?\n\n_Reason._ Read it there, and on some certain or well-known page! Really,\nyou are very captious. This great truth is on every page; the whole face\nof Nature declares it; I can not tell you anything about the page.\n\n_Christian._ There is a German maxim which, translated into English,\nreads, \"The clear is the true.\" The natural converse of this German\nproposition is this: The truth of the ambiguous is very doubtful. This\nleaves your claim in a very suspicious condition, if it does not brand\nit with falsehood. Again, you say it was written in the book of Nature.\nBy whom was it written? A book can not write itself. Nature, or the\nmaterial universe, neither did nor could write it, for she has no power\nof action, inertia being her property. She might be acted upon. I can\nwrite upon this sheet, but it can not write upon itself. If it is\nwritten upon it is _self-evident_ that a foreign power has done it. So\nNature, being the aggregate of everything, can not move without the hand\nof a foreign power moving her. I suppose you are now ready to ask, \"Is\nit not a scientific truth that matter is eternal?\"\n\n_Reason._ Yes, we are satisfied that matter is uncreated, and hence\neternal. The idea that something was made of nothing might do for the\ndark ages, but it will not stand the test now. The penetrating eye of\nthe scientist has exploded that dream.\n\n_Christian._ I am glad to hear you speak thus with confidence, and yet\nthe sequel may show that you are the dreamer. Science, falsely so\ncalled, has declared matter eternal. True science contradicts this.\n\"None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have\nproduced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We\nare therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules,\nor the identity of their properties, to the operation of any of the\ncauses which we call natural. The quality of each molecule gives it the\nessential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of\nits being eternal and self-existent.\"--Prof. Clark Maxwell, lectures\ndelivered before the British Association, at Bradford, in Nature, vol.\n8, p. 441.\n\nProf. Maxwell is a star of first magnitude among British scientists; he\nhas made a specialty of molecular organizations. No real scholar would\ndare to risk his standing by disputing the conclusion of Prof. Maxwell.\nAn idea that is shut out by matter of fact discoveries will not be made\nthe basis of an argument by any scholar who has not been taking a \"Rip\nVan Winkle sleep\" while the rest of the world has been advancing. The\ngreat improvements resulting in the astonishing increase of power has\nenabled us to closely examine the smallest known particles of matter,\nmolecules. And under the best glasses, these give every possible\nindication of being a created, or manufactured article.\n\nThus, the latest and most grand discoveries in this field of science do\nunequivocally confirm the declaration of Moses in Gen. 2: 3, where,\naccording to the Hebrew in which he wrote, speaking of the creation of\nall things, he gives us this idea, \"Which God created to make.\" See\nmarginal reading, Gen. 2: 3. Hebrew scholars tell me this is the correct\nreading. The word, rendered, \"and made,\" is in the infinitive mood, and\nhence should read, \"to make;\" also, that the word rendered, \"created\" is\nthe proper term by which to indicate the producing cause. This, then, is\nthe thought presented by both of our witnesses, _i.e._, by Moses and\nscience. Moses says God created the material to make globes, or worlds.\nThe material was molecular, and science declares that every molecule\ngives every possible indication of being manufactured or created. So,\ntrue scientific discoveries have so completely vindicated the Mosaic\ncosmogony that it leaves no chance for any, outside of three classes, to\nobject. For two of these classes I am not writing, viz., the cowardly\nand the dishonest. To do this would be \"casting pearls before swine.\"\nBut for the ignorant I send this on its mission. Read and digest. In my\nnext I will demonstrate the divine origin of language and religion. Till\nthen, farewell.\n\n\n\n\nINFIDELS IN A LOGICAL TORNADO.\n\n\nThere is nothing but matter. Matter is eternal. Therefore all things are\neternal. Does this have the right ring? It must be so if infidel\nmaterialism be the true philosophy. And if it is so we are all deceived;\nfor universal conscience, and universal language, are both against it.\n\nIf there is anything that is not eternal there was a time when it began\nto be, it was created in some way, intelligently or by accident. If\nintelligently, the Bible idea is, and _must be_ correct. If without an\nintelligence it was not, and could not be by evolution, for creation by\nevolution could not, and can not be; because that which is not in a\nthing can not be evolved out of it, unless you can get more out of a\nthing than there is in it; which is absurd. So evolution is a negation\nof the doctrine of a creation. And the doctrine that there is nothing\nbut matter, and that matter is eternal, is a denial of creation by\nintelligence or otherwise. The infidel says, life began to be; for there\nwas a time when there was no life. But they say matter is eternal. And\nlife is not eternal. Therefore life is not matter. Gentlemen, will you\nget away with this conclusion? The opposite is equally fatal to the\nmaterialistic theory. Thus, matter is eternal. There is nothing but\nmatter. Therefore life is eternal. Can you get this conclusion out of,\nor away from logical deductions?\n\nBut infidels say, \"Life is a property of certain elements of matter.\"\nVery well; can you separate things and their properties? Can you get\nthem so far apart as to hold the one class--things--to be eternal, and\nthe other class--properties--not? Your philosophy of spontaneous\ngeneration of life says, Yes, yes, there was a time when it began to be,\nand it was spontaneously generated, of course it was. Very well; there\nis nothing but matter. Matter did not begin to be; it is eternal. Life\nbegan to be, therefore it is not matter; otherwise it is eternal\naccording to infidel logic, unless you take the position that life is\n_nothing_!\n\nMatter is eternal.\n\nThat which began to be is not eternal.\n\nMind began to be;\n\nTherefore, mind is not eternal.\n\nVery well; let's look at it once more.\n\nMatter is eternal; it did not begin to be.\n\nMind is not eternal; it began to be;\n\nTherefore, mind is not matter.\n\nWhere, gentlemen, O where will you place mind? is it also nothing?\n\nThat which began to be was created.\n\nLife and mind, both, began to be;\n\nTherefore, life and mind were created.\n\n_Question._ Were they the effects of an inadequate cause? Inanimate and\nunintelligent nature would not be an adequate cause. Did these do more\nthan animated intelligence can do? Gentlemen of skeptical proclivities\nanswer.\n\nIf so, is this not evolution backwards? Is it not retrogression, or\ndevelopment at the expense of the loss of power to rise to the plane of\nunintelligent mind and life evolving nature? Do you say, organic life\ndoes evolve organic life and mind. From a state of death? Without\nantecedent life and mind being drawn upon? Come, gentlemen; how is this?\nYou say inanimate Nature produced life and mind without the previous\nexistence of either; can you duplicate that feat with your power? If you\ncan't are you not below the inanimate Nature which did it for the first\ntime? Can inanimate forces do more than living intelligent Nature? Do\nyou say no! Then demonstrate the philosophy of spontaneous generation of\nlife, and show yourself A GOD.\n\nAn effort to produce organic life without antecedent life, or where it\nis not, is an effort to create organic life. The efforts of unbelievers\nto produce organic life by spontaneous generation, is an effort to\nproduce organic life where it is not. Therefore the efforts of\nunbelievers to produce organic life, by spontaneous generation, is an\neffort to create organic life.\n\nAn effort to create organic life where it is not is an effort to rise\ninto the character of a God, and show one's self the equal of God. But\nwhy should this effort not be made? If unintelligent dead matter has\nperformed the feat, without wisdom or design, why should it not be\nperformed by living intelligent Nature? Gentlemen, demonstrate your\ntheory. Do you say, we have given up all hope of witnessing its\ndemonstration? Well, well, has any man ever witnessed it? You say no.\nThen it is not certain knowledge. Science is certain knowledge.\nTherefore spontaneous generation of life and intelligent being is not\nscience. Now, gentlemen, don't prostitute science at the shrine of your\nnonsensical guessing any more. Throw your guessing to one side and\nacknowledge God like wise men, and be no longer foolish.\n\nDo you say life was always in matter? \"Then we must conclude that it is\nin matter in the same sense in which all other corporeal qualities are\nin bodies, so as to be divisible together with it, and some of it be in\nevery part of the matter.\" This is ancient Hylozoism.\n\nOn the other hand, the \"Stoical Atheists supposed there was one life\nonly in the entire mass of matter, after such a manner, as that none of\nthe parts of it by themselves should have any life of their own.\" Now,\naccording to this Stoical theory, \"life is no corporeal quality or form,\nbut an incorporeal substance.\" There are, really, but two sorts of\nAtheism which have been in any thing like extensive notice. First, \"Such\nas claim that life is essential to matter, and therefore _ingenerable_\nand _incorruptible_.\" Second, \"Those who claim that life and everything,\nbesides the bare substance of matter, or extended bulk, is merely\naccidental, generable, or corruptible, rising out of some mixture or\nmodification of matter.\" Is life, perception and understanding\nessential to matter, as such? Is senseless matter perfectly wise,\nwithout consciousness? Such is Hylozoism, and it is outrageous nonsense.\nVery few men ever had credulity enough to receive and appropriate it.\nThis form of Atheism was a forlorn and abandoned thing, without form or\nsystemization, for centuries gone by--and it has few--very\nfew--votaries, even now. The second kind of Atheism \"is that of a true\nnotion of body, that it is nothing but resisting bulk,\" associated with\natomic physiology, which is an old theory resurrected of late, and\ndisplayed anew, with a _show_ of deep philosophy and wisdom. But that\nmind and understanding itself sprang from senseless nature and chance,\nas a mere accident, or from the unguided and undirected motions of\nmatter, is also nonsensical, and utterly absurd. Were there infinite\natoms in mutual encounters, dashing and striking against each other? Did\nthese atoms, devoid of sense and life, with their reflections and\nrepurcussions, their cohesions, implexions, and entanglements, their\nscattered dispersions and divulsions, produce life and intelligence? If\nso, we will call it by the name of chance. Hear this, O, ye scientists,\nthere is but one choice, and that is between _God_ and _chance_!\n\nThe chance theory is that \"infinite atoms of various sizes and figures,\ndevoid of life and sense, moving fortuitously from eternity in infinite\nspace, and making successive encounters and various implexions and\nentanglements with one another, produced first a confused chaos of these\nomnifarious particles or atoms, which, jumbling together with infinite\nvariety of motions by the tugging of their different and contrary\nforces, hindered and restricted each other until, by joint conspiracy,\nthey conglomerated into a vortex or vortexes, where, after many\nconvulsions and evolutions, molitions and essays, in which all manner of\ntricks were tried,\" without design, \"they _chanced_ in length of time to\nsettle into the form and system of things known as earth, air and fire,\nsun, moon and stars, plants, animals and men;\" so that senseless atoms\nunconsciously moved themselves, although dead as grains of sand, and\nkept up the motion until, without any _living substance_ underlying, and\nadequate to produce motion, all things so beautifully arranged sprang\ninto life and being. O, ye stars, what is the magnitude of an infidel's\ncredulity? What is there which he can not believe? It is no longer to be\nset down that he is a reasonable man. \"The fool saith in his heart there\nis no God.\" There is a grand relation between the eternal spirit and\nthat eternal substance which lies behind and underneath all that is, and\nthat relation is the relation between the \"King Eternal\" and that over\nwhich he presides and which he controls. So out of nothing nothing\ncomes.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGIOUS HYSTERIA, OR GETTING INSTANTANEOUSLY CONVERTED.\n\nBY GEORGE HERBERT CURTEIS, M.A.,\n\n_Late Fellow and Sub-Rector of Exeter College, Principal of the\nLitchfield Theological College, and Prebendary of Litchfield Cathedral._\n\n\nI fear it is impossible to deny, that in the early part of the\neighteenth century--amid the general coldness, languor, and want of\nenthusiasm which characterized that effete epoch--\"the Church of\nEngland, as well as all the dissenting bodies, slumbered and slept.\" At\nthis epoch, the Puritans were buried, and the Methodists were not born.\nThe Bishop of Litchfield, in a sermon delivered in 1724, said, \"The\nLord's Day is now the Devil's market day.\" In Litchfield Cathedral\nLibrary is a copy of Dr. Balguy's Sermons, delivered in 1748, containing\non the fly-leaf an autograph remark by Bishop Bloomfield. It is in these\nwords, \"No Christianity here.\" It is said of that period of time, by a\nnoted minister of the Church of England, that a dry rationalism had\ntaken possession of the church, and that all the powers of her best\nintellects were engaged in hot contests with Deists and Unitarians;\nthat an equally dry morality and stoical praise of \"Virtue\" formed the\nchief part of the exhortations from the pulpit. It was just in these\ntimes that the causes of the reformation of John Wesley sprang into\nbeing. Seven biographies of John Wesley have already been written, and\nthe subject seems far from being exhausted even yet. As usual in such\ncases it is the earlier publications which take the more sober view of\nhis character and history; while those of a later date surround their\nhero with a halo of extravagant admiration. Alexander Knox, a personal\nfriend of Wesley's, thus writes of him: \"How was he competent to form a\nreligious polity so compact, effective and permanent? I can only express\nmy firm conviction that he was totally incapable of preconceiving such a\nscheme. * * * * That he had uncommon acuteness in fitting expedients to\nconjunctures is most certain; this, _in fact_, was his great talent.\"\n(_Letter appended_ to Southey's Third Edition, 2, p. 428.) Methodism, at\nthe first, sprang up simply as a revival.\n\nHalf a century ago a distinguished Wesleyan wrote as follows: \"Though\nMethodism stands now in a different relation to the establishment than\nin the days of Mr. Wesley, _dissent_ has never been professed by the\nbody--and for obvious reasons: (1) A separation of a part of the society\nfrom the church has not arisen from the principles assumed by the\nprofessed Dissenters, and usually made so prominent in their discussions\non the subject of establishments. (2) A considerable number of our\nmembers are actually in the communion of the Church of England to this\nday. (3) To leave that communion is not, in any sense, a condition of\nmembership with us.\" (R. Watson's Observations, p. 156.)\n\n\"What may we reasonably believe to be God's design in raising up the\npreachers called Methodists? Not to form any new sect, but to reform the\nnation, particularly the church; and to spread scriptural holiness over\nthe land.\" (Large Minutes of Conference, 1744-89, Qu. 3.) In the same,\nQu. 45, we have this answer: \"We are not seceders, nor do we bear any\nresemblance to them. We set out upon quite opposite principles.\"\nSouthey says: \"Wesley had now proposed to himself a clear and\ndeterminate object. He hoped to give a new impulse to the Church of\nEngland, to awaken its dormant zeal, infuse life into a body where\nnothing but life was wanting, and lead the way to the performance of\nduties which the church had scandalously neglected.\" (Southey's Life, p.\n193, ed. Bohn.)\n\nMr Curties says: \"A disastrous period of Wesleyanism opened with John\nWesley's voyage to America, in 1735. It was a mission nobly undertaken,\nat the instance of Dr. Burton, of Corpus College, and of the celebrated\nmystic, William Law; and its purpose was twofold; first, that of\nministering to the settlers in Georgia, and then of evangelizing the\nneighboring tribes of red Indians. (Southey's Life, p. 47). But its\nresults were far different from those which either Wesley, or those who\nwished him well, could have anticipated. For not only were his services\nfor the settlers rejected, and his mission to the Indians a failure. (R.\nWatson's Life, p. 38.) On his voyage out he had fallen in with\ntwenty-six Moravian fellow-passengers, on their way from Germany to\nsettle in Georgia; and they spoilt all. On his as yet unsettled,\nenthusiastic, self-dissatisfied frame of mind, the spectacle of their\nconfident, tranquil, yet fervid piety, fell like a spark on tinder. He\nwrites, in his journal, now first begun, 'From friends in England I am\nawhile secluded; but God hath opened me a door into the whole Moravian\nChurch.' Here, Wesley learned, and took in, the doctrines of Peter\nBohler, the Moravian, who taught thus: First, when a man has a living\nfaith in Christ, then he is justified. Second, this living faith is\n_always given in a moment_. Third, in that moment he has peace with God.\nFourth, which he can not have without knowing he has it. Fifth, and\nbeing born of God he sinneth not. Sixth, and he can not have this\ndeliverance from sin, without knowing that he has it.\" (Southey's Life,\np. 113.)\n\nSuch is the origin of the Methodist tenet \"that there is a swift and\nroyal road, not only for some men, but for all men, by which the highest\nspiritual things may be reached at a bound.\" Under such an impression\nJohn Wesley set about realizing an instantaneous and sensible\nconversion. If a man under high mental excitement is looking for such a\nthing to occur, something will take place sooner or later that will\nanswer the expectation. So, on Wednesday, May 24, 1738, about nine\no'clock in the evening, at a society's meeting in Aldersgate street,\nWesley persuaded himself that he had felt the desired transition and had\npassed--from what, to what? In the answer to that question lies the\nwhole doctrinal difference between modern Methodism and the Church of\nEngland. Stevens, in his history of Methodism 1, 108, says, Methodism\nowes to Moravianism special obligations: (1) It introduced Wesley into\nthat regenerated spiritual life, the supremacy of which over all\necclesiasticism and dogmatism it was the appointed mission of Methodism\nto reassert. But a still stranger event occurred in John Wesley's life,\nwhich contributed still farther to darken and confuse his teaching at\nthis critical period of his career. He had been carried away by his love\nof the Moravians so far as to take a long journey, and to visit the\nheadquarters of their communion at Hernhutt, in Saxony. There he had\nbeen an honored guest at the retreat which the enthusiast Count\nZinzendorf had carved out of his estate for these hunted Bohemian\nfollowers of Huss and Wickliff. But he had returned home, after a brief\nresidence among them, as Luther returned from Rome, not a little shaken\nin his allegiance to their system. Indeed, shortly afterwards he broke\nfrom them entirely; set up a sort of English Moravianism of his own, and\norganized it with \"bands\" and \"class-meetings\" on the Moravian model.\nBut his feelings as a churchman revolted against their\nultra-spiritualism; repudiated their doctrine that sacraments and\noutward means were nothing, and protested that a man must do something\nmore than wait, in quietude, until the influx of God's spirit came upon\nhim, and filled, like a rising tide, all the sluices and channels of his\nsoul. But no sooner had this unquiet soul emancipated itself from one\nforeign influence than it was warped out of its true course by another.\n_German mysticism_ had done its work on him, and its doctrine of\nregeneration into God's kingdom by an interior convulsion of the mind\nhad left its mark upon Wesleyanism for all future time. But just as this\nextravagance seemed likely to subside, and to be absorbed amid the\nhealthier atmosphere of an English churchman's common sense, most\nunhappily a strong breath of _French fanaticism_ suddenly set across his\npath, from quite another quarter. And the singular phenomenon now\npresented itself of an epidemic religious-hysteria commingling with, and\nemphasizing into lamentable extravagance, all the most dangerous\nfeatures of the Methodist-Moravian doctrine about the new birth. So\nwonderfully is all the world connected together! * * * * *\n\nThese French \"convulsionists,\" who had, just before this time, brought\ntheir curious mental malady with them into England, were refugees from\nthe atrocious _dragonnades_ of Louis the XIV. Maddened by his abominable\nand relentless persecutions, deprived by his autocratic edicts of all\nthat life held dear, robbed of their children at the sweet age of seven\nyears old, broken on the wheel, hunted among the mountains of the\nCevennes, beggared, insulted, tortured, massacred--what wonder that\nthese poor Protestants lost the balance of their mental powers and\nengendered a hysterical disease? The disease is (I believe), under its\nstrangely mutable forms, well known to medical science, though science\nhas never yet been able to probe all its mysterious depths. Its seat is,\napparently, the great nervous ganglia of nutrition, which lie in the\ncenter of the body, and whose strange sympathetic action with and upon\nthe brain has led to all the popular notions about the heart and\nneighboring organs being the seat of various impassioned feelings.\nSuffice it, however, at present, to observe that the phenomena which\nthis extraordinary and infectious disease presented had sufficed to\ncheer the faith and animate the ardor of the Calvinists in the Cevennes\nagainst Rome.\n\nThe Cevennes is a range of mountains in the south of France, divided\ninto N. and S. * * a wild rugged country, and the abode of many\nProtestants, who here maintained themselves against the persecutions of\ntheir enemies. (See _Cavalier Jean_). Such, in fact, were the causes of\nthe extasies or irregular inspirations; the want of spiritual guides and\nschools, spoliation, suffering, liability to torture, and constant\napprehension of the galley or the gibbet, the minds of these unfortunate\ncreatures became excited. * * *\n\nThis religious enthusiasm began in Vivarais, an old territory of France,\nin Languedoc, on the Rhone, with the dragonnades and the revocation,\nrepeal of an edict, about the year 1686.\n\nA practical proof of the morbific power of the emotions and passions is\nfound in the frequent occurrence of _psychopathitis_ in times when all\nthe elements of social life are in a state of fermentation. In and after\nrevolutions sudden changes of fortune produce a thousand cases of mental\ndisorder.\n\nThe very same disease broke out among the Romanists themselves, at Port\nRoyal, in 1729. In the previous century it had thrown whole nunneries\nnear Bordeaux into wild confusion. In the sixteenth century it was known\nin Italy as the \"Dancing Mania,\" or Tarantism. At the close of the\nfifteenth century _Tarantism_ had spread beyond the borders of Apulia. *\n* * The number of those affected by it increased beyond all belief.\nInquisitive females joined the throng and caught the disease from the\nmental poison which they eagerly received _through the eye_. * * *\nForeigners of every color and race were, in like manner, affected by it.\nNeither youth nor age afforded any protection; so that even old men of\nninety threw aside their crutches, and joined the most extravagant\ndancers. * * * Subordinate nervous attacks were much more frequent\nduring the seventeenth century, than at any former period. (Hecker,\nEpidemics of the Middle Ages, pp. 107-115, Engl. Trans.)\n\nDuring the Middle Ages it appeared in Germany. It was a convulsion,\nwhich in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame; * * *\nand was propogated by the _sight_ of the sufferers. They continued\ndancing, for hours together, in wild delirium, until at length they\nfell to the ground in a state of exhaustion. They then complained of\nextreme oppression, and groaned as if in the agonies of death. * * *\nThey were haunted by visions, and some of them afterwards asserted that\nthey had felt as if immersed in a _stream of blood_, which obliged them\nto leap so high. George Fox, Journal 1, p. 100: \"The word of the Lord\ncame to me again. * * * So I went up and down the streets crying, Woe to\nthe bloody city, Lichfield! And there seemed to me to be a channel of\nblood running down the streets, and the market-place appeared like a\npool of blood.\" In Germany it was called St. John's or St. Vitus's\ndance. And long before its first appearance in that precise form, in\n1374, it had, no doubt, been the real secret of the bacchanalian orgies\namong the Greeks, and of the frantic, dervish-like gestures and cuttings\nwith knives and lancets which we read of among Asiatic races. In our own\nday and country (thank God) these extraordinary and degrading spectacles\nare scarcely to be seen.\n\nBut the disease still lurks among the superstitious Christians of Tigre\nin Abyssinia; in Siberia; among the revivalists of Ireland and America;\nand (in a very mild form), among the ignorant Welsh Methodists,--who are\non this account popularly called \"Jumpers.\" Now it so happened that\nthese poor hysterical French refugees had arrived in great numbers in\nLondon, and had also visited Bristol, shortly before the critical year\n1739,--when the excitable George Whitfield landed from America, and John\nWesley returned home from Germany. Men's thoughts were then full of the\n(so called) \"French prophets.\" A new religious enthusiasm was floating\nin the atmosphere, and it only needed the impulse of some exciting\npreaching, and the mental tension which is always produced among\nexpectant and heated crowds, to generate infallibly an outbreak of this\nunaccountable and infectious malady. Such an occasion soon presented\nitself. In February, 1739, Whitfield, for the first time, preached in\nthe open air, at Kingswood, near his native place, Bristol, to the wild\nand lawless colliers of the then _Black Country_ of England. In the May\nfollowing he persuaded John Wesley to join him there, and to imitate his\nexample. And then, for the first time, _religious hysteria_ began to\nmanifest itself in England. Men and women of all ages fell down in\nconvulsions, and cried aloud for mercy. And honest John Wesley said, \"I\nam persuaded that it is the devil tearing them as they are coming to\nChrist.\"--_Wesley's Journals._\n\n\n\n\nTHINGS HARD TO BELIEVE.\n\nBY D.H. PATTERSON.\n\n\n\"For myself I still live and doubt. You know I can't believe everything.\nThere are so many things hard to believe--I can't see them.\"\n\nSo wrote an honest, intelligent young man, who was standing on the verge\nof infidelity. Nor is he alone in his doubts. Many persons will not\naccept the Bible on account of its mysteries _or miracles_. To doubt\nseems to be as natural as to believe. Sir Wm. Hamilton says:\n\"Philosophers have been unanimous in making doubt the first step in\nphilosophy.\" When Paul says, \"Prove all things,\" he tells us doubt a\nthing until it is tested. To doubt is not necessarily a fault, but to\ncontinue in doubt is blameworthy. If we are doubtful about a thing it is\nour duty as intelligent beings to examine the testimony concerning it,\nand so end our doubt. But shall we reject a thing because it is hard to\nbelieve? If the Bible had nothing in it hard to comprehend we would not\nbe likely to accept it as divine in its origin; because the mind that\ncomprehends a matter is no more limited, in regard to that matter, than\nthe mind that conceived it. Consequently, if we could comprehend\neverything in the Bible there would be no divinity of infinite\nattributes about it to contrast with the limited powers of human nature.\nIts miracles are proof of its divine origin.\n\nIf you leave the Bible, to what will you go? Are all things hard to\nbelieve in the Bible? Does a man's believing power rest upon flowery\nbeds of ease in the teaching of infidelity? In the so-called realms of\nfree-thought is there nothing hard to believe? Will it no more be said\nthat--\n\n  \"Not a truth has to art or to science been given,\n  But brows have ached for it, and souls toiled and striven?\"\n\nRejecting the Bible, you must either accept Deism or Atheism. Deism\nadmits the existence of a God of infinite power and intelligence. A\nDeist need have no trouble in believing a miracle. The question with him\nis not, can God work miracles, and thereby reveal himself to man, but\nhas he done it. Reason teaches us that intelligent design characterizes\nevery act of God. Which theory ascribes the more intelligence to\nGod--the Deist's or the Christian's?\n\nIt is universally conceded that man has a worshiping nature. This is\nevinced by the almost universal idolatry of past ages. Would an act of\nwisdom reveal to man the true object of worship? Man has a conscience\nwhich smites him for his wrong doing, and approves him for his well\ndoing. Would wisdom and love tell him what is right? Or would such\nattributes allow him to remain in ignorance of his duties? Man has a\ndesire for eternal life; would Deity prepare a place of happiness for\nhim and not reveal the fact to him, that he might better prepare for it,\nand enjoy the hope of it? Man has a desire for the knowledge of his\norigin, and for a knowledge of the attributes of his God; would an\nintelligent being create him with these desires and refuse to gratify\nthem?\n\nSurely there are some things in Deism hard to believe. Deism allows that\nman has in his nature this empty bucket, which is not to be filled\nduring his stay in this world, _if it shall ever be_! Nor are these all\nthe hard things which Deists ask me to believe. He wishes me to believe\nthat the history of the Nazarene is legendary, that he was a fanatical\nenthusiast. Some Deists have refused to believe so hard a thing as this.\n\nYet I am asked to believe, in addition to this, that he, Christ, \"has\nbecome,\" as Renan says, \"the corner-stone of humanity so entirely, that\nto tear his name from the world would be to rend it to its foundations.\"\nI am asked, also, to believe, with Renan, the prince of Deists, that,\n\"Whatever may be the surprises of the future, Jesus will never be\nsurpassed. His worship will grow young without ceasing; his legend will\ncall forth tears without end; his sufferings will melt the noblest\nhearts; all ages will proclaim that among the sons of men there is none\nborn greater than Jesus.\" I am asked, with this same Renan, to \"place\nthe person of Jesus on the highest summit of human grandeur.\" Is it not\nhard to believe all this about Jesus, and at the same time believe that\nhe gave to the world a false religion? Truly there are many things hard\nto believe--\"_I can't see them!_\"\n\nI can not believe that \"the passion of an hallucinated woman gave to the\nworld a resurrected God.\" I can not believe that his legend was the\nfruit of a great, altogether spontaneous conspiracy. A conspiracy\nimplies conspirators; and I can not believe that the apostles were such\noutrageous fools as to make a conspiracy, and work so zealously in it,\nand cling so firmly to it, when it promised nothing but stripes,\nimprisonments, hunger, nakedness, and death. Neither can I believe that\nthese unlearned Galilean fishermen had the ability in themselves to\nconcoct a conspiracy that would, and did, deceive nearly the whole\ncivilized world. Nor can I believe that an ignorant, deluded Nazarene\nfounded a religion that has held the attention of the thoughtful of all\nages. He that refuses to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, along with\nthe claims of the Bible, has many more and greater difficulties in\naccounting for the existence of Christianity. It is here, and its\nexistence is the greatest miracle man has ever witnessed. To deny its\ndivinity only increases its wonderfulness. We can not have an effect\nwithout an adequate cause. It is hard to believe that humanity is an\nadequate cause of Christianity. For eighteen centuries it has been\nliving and acting; persecuted by enemies without, and torn and betrayed\nby enemies within; oppressed by government, and corrupted by Popes and\npriests; shorn of its grandeur and glory by paganism; its spirituality\ncrippled by stripes and animosities; its fervid love and deep piety\nreplaced, to a great extent, by policy; its rites and ceremonies changed\nby councils; yet, it continues a monumental proof of the divinity of its\nglorious founder. Rescued from the wreck of the Dark Ages by Luther and\nothers, it commends itself more and more to every reflecting mind as the\nonly living religion of the present and future. Deliver me from the\ncredulity that believes that such a wonderful soul-redeeming institution\nhad its origin in the passion of a crazy woman or the conspiracy of a\nfew ignorant fishermen.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RESULT OF IGNORANCE, AS VIEWED FROM THE SKEPTIC'S STANDPOINT.\n\n\n\"A singular forgetfulness is sometimes noticeable in quarters where one\nwould least expect it; that the education of an immature mind, and the\nprosecution of a _scientific inquiry_, are two perfectly distinct\nthings; that the former requires faith, the latter skepticism; and that\nwhile the former is the work of the church, the latter is the work of\nindividuals. Thus the Duke of Somerset goes to church, and finds an\nignorant generation _reposed in a paradise of illusions_, while its more\nlearned and thoughtful progeny _is excruciated with doubt_. In vain\npreachers now exhort to faith. * * * The Protestant oftentimes takes up\nhis open Bible; he wishes to believe; he tries to believe. * * * All\nthese efforts avail nothing.\" _Christian Theology and Modern Skepticism,\n1872, p. 144._\n\n\"The Duke and the Protestant are simply trying to do two things at once;\nand, naturally, Professor Huxley is tempted in the same direction.\" _Lay\nSermons, p. 21._ \"But then he is keen enough to suspect some absurdity\nin the position, and honestly proclaims that the army of liberal thought\nis, at present, in very loose order; and many a spirited freethinker\nmakes use of his freedom mainly to vent nonsense.\" _Lay Sermons, p. 69._\n\nAccording to the above quotations, if it is wise to be skeptical, to be\nignorant is bliss.\n\nGive me a \"_paradise of illusions_;\" let me _repose in them_; if I am\ndisappointed in the end I shall fare as well as the skeptic, with this\ndifference, that in case there is any hereafter, I shall know that in my\nignorance I lived a life of blessedness with reference to the _now_\nexperienced eternity; while, in case there is no hereafter for us, we\nshall just be equal. Again I repeat it, let me have the side where I\ntake no risks when viewed from the skeptic's standpoint, and where I can\n\"_repose in a paradise of illusions_,\" in preference to the _skeptic's\nexcruciating doubt_.\n\nBut we shall not be disappointed. Neither are we necessarily a\ngeneration of immature minds. We are willing as a whole to compare with\nnon-church going people as a whole. And we are further conceded to be\nthe happiest people in the world, unless you can find a people happier\nthan those who \"_repose in a paradise of mental illusions_.\" Yes! But we\nshall find in the end that it was neither ignorance nor illusion, but\nthe wisdom of the wise. Let us continue thus, _to live_.\n\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION.\n\nWHAT DO EVOLUTIONISTS TEACH?\n\nDEDICATED TO C.F., DANVILLE, IND.\n\n\nMany scientists who reject religion put on an air of superiority that is\nrepulsive. If you call their speculations in question you at once\nreceive credit for being an uneducated fool, a worshiper of the Bible.\n\nMr. Huxley advises theologians to let science alone. _Wonderful advice!_\nDo such men let religion alone? They can't agree among themselves, not\neven in their advice to theologians. And they ask more of religionists\nthan they are willing to give. Dr. Lionel Beale, an English physiologist\nhas written a volume of three hundred and eighty pages to prove that the\nphenomena of life, instinct and intellect, are not referable to the\nblind forces of nature. He avows his belief that mind governs matter;\nthat a \"never-changing, all-seeing, power-directing and matter-guiding\nOmnipotence\" presides over all things. He also avows faith in the\nmiracles underlying Christianity. But Prof. Huxley says, there is\noverwhelming and crushing evidence that no event has ever occurred on\nthis earth which was not the effect of natural causes, meaning thereby\nphysical causes. The factor of a divine intelligence he sets aside as of\nno consequence. His words are, \"the doctrine that belief in a personal\nGod is necessary to any religion, worthy of the name, is a mere matter\nof opinion.\"\n\nTyndall, Carpenter and Henry Thompson teach that \"prayer is\nsuperstitious absurdity.\" Herbert Spencer is regarded by infidels as the\n\"great philosopher,\" and he labors to prove that there can not be a\npersonal God, or human spirit or self; that moral laws are simply\n\"generalizations of utility,\" or, as Carl Vogt would have us believe,\nthat self-respect, and not the will of God, is the basis and law of\nmoral obligation. And Mr. Haeckel would have us believe that a few\n\"monistic materialists\" are the only men entitled to a hearing upon the\nquestion of \"Evolution.\" So he excludes all true and intelligent\nChristians, for they are not and can not be \"monistic materialists.\"\n\nHis words are, \"It is only a select few, therefore, of learned and\nphilosophical monistic materialists who are entitled to be heard on\nquestions of the highest moment to every individual man, and to human\nsociety.\" But just what the man means by the \"_highest moment_\" we are\nanxious to know, as he is the most blank negative of religion that we\ncan conceive. When he attempts to answer the religious objections to\nevolution, or, as he terms it, the descendence theory, he\nunceremoniously dismisses them as beneath his notice, giving his only\nargument, viz.: \"All faith is superstition.\" He disposes of the\nobjections drawn from first, or intuitive truths, by a simple denial of\ntheir existence, asserting that all our knowledge is from our senses.\nThe objection that so many noted naturalists reject evolution, as it is\nadvocated by himself and others, he considers at some length. He says,\nfirst, \"Many have grown old in another way of thinking and can not be\nexpected to change.\" Second, \"Many are collectors of facts, without\nstudying their relations, or, they are destitute of the genius for\ngeneralization, and so, can not rear the building. Others, again, are\nspecialists.\" He says \"It is not enough that a man should be versed in\none department, he must be at home in all, in Botany, Zoology,\nComparative Anatomy, Biology, Geology and Paleontology. He must be able\nto survey the whole field.\" His next, and mainly, is the statement that\nnaturalists are generally _lamentably deficient_ in philosophical\nculture and spirit. He says \"The immovable edifice of the true monistic\nscience, or what is the same thing, natural science, can only arise\nthrough the most intimate interaction and mutual interpretation of\nphilosophy and observation.\" (See Philosophie and Empirie, pp. 638-641.)\n\nThis statement alone should stir up all Deists to a consideration of\ntheir teaching touching the sufficiency of the \"Book of Nature;\" for if\nit be true, then we must expect some other revelation, or be left to the\nconclusion that the Great Father has left his creatures in a great\nmeasure in a state of helplessness, unless Mr. Haeckel, or some other\nman like himself, can show us that the \"Great Spirit\" intended that he,\nand others like him, should do our thinking for us, seeing that we are\nincapable through mental deficiency, of raising the edifice, and seeing\nthat, Mr. Huxley advises us poor (?) theologians to \"let it alone.\" And\nMr. Haeckel himself would not allow that any man is entitled to a\nhearing until he comprehends Biology, Botany, Comparative Anatomy,\nZoology, Geology and Paleontology. Ho! evolutionists, ninety-nine out of\nevery hundred of you, get out! You have no right to speak on the\nsubject; otherwise, Haeckel is one of the foolish men, and talks\nwithout understanding himself. You must be at home in all those\nsciences, and emancipate yourselves from all religious beliefs before\nyou have a right to be heard upon the grave question of evolution from\nan ancestral moneron; for you are incapable of comprehending your own\n_monistic_--_materialistic origin_. For, according to Haeckel, before a\nman is entitled to be heard he must renounce all faith in God, in the\nBible, in the human spirit, and in the future life. Mr. Haeckel knows a\ngreat deal? Well, there are some very weighty men in this world? But,\nwhen they are in the east, our planet does not tip up in the west? We\nChristians have no right to be heard? Mr. Huxley advises us to keep our\nmouths shut (?). Well, that is grand? It correllates so beautifully with\n\"_free thought_\" and \"free speech.\"\n\nOne evolutionist is all the time spreading himself about the preachers\nof religion knowing nothing in science, and another is saying to them,\nlet science alone, and another says you can't rear the building if you\ntry; you don't know enough. What a grand harmony there is just here? We\ntheologians would advise \"natural selection to be present with such\ninstructors as thus advise us, and continue with them long enough, at\nleast, to reject the worst from the school and give us a blessing in the\nsurvival of the fittest, for we would like to know our duty.\" _So much\nfor liberalism and broad principles._\n\n\"Monistic materialism,\" according to Haeckel, finds its primeval parent\nin a moneron, a creature of one substance, and that a semi-albuminous\nfluid. Now, it would be very interesting to know just how all the\ndifferent substances, in all the creatures of this earth, got in, in\norder to get out, for involution lies behind evolution. But then, we\ntheologians \"have no right to be heard?\" \"are not entitled to be heard?\"\nand, besides this, Mr. Haeckel has set aside intuitive, or first truths,\nand, as all axiomatic truths are of this class, perhaps it is wrong for\nus to bother you with our logic? Nevertheless we can't refrain from\nspeaking our piece; we are advocates of free thought and free speech.\n\nIt must be conceded that there was a time when life and organisms began\nto exist upon our planet. From whence did they come, and how? The\n\"high-priest\" of Germany, who claims to be entitled to a hearing, says,\nby \"spontaneous generation\" they first appeared in the \"monera.\" His\nwords are these, \"Only such homogeneous organizations as are yet not\ndifferentiated and are similar to the inorganic crystals in being\nhomogeneously composed of one single substance, could arise by\nspontaneous generation, and could become the primeval parents of all\nother organisms.\" Such is Haeckel's germ of life.\n\nDid it always exist? Is a moneron an eternal life germ? No. Neither\nHaeckel or Darwin advocates such a foolish idea; nor yet the idea of\nlife-germs always existing. Life-germs are material organisms, and they\nmay be alive or dead; for we know there is no period in the history of a\nliving organism when it is not liable to die.\n\nSpontaneous generation does not correlate with the idea that \"life-germs\nalways existed.\" And it is also opposed to the Christian idea that all\nlife is from God, the eternal, ever-living spirit. So we Christians say,\nthere is no life without antecedent life. If men prefer to deify\nlife-germs, of course that is their business, but we have no disposition\nto accept a distinction without a difference, excepting the sacrifice of\nour common sense. It is more rational to believe in an ever-living\nintelligence as the source of all life, intelligence and moral nature.\nDid an eternal life-germ evolve all the forms of organic life known upon\nour earth? The eternal life-germ idea of materialistic philosophy\nrepresents no evolutionists of any note whatever. I know of one\ngentlemen only, at the present writing, that it represents. Haeckel\nsays, We can, therefore, from these general outlines of the inorganic\nhistory of the earth's crust deduce the important fact, that at a\ncertain definite time life had its beginning on our earth, and that\nterrestrial organisms did not exist from eternity, but at a certain\nperiod came into existence for the first time.\n\nThe _godless advocates_ of spontaneous generation thus allow that life\nin its first appearance was without antecedent life; and so more was\nproduced by the blind forces than was in nature to be evolved. Tell me\nhow that was done, and I will tell you how to create something out of\nnothing. Haeckel says, \"All the different forms of organisms which\npeople are usually inclined to look upon as the products of creative\npower acting for a definite purpose, we, according to the theory of\nselection, can conceive as the necessary productions of natural\nselection, working without a purpose.\"--_History of Creation, Vol. 1,\npp. 176-327._ He says, \"We have before this become acquainted with the\nsimplest of all species of organisms in the _monera_, whose entire\nbodies when completely developed consist of nothing but a semi-fluid\nalbuminous lump; they are organisms which are of the utmost importance\nfor the theory of the first origin of life.\"--_History of Creation, Vol.\n1, p. 330._\n\nHere we part with our friends of the Haeckel school. They maintain that\nthere was life without antecedent life, and so get more out of dead\natoms than was in them, which is equal to something made of nothing. Mr.\nDarwin, being apprised of this difficulty, claimed a miraculous origin\nfor the first form, or forms, of life, but retired the Creator at once\nupon the great achievement, leaving all to be evolved from these first\nforms by and through natural agencies, denying even design in nature.\nMr. Buckner, a bold advocate of the \"spontaneous generation\" of life,\nwho has published two volumes on Darwinism, says Darwin's views \"are the\nmost thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more\natheistic than those of his predecessor, Lamark, who admitted, at least,\na general law of progress and development; whereas, according to Darwin,\nthe whole development is due to the gradual summation of innumerable\nminute and accidental operations.\" It is admitted that the doctrine of\nevolution of species from other and entirely different species is a mere\nhypothesis, an opinion, _or guess_.\n\nWhat have we to gain by the adoption of this unknown factor in the\nvegetable and animal _kingdoms_? Answer, nothing but _irreligion_; a\nworld of godless infidels tearing afresh the wounds that death has\nmade, and restoring to the grave its victory over the human heart.\nRenan, in his recent lectures talks about the \"torture consequent upon\nthe disappointment in his efforts to attain to the unattainable;\" and\nStrauss said the \"sense of abandonment is at first something awful.\"\nThis is the inheritance that the tenet of evolution leaves to all\ninfidels in their last extremity.\n\n\n\n\nWHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BECOME CHURCH MEMBERS?\n\n\nWe have looked with great anxiety upon the efforts being put forth in\nour Sunday-schools, believing that they would result in bringing\nintelligent Christians from the extremes into which they have fallen by\nmeans of the controversy going on upon the subject of infant church\nmembership; but it seems that there is great need of some one to speak\nout against the old, fossilized ideas touching this subject. And at the\nrisk of being faulted we shall say our piece. First, The Apostle John\naddresses a class of Christians which he terms \"little children,\"\nclassifying them in contradistinction from young men and fathers. He\nsays, \"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven\nyou for his name's sake.\" This class included neither young men nor\nfathers, for John addresses young men and fathers as separate and\ndistinct classes.\n\nJesus also recognized this class of disciples by saying, \"Better were it\nfor a man that a mill-stone be hanged about his neck, and he be drowned\nin the depths of the sea than for him to offend one of these little ones\nwhich _believe in me_.\"--_Matt. 18._\n\nSecond, The gospel of Christ undoubtedly reaches the lowest capacity of\nresponsible creatures, and just where the ability to believe in Christ\nand commence a Christian life comes in, there responsibility comes in,\nwhether that be at eight, ten, or any other year in the child's\nhistory. We can not conceive of a sinner in youth without a Savior\nprovided, nor of a sinner in childhood without the gospel privilege of\nbecoming a member of the body of Christ.\n\nFathers and mothers, where are your children? Are they reading novels\nbetween Sundays, and all other kinds of literature? Are they believing\nthis, that, and the other story, which they read?\n\nAre they old enough and wise enough to know what is wrong? Do they know\nwhat is right? Have you taught them? If you have, that settles one\nimportant question, viz.: are they teachable? If they are not, of course\nyou have not taught them. Well, teach them the knowledge of our Lord\njust as soon as you can, as soon as they are teachable, and then point\nthem to the Savior of men, for they are then old enough and wise enough\nto become Christians. The gospel of the blessed Savior is so loaded down\nwith divine mercy that it simplifies its requirements to faith in the\nLord Jesus Christ and obedience to his will. But ability measures\nresponsibility, and where ability begins responsibility begins, and as\nability increases responsibility also increases.\n\nI am, and have been, for many years, satisfied that a great and grievous\nwrong exists on both sides of the question of infant church membership.\nFirst, no one can be a member of the body of Christ who is incapable of\nenjoying spiritual union with Christ through faith and submission to his\nwill, for \"he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.\" So membership\nin the body of Christ is, so far as unteachable babes are concerned, a\n_misnomer_. On the other side, the neglect to teach children when they\nare teachable, and to instruct them to come to Christ in their\nchildhood, when they can come in faith, is a great and grievous wrong.\nWill not all our brethren speak out upon this subject? _Brethren, let us\nhave no laziness here!_ Where a soul finds condemnation there the gospel\nfinds it.\n\n\n\n\nOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE JEWS.\n\n\nIt is the business of mind to follow facts and mark their results. The\nJewish nation had an existence prior to the Augustan or Athenian age,\nand was far ahead of either in civilization and morality. The Jewish\npeople have often been reprobated, as a people almost without\nliterature, art and civilization, but we are persuaded that it is base\ningratitude upon the part of any scholar living in a civilized land to\nspeak of that ancient family thus in terms of reproach. What are the\nscriptures of the Old and New Testaments but Hebrew productions? It\ncertainly corresponds with infidelity to speak contemptuously of the\npeople who, more than all others, were under the influence of those\nscriptures for ages in the past, and who were the chosen people through\nwhom they were to be given to the world of mankind. The Hieroglyphics of\nEgypt, and the Classics of Greece, are perishable monuments constructed\nin memory of intelligence and civilization, when compared with the\nundying influence of the Bible upon the hearts of the millions who\nresort to it to find their way through life. For one edition of the\nclassics we have had ten thousand Bibles. Why is this?\n\nMen of the profoundest wisdom have investigated the claims of the Bible\nupon the attention of the literary and scientific, upon the attention of\nthe moral and civil in every nation. They tell us that its morality and\ntheology are far superior to the teachings of any and all of the ancient\nteachings of the greatest known philosophers, and that the writings of\nthose philosophers are much inferior to those of Moses and the prophets.\nThe poetry and philosophy of the Hebrews, as presented in the Bible,\nsurpasses Homer and Aristotle. And their independent religion, existing\namidst the heathenism of the surrounding pagan nations, was the only\nreligion calculated, by virtue of its \"one God\" to worship, to unite the\nhuman family in one great brotherhood. It is conceded upon all sides\nthat the Bible is the most remarkable book that the world ever read.\nHow base and unjust is it, therefore, to be speaking reproachfully of\nthe Hebrews as a nation. We should remember them with great kindness for\nthe inestimable treasures of wisdom and knowledge handed to the people\nof the ages through them. To them the whole Christian world is indebted\nfor its morality and civilization. Even Thomas Paine got his notions of\ncivil government from the Pentateuch. If you doubt this read his work\nentitled \"Common Sense,\" and you will doubt it no more.\n\nJewish writings and American life and character are very intimately\nblended, and we can not separate them without being guilty of great\ninjustice. \"If British, Scottish, Roman, Saxon, Danish and Norman blood\nruns through our veins, our minds have been cast in a Hebrew mould.\" To\nthis cause we owe the most of our greatness as a nation.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND FIVE POINTS IN CALVINISM, WITH TWO OTHER FIVES.\n\n\nSome one has submitted the second five points in Calvinism. Here they\nare:\n\n_First_--If you seek religion you can't find it.\n\n_Second_--If you find it you don't know it.\n\n_Third_--If you know it you haven't got it.\n\n_Fourth_--If you have got it you can't lose it.\n\n_Fifth_--If you lose it you never had it.\n\n  --_Virginia Missionary._\n\n\nTHE FIVE POINTS OF METHODISM.\n\n_First_--God is able to give religion to all the world.\n\n_Second_--If you seek it you can find it.\n\n_Third_--If you find it you are sure to know it.\n\n_Fourth_--If you don't know it, you haven't got it.\n\n_Fifth_--If you lose it you can easily find it.\n\n\nFIVE POINTS IN THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST\n\n_First_--The gospel is the embodiment of the religion of Jesus Christ.\n\n_Second_--God gave it as a system of good news, to the whole human\nfamily.\n\n_Third_--If you lay hold upon it by faith you have it.\n\n_Fourth_--If you have it, and will obey it in your every day life, you\nwill enjoy it.\n\n_Fifth_--If you don't enjoy it, it is because you don't obey it.\n\n\n\n\nBENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S EPITAPH AS THE EXPONENT OF HIS FAITH.\n\n[Copy, from the _Virginia Missionary_ of August 12th, 1880.]\n\n\nA correspondent of the _Inter-Ocean_ not long since sent the following\ncomment upon Ingersoll's claim that Benjamin Franklin was an infidel:\n\n\"As Col. Ingersoll appears to be trying to appropriate our old and\nesteemed friend, Benjamin Franklin, as a recruit for his infidel\ndoctrine, let me call his attention, through your widely circulated\njournal, to the following epitaph, written by himself for himself:\n\n           \"'The body of\n         Benjamin Franklin,\n              Printer,\n     Lies here food for worms,\n   Like the cover of an old book,\n  Its contents torn out and stripped\n     Of its lettering and gilding;\n              But it will\n           (As he believed)\n           Appear again, in a\n         New and more beautiful\n         Edition, corrected and\n              Amended by\n            THE AUTHOR.'\"\n\n\n\n\nHONESTY, OR THE INNER-SELF.\n\n\nI have thought that the inner-self upon the surface both in words and\nactions is necessary to the existence of an honest man. The conclusion\nforces itself upon me in such a manner that I can not forbear expressing\nit, and yet, if this be true, how few are strictly honest. But it is not\nintended that this conclusion shall be applied beyond its proper limits;\nthat is to say, to those elements of thought which should, in\nrighteousness, be kept forever in the heart. But it is intended that the\nremark shall be applied to all that is said and done. The surface man\nshould always find his prototype, or counterpart, in the inner-self,\notherwise there is a want of harmony between the outer and the\ninner-self. This want of harmony is dishonesty; so dishonesty is always\nhypocrisy. There is much more hypocrisy in the world than men are\naccustomed to think.\n\nWhat an immense distance there is between the inner and the outer self.\nThe distance is not always measured, for men often keep much in their\nhearts that is not known by others, and which they themselves do not\ncounterfeit. In this we can not charge them with _necessary_ dishonesty.\nMen may be dishonest in keeping a secret, but keeping a secret is not\nnecessarily dishonesty. The distance between the heart, the inner-self\nand the outward-man, is very great, even as respects the secrets of the\nheart which may be honestly kept as secrets, and it is certainly very\ngreat as respects those secrets; which should not be kept as secrets.\n\nIt is a fact, so well known in our time that we need not argue the\nquestion. There is a great deal of religion in the human heart which is\nlatent until some misfortune, that brings a man to a sense of his need\nof help from a higher source, brings it to the surface.\n\nIt is true of dishonest men, who try to stultify their religious nature,\nand make the world believe that they are genuine, honest infidels. I\nvery much doubt the honesty of every infidel known in our history.\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. 9. September, 1880","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":13809}