{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28673/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28673","id":"gutenberg_28673","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28673","summary":null,"tags":["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. 1. OCTOBER, 1880. NO. 10.\n\n\n\n\nLAW AND ATONEMENT.\n\n     \"The soul that sinneth it shall die,\" and it \"shall not die.\"\n\n\nThe first quotation, \"The soul that sinneth it shall die,\" is often\nproduced in support of the scholastic idea that the law of God was\ninexorable, that is absolute or unconditional, not to be moved or its\npenalty escaped by reformation or petition.\n\nThe language of the text is very definite, and, when viewed aside from\nits context as an inexorable law, it certainly follows that every\nsinning soul must pay its penalty. Neither can I see how it can be\nsatisfied by punishing an innocent person in the room of the guilty, for\nthe innocent one was not the \"soul that sinned.\" Yet this quality of law\nis claimed in order to make out the theory of a vicarious punishment\nendured by the Savior, that is, that He took the sinner's \"law place.\"\nThis idea was necessitated by the theory that we all sinned when Adam\ntransgressed, and lost all ability to do anything for ourselves. So we\nmust be redeemed by satisfaction to justice, rather than by mercy. This\nold Calvinistic system of error lays the penalty of the inexorable law\nupon Christ. But Calvinists are not alone in this theory of a \"vicarious\npunishment,\" in order to a vicarious atonement. Neither are they alone\nin the abuse of the phrase \"the law,\" for our Sabbatarian friends are\nconstantly asserting that the law of God was, and is, simply the ten\ncommandments given, they say, to Adam in Eden, and authoritatively\npublished on Sinai. They assert that all the balance of the five books\nof Moses was his law, written by him, but the record justifies us in\nsaying, that the ten precepts were not the tenth part of the words given\nto Moses upon Sinai; neither were they all the words that were written\nupon the tables of stone. The tables begin with the sixth verse of the\nfifth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, in these words, \"I am the Lord\nthy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of\nbondage,\" and end with the twenty-first verse. But as the sixth verse is\nfatal to the Sabbatarian theory it is clipped off along with the\nfifteenth verse, which is cut out of the middle of the matter written\nupon the tables, and both are gravely divorced from God and handed over\nto Moses. Both, however, are in perfect harmony with the second and\nthird verses, which read thus: \"The Lord our God made a covenant with us\nin Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,\neven us, who are all of us here alive this day.\" That the sixth and\nfifteenth verses were upon the tables of stone is evident from the\nreading of the twenty-second verse, which reads thus: \"These words the\nLord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the\nfire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice. And\nHe wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto you.\"\n\nMany persons who claim that the import of the term die, in the sentence\n\"The soul that sinneth it shall die,\" was experienced by the Savior upon\nthe cross dying as a substitute in the law-place of sinners, overlook\nseveral things of first importance. First, infants were not included in\nthe provisions of a vicarious punishment and atonement unless it can be\nshown that they sinned--were sinners. Second, no innocent person can\njustly suffer in the law-place of the guilty. In all such cases justice\nis dishonored and law violated, for just law limits its penalties to the\nguilty.\n\nOur salvation \"is not of the law,\" but \"by grace\" or favor. Law had\nnothing to do with the death of Christ. He, \"BY THE GRACE OF GOD, tasted\ndeath for every man.\" \"If it be of the law it is not of grace.\" Again,\nthe simple sentence, \"The soul that sinneth it shall die,\" never was\n_the law_ of God in any age, but simply a fraction of the law. Did\nChrist ever sin? No! Then He never honored this law, or satisfied its\npenalty by dying; for if, as our friends say, the inexorable quality of\nthe law will forever hold the guilty to its claims, it will forever keep\nthe innocent from its penalty. But I aver that the inexorable quality\n_that is claimed_ for the law of God never belonged to it. No, not even\nto the simple sentence, \"The soul that sinneth it shall die.\" The Lord\nauthorizes us to supply the condition in every instance where it is not\nexpressed, thus: \"When I shall say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely\ndie; if he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right; if\nthe wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in\nthe statutes of life, without committing iniquity, he shall surely live,\n_he shall not die_.\" So the prophet gives us the second quotation at the\nhead of this article, \"_Shall not die._\" It would be just as proper to\nmake this last scrap of the law inexorable as its opposite. Such\nteachings do violence to the truth by overlooking the merciful\nprovisions that are found in the laws of God, by holding inexorable law\nbefore us as a streak of justice clothed with _black vengeance_.\n\nThe gospel of Jesus Christ knows no law in connection with Christians,\nor any others, except, first, the laws of nature. Secondly, the laws of\nthe state or government in which we reside. Third, the law of Christ. We\nare under law to Christ in common with all men, for the Father had put\nall things under Him. We were never under the law given to Adam. We were\nnot in the garden of Eden. We believe with Paul that the first offense\nin the history of mankind was the \"_offense of one_,\" that it was \"_one\nthat sinned_,\" that \"_by one man's offense_ death reigned,\" that it was\n\"one man's disobedience.\" When men talk to me as an individual, and of\nmy relations to law, sin and death, I wish them to recollect that I was\nnever in the garden of Eden. So I claim an alibi. Adam sinned thousands\nof years before I, as a man, had my existence; and as it is true that,\nwhere there is no law there is no transgression, so it is equally true\nthat, where the man is not, he does not transgress. I was not in the\ngarden of Eden, so there I did not sin.\n\nBut we are told that the Father of mercies, by a decree of law, imputed\nAdam's offense to all his children, and that he, by the vicarious\npunishment endured by the Savior, took Adam's offense off from Adam's\nchildren.\n\nAdmit it, and three things follow: First, we did not sin in fact when\nAdam sinned. Second, from Adam to Christ all the innocents upon earth\nwere sinners by the arbitrary decree of Jehovah. Third, the Father put\nthis _decree-load_ of guilt upon an innocent one, and executed the real\npenalty upon him. How is this? Suppose a legislative body legislates a\nman a murderer because his great great grand-father killed a man, should\nit not also legislate him free from the penalty of murder and never in\ncruel injustice inflict it upon him or any other innocent one simply as\na satisfaction to justice? Law ought to always place us where we are in\nfact, otherwise it is detestably unjust. Why should any sensible man\nattribute such dealings to the Father of Spirits? The fallacy of such\nteaching is seen in the fact that the penalty of the Adamic law was\nexecuted _in the day of the transgression_, and not nine hundred nor\nthousands of years afterwards. The phrase, \"Dying thou shalt die\" does\nnot help the case, for the phrase \"In the day\" limits the penalty as\nrespects the time of its fulfillment.\n\nAdam lost citizen life in the Garden of Eden in the very day of his\noffense. The full penalty was executed when he was driven out. Physical\ndeath was an after result, growing out of the fact that Adam's posterity\nwas unborn when he was driven from his Eden home. The Lord did not say\nto Adam, in the day thou eatest thereof you shall die and not live\nagain, if he had the way of redemption would have been forever closed\nagainst him. Adam's first sons appear before us with a law of faith,\nembracing typical and sacrificial duties, through which they were\nbrought into the way of life with reference to an ultimate arrival at\nthe tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God.\n\nThis law of faith was given to Adam's family outside of the Garden; and\nthe law of Sinai was not given to Adam, nor to his immediate posterity,\nfor in that case Cain would have been put to death for killing his\nbrother Abel. It was given to Abraham's family after the exodus from\nEgypt. It was a political law, because it pertained to a community.\n\nNext in order follows the law of Christ. Beside these we know of no\nrevealed law, excepting those of which we have spoken. So this vicarious\npunishment system of things, with all its consequences, rests upon a\nsomething that men call the inexorable law of God, which a man can not\nfind in the annals of creation, providence or redemption. The prophet,\nin the language of our quotation, \"The soul that sinneth it shall die,\"\nis grappling with the system of things which we are endeavoring to\noverthrow. The children of Israel fell into the sentiments of our modern\nCalvinists, and claimed that \"The fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the\nchildren's teeth were set on edge.\" By this proverb they understood that\nthe son was to bear the iniquity of the father. The Lord rebuked them in\nthe language of our topic, and more severely in the context. [See\nEzekiel, eighteenth chapter.]\n\nThe Lord said to them, \"Behold, all souls are mine. * * * The soul that\nsinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,\nneither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.\"\n\nThe prophet also describes a righteous man, and then adds, \"If he begets\na son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doth the like to\nany one of these things, and doth none of the duties of a righteous\nlife, he shall surely die.\" We would naturally conclude that this vile\nperson would transmit moral depravity, if such was possible, but how can\nmoral corruption be transmitted through physical generation? Let some of\nthe wise crack this shell! If I was passing around through the little\ncity of Kokomo to-morrow, and was talking upon this theme, I would hear\nsome one accuse some poor soul of being a natural born thief, without\nthe ability to refrain from it. There is neither morality nor\nimmorality, vice nor virtue in an involuntary act. Are the rushings of\nthe Wild Cat river moral or immoral? If a man could be a natural thief,\nand therefore could not help but steal, he would be no more a sinner in\nthe sight of God, nor responsible, nor morally corrupt than the horse\nthat breaks into your cornfield and fills himself.\n\nIn the saying, \"If the wicked will turn,\" etc., \"he shall surely live,\nhe shall not die,\" we discover two important things: First, the death\nspoken of is not physical, for all die, regardless of character; second,\nit is not moral, for the poor fellow is already morally dead--dead in\ntrespasses and in sin.\n\nThe term die being used in the divine law with reference to the\ngovernment of God, and under such circumstances as already mentioned,\nmust indicate simply the forfeiture of citizen life in the paradise of\nGod, in the world to come, for it is said of the wicked, \"They have no\ninheritance in the kingdom of God and of Christ.\" But if Christ took\ntheir law-place, and was punished in their stead, satisfied justice, of\ncourse it was done, and then universal salvation, regardless of\ncharacter, and upon simple _legal merits, must obtain_, because this\ntheory rests upon the hypothesis that sinners could do nothing for\nthemselves. But is it true that the atonement was completed upon the\ncross or by the death of Christ only? I answer, he was victim upon the\ncross and high priest by the power of an endless life. Priest by the\nword of the oath which was subsequent to the law. He was not a priest\nwhile he was a victim in death. In ancient times the victim was slain\nand its blood was taken into the holy place, then the high priest\nofficiated in the holy place. But the priest never entered without\nblood. So Christ, by his own blood, entered into Heaven itself, now to\nappear in the presence of God for us. But all this releases us not in\nthe least from our own obligations to God and our humanity.\n\nThe Savior came to our earth to give us, first, his life, in order that\nwe might make it our own; second, his divine mind concerning us and our\nexpectations; third to ratify the same by his death; fourth to give us\nan assurance of a resurrection from the dead, and of a future judgment.\nFor the first it is said \"that he consecrated for us a new and living\nway through the veil, that is to say through his flesh, into the\nholiest.\" For the second we have simply the gift of a second will. \"He\ntook away the first that he might establish the second, by the which\nwill we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ.\" For\nthe third it is said that \"The New Testament was dedicated not without\nblood.\" For the fourth it is said that \"He hath appointed a day in the\nwhich he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath\nordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath\nraised him from the dead.\" So every one of us shall give an account of\nhimself to God, and receive according to his own works and not the works\nof another.\n\nOne question, and only one, will be of interest to me in the judgment,\nand that is this, how have I lived? What are the deeds which were done\nin my body? The Lord once said of a wicked city: \"Though Noah, Job and\nDaniel were in it they should save none but themselves by their\nrighteousness.\" But we are told that the righteousness of Christ was the\nonly satisfaction; that he, dying in our law-place, paid the debt. Then\nI am released. Let the debt be what it may, I can't be held to give\nsatisfaction. But we were always anxious to know what we were released\nfrom. Was it physical death? No; we must die. Was it death in sin? No;\nthere is no getting out of that without reformation and pardon.\nVicarious punishment! What is it? What was it that Christ suffered in\nthe sinners' law-place? It could not be the everlasting punishment\nthreatened in the Scriptures, for the Savior was only about three hours\nupon the cross. And if the Savior paid the debt, why is it that sinners\nare to pay it themselves unless they repent?\n\nBut there is still another grave objection to the theory. It is this, It\ndeclares that there is no forgiveness with God. He can't forgive when\nChrist paid the debt. Can you forgive a debt that is paid? Is it\npossible for such a thing to take place? One writer has called this old\ntheory \"the Redeemer's glory;\" but if it be his glory it is the Father's\ndishonor. Elder Stockell gives the theory the very imposing title, \"The\nRedeemer's Glory Unveiled.\" But look at the following from page 157 of\nhis work thus entitled: \"In a _strict_ and _proper_ sense the infinite\nGod doth not forgive sin; for it is readily granted by all who are sound\nin the faith that Jesus Christ hath given full satisfaction to divine\njustice for all sin, and hath fully paid the debt of his church. And if\nChrist hath satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of his people,\nhow then can it justly, or with propriety of speech, be said that God\npardoneth our sins and transgressions? Sure I am that debt can never be\nforgiven which is paid.\"\n\nOthers, who are not so wise, or, it may be, so frank, refuse to allow\nthe logical consequences of the doctrine of vicarious sufferings. This\ntheory represents mercy as always stultified until Christ satisfied\njustice. Imagine the Savior upon the cross, innocent, suffering by sheer\nnecessity of justice in the sinners' law-place. Justice is standing off\nto the right and Mercy is a short distance to the left. Poor Mercy! She\nsays, \"I always felt stultified up to this hour, for Justice was always\ndissatisfied and frowning.\" Justice responds, \"True; but just now I am\nbeing satisfied. I have always asked for this. So from this time forward\nI shall be in a smiling mood. Now we can unite and let the guilty ones\ngo free, for I have wreaked my vengeance upon the innocent one.\"\n\nJust now the poor skeptic with common sense says, \"Hold! Does not the\nlaw say 'It is the soul that sinneth that shall die?' Did I not hear you\nsay that you had wreaked your vengeance upon the innocent one?\" Justice\nand mercy both draw a veil over their faces and respond through the\nadvocates of this system of things, \"Without controversy, great is the\nmystery of godliness.\" The poor skeptic of common sense retires\nmuttering to himself something like this, \"Well, if such is the mystery\nof godliness, I pray that I may never fall into her hands.\"\n\nJust now he is accosted by a preacher, who says to him, \"Look there\nupon that Roman cross. Don't you see that sinless one? He is spotless,\npure and lovely. He never sinned, neither was guile found in His mouth,\nyet He was accounted guilty of all the sins of the whole human family,\nat least He suffered the full penalty enacted against all the sins of\nall the race, and satisfied justice.\" Common-sense skeptic says: \"Who\nrequired that? Who counted him guilty of the whole? Who?\" The preacher\nresponds, \"God and His justice--yes, His justice.\" Justice, you know,\nhad to be satisfied, for God Himself could not forgive a man until the\ndebt was paid. Do you see? Common-sense skeptic turns away disgusted,\nand as he walks off he is heard to say, \"Farewell, _to all of you_!\"\n\nWho can blame men who never heard any thing better for being\nunbelievers? When Jehovah proclaimed His name, He said \"The Lord, the\nLord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness\nand truth, keeping mercy for thousands, _forgiving iniquity and\ntransgression and sin_.\" This must be admitted by all intelligent\nChristians. Mercy was never stultified. There was in all the\ndispensations of God's providence free and unstultified mercy. The\ninfinite One was never unable to forgive sins; neither was He laid under\nthe necessity of punishing the innocent in the room of the guilty. No,\nHe never did it. His justice never required it, and it is too mean to\nascribe it to Him. His laws in all the dispensations were conditional,\ncontained merciful provisions. Now, let us \"fear God and keep His\ncommandments, for this is the whole duty of man.\"\n\nThe great thought of pardon through the abundant goodness of God runs\nthrough all the ages, but substitution, in the sense of vicarious\npunishment, does not. It is not taught even in connection with dying\nanimals, for the \"blood of animals could not take away sins.\" Again, the\nsoul that sinneth it shall die, but animals were not sinning souls, so\nthat scrap of revealed law could not be honored in the death of a goat.\n\nThere is nothing in the history of the ages to necessitate the idea that\njustice could not allow the free exercise of mercy towards the penitent\nsinner, or that God's wrath must be appeased, or He made propitious by\nmeans of blood. He was propitious, and therefore ordered the use of\nblood for wise and benevolent purposes. The use of blood is related to\nHis mercy as effect is to cause, and not as cause to effect. The mercy\nand goodness of God was always complete, full and unrestrained by all\nexternal causes, except the moral and virtuous qualities of their\nobject. By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for every man. He did not\ngo to the cross because law or justice required it, but because He loved\nthe race. He came from heaven to earth and volunteered the cross as a\ncommendation or demonstration of the divine love for man. The authority\nof law is never associated with the cross or death of Christ. For this\ngreat love for man, manifested even in his death, He gained the throne\nof Lordship, where He exercises himself as the Savior of men and as Lord\nover all. Will you obey Him and live?\n\n\n\n\nTHE SIMPLICITY OF THE SCIENCE OF MIND.\n\n\nOur sphere of research is simplified by dividing its objects into matter\nand mind, so as to have but two centers of thought. Many have concluded\nthat the address of matter to our senses has made it easy to pursue\nknowledge respecting bodies, while the invisibility of mind presents\ninsurmountable difficulties, but this conclusion is scarcely supported\nby facts. If men have erred with reference to their own intellects, they\nhave also made many and egregious blunders concerning matter and its\nqualities. We think the study of mind is just as easy as the study of\nmatter. Here a man has nothing to do but look into himself. With my mind\nI think, reason, reflect, remember, hate, love, grieve, rejoice,\nimagine, contrive, invent and will, and this very mind is conscious of\nall these operations; so in this study there ought to be no mistake. We\nlay it down as a truth of first importance, that all minds are alike. As\ngold is gold, so mind is mind, throughout the universe. My mind is\nmyself, which I carry with me everywhere; it is my own personality from\nwhich I can never part. It is the individual Walker. _Individual_ is\ndefined thus: An object which is, in the strict and primary sense, one,\nand can not be logically divided.\n\nAn _individual_ is not absolutely indivisible, but that which can not be\ndivided without losing its name and distinctive qualities.\nIndividuality, like personal identity, belongs properly to\nintelligences. Consciousness reveals it to us that no being can be put\nin our place nor confounded with us, nor we with others. I am one and\nindivisible. You can not amputate any of the faculties of the mind. It\nis a mind which no one dissects or divides. We are assured that we are\nthe offspring of God. Paul says this truth had been promulgated by one\nof the Athenian poets, and it was so correct that Heaven's seal was\nplaced upon it. Being the offspring of God we are essentially like our\nGreat Father Spirit, for it is one of the laws of God that the child or\ndescendant shall always be like its progenitor; not like him in body,\nfor God is a spirit. A spirit hath not flesh and bone. We are therefore\nlike Him in spirit. Being the offspring of the divine intelligence\ndeclares the nature of that intelligence, just as the stream declares\nthe nature of the water in the fountain which feeds it. As the fountain\nis the antecedent of the stream, so God is the antecedent of life and\nintelligence, from whom all spirits came, and to whom all spirits must\nreturn.\n\nOur studies in respect of mind are wonderfully simplified when we\nrecollect that in ourselves we see all other men, spirit or mind being\nin its essence and attributes essentially the same; but the fountain is\nalways greater than the stream, so God is more wise and powerful than\nany of his offspring. But as each perfect sunbeam, however small or\nweak, has all the essential properties of light, and each grain of pure\nsilver all the properties of that metal, so mind, as the living\noffspring of the divine mind, is in the \"likeness and image of God.\"\nThis branch of study becomes remarkably simple when we reflect that in\nourselves we see all men and women, angels and demons, and even God\nhimself. The whole universe of mind is reflected in that inner-man\nmirror which we call _ourself_. We have guarded this subject by the\nlanguage, _the essential attributes of mind_. By this qualifier we wish\nit understood that mind, like body, has its accidental or acquired\nqualities. Vice, virtue, folly, wisdom, malignity and benevolence are\nnot essential to mind, but like the accidents of matter known as\nroughness or smoothness, softness, hardness, blackness, etc., are merely\nqualities or attributes of its conduct. Vice is vicious action and\nvirtue is virtuous action. But action arises from will and will from\nthought. All minds are free agents, being vicious or virtuous from their\nown choice. There is as much piety, morality or immorality in the\nflowing of the Wabash river as there is in involuntary action. So\nability to choose is the great factor of morality, virtue, immorality,\nand vice.\n\nIn scientific investigations lying in the realm of the physical there\nare countless objects to engage our thoughts, but here we have but one,\nand we always carry it about with us and are continually using it. Our\n_consciousness_ is to all the operations of our spirits what seeing,\ntouching, hearing, tasting and smelling is to surrounding bodies. It\nenables us to examine all the minds in the universe. Would you like to\nhave an organ which would enable you to see spirits? In your\n_consciousness_ you have a faculty superior to all the five senses put\ntogether. In our consciousness we see and feel ourselves, and in so\ndoing we see not only the minds of others, but our great Father himself.\nWe can not tell what instincts are in the bee, or what sagacity is in a\nspaniel, because we are neither spaniels nor bees, but we are of a more\nnoble race. We are in possession of minds or spirits, and consequently\nidentified with all minds or spirits, so the science of mind, or\npsychology, is the knowledge of ourselves.\n\nChristianity, as a spiritual system, takes us and all its votaries into\nthis intellectual temple, where we may certainly know God through a\ncorrect knowledge of self. In this temple we have a sample of the\nspirits of men, angels and demons, and over all, an example of the\nspirit we worship. These invisible intelligences are the wonderful\nagencies through which good and evil are effected. Natural laws are\nonly the rules by which the great Father Spirit acts. Laws are rules by\nwhich agents act, and they always imply agents. Men of olden times are\noften spoken of as great metaphysicians. Who has not heard of Homer,\nHerodotus, Pindar, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plato and many others. But\nthose ancient men, here as in physics, dealt so much in fancy that they\nwere not disposed to enter into the simple examination of their own\nminds or spirits. Entangled in the doctrines of chance, fate and destiny\nthey robbed the Creator of the sceptre of the universe. They placed\nJove, their supreme deity, under a decree that he could not change;\nconfessed that he could not, in many instances, help them when he\ndesired to do so. The greatest hindrances to progress among them were\ntheir failures to know the true character of Jove, or their want of a\ncorrect knowledge of God, and the distinction between mind and matter.\nThey failed to separate between the two. Their gods were continually in\nan abominable quarrel about some interest that involved human welfare,\nand for that very reason their theory of mind was nothing but a confused\nmass of childish stories. They had no starting point from which to\nreason. They, failing to separate between mind and matter, were led into\nendless theories about what they denominated the animal and intellectual\nsoul. The idea of one of their own poets that we are God's offspring was\nof no avail, in science, to them, because they neither knew themselves\nnor their gods. We are, therefore, indebted to the Bible for our\nsuperior knowledge in the science of mind. If the Gospel had never\nreached us we would have been as great dreamers in mental science as the\nmystics of India.\n\nThe doctrine of one Creator, who is a perfect spirit, and the father of\nour spirits, and that he presides over all nature for the good of the\nwhole; that matter is inert, and moves not unless as it is moved; that\nall life and force is in mind or spirit; that all spirits are free\nagents, and act from choice; that all spirits have the same essential\nattributes; and that man is of the divine \"_genos_\" kind or sort, and,\nas an intellectual being, is therefore in the image of God, has\nsimplified and extended our researches in the science of mind, and based\nthem on reason and common sense as well as revelation. From such\nconsiderations the doctrine of universal brotherhood has proceeded along\nwith the equal, civil, political and religious rights of all mankind.\nThe ultimate fruit of all is the abolition of oppression and slavery\nthroughout the world, and the desire to see all men elevated to their\nproper rank as intellectual and moral beings. Thus our views of God and\nnature, of mind and matter, are of immense practical value to our race.\n\nDo you say mind or spirit does not belong as a real factor to science?\nWell, we are astonished! Science is correct, or certain knowledge\narising from a deep and rational inquiry into the object or subject of\ninvestigation. The question therefore comes back again, have we any\nknowledge of mind? This is to ask, whether consciousness is knowledge!\nThe term comes from the Latin \"_con_,\" which signifies together, and\n\"_scio_,\" I know, and is used to convey the idea that we know the thing\naltogether, that is, have perfect or full knowledge. It is the mind's\ntestimony concerning itself. Now, if I can become acquainted with\nexternal and material objects through my senses, certainly my\nconsciousness of my own mental operations is, and must be, more certain\nand self-evident. In judging, reasoning, reflecting, choosing, desiring,\nremembering, loving, hating and hoping, along with all other operations\nof mind, I must know the operation intimately, perfectly and altogether.\nIf I am reflecting, I know it, and this consciousness is science, is\ncertain knowledge, is the very thing from which no man can escape so\nlong as he is a rational being. Here is my individuality, my\npersonality, in that which is the indivisible unit of my nature, from\nwhich I can not emigrate, and one attribute of which I can not\namputate--the _I_! The thief may escape from justice, but he can not\nescape from the dishonest wretch--_himself_.\n\nThe murderer in America may flee to England or France, but through\nconscious memory he is, and will forever be, compelled to keep company\nwith the murderous villain. He has this consciousness and will keep it\nthrough eternity, even though he should be pardoned. Here, then, is\ncertain knowledge, more than seeing, hearing, or any other sense\nbelonging to the physical, for it is the conscious knowledge of that\nwhich sees and hears, and which reaches out through the senses and\nconnects itself with the objective. It is therefore certain that, in\ncase there is no such thing as mental science, there is no such thing as\nscience at all, in all the realm of the universe; because the mind, in\nthe act of knowing, knows itself or is conscious of its own operations,\notherwise it could know nothing whatever, could not be mind.\n\nHave we not the most certain evidence of the existence of mind? Is light\na certain evidence that there is light, or a source of light? Is not\nreasoning a proof that there is something which reasons? Can there be\nlight without a cause? Can there be invention without an inventive\nbeing? The mind is like a telescope in this respect, that it shows\nitself in showing that about which it is occupied. The man who is\ncontent to believe what he sees, hears, tastes, smells and feels, is\nonly a sensuous believer--an animal, and not a man. Reason's glory is\nthat it perceives the invisible.\n\n\n\n\nOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO REVELATION--No. IV.\n\nBY P.T. RUSSELL.\n\n\nLANGUAGE AND RELIGION, FROM WHENCE?\n\nThere are conditions under which circumstantial evidence is the best\npossible testimony. These conditions are found inseparably connected\nwith our present subject. That men now possess the same powers of body\nand mind that they always manifested is disputed by no intelligent\nindividual. Those powers have been, through all the ages, precisely the\nsame both in number and kind. Has the history of humanity furnished a\nsingle case in which a person, perfectly deaf during all his life, had\nthe ability to speak words? Such is unknown in the history of the past,\nand also in the records of the present. History is as blank at this\npoint, as a barren oasis. All the other faculties are as perfect with\nthe deaf as they are with those whose hearing is perfect. Their\ninventive genius is equally vigorous; this being true, why should the\ndefect of the ear deprive them of the power of speech? Will the Deist\nanswer this question? Mr. Skeptic, as you are in the same difficulty\nwith the Deist, you may help him if you choose. If you are, as you\npretend, free and fearless thinkers, give us your thoughts upon this\nquestion. If you are cowardly, then stand off and sneer at the question\nwhich you dare not try to answer. The facts developed at this point\nought to be remembered, and the question, why can the deaf, described,\nnever talk? ought to be pressed home to every heart.\n\n\nMATHEMATICS WILL AID US HERE.\n\nWhen we see a constant increase in the number of persons or things in an\nundeviating ratio, with the aid of mathematics we can pass back to the\nfirst of the series, to the first man living at the base of the human\nseries. Ever remember that there can not be a series without a unit\nlying at its base.\n\nWhy do the life-long deaf never talk? You answer: All Adam's children\nlearn to talk by hearing others talk, and as those deaf ones never\nheard, so they never learned to talk. Very well. The first man, at the\nbeginning of the series of humanity, had no powers or faculties which\nhis descendants do not possess, and as they all have been under the\nnecessity of learning to talk by hearing others talk, will you\nunbelievers and skeptics tell us, if you can, how that first man became\na talker? Can the life-long deaf talk as well as those whose ears are\nperfect? No. Well, then, the difficulty rests upon you. That you may\nremember it, I will repeat it once more, it is this: who did the first\nman hear in order to learn the talker's trade?\n\n\nWHERE DID LANGUAGE COME FROM?\n\nDo you tell us that society made language? Then society must be older\nthan language, for the maker is always, of necessity, older than the\nthing made. But without language there could be no interchange of ideas,\nand without this society could not exist. Where there is no intelligent\ncommunication of ideas we never think of society. Society does not exist\nwhere there is no intelligent communication of ideas between persons.\nThe trees in the grove are never spoken of as a society. They are not\nand can not be in the social state. Neither are the brutes around us.\nMan is the only being upon earth capable of becoming a constituent\nelement or part of society. Mr. Blair says, in his lectures on\nBelleslettres, \"It would be extremely difficult to conceive how society\ncould exist without language.\" Now, as society can not exist without\nlanguage, it is certain that society could not be the author of\nlanguage, for the author must be older than his production. But Mr.\nBlair springs another difficulty. It is in these words: \"It would be\nequally difficult to conceive how language could exist without society.\"\nA moment's reflection will satisfy all reasonable persons that language\ncan not exist without society, and that which can not exist without the\nother can not be the maker--author--of the other, for the maker must be\nolder than the thing made. Then, as neither of these could exist without\nthe other, neither could be the author of the other. So language and\nsociety are both effects, and their cause is outside of or antecedent to\nboth, for every effect has an antecedent cause.\n\n\nWHO, OR WHAT, IS THAT CAUSE?\n\nFirst, it must have existed before man. Second, it must have possessed\nthe powers of speech; and, therefore, must have been an intelligence. We\nhave already seen this in our reflections upon the fact that the\nlife-long deaf, who are deprived of hearing words spoken, are always\ndumb; so man, if he had never heard words spoken, would have remained\ndumb. He that created the ear, could He not hear? Did He not know what\nHe was doing? He that arranged the vocal powers of man, could He not\nspeak? Is there no evidence of an intelligent authorship here? He who\nnot only created but also endowed man with all His noble and God-like\nattributes, would He not delight in visiting man and talking with him\nand learning him the art of speech? Did man not have the privilege of\nlearning to talk? Did he not hear and learn from the \"ancient of\ndays\"--from his great author? Is it not unreasonable to suppose that the\nauthor of man's being took no delight in him? _Without this_ the first\nman could never have commanded the use of words. Here we have the\n\"Arriere pensee\" clue, that is, the clue in mental reservation; and here\nwe meet the axiom. The clear is the true, and the \"Ariadne,\" the clue\nthat leads us out of the labyrinth. Language at the first must have been\nspecific. This, in the nature of the case, must have been true; that is,\neach and every word must have been used in such a manner as to convey a\ncertain definite idea. As we have already seen how mathematics aid us in\npassing back to the first man, so we can easily see how to reach an\napproximate idea of his mental condition. Physiologically, he might have\nbeen a full developed athlete, but in mentality, like the helpless\ninfant. He is at the first uneducated. True, he possesses powers of\nmind, but they are inactive. No thought has passed through his mind to\nwake him up. He opens his eyes and immediately he thinks, he hears, and\nthought is increased. He is connected with the objective world of things\nby means of the five senses, and his mind goes to work upon these. His\nthoughts are all his own; he himself thought them; they were within his\nreach. He saw and heard, but his thoughts, like yours and mine, did not\ngo beyond his perceivings. Yes, he wakes up and hears a rustling sound\nin the air just above his head; looking up he discovers a pair of the\nbirds of Paradise flying over him; they light on the branch of a tree\nnear by. These were the first things seen; he saw them in the morning of\nthe first day of his life. He looks and looks, and thinks these birds\nare older than himself, for he remembers having seen them at the moment\nof the first consciousness. The question possible came up, Whence came\nthey, and all the other things which I now see and hear? Were they\nalways here? No answer is found. His curiosity is aroused; his reason\nis perplexed; he _would be_ puzzled. He now reaches for thoughts too\nhigh for him; neither bird, beast, nor any other part of all creation\ncan give the light he seeks. Whichever way he turns he receives no\nanswer; he is bewildered; he is now anxious for light and ready to\nreceive it. Man has found his extremity, and this is God's opportunity.\nHe visits man and talks to him, and man, hearing the speech of his\nCreator, learns to talk. He is now able to ask for the solution of the\nperplexing problem of the ages, From whence came all these beautiful and\nuseful things with which I am surrounded? Did they come of themselves,\nor did somebody make and arrange them? Here the Lord drives away all his\ntroubles, simply saying: \"I created all these things; the earth and the\nheavens, and all that is in them, the sun, moon and the stars also, and\nI now place you here in this beautiful Eden, earth, to dress and keep\nit.\" Thus man obtained the use of language and the foundation of\nreligion at the same time. Of this I will speak more at length in my\nnext. Tell them farewell.\n\nN.B.--Let the determined skeptic answer these essays if he can, and if\nhe can not, let him be an honest man and surrender.\n\n\n\n\nMIND AND INSTINCT, OR STRICTURES UPON THE TEACHINGS OF EVOLUTIONISTS.\n\n\nThe evolution imagination ventures to affirm that man's intellectual\nsuperiority over the brute \"is not _qualitative_ but _quantitative_.\"\nThen it follows, of necessity, that intellectually considered the brute\nis the image of man just as much as man is the image of God, the\ndifference being _quantitative_ and not _qualitative_. Evolutionists\nclaim that \"man's superiority over the brute results from greater\ncomplexity and superior development of the brain.\" Now if man, as they\nsay, once lived the life of the brute, and his superiority now is simply\nquantitative, why is it that his inferiors of to-day are not passing\ninto real manhood? They are far superior to any creature which is \"not\nfar from the tadpole stage of evolution.\" If we were once there, and\nevolutionists say we were, why not take all brutes in as our\n_kins-folk_.\n\nNow, since evolutionists have learned the secret of mind-making by\ntraining dogs and other animals to certain habits, and giving time for\nheredity to transmit those habits, they being \"immediately petrified in\nbrain structure,\" why should we not go to work and bring about a\nmillennial glory, at least by the third or fourth generation? If so much\nhas been overcome as lies between man and the tadpole, with the tadpole\ncapital only to work upon, perhaps we might, with our present capital,\nbring into existence a race of gods. Why not? We are taught that\n\"instinct is habit petrified in brain structure and transmitted by\nheredity,\" that it is, consequently, \"organized ancestral experiences\nthat are the source of instinct, but not always.\" Why this modification\nin the teachings of evolutionists? Do they not know that the\nacknowledgment of the existence of an original instinctive endowment\nbreaks down the whole theory of mind-being from environments? And what\nright have Atheists to claim instinct as an original endowment, in\ncertain cases? The very idea is destructive of their speculation, for in\norder to an original endowment, as they term it, over and above that\nwhich is the result of ancestral experiences petrified in brain\nstructure and transmitted, there must be the endowment, that which\nendows, and the endowed. These three things stand or fall together. But\nwhy should they claim this exception of an original endowment? The\nanswer is easy. Facts that are utterly against them are known to exist\nin the world of instincts. We have an example in the instinct of the\nhoney bee. Neither the drone nor the queen ever built a cell. So this is\nconceded to be an original endowment. O, ye evolutionists! will you tell\nus where this cell-building instinct came from? You claim that it was,\nor is, an original endowment. _From whom?_ Again you tell us that\ninstinct depends upon brain structure in every instance; then what is\nthe difference between instinct and intellect or mind? You tell us that\nmind also depends on brain structure, and you say that intelligence is\nunlike instinct, because it works by experience, not ancestral, but, on\nthe contrary, by individual experience.\n\nThen we have it thus:\n\nFirst. Instinct works by ancestral experience, petrified in brain\nstructure, and transmitted.\n\nSecond. Mind works by individual and not ancestral experience.\n\nThird. Instinct is sometimes an original endowment.\n\nNow, can we or any others tell how it is that mind depends, just like\ninstinct, wholly upon brain structure, and is, at the same time, unlike\ninstinct in that it is wholly dependent on individual, not ancestral\nexperience? And if mind or intelligence does not depend on ancestral\nexperience, how is its origin to be accounted for on the hypothesis of\nheredity through evolution of species, starting, without life, instinct\nor mind, by blind forces operating on dead matter, and the forces\nthemselves simply the forces of dead matter? The capacity for\nintellectual improvement is a remarkable peculiarity of man's nature.\nThe instinctive habits of the lower animals are limited, are peculiar to\neach species, and have immediate reference to their bodily wants. Where\na particular adaptation of means to ends, of actions to circumstances,\nis made by an individual the rest do not seem to profit by that\nexperience, so that, although the instincts of particular animals may be\nmodified by the training of man, or by the education of circumstances,\nso as to show themselves after a few generations under new forms, no\nelevation of intelligence ever appears to _take place spontaneously_, no\nphysical improvement is manifested in the species at large. On the other\nhand, we observe in man not merely the capability of profiting by\nexperience, but the determination to do so, which he is enabled to put\ninto action by the power which his will, when properly disciplined,\ncomes to possess, of directing and controlling his current of thought by\nfixing his attention upon any subject which he desires to keep before\nhis mental vision. This power, so far as we know, is peculiar to man,\nand the presence or absence of it constitutes the difference between a\nbeing possessed of powers to determine his own course of thought and\naction, and a mere thinking automaton.--_Carpenter's Physiology._\n\n\n\n\nREVIVAL OF LEARNING.\n\n\nTO WHOM ARE WE INDEBTED?\n\nCharlemagne, Emperor of Germany, who is known as a Christian prince, and\nAlfred the Great, of England, lived in the eight and ninth centuries.\nThe darkest period in the dark ages was between the fifth and the\neleventh, but they are known as the _earliest_ luminaries of the modern\nworld. They encouraged learning both by example and patronage, but they\ncould not overcome the gross ignorance of their times; nevertheless they\nshed a strong and living lustre over the age in which they lived. (See\n_Elements of General Knowledge_, by Henry Kelt, Fellow and Tutor of\nTrinity College, Oxford, p. 246.) Where, and under what circumstances,\nwere their schools established? They were confined to churches and\nmonasteries, and the monks presided over them, but they were inadequate\nto the task of diffusing knowledge in any extensive circle. The reign of\nheathenism and ignorance continued.\n\nThe Arabians had introduced the knowledge of arithmetic, geometry,\nastronomy, chemistry, medicine, and the philosophy of Aristotle into\nSpain. (See Warton on Pope, vol. 1, p. 184.) At the beginning of the\neleventh century several enlightened scholars undertook to educate the\nyouth of the cities of Italy, and at a later period those of France,\nEngland and Germany. To the stability and prevalence of the education\nthus begun is the establishment of the universities of Europe\nattributable. Those of Paris and Oxford carry their claims to antiquity\nto the times of Alfred and Charlemagne, but it is said that the real\nclaims of Paris stop with Phillip Augustus in the twelfth century. In\nthe year 1264 Merton College was founded by Walter de Merton, Lord\nChancellor of England and Bishop of Rochester, but the honorable title,\n\"Mother of Universities of Europe\" is due to Bologna. It was in her\nwalls that learning, in the eleventh century, first attempted to raise\nher head.\n\nIt is said upon good authority that 10,000 students were assembled here\nin the next century, that is, somewhere about the beginning of the\nfourteenth century, and that each country in Europe had its resident\nregents and professors at Bologna. Here the studies of the civil and\ncanon law constituted the almost exclusive objects of application, but\nParis directed the attention of her scholars to theology. Oxford began\nat this time to acquire fame and to rival the foreign universities in\nthe ability of its professors and the multitude of its members; in the\nyear 1340 they amounted to 30,000. Many other universities were soon\nestablished upon the models of Bologna, Paris and Oxford. In these logic\nand scholastic divinity were for centuries the reigning subjects of\npursuit. The works of Aristotle were studied with great eagerness. Upon\nthe logic of Aristotle was founded the cultivation of scholastic\ntheology and casuistry, which is a department of morals; its object is\nto lay down rules for directing us _how_ to act where there is any room\nfor doubt or hesitation. To this belongs the decision of what are called\ncases of conscience, that is, cases in which we are under obligation,\nbut which, from certain surroundings, give rise to doubt, or how far the\nobligation may be dissolved; such as the obligation to keep a promise\nobtained by fraud or force.\n\nTo make nice distinctions between one word and another, to separate\nsubjects by infinite divisions, not as the real nature of things, but as\nfancy directed, and to draw conclusions with no moral end in view, were\nthe pursuits of the schoolmen. The decrees of the councils of the Church\nof Rome, its edicts and ceremonial and ritual observances, were\nscrupulously regarded instead of obedience to the pure and practical\nelements of Christianity. Classical learning was entirely neglected.\nHere is the feature of Roman church history which infidels have\nendeavored to use falsely against _even Rome_, to wit: the opposition of\nthe churchmen of those times to _classical learning_. This was\nconsidered dangerous to true piety, and calculated to corrupt the pure\ntheology of the gospel, because the orators of Greece and Rome were\nregarded as blind guides of erring reason and seducers to the paths of\nsin and destruction. Virgil and Horace were looked upon merely as the\nadvocates of a profane and idolatrous mythology, and Cicero was regarded\nas a vain declaimer, impiously elated with the talent of Pagan\neloquence, but the infidel charge that the church has always been in the\nway of scientific education, _expressed in unqualified terms_, is simply\nfalse in fact. That there was a time when she was opposed to classical\nlearning is a well attested fact, but she, at the same time, taught and\noperated in universities and monasteries, as stated above. The first\ndawnings of modern literature are seen in connection with the\ncultivation of the language of Provence and the productions of the\nTroubadours. The first great teacher in this connection was William,\nCount of Poiton, a nobleman, distinguished by his powers in the\ncrusades. Many of the men of note who were in the crusades, were of his\ncharacter. Their writings upon the topics of war, gallantry, satire and\nhistory, first roused Europe from her ignorance and lethargy, first\ntaught her to think and reflect and judge upon subjects of imagination.\nThe Troubadours sustained the middle place between Gothic ignorance and\nItalian excellence, and literature is indebted to them for rearing the\nfirst fruits of European genius and inspiring the moderns with the love\nof poetry. Their influence and language spread over all the countries of\nEurope. Their bards were in the courts of kings and the castles of\nbarons. The commencement of the crusades and the beginning of the\nfifteenth century, mark the limits of their fame. Their romance had its\nrise in the manners of chivalry, and fell into disrepute when chivalry\ndeclined. In the fourteenth century men of intellectual genius in Italy\nresolved to cultivate their own native language and to combine with its\ngrandeur the charms of imagination and the acquirements of classical\nlearning. The poetry of the Tuscan school, the works of Dante, Ariosto,\nBoccio and Petrarch, have never yet been excelled by four succeeding\ncenturies of genius and literature. The way was open for the revival of\nclassical learning in the fifteenth century, and for the cultivation of\nall the arts and sciences connected with its cultivation.\n\nThe downfall of the Roman Empire in the east and the discovery of the\nart of printing happened about the same time. Scholars had long trembled\nin view of the approach of Mahomet the second. Constantinople was\ncaptured by the Turks in 1458; then Chrysoloras, Gaza of Thessalonica,\nDemetrius Chalcondyles, Johannes Lascaris, Callistus, Constantius,\nJohannes Andronicus, and many other learned Greeks, fled into Italy for\nprotection, where they found, at Florence, several Greek professors who\nhad been persuaded by Cosmo de Medici to settle in that city. They\nsettled in Florence and there interpreted the ancient writings which had\nbeen kept in the eastern metropolis. The best Italian scholars fell in\nwith them and soon became enamored with the spirit of poetry, eloquence\nand history. Here a better philosophy was soon taken up, and the cunning\nof scholasticism, as known in the empty speculations of metaphysicians,\ngave place to the more profitable principles of moral philosophy. The\nstudy of the Greek language was introduced in England by William Grocyn,\na fellow of New College, Oxford, who died about the year 1520.\n\n\"To the mechanical genius of Holland we must ascribe the discovery of\nthe art of printing, for the original inventor was Laurentius John\nCoster, of Haerlem, who made his first essay with wooden types about the\nyear 1430. The art was communicated by his servant to John Faust and\nJohn Guttenberg, of Mentz. It was carried to perfection by Peter\nShoeffer, the son-in-law of Faustus, who invented the modes of casting\nmetal types.\"\n\nTrihemius, in his Chronicle, written A.D. 1514, says he had it from the\nmouth of Peter Shoeffer that the first book they printed with movable\ntypes was the Bible, about the year 1450, in which the expenses were so\ngreat that 4,000 florins were expended before they completed twelve\nsheets. The author of a manuscript, Chronicle of Cologne, compiled in\n1499, also says that he was told by Ulric Zell, of Cologne, who himself\nintroduced printing there in 1466, that the Latin Bible was first begun\nto be printed in the year of Jubilee, 1450, and that it was in large\ntype. Mr. Edwards, of Pall Mall possessed a copy of this curious Bible\nin three volumes, bound in morocco. In his catalogue it was valued at\n\u00a3126. There, is a beautiful copy of this work in the Bodleian (or\nBodleyan) Library in the University at Oxford.\n\nThe art of printing soon spread over the greater part of Europe, and\nto-day our world is a world of books, and the love of the Bible was the\norigin of printing.\n\n\n\n\nCOUNCILS.\n\nUNITY OF ROMAN CHURCH.\n\n\nThe Council of Nice assembled in Asia Minor by the direction of\nConstantine in the year 325. Here we see more than two hundred and fifty\nbishops, mostly from the east, with presbyters, deacons and others,\nengaged in an effort to settle the Arian heresy, which consisted in\nmaintaining that Christ was the most exalted of all created things, but\ninferior to God the Father. This opinion was first ventilated in the\nyear 318. It was publicly condemned by the Council of Alexandria in the\nyear 320, and then by the Council of Nice. This Council maintained the\nperfect equality of essence of both Father and Son, and could only\nexpress their relation by terming it eternal generation, which Dr. Adam\nClark calls eternal nonsense.\n\n\"Arius and his partisans were banished by the Council of Alexandria, but\nas he had powerful adherents he found means to return at the express\ncommand of Constantine. He was on his way to receive the oath of\nministerial allegiance when he very suddenly, as some say, died by\npoison. His death was in the year 336. It is said that Constantine was\nbaptized into the Arian communion in the year 337. The followers of\nArius increased greatly after his death. Under Constantius, called\n_Flavius Julius_, Arianism became the religion of the court, and it even\npenetrated as far as Rome, which was obliged to receive into its\ncommunion Felix, an Arian bishop. But the divisions which grew among the\nArians themselves prepared for the Catholic church an easy victory over\nthem and led to their final extinction.\" It is worthy of being\nremembered at all times, and under all circumstances, that this whole\ncontroversy is unauthorized in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith in him\nas the Son of the living God being the great truth upon which the Church\nof God is built. What eternal nonsense it is to be quarreling about\nwhether he and his Father are of the same essence. The truths of\nChristianity and of Protestantism are found in the teachings of the\nanti-Nicene fathers, but we must remember that these were uninspired\nmen, and therefore displayed no _standard_ of truth. The term fathers,\nwithout qualification, includes a vast range, comprising a period of\neleven hundred years, from Clemens to Bernard, from the Bishop of Rome\nto the Monk of Clairvaux.\n\nImmediately after the Council of Nice their works took on the infections\nof popery. Each succeeding writer in each succeeding century added to\nthe gathering mass of error and superstition. The filth and dirt\naccumulated until the system of delusion was fully developed in the \"man\nof sin.\" The Fathers, as they are called, are entitled to no more than\nother men. They should never be resorted to as authoritative or\ninspired, for they were not. They may be used as witnesses to show the\ncustoms of their times. So far as they are concerned as _the standard_\nof truth, we may just as well, with safety and without remorse, deliver\nthem to the Vatican to rot with the lumber and legends of the dark ages.\nThe anti-Nicene fathers had many errors, but theirs were not the errors\nof Romanism. The religious productions of the first three centuries of\nour era contain, in the main, the principles of Protestantism. The\npost-Nicene fathers, or popery, may be compared to a field of wheat\noverrun with weeds. The great work of the Protestant reformers was to\neradicate the weeds. Failing to accomplish this in the Roman field, they\ngathered the pure seed grain and sowed it in the Lord's field, \"the\nworld,\" where it now waves in beauty, tending to a glorious harvest.\nOnce on a time a person was asked where Protestantism was before the\nReformation. He answered in turn, It was where your face was this\nmorning before it was washed. The reply was just. Dirt could be no part\nof the human countenance, and removing the filth by washing could\nneither change the features of the face nor destroy its identity. By\nthis cleansing operation the face only assumed its normal and natural\nappearance. In like manner the superstitious traditions of the Roman\nchurch were no part of Christianity. It was but proper that the\nreformers should dismiss the adulterations of the ages and plant their\nfeet away back in the land of Israel with the Christ of God.\n\nArius was regarded as an innovater on the true faith. The great enemy of\nArianism was simply Trinitarianism. The council of Nice was presided\nover by Hosius. The assembled fathers declared the consubstantiality of\nthe son for the establishment of Trinitarianism and the extermination of\nArianism. This wonderful term, _consubstantiality_, had been rejected by\nthe synod of Antioch sixty years before, and by Dionysius, of\nAlexandria, in opposition to Sabellianism.\n\nIn 359 the Emperor Constantius assembled the council of Rimini, a city\nof Central Italy. Six hundred bishops and a number of priests now undo\nall that the council of Nice had done. This council was as accommodating\nto Arian Constantius as to the Trinitarian Constantine. Constantius,\nforsaking the Trinitarian system, adopted Arianism, and Greeks and\nLatins complied with the imperial wishes, and, like dutiful subjects,\nsigned the Arian and semi-Arian confessions of Sirneium, Seleucia, Milan\nand Ariminum. The western and eastern prelacy subscribed in compliance\nwith their sovereign to the Arian creed, which, as Du Pin has shown, was\nsigned by his infallibility, Pope Liberius.\n\nNext in our programme comes Theodosius I., assembling a council of one\nhundred and fifty bishops at Constantinople in the year 381. Theodosius\nwas a zealous Catholic; he was baptized before the end of the first\nyear of his reign, and immediately published an edict in support of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, branding all who did not hold it as heretics.\nHis council was presided over by St. Gregory Nazianzen. The chief work\nof this council was to anathematise the Council of Rimini, which was\ncomposed of six hundred bishops and a multitude of priests. This work\nwas done, and so one hundred and fifty bishops curse and denounce as\nheretical and false six hundred bishops and a multitude of priests; so\nthe voice of the many is not always the voice of God, nor yet the voice\nof a council the voice of a Pope; neither is the infallibility of a Pope\nalways found in a council, nor is the infallibility of one Pope always\nfound in the voice of another.\n\nTheodosius II. convened a council in 431. Nestorius, bishop of\nConstantinople, seems to have been the cause of this convocation, having\npersecuted all who were not of his opinions; now undergoes persecution\nfor having plead that the Holy Virgin Mary was not the mother of God. He\nplead that Jesus Christ being the word, _consubstantial_ with the\nFather, Mary could not, at the same time, be the mother of God the\nFather and of God the Son. To settle this quarrel Nestorius demands a\ncouncil and obtains it. This council condemned Nestorius, and one of its\ncommittees displaced Cyril. The Emperor, Theodosius II., reversed all\nthat was done, and then permitted it to reassemble. The deputies from\nRome, John, Patriarch of Antioch, with twenty-six suffragans, arrived\nfive days after the transaction, and it is on record that his arrival\nwas followed by one of the most distinguished cursing matches of\nantiquity. The Roman bishops on occasions of this character always had\nrecourse to cursing, and they scarcely ever failed to ease themselves up\nwith an overflow of anathemas and execrations. Cyril and Nestorius\nexchanged mutual imprecations, even before the sitting of the council.\nThe saint, it is said, had launched twelve anathemas at the heretic in\nan Alexandrian synod in the year 430, and the heretic Nestorius thanked\nthe saint by returning the same number of inverted blessings. This has\nbeen a heavy business among Popes for many centuries. John and Cyril\nengaged in the same kind of warfare immediately after John's arrival at\nEphesus. John and his party congratulated Cyril, Memnon, and their\naccomplices by deposing and excommunicating them, and now the parties\ncontinue, for some time, to give vent to their feelings in mutual\nanathemas. These benedictions were the only articles of mutual exchange,\ncurrent and of legal tender value between the parties. At last the\nEmperor had Nestorius and Cyril arrested, and ordered all the bishops to\nreturn each to his church, and so no conclusion was reached. The Greeks\ncalled the second assembly at Ephesus a gang of felons, but the first,\nit is said, excelled it in all the arts of villainy. The contest was\nfinally ended, not by the church, but by the state. The Emperor\nreinstated Cyril and banished Nestorius, and the western diocese was in\nthe end reduced to submission and the church to unity, not by\necclesiastical authority, but by imperial power. (See Evagrius 1, 5;\nLiberatus c. 6; Godeau 3, 310.) The Council of Chalcedon met in the year\n451. St. Leo, bishop of Rome, took the advantage of the troubles which\nthe quarrel about the two natures occasioned in the empire, and presided\nat the council by his legates, which was a new feature in councils. But\nthe fathers of the council apprehending that the church of the west\nwould, from this precedent, pretend to the superiority over the eastern\nchurch, decided, by their twenty-eighth canon, that the see of\nConstantinople and the see of Rome should enjoy alike the same\nadvantages and privileges. This was the origin of the long enmity which\nprevailed and still prevails between the two churches, the eastern and\nthe western. This council endorsed and established the \"two natures in\none person.\" The twenty-eighth canon of this council has been rejected\nand condemned by the Latins, yet Pelagius, Gregory, Pascal and Boniface\nacknowledged this council, thereby placing the seal of infallibility\nupon it as much as they ever did upon other councils.\n\nIn 553 Justinian assembled a council at Constantinople to discuss the\nthree chapters, as they were designated, composed by Ibas, Theodoret and\nTheodorus. Vigilius, bishop of Rome, with bishops and deacons from\nItaly, Africa and the east, was in Constantinople during the entire\nsittings of this council, and refused to attend although invited. But\nthe council went on, all the same. His infallibility, supported by his\nclique, opposed the emperor and his council, but in vain. He formed his\nbishops and deacons into a separate council, published a constitution\ndefending, in _modified terms_, the three chapters, and interdicting all\nfurther discussion upon the subject by the authority of the Apostolic\nSee; pronounced anathemas against the persons and defenders of the\nauthors of the three chapters. Having now made himself a partisan of the\nauthors, who were condemned by the emperor's council, he was cursed for\npromoting heresy, and banished in dishonor. This served to bring him to\nhis senses upon several matters, and so he turned about and approved\nwhat he had before condemned. And so heresy was converted into orthodoxy\nby the magical power of an emperor at the expense of the infallibility\nof Vigilius. The Italians, Tuscans, Ligurians, Istrians, French,\nIllyrians and Africans, who took a stand against the emperor, were like\nthe pope, the \"vicar general of God,\" converted by the sword of\nJustinian. The Italian clergy who resisted were banished.\n\n\"In 681 there was a council at Constantinople, convoked by Constantine,\n_the bearded_. This council was called by the Latins '_in trullo_,'\nbecause it was held in an apartment of the imperial palace. The emperor\nhimself presided. The bishops of Constantinople and Antioch were on his\nright hand, and the deputies from Jerusalem and Rome were on his left.\nIn this council it was decided that Jesus Christ had two wills.\" Here\n\"Pope Honorius I. was condemned as a monothelite, that is, as wishing\nJesus Christ to have but one will.\" O, shame! What will come next? Well,\nwe are out at sea in the very darkest periods of the dark ages, and\nthere is no telling how much our senses may be shocked. We find next\nwhat is known as the Second Council of Nice. It was assembled by a\nwoman, Mrs. Irene, in the name of her son, whose eyes she had caused to\nbe put out. Her husband, Leo, had abolished the worship of images as\nleading to idolatry. This woman re-established this worship. During\nConstantine's minority she executed the imperial power. She was a bold\ndefender and patron of emblematic or image worship. It is said that she\nhad the ambition of Lucifer and the malignity of a demon. She is accused\nof being connected with the murder of her husband. \"She put out the eyes\nof Nicephorus, and amputated the tongues of Christopher, Nicetas,\nAthenius and Eudoxas, Constantine's sons, for _suspicion_ of conspiracy.\nShe destroyed the eyes of her own son.\" \"No woman,\" says Bruys, \"was\never less worthy of life than this princess.\" Her ambition, says Godeau,\nmade her violate all the laws of God and man. Now listen, but first\nprepare to experience all that the opposite extreme can possibly\nproduce. Is there any place in your nature where life and death, or\nheaven and hell, can meet in festive joys? No. Then bear with my story\nthe best you can, for it must be told. Here it is: Theodorus and\nTheophanes extol that vile woman for her VIRTUE AND EXCELLENCE(?). The\nGreeks placed her among the saints in their menology, and in holy\nfestivity celebrate her anniversary. Hartman and Binius, in more modern\ntimes, flatter her prudence and piety(?). Alexander lauds her religion\nand faith as worthy of immortal honor(?), though the blinding of her\nson, he admits, exposed her to reprehension. Baronius justifies the\nassassination of her son. He commends the inhumanity which arose from\nzeal for religion. Here let the curtain drop till my next on councils\nmakes its appearance.\n\n\n\n\nINFIDELS IN EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nWe should not be surprised when wicked men of every grade of character\nassail our religion, for its great Author erected a standard of duty too\nperfect to suit their unruly passions and lusts. Opposition to\nChristianity is the natural correllate of an unregenerated heart. This\nfact was the cause of all the sufferings of the primitive Christians,\nnot the only cause, but the _first_ and _leading_ cause. One striking\ncircumstance is worthy of notice, which is, that they have censured\nChristians for their zeal with an unsparing tongue, and, at the same\ntime, they have shown as much if not more vehemence and obstinacy in\ntheir own good-for-nothing opposition. Every kind of opposition has been\nmanifested which the ingenuity of man could dictate. Indeed, there is\nlittle urged against Christianity in our day that is original. Almost\nevery cavil and argument may be traced to Voltaire, Porphyry, Celsus and\nJulian, the old enemies of the Christ. Infidels, who dislike (will you\nhear it?) the labor and trouble of investigating the question of the\nclaims of the Christian religion upon their intelligence, seize with\navidity upon the labors of others and parade them before the public\nmind. Just now there is no question put so often by men who feign to be\nunbelievers as, \"What do you think of Colonel Ingersoll?\" \"He stirs you\nup.\" The little city of Logansport was favored not a great while in the\npast with a visit and lecture from the Colonel. After the lecture was\nover some half a dozen gentlemen were taking a lunch at an eating\nrestaurant, and there was one very talkative creature in the group who\nhad much to say of the Colonel's effort and of the \"unscientific and\nabsurd character of the Bible.\" Finally, one noble-hearted gentleman\nsaid to the boasting skeptic, Now you have said a great deal about the\nBible, and I venture the assertion that you can't quote one verse that\nis in it. I challenge you to do it. Just give us one, long or short,\nfrom any chapter in all the Bible. The man failed. He couldn't do it.\nThen, said the Christian gentleman, you fellows are always talking about\nscience and about the \"unscientific character of the Bible,\" so I will\nnow ask you one of the most simple questions known in science, and we\nwill see whether you will answer it. It is this: How many teeth have you\ngot in your mouth; how many does a man have? To the utter astonishment\nof the company the man failed again, and the company told him laughingly\nthat he must treat to the cigars. Such fellows know comparatively\nnothing, and yet they are always championing their men, who contain all\ntheir knowledge and do their thinking for them. Ask the infidel who his\nleaders are and he will point you to Hume, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, etc.\nAre Christians always holding up their great minds? Suppose we test the\nmerits of the case in this manner, then who are your infidels that will\ncompare with Jesus Christ and his apostles? or, with such men, even, as\nMilton, Clarendon, Hale, Bacon, Boyle, Locke, Newton, Addison,\nLyttleton, West, Johnson and Campbell? Where are your persons of such\nprofound understanding? To compare such persons as these with Voltaire,\nHume, Gibbon and Thomas Paine, is as silly as to compare manhood with\ninfancy. No infidels try Christianity upon its own merits. If they were\ncandid men they would separate Christianity from all foreign and\nirrelative circumstances, and test its evidences seriously, as the\nmagnitude of the question deserves. Apply the same unbelief to the\ncommon and ancient records of history and you will at once get the\ncredit of being rash and foolish. The scoffs and sarcasms and\nsophistries of infidels are not from a love of truth. Whatever the cause\nor causes may be, one thing is certain, and that is, that they do not\nunderstand Christianity itself, nor the nature and magnitude of its\nevidences. They condemn that which they never gave themselves the\ntrouble to investigate.\n\nWhoever investigates the religion of Jesus Christ will find that the\ncharacter of its founder is far superior to any other character, and his\napostles far superior to any other fishermen. To believe that his\nreligion is of simple human origin is like believing that a first-class\nship of war is the invention of a child. \"The majesty of Christ and the\ndivinity of his religion appears in nothing more than this, that in\nproportion to our acquaintance with the Scriptures of the New Testament\ndoes the light of truth shine upon the mind.\" The seeming successes of\ninfidelity, and the multitude of apostates scattered over our country,\nmakes us naturally more anxious to warn the rising generation against\nthe errors of those who would mislead them. But there is nothing in\nthese fearful signs of the times to shake our faith or excite our\nfears, because the faithful Bible student finds the condition of our\nworld just such as the Scriptures have foretold. All the surroundings\nthat characterize the conduct of infidels; their expertness in ridicule;\ntheir extreme folly and resoluteness; their licentiousness and anxiety\nfor change in laws as well as society; the snares laid out by them to\ncatch the unsteadfast, and their vain professions to free the world from\nslavery, while they themselves are in bondage to corruption, are drawn\nby the divine pencil of prophecy with so much exactness that \"he who\nruns may read.\" By examining the word of God you will find that the\n_Free-thinkers_ of our country, the _Illuminati_ of Germany, Darwin,\nStrauss, Huxley, Tyndal, Renan, and the man of our own land who is most\nnoted in our midst for oratorical accomplishments without logic,\nargument or truthfulness of statements touching the Christian religion,\nare all present evidences of the divinity of the prophetic words of the\nNew Testament.\n\n\n\n\nWOMAN AND HER RANK.\n\n\nI presume that Adam knew nothing of the subject of woman's inferiority.\nI do not think that he ever said to Eve, Don't soar so high nor dive so\ndeep into philosophy, science and religion, because you are a woman. I\ndon't think he ever said to his wife, Astronomy is beyond your reach,\nnor Science is too deep for your slender powers.\n\nHome is a woman's empire, but this very fact demands that her\nintellectual powers should not be inferior to her husband's. A vast\nmajority of people have their minds influenced and their characters\nformed by their mothers. Foolish and silly, as well as lazy women\ngenerally, have their counterparts in their offspring. By following the\noutlines of nature in her facts we have become scientific, and all the\nwisdom we can get from this source will be still more advantageous. The\nwoman's physical nature should ever teach us that she is not to be taxed\nwith physical labor beyond her strength and sphere of life. Such\ntaxation is barbarism and savageness. This heathenism always _destroys\nhome_. The American Indian has no home; he lives an idle, lazy,\ngood-for-nothing life, while his wife, or woman, as the case may be,\ndoes all the drudgery. For this _very reason_ he was never elevated, as\na general rule, above a shot-gun and a hound dog, and never had a home\nsuperior to Doolittle's birth-place, which, he said, was \"at Cape Cod,\nNantucket, and all along up and down the shore.\"\n\nIt is said that the English is the only language in which the word\n\"home\" occurs. What infamous hours many bachelors keep; many of them die\nof dissipation because they have no mother, sister, or wife to look\nafter them and render their homes pleasant and attractive. What an odd\nlooking thing a house is without a female occupant. \"Won't you tarry\nawhile?\" \"Can't you stay awhile?\" \"O, don't be in a hurry.\" Such is\noften heard, and the reply is, \"No, I am much obliged to you, I must go,\nfor my mother, my sister, or my wife, is expecting me.\" But for these\nsentiments he would stay until midnight; so some unmarried men are the\nmost contemptible _bores_. When you get acquainted with them you\nnaturally hate to see them coming. Some married men fall into the same\nway of _boring_ their neighbors. When I see a man doing this I suspect\nthat he has lost his love of home associations, and ask myself the\nquestion, What is the trouble?\n\nThere is always an adequate cause for every effect. Modern \"Freeloveism\"\nlooks to the annihilation of home, for the reason that it proposes no\ndefinite home for male or female. No people destitute of the light of\nthe Bible ever possessed a home, such an one as ours.\n\nOne of the great abominations of infidelity is often met within the\nadvocacy of _Freeloveism_, and matrimony binding at the option, simply,\nof the parties. What is a vagabond on the earth but a man without a\nhome? Slaves have been the same in every age, and a government that does\neverything for its subjects will always keep them in degradation. A\nfather and mother who would not effectually ruin their children must not\nraise them in indolence and affluence, doing everything for them and\nteaching them nothing in a practical way; even so a woman must be\nelevated until her post is one of honor. You might as well tie a man\nhand and foot, and command him to run a race, as to deprive women or\nothers of their natural rights, and then expect them to rise or progress\nthe same as those who are in the full possession of all their liberties.\nGive to all freedom and scope for their talents, and allow them to rise\nor fall at pleasure, but ever point them upward and onward.\n\nWomen were slaves in Egypt, in Babylon, in Ninevah, in Persia, in Greece\nand Rome, and all those nations _sunk_. She is now a slave in China, in\nIndia and in Turkey.\n\nAdam said: \"She is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be\ncalled woman for she was taken from man. Therefore shall a man leave his\nfather and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be\none flesh.\"\n\nSay what you will of gallantry, and of the flattery of the sex, but here\nyou have the intelligent and affectionate language of the first man,\nwhich, for beauty and love, as well as simplicity, has never been\nsurpassed. \"She is bone of my bone,\" and consequently of my own rank. We\nare one. She is flesh of my flesh and therefore is my equal. \"She shall\nbe called woman,\" that is, a female man.\n\nIt is authoritatively asserted that the Hebrew term translated woman\nsignifies a female man, just as in Latin \"equa\" is the feminine of\n\"equus,\" \"Julia\" is the feminine of \"Julius.\" But if she was a female\nman she possessed all the attributes of humanity, and therefore her\ndignity was and is the same as the other sex. Adam gave to Eve a\nposition, an honorable position, for he took her in as a part of\nhimself. His honor was her honor, his rank was her rank, and she was his\nhelpmeet. My ideal woman is not one who is good for nothing, \"bred only\nand polished to the taste of lustful appetence; to sing, to dance, to\ndress, to troll the tongue and roll the eye.\" She should be a helpmeet\nas termed in the Bible. She should be a creature not too bright and good\nto labor in her proper sphere, that is, to prepare daily food, serve it\nup and guide the house. A high legal dignitary placed an epitaph upon\nthe tomb of his wife, that read: \"An excellent woman and a good cook.\"\n\nWhen a stout, able-bodied woman sits herself down and whines out, \"I\ncan't work,\" she gets down very low. What is such a woman good for?\n\nIt has been said that woman is man's imaginative side. Well, I imagine\nthat there is a great deal of truth in the remark so far as many men are\nconcerned, and this simple fact has ruined many a wife. A woman may\noperate very well upon a man's imagination, but that will never help him\nto make a living.\n\nLet woman be, to all intents and purposes, the equal of man, trained for\nthe work of every-day life, for this is what the word education means.\nThen throw open to her all the employments lying within her strength,\nwhich are now monopolized by men, and let this new advantage work a\nreformation in her education. What is her education even now, and in our\nown country? Instead of being educated for health and long life, they\nare trained in many instances for disease and a premature death. The\nhistory of woman, as woman, is not in our reach; at least I am not\nprepared to say it has been written. I wish it had, for I am persuaded\nthat woman has been the great redeeming element upon the human side of\nbliss, without which our world could not exist.\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\"And they charge that he (Thomas Paine) was a drunkard. That is another\nfalsehood. He drank liquor in his day, as did the preachers. It was no\nunusual thing for the preacher going home to stop in a tavern and take a\ndrink of hot rum with a deacon, and it was no unusual thing for the\ndeacon to help the preacher home.\"--_Ingersoll._\n\nTherefore, if a man stops at a hotel and drinks till he has to be helped\nhome, he is no drunkard? No! Ingersoll is a temperance man (?) and he\nknows.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF AN INFIDEL IN WHOSE HEART EVERY SPARK OF TRUTH AND\nJUSTICE WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED.\n\n\nJ.J. Rousseau says: The gospel, that divine book, the only one necessary\nto a Christian, and the most useful of all to the man who may not be\none, only requires reflection upon it to impress the mind with love of\nits author and resolution to fulfill his precepts. Virtue never spoke in\ngentler terms; the profoundest wisdom was never uttered with greater\nenergy or more simplicity. It is impossible to rise from the reading of\nit without feeling a moral improvement. Look at the books of the\nphilosophers with all their pomp, how little they are compared with\nthis. Shall we say that the history of the gospel is a pure fiction?\nThis is not the style of fiction, and the history of Socrates, which\nnobody doubts, rests upon less evidence than that of Jesus Christ; and,\nafter all, this is but shifting the difficulty, not answering it. The\nsupposition that several persons had united to fabricate this book, is\nmore inconceivable than that one person should have supplied the subject\nof it. The spirit which it breathes, the morality which it inculcates,\ncould never have been the invention of Jewish authors, and the gospel\npossesses characters of truth so striking, so perfectly inimitable, that\nthe inventor would be a more astonishing object than the hero.--_J.J.\nRousseau, vol. 36, pp. 36, 39._\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nHave infidels been martyred on account of their infidelity? Men are not\nso foolish as to have themselves devoured by wild beasts or perish in\nslow fires rather than recant from a theory they never espoused, Col.\nIngersoll to the contrary, _notwithstanding_. Men do not prefer red-hot\niron chains to denying a Lord in whom they never believed. Infidels have\nnothing to lose by recanting. Colonel Ingersoll says, \"I think I would.\nThere is not much of the martyr about me,\" _so we think of the Colonel_!\n\n\n\n\nTHE JEWISH RELIGION AND INSTITUTIONS KNOWN AMONG HEATHEN WRITERS.\n\nBY HENRY KETT, B.D.,\n\n     _Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. Published first in\n     1812._\n\n\n\"The transactions and literature of the ancient Jews were too remarkable\nto escape the attention of the learned and inquisitive Pagans when Judea\nbecame a province of the Roman Empire. Many particulars relative to the\neminent character of Joseph as a minister to Pharaoh, and as an inspired\nprophet, to the emigration of the Jews from Egypt, their miraculous\npassage through the Red Sea, their settlement in the Holy Land, the\ninstitutions and ceremonies of the law, the splendor of Jerusalem in its\nmost flourishing times, the magnificence of the temple, and the supreme,\neternal and immutable nature of their worship, are related by Diodorus\nSiculus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Justin.\"\n\n\n\n\nCENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST.\n\n\nThe fragments of Sanchoniathon, the most ancient historian of Phenicia,\nwho is supposed to have flourished not long after the death of Moses,\nconfirms the Bible account of the origin of the world and of many men\nand places mentioned in the Pentateuch. Berosus, the Chaldean, and\nManetho, the Egyptian, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus,\nking of Egypt, represent several circumstances known in the accounts\ngiven by Moses. They wrote about the time when the Old Testament was\ntranslated into Greek. Their evidence, to say the least, shows the honor\nthat was paid by the most learned persons of the East to the records of\nthe Bible.\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nI know the Bible is inspired, because it finds me at greater depths of\nmy being than any other book.--_Coleridge._\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. 10. October, 1880","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14712}