The Christian Foundation,

                                   Or,

                     Scientific and Religious Journal

                              Vol. 1. No 4.

                               April, 1880.





CONTENTS


Is There A Counterfeit Without A Genuine?
Design In Nature.
An Atheist Is A Fool.
Blunder On And Blunder On—It Is Human To Blunder.
Draper’s Conflict Between Religion And Science.
Facts Speak Louder Than Words, Or What Christianity Has Done For
Cannibals.
Are We Simply Animals?
Our Relations To The Ancient Law And Prophets—What Are They?
The Funeral Services Of The National Liberal League.
Huxley’s Paradox.
The Triumphing Reign Of Light.






IS THERE A COUNTERFEIT WITHOUT A GENUINE?


My object in this lesson is to present the myths, the ancient, fictitious
and fanciful narratives concerning the gods, in such a manner as to enable
you to see the utter absurdity of the idea that the religion of the Bible
is of mythical origin. _Myths_ are fictitious narratives, having an
analogy more or less remote to something real. From this definition you
discover that a myth is _always_ a counterfeit, and as such always appears
in evidence in favor of something more or less remote, that is true. Now,
if the Bible had a mythical origin, it sustains some analogy to something
found in the mythical or fictitious and fanciful narratives concerning the
gods, and is therefore the myth of a myth; the counterfeit of a
counterfeit. If such be the truth in the case, where do we find the origin
of the myths from which “Bible myths” have descended? Is it found in the
true God presiding over the elements of nature and the destinies of men,
as well as the events of creation and providence? Or, can it be possible
that we have many counterfeits _without a genuine_? Many myths sustaining
no analogy, either near or remote, to anything real? It is an absurdity,
destructive of the term employed, because _myths_ cease to be _myths_
without some near or remote relation to realities. They _must_ sustain
some analogy to something real. And _counterfeits_ also cease to be
_counterfeits_ when it is shown that they sustain no relation, through
analogy or likeness, to anything that is genuine. In the mythical systems
of olden times we have, in the midst of a vast deal of false and fanciful
narrative concerning subordinate and secondary gods, evidence of a supreme
God presiding over all things; and the secondary gods performing many
things which belonged to the province of the “Almighty One,” with many
degrading, vile and corrupting habits.

A letter written by Maximus, a Numidian, to Augustin, reads thus: “Now,
that there is a sovereign God, who is without beginning, and who, without
having begotten anything like unto Himself, is, nevertheless, the Father
and the former of all things, what man can be gross and stupid enough to
doubt? He it is of whom, under different names, we adore the eternal power
extending through every part of the world, thus honoring separately by
different sorts of worship what may be called His several members, we
adore Him entirely. May those subordinate gods preserve you under whose
names, and by whom all we mortals upon earth adore the common Father of
gods and men.” In this letter we have a clear presentation of the mythical
system concerning the ancient gods, and also the “analagous relation” to
the “Master God.” Each god having his particular dominion over place or
passion, appears before us as a representative of the supreme, or “Master
God;” and by worshiping each member or God they claimed to adore entirely
the “common Father of gods and men.” Augustin answers, In your public
square there are _two statues_ of Mars, one naked, the other armed; and
close by the figure of a man who, with three fingers advanced towards
Mars, holds in check that divinity so dangerous to the whole town. With
regard to what you say of such gods being portions of the only “true God,”
I take the liberty you gave me to warn you not to fall into such a
sacrilege; for that only God, of whom you speak, is doubtless He who is
acknowledged by the whole world, and concerning whom, as some of the
ancients have said, the ignorant agree with the learned. Now, will you say
that Mars, whose strength is represented by an inanimate man, is a portion
of that God? That is to say, the dead statue controls Mars, and Mars is a
subordinate god representing the infinite God, and is, therefore, a part
of that God. Augustin adds, Not the Pantheon and all the temples
consecrated to the inferior gods, nor even the temples consecrated to the
twelve greater gods prevented “Deus Optimus Maximus,” God most good, most
great, from being acknowledged throughout the empire. Voltaire says, “In
spite of all the follies of the people who venerated secondary and
ridiculous gods, and in spite of the Epicurians, who in reality
acknowledged none, it is verified that in all times the magistrates and
wise adored one sovereign God.” Secondary gods were _myths_, counterfeits,
sustaining the _relation_ of counterfeits. The ancients attributed their
own passions to the “Master God,” and had subordinate gods representing
passions. They also had a god for each part of His dominion; and these
gods they called members of the true God, and claimed to worship Him, by
worshiping all the members or gods. Mars was the god of war; Bacchus was
the god of drunkenness. They had a god for this and a god for that. The
ancient pagans seemed to think that infinite divisibility belonged to the
“true God,” for they distinguished between passions, and divided up the
universe among the gods until they had it crammed full of subordinate and
ridiculous gods, each one a member of Jehovah, and each member a part of
the great mythical system.

Now, in order to establish the proposition that our religion is of
mythical origin, it is necessary to show, first, that the Bible was
written this side of or during the age of myths, and, having done this, it
is necessary to show that the Hebrew people were a mythical people;
neither of which can be accomplished. It will not be amiss to present in
this connection a statement given by Justin to the Greeks. He says: “Of
all your teachers, whether sages, poets, historians, philosophers, or
law-givers, by far the oldest, as the Greek historians show us, was
Moses.... For in the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some of your poets
have supposed to have been earth-born—that is, to have sprung from the
soil, and hence one of the oldest inhabitants—_the aborigines_, Moses is
mentioned as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation.” He is mentioned
as a very ancient and time-honored prince in the Athenian, Attic and
Grecian histories. Polemon, in his first book of Hellenics, mentions Moses
as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation. Ptolemæus, in his history of
Egypt, bears the same testimony. Apion, an Egyptian writer, in his book
against the Jews, says “Moses led them.” Dr. Shaw, a modern traveler, says
the inhabitants of Corondel, on the eastern side of the Red Sea, to this
day preserve the remembrance of the deliverance of the children of Israel
from their bondage in Egypt. Diodorus, the most renowned Greek historian,
who employed thirty years epitomizing the libraries, and traveled over
Asia and Europe for the sake of great accuracy, who wrote forty volumes of
history, says he learned from the Egyptian priests that Moses was an
ancient law-giver.

It seems to us that, no sane man, who is acquainted with the ancient
mythicals, can regard the religion of the Bible as a child of mythical
descent. It is as deadly in its influence upon those myths, and all
mythical worship, as it could be made by an infinite mind.

Voltaire says “the character of the mythical gods is ridiculous;” we will
add, it is ridiculous in the extreme. Listen—Hesiod, in his theogony,
says: “Chronos, the son of Ouranos, or Saturn, son of Heaven, in the
beginning slew his father, and possessed himself of his rule, and, being
seized with a panic lest he should suffer in the same way, he preferred
devouring his children, but Curetes, a subordinate god, by craft, conveyed
Jupiter away in secret and afterwards bound his brother with chains, and
divided the empire, Jupiter receiving the air, and Neptune the deep, and
Pluto Hades.”

Pros-er-pi-ne, Mella-nip-pe, Neptune, Pluto and Jupiter are all set forth
in the mythical writings as adulterers. Jupiter was regarded as more
frequently involved in that crime, being set down as guilty in many
instances. For the love of Sem-e-le, it is said that he assumed wings and
proved his own unchastity and her jealousy. These are some of the exploits
of the sons of Saturn. Hercules was celebrated by his three nights, sung
by the poets for his successful labors.

The son of Jupiter slew the Lion, and destroyed the many-headed Hydra; was
able to kill the fleet man-eating birds, and brought up from hades the
three-headed dog, Cerberus; effectually cleansed the Augean stable from
its refuse; killed the bulls and stag whose nostrils breathed fire; slew
the poisonous serpent and killed Ach-e-lò-us. The guest-slaying Bu-sí-ris
was delighted with being stunned by the cymbals of the Sat-yrs, and to be
conquered with the love of women; and at last, being unable to take the
cloak off of Nessus, he kindled his own funeral pile and died. Such are
specimens of the ancient myths. Their character is such as to leave an
impassible gulf between them and the character of the God revealed in our
religion. No development theory, seeking the origin of our religion in the
old mythical system, can bridge across this chasm. It is as deep and broad
as the distance between the antipodes. There is no analogy between these
counterfeits or myths and the “true God,” save that remote power of God
which is divided up and parceled out among them. Their morals were the
worst. The whole mythical system is simply one grand demonstration of
human apostacy from the “true God.” Homer introduces Zeus in love, and
bitterly complaining and bewailing himself, and plotted against by the
other gods. He represents the gods as suffering at the hands of men. Mars
and Venus were wounded by Di-o-me-de. He says, “Great Pluto’s self the
stinging arrow felt when that same son of Jupiter assailed him in the very
gates of hell, and wrought him keenest anguish. Pierced with pain, to the
high Olympus, to the courts of Jupiter groaning he came. The bitter shaft
remained deep in his shoulder fixed, and grieved his soul.” In the
mythical system the gods are not presented as creators or first causes.
Homer says, They were in the beginning generated from the waters of the
ocean, and thousands were added by deifying departed heroes and
philosophers. The thought of one supreme Intelligence, the “God of Gods,”,
runs through all the system of myths. It is found anterior to the myths,
and, therefore, could not have had its origin with them. The character
ascribed to our God, in our scriptures, has no place among the ancient
myths. They hold the “Master God” before us only in connection with power,
being altogether ignorant of His true character. They even went so far as
to attribute much to Him that was ridiculous. One of the ancients said,
“The utmost that a man can do is to attribute to the being he worships his
imperfections and impurities, magnified to infinity, it may be, and then
become worse by their reflex action upon his own nature.” This was
verified in the ancient mythical religion, without exception, and without
doubt.

“The character of all the gods was simply human character extended in all
its powers, appetites, lusts and passions. Scholars say there is no
language containing words that express the Scriptural ideas of holiness
and abhorrence of sin, except those in which the Scriptures were given, or
into which they have been translated. These attributes must be known in
order to salvation from sin, so God revealed Himself and gave the world a
pure religion, as a standard of right and wrong, and guide in duty, and
rule of life.”

The history of the ancient nations of the earth gives a united testimony
that their original progenitors possessed a knowledge of the one true and
living God, who was worshiped by them, and believed to be an infinite,
self-existent and invisible spirit. This notion was never entirely
extinguished even among the idolatrous worshipers. Greek and Latin poets
were great corrupters of theology, yet in the midst of all their Gods
there is still to be found, in their writings, the notion of one supreme
in power and rule, whom they confound with Jupiter.

The age of myths began with the tenth generation after the flood. The
evidence of this is given by Plato from one of the ancient poets in these
words: “It was the generation _then the tenth_, of men endowed with
speech, since forth the flood had burst upon the men of former times, and
Kronos, Japetus and Titan reigned, whom men of Ouranos proclaimed the
noblest sons, and named them so, because of men _endowed with gift of
speech_, they were the first,” that is to say, they were orators, “and
others for their strength, as Heracles and Perseus, and others for their
art. Those to whom either the subjects gave honor, or the rulers
themselves _assuming it_, obtained the name, some from fear, others from
reverence. Thus Antinous, through the benevolence of your ancestors toward
their subjects, came to be regarded as a god. But those who came after
adopted the worship without examination.” So testifies one who was
schooled in philosophy. Do you say there are points of similitude between
the Bible religion and the mythical? It would be strange if there were
none, seeing that the mythical is truly what the term signifies, a
counterfeit upon the genuine, or Biblical.

The points of disagreement, however, are such as to demonstrate the fact
that the ancient mythical people knew not the character of the Being, whom
they conceived to be the “God of Gods and the Father of Gods and men.”
Those who confound the Bible with the ancient myths upon the score of the
analogy that exists between it and the myths, remind me of a very learned
gentleman with whom I was once walking around an oat field, when he
remarked, “_there_ is a very fine piece of wheat.” The man had been
brought up in an eastern city, and was unable to distinguish between oats
and wheat. I knew a gentleman who asked a man, standing by the side of an
old-fashioned flax-break, what he thought it was used for? The man took
hold of the handle, lifted it up and let it down a few times, and said:
“It looks like it might be used to chop up sausage meat.” It is very
natural for us to draw comparisons, and when we do not make ourselves
familiar with things and their uses, we are very liable to be led into
error by a few points of similitude. All the infidels with whom I have
become acquainted look upon the Bible like the man looked upon the
flax-break, and like the man looked upon the oat field. If one had looked
upon the flax-break who was familiar with it, he never could have dreamed
of chopping sausage meat; and if the other had been familiar with wheat
and oats, as they present themselves to the eye in the field in the month
of June, he never would have called the oats wheat. And if any sane man
will make himself familiar with both the Bible and the old system of myths
and mythical worship, he will never confound the two. There are a thousand
things, very different in character and origin, which have points of
similitude. But similitude never proves identity short of completeness.
While the analogy between the ancient mythical system of gods and their
worship and the true God and His worship is restricted to power and
intelligence, there exists a contrast between them deep as heaven is high
and broad as the earth in point of moral character, virtue, and every
ennobling and lovable attribute.

There is an old myth in the Vedas—a god called “Chrishna.” The Vedas claim
that he is in the form of a man; that he is black; that he is dressed in
flowers and ribbons; that he is the father of a great many gods. It is
surprising to see the eagerness with which some men bring up “Chrishna” in
comparison with the Greek term “Christos”—Christ, and confound the two.
The words are entirely different, save in a jingle of sound. They are no
more alike than the terms _catechist_—one who instructs by questions and
answers, and the term catechu—a dry, brown astringent extract. We could
give many such examples in the history of unbelievers and their war upon
the Bible, but this must suffice for the present. The truth is this: such
men, as a general rule, neither understand the Bible in its teachings and
character, nor the ancient mythical system. In it Jupiter, among the
Romans, and throughout every language, appears before us as the “Father of
Gods and men”—“the God of gods,” the “Master of the gods.” Voltaire says:
It is false that Cicero, or any other Roman, ever said that it did not
become the majesty of the empire to acknowledge a Supreme God. Their
Jupiter, the Zeus of the Greeks and the Jehovah of the Phonecians, was
always considered as the master of the secondary gods. He adds: But is not
Jupiter, the master of all the gods, a word belonging to every nation,
from the Euphrates to the Tiber? Among the first Romans it was _Jov_,
_Jovis_; among the Greeks, _Zeus_; among the Phonecians and Syrians and
Egyptians, _Jehovah_. The last term is the Hebrew scriptural name of
God—denoting _permanent being_—in perfect keeping with the Bible title or
descriptive appellation, “I AM THAT I AM.”

The ancient worshipers of the gods had lost all but the name, _power_ and
relation, which they ever knew of Jehovah. And they could do no more than
clothe Jupiter with their own imperfections and impurities—and then place
him above all the gods; it was necessary for them to view him as excelling
in all the characteristics of the secondary gods. And having attributed to
the gods all they knew of human passions and corruptions, they clothed
Jupiter himself with more villainy and corruption than belonged to any
other god. In this was the great blasphemous sacrilege of ancient
idolatry. They thus demonstrated their own apostacy; and the fact that
their system of gods was a counterfeit, a mythical system. They were
destitute of any standard of right and wrong, having no conceptions of the
divine character which were not drawn from their own imperfect and corrupt
lives. The divine character, as revealed in the revelation of Christ, and
presented to us as God manifest in the flesh, is at once the very opposite
of the characters given in the myths. The distance between the two is the
distance between the lowest degradation of God-like power exercised in the
lowest passions, and the sublimity of Heaven’s own spotless life. I love
the religion of the Scriptures, because it restores to the race the lost
knowledge of God and the additional life of Jesus—the only perfect model
known in the history of the race. It is the life of God manifested in the
flesh; make it _your own_, and it will save you. Mr. English, an American
infidel, said: “Far be it from me to reproach the meek and compassionate,
the amiable Jesus, or to attribute to him the mischiefs occasioned by his
followers.”

It is now conceded that Jesus Christ was _no myth_ by all the great minds
in unbelief. He lived. We love his life, because all who would rob Him of
His authority are compelled to speak well of it. Rousseau, another
infidel, says: “It is impossible that he whose history the gospel records
can be but a man,” adding, “Does he speak in the tone of an enthusiast, or
of an ambitious sectary? What mildness! What purity in his manners! What
touching favor in his instructions! What elevation in his maxims! What
presence of mind! What ingenuity, and what justice in his answers! What
government of his passions! What prejudice, blindness or ill faith must
that be which dares to compare Socrates with the Son of Mary!

“What a difference between the two! Socrates, dying without a pain,
without disgrace, easily sustains his part to the last. The death of
Socrates, philosophizing with his friends, is the mildest that could be
desired. That of Jesus, expiring in torments, injured, mocked, cursed by
all the people, is the most horrible that can be feared. Socrates, taking
the impoisoned cup, blesses him who presents it to him with tears. Jesus,
in the midst of a frightful punishment, prays for his enraged
executioners. Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a wise
man, the life and death of Jesus are those of a God.” If such be the
model, the pattern, the example which I am to follow, let me live and die
a Christian. I love the religion of Christ, because its character compels
its enemies to speak thus of it. I love it because of its practical
influence in elevating all into the moral image of Christ. I love it
because it saves men through its influence from abominable sins and
consequent sorrows that would tear up the hearts of thousands. I love it
because it is the power of God to save the soul. I love it because it
leads men into communion and fellowship with all the good. I love it
because it leads to heaven and to God.





Civilization, it is true, is an arbitrary term. Anthropologists have not
yet settled the boundary line between a savage and a civilized
people.—_Prof. Owen, F. R. S._





DESIGN IN NATURE.


It is scarcely necessary to designate instances in the works of nature, in
which there is an appearance of purpose, for everything has this
appearance. I will, however, mention several cases as samples.

1. The adaptation of the covering of animals to the climates in which they
live. Northern animals have thicker and warmer coats of fur or hair than
Southern ones. And here it should be remarked that man, the only creature
capable of clothing himself, is the only one that is not clothed by
nature. Singular discrimination and care indeed for non-intelligence!

2. The adaptation of animals to the elements in which they live, the fish
to the water, other animals to the air. Would not an unintelligent energy
or power be as likely to form the organs of a fish for air as for water?

3. The necessity which man has for sustenance, and the supply of that
necessity by nature.

Here let it be noted how many things must act in unison to produce the
necessary result. The earth must nourish the seed, the sun must warm it,
the rain must moisten it, and man must have the strength to cultivate it,
and the organs to eat it, and the stomach to digest it, and the
blood-vessels to circulate it, and so on. Is it credible that all these
things should _happen_ without design?

4. The pre-adaptation of the infant to the state of things into which it
enters at birth. The eye is exactly suited to the light, the ear to sound,
the nose to smell, the palate to taste, the lungs to the air. How is it
possible to see no design in this pre-adaptation, so curious, so
complicated in so many particulars?

5. The milk of animals suitable for the nourishment of their young,
provided just in season, provided without contrivance on the part of the
parent, and sought for without instruction or experience on the part of
its offspring! _and all by chance!!_

6. The different sexes. In this case, as in the rest, there is perfect
adaptation, which displays evident design. And there is more. What, I ask,
is there _in nature_ to cause a difference in sexes? Why are not all
either males or females? or, rather, a compound? This case, then, I
consider not only an evidence of design, but likewise an evidence of the
special and continued _volition_ of the Creator.

7. The destitution of horns on the calf and of teeth in the suckling. All
other parts are perfect at the very first; but were calves and sucklings
to have teeth and horns, what sore annoyances would these appendages prove
to their dams and dames. How is it that all the necessary parts of the
young are thus perfect at the first, and their annoying parts unformed
till circumstances render them no annoyance—unformed at the time they are
not needed, and produced when they are, for defense and mastication? Who
can fail to see intelligence here?

8. The teats of animals. These bear a general proportion to the number of
young which they are wont to have at a time. Those that are wont to have
few young have few teats; those that have many young have many teats. Were
these animals to make preparations themselves in this respect, how could
things be more appropriate?

9. The pea and the bean. The pea-vine, unable to stand erect of itself,
has tendrils with which to cling to a supporter; but the bean-stalk,
self-sustained, has nothing of the kind.

10. The pumpkin. This does not grow on the oak; to fall on the tender head
of the wiseacre reposing in its shade, _reasoning_ that it should grow
there rather than where it does, because, forsooth, the oak would be able
to sustain it. And were he to undertake to set the other works of
Providence to rights which he now considers wrong, ’tis a chance if he
would not get many a thump upon his pate ere he should get the universe
arranged to his mind. And if, before completing his undertaking, he should
not find it the easier of the two to arrange his mind to the universe, it
would be because _what __ little_ brains he _has_ would get thumped out of
his cranium altogether!

11. The great energies of nature. To suppose the existence of _powers_ as
the cause of the operations of nature—powers destitute of life, and, at
the same time, self-moving, and acting upon matter without the
intervention of extrinsic agency, is just as irrational as to suppose such
a power in a machine, and is a gross absurdity and a self-contradiction.
But to suppose that these lifeless energies, even if possessed of such
qualities, could, void of intelligence, produce _such_ effects as _are_
produced in the universe, requires credulity capable of believing
anything.

12. The whole universe, whether considered in its elementary or its
organized state. From the simple grass to the tender plant, and onward to
the sturdy oak; from the least insect up to man, there is skill the most
consummate, design the most clear. What substance, useless as it may be
when uncompounded with other substances, does not manifest design in its
affinity to those substances, by a union with which it is rendered useful?
What plant, what shrub, what tree has not organization and arrangement the
most perfect imaginable? What insect so minute that contains not, within
its almost invisible exterior, adjustment of part to part in the most
exact order throughout all its complicated system, infinitely transcending
the most ingenious productions of art, and the most appropriate adaptation
of all those parts to its peculiar mode of existence? Rising in the scale
of sensitive being, let us consider the beast of the forest, in whose
case, without microscopic aid, we have the subject more accessible. Is he
a beast of prey? Has the God of nature given him an instinctive thirst for
blood? Behold, then, his sharp-sighted organs of vision for descrying his
victim afar, his agile limbs for pursuit, his curved and pointed claws for
seizing and tearing his prey, his sharp-edged teeth for cutting through
its flesh, his firm jaws for gripping, crushing, and devouring it, and his
intestines for digesting raw flesh. But is he a graminivorous animal? Does
he subsist on grass and herb? Behold, then, his clumsy limbs and his
clawless hoofs, his blunt teeth and his herb-digesting stomach. So perfect
is the correspondence between one part and another; so exactly adapted are
all the parts to the same general objects; so wonderful is the harmony and
so definite and invariable the purpose obtaining throughout the whole,
that it is necessary to see but a footstep, or even a bone, to be able to
decide the nature and construction of the animal that imprinted that
footstep or that possessed that bone. Ascending still higher in the scale,
we come at last to man—man, the highest, noblest workmanship of God on
earth—the lord of this sphere terrene—for whose behoof all earthly things
exist. In common with all animals, he has that perfect adaptation of part
to part, and of all the parts to general objects, which demonstrate
consummate wisdom in the Cause which thus adapted them. His eyes are so
placed as to look the same way in which his feet are placed to walk, and
his hands to toil. His feet correspond with each other, being both placed
to walk in the direction, and with their corresponding sides towards one
another, without which he would hobble, even if he could walk at all. His
mouth is placed in the forepart of the head, by which it can receive food
and drink from the hands.

But the hands themselves—who can but admire their wonderful utility? To
what purpose are they not adapted? Man, who has many ends to accomplish,
in common with the beast of the field; who has hunger to alleviate, thirst
to slake, and has likewise other and higher ends, for the attainment of
which he is peculiarly qualified by means of _hands_. Adapted by his
constitution to inhabit all climes, he has hands to adapt his clothing to
the same, whether torrid, temperate or frigid. Possessed of the knowledge
of the utility of the soil, he has hands to cultivate it. Located far
distant oftentimes from the running stream, these hands enable him to
disembowel the earth and there find an abundant supply of the
all-necessary fluid. Endowed with rational ideas, pen in _hand_ he can
transmit them to his fellows far away, or to generations unborn. Heir and
lord of earth and ocean, his hands enable him to possess and control the
same, without which, notwithstanding all his reason, he could do neither,
but would have to crouch beneath the superior strength of the brute, and
fly for shelter to crags inaccessible to his beastly sovereign.

The only creature that has the reason to manage the world, has the
physical organization to do it. No _beast_ with man’s reason could do
this, and no _man_ with the mere instinct of a brute could do it. How
marvellous, then this adaptation! How wondrous the adaptation of
everything, and how astonishing that any man, with all these things in
view, can for one moment forbear to admit a God. Let him try _a chance
experiment_. Let him take the letters of the alphabet and throw them about
promiscuously and then see how long ere they would move of their own
accord and arrange themselves into words and sentences. He may avail
himself of the whole benefit of his scheme; he may have the advantage of
an energy or power as a momentum to set them in motion; he may put these
letters into a box sufficiently large for the purpose, and then shake them
as long as may seem him good, and when, in this way, they shall have
become intelligible language, I will admit that he will have some reasons
for doubting a God. If this should seem too much like _artificial_ mind,
he may take some little animal, all constructed at his hands, and
dismember its limbs and dissect its body, and then within some vessel let
him throw its various parts at random, and seizing that vessel shake it
most lustily till bone shall come to bone, joint to joint, and the little
creature be restored to its original form. But if this could not be
accomplished by mere power, without wisdom to direct, how could the
original adjustment occur by chance? How could those very parts themselves
be _formed for_ adjustment one to another?

Mathematicians tell us wondrous things in relation to these hap-hazard
concerns. And they demonstrate their statements by what will not
lie—figures. Their rule is this: that, as one thing admits of but one
position, as, for example, _a_, so two things, _a_ and _b_, are capable of
two positions, as _ab_, _ba_. But if a third be added, instead of their
being susceptible of only one additional position, or three in all, they
are capable of six. For example, _abc_, _acb_, _bac_, _bca_, _cab_, _cba_.
Add another letter, _d_, and the four are capable of twenty-four positions
or variations. Thus we might go on. Merely adding another letter, _e_, and
so making _five_ instead of four, would increase the the number of
variations _five_-fold. They would then amount to one hundred and twenty.
A single additional letter, _f_, making _six_ in all, would increase this
last sum of one hundred and twenty _six_-fold, making seven hundred and
twenty. Add a _seventh_ letter, _g_, and the last-named sum would be
increased _seven_-fold, making the sum of five thousand and forty. If we
go on thus to the end of the alphabet, we have the astonishing sum of six
hundred and twenty thousand four hundred and forty-eight trillions, four
hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty-three billions, two
hundred and thirty-nine thousand four hundred and thirty-nine millions and
three hundred and sixty thousand!!! Hence it follows that, were the
letters of the alphabet to be thrown promiscuously into a vessel, to be
afterwards shaken into order by mere hap, their chance of being arranged,
not to say into words and sentences, but into their alphabetical order,
would be only as _one_ to the above number. All this, too, in the case of
only twenty-six letters! Take now the human frame, with its bones,
tendons, nerves, muscles, veins, arteries, ducts, glands, cartilages,
etc.; and having dissected the same, throw those parts into one
promiscuous mass; and how long, I ask, would it be ere Chance would put
them all into their appropriate places and form a perfect man? In this
calculation we are likewise to take into the account the chances of their
being placed bottom upwards, or side-ways, or wrong side out,
notwithstanding they might merely find their appropriate places. This
would increase the chances against a well-formed system to an amount
beyond all calculation or conception. In the case of the alphabet, the
chances for the letters to fall bottom up or aslant are not included. And
when we reflect that the blind goddess, or “unintelligent forces,” would
have to contend against such fearful odds in the case of a single
individual, how long are we to suppose it would be, ere from old Chaos she
could shake this mighty universe, with all its myriads upon myriads of
existences, into the glorious order and beauty in which it now exists.





AN ATHEIST IS A FOOL.


He can’t believe that two letters can be adjusted to each other without
design, and yet he can believe all the foregoing incredibilities.

I might swell the list to a vast extent. I might bring into view the
verdure of the earth as being the most agreeable of all colors to the eye;
the general diffusion of the indispensibles and necessaries of life, such
as air, light, water, food, clothing, fuel, while less necessary things,
such as spices, gold, silver, tin, lead, zinc, are less diffused; also,
the infinite variety in things—in men, for instance—by which we can
distinguish one from another. But I forbear. Is it reasonable to conclude
that, where there are possible appearances of design, still no design is
there? or even that it is probable there is none?

I have said that there is as much evidence of purpose in the works of
nature as in those of art. I now say that there is more, _infinitely_
more. Should the wheels of nature stop their revolutions, and her energies
be palsied, and life and motion cease, even then would she exhibit
incomparably greater evidence of design, in her mere construction and
adaptation, than do the works of art. Shall we then be told that when she
is in full operation, and daily producing millions upon millions of
useful, of intelligent, of marvelous effects, she still manifests no marks
of intelligence! In nature we not only see all the works of art infinitely
exceeded, but we see, as it were, those works self-moved and performing
their operations without external agency. To use a faint comparison, we
see a factory in motion without water, wind or steam, its cotton placing
itself within the reach of the picker, the cards, the spinning-frame and
the loom, and turning out in rolls or cloth. Such virtually, nay, far more
wonderful, is the universe. Not a thousandth part so unreasonable would it
be to believe a real factory of this description, were one to exist, to be
a chance existence, as to believe this universe so. Sooner could I suppose
nature herself possessed of intelligence than admit the idea that there is
_no_ intelligence concerned in her organization and operations. There must
be a mind within or without her, or else we have no data by which to
distinguish mind. There must be a mind, or all the results of mind are
produced without any. There must be a mind, or chaos produces order, blind
power perfects effects, and non-intelligence the most admirable
correspondence and harmony imaginable. Skeptics pride themselves much on
their reason. They can’t believe, they say, because it is unreasonable.
_What_ is unreasonable? To believe in a mind where there is every
appearance thereof that can be? Is it more reasonable to believe, then,
that every appearance of mind is produced without any mind at all?
Skeptics are the last men in all this wide world to pretend reason. They
doubt against infinite odds; they believe without evidence against
evidence, against demonstration, and then talk of reason!—_Origin
Bachelor’s Correspondence with R. D. Owen._





BLUNDER ON AND BLUNDER ON—IT IS HUMAN TO BLUNDER.


Are all the mammoths one or two hundred thousand years old, as Sir Charles
Lyell conjectured? It was stated, in the bygone, that the “diluvium” was
very old, on account of the absence of human remains, but since man’s
remains have been found there, it is inferred that man is very ancient;
whereas, the truth is, the mammoth is _very recent_. In many instances
their bones are so fresh that they contain twenty-seven per cent. of
animal substance; in some instances the flesh is still upon their bones,
with their last meal in their stomachs.

Mr. Boyd Dawkins has furnished us with a thrilling narrative of the
discovery of a mammoth in 1846, by Mr. Benkendorf, close to the mouth of
the Indigirka. This mammoth was disentombed during the great thaw of the
summer. The description is given in the following language: “In 1846 there
was unusually warm weather in the north of Siberia. Already in May unusual
rains poured over the moors and bogs; storms shook the earth, and the
streams carried not only ice to the sea, but also large tracts of land. We
steamed on the first day up the Indigirka, but there were no thoughts of
land; we saw around us only a sea of dirty brown water, and knew the river
only by the rushing and roaring of the stream. The river rolled against us
trees, moss, and large masses of peat, so that it was only with great
trouble and danger that we could proceed. At the end of the second day we
were only a short distance up the stream; some one had to stand with the
sounding-rod in hand continually, and the boat received so many shocks
that it shuddered to the keel. A wooden vessel would have been smashed.
Around us we saw nothing but the flooded land.... The Indigirka, here, had
torn up the land and worn itself a fresh channel, and when the waters sank
we saw, to our astonishment, that the old river-bed had become merely that
of an insignificant stream.... The stream rolled over and tore up the
soft, wet ground like chaff, so that it was dangerous to go near the
brink. While we were all quiet, we heard under our feet a sudden gurgling
and stirring, which betrayed the working of the disturbed water. Suddenly
our jagger, ever on the look-out, called loudly, and pointed to a singular
and unshapely object, which rose and sank.... Now we all hastened to the
spot on shore, had the boat drawn near, and waited until the mysterious
thing should again show itself. Our patience was tried, but at last a
black, horrible giant-like mass was thrust out of the water, and we beheld
a colossal elephant’s head, armed with mighty tusks, with its long trunk
moving in the water in an unearthly manner, as though seeking for
something lost therein.... I beheld the monster hardly twelve feet from
me, with his half-open eyes yet showing the whites. It was still in good
preservation....

“Picture to yourself an elephant with a body covered with thick fur, about
thirteen feet in height and fifteen in length, with tusks eight feet long,
thick, and curving outward at their ends, a stout trunk of six feet in
length, colossal limbs of one and a half feet in thickness, and a tail
naked up to the end, which was covered with thick tufty hair. The animal
was fat and well grown; death had overtaken him in the fulness of his
powers. His parchment-like, large, naked ears lay turned up over the head;
about the shoulders and on the back he had stiff hair, about a foot in
length, like a mane. The long outer hair was deep brown and coarsely
rooted. The top of the head looked so wild and so penetrated with pitch
that it resembled the rind of an old oak tree. On the sides it was
cleaner, and under the outer hair there appeared everywhere a wool, very
soft, warm and thick, and of a fallow-brown color. The giant was well
protected against the cold. The whole appearance of the animal was
fearfully strange and wild. It had not the shape of our present elephants.
As compared with our Indian elephants, its head was rough, the brain-case
low and narrow, but the trunk and mouth were much larger. The teeth were
very powerful. Our elephant is an awkward animal, but compared with this
mammoth, it is an Arabian steed to a coarse, ugly dray horse. I had the
stomach separated and brought on one side. It was well filled, and the
contents instructive and well preserved. The principal were young shoots
of the fir and pine; a quantity of young fir cones, also in a chewed
state, were mixed with the moss.”

Mammoth bones are found in great abundance in the islands off the northern
coast of Siberia. The remains of the rhinoceros are also found. Pallas, in
1772, obtained from Wiljuiskoi, in latitude 64°, a rhinoceros taken from
the sand in which it had been frozen. This carcass emitted an odor like
putrid flesh, part of the skin being covered with short, crisp wool and
with black and gray hairs. Professor Brandt, in 1846, extracted from the
cavities in the molar teeth of this skeleton a small quantity of
half-chewed pine leaves and coniferous wood. And the blood-vessels in the
interior of the head appeared filled, even to the capillary vessels, with
coagulated blood, which in many places still retained its original red
color.

We find that Mr. Boyd Dawkins and Mr. Sanford assert that the cave-lion is
only a large variety of the existing lion—identical in species. Herodotus
says: “The camels in the army of Xerxes, near the mountains of Thessaly,
_were attacked by lions_.”

Sir John Lubbock, in his Prehistoric Times, page 293, says the cave-hyena
“is now regarded as scarcely distinguishable specifically from the _Hyæna
crocuta_, or spotted hyena of Southern Africa,” while Mr. Busk and M.
Gervais identify the _cave-bear_ with the _Ursus ferox_, or grizzly bear
of North America. What is the bearing of these facts on the question of
the antiquity of the remains found in the bone caverns?

Do these facts justify men in carrying human remains, found along with the
remains of these animals in the caves, back to the remote period of one or
two hundred thousand years?—a long time, this, for flesh upon the bones
and food in the stomach to remain in a state of preservation.

“So fresh is the ivory throughout Northern Russia,” says Lyell,
_Principles, vol. 1, p. 183_, “that, according to Tilesius, thousands of
fossil tusks have been collected and used in turning.”

Mr. Dawkins says: “We are compelled to hold that the cave-lion which
preyed upon the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros and musk-sheep in Great
Britain, is a mere geographical variety of the great carnivore that is
found alike in the tropical parts of Asia and throughout the whole of
Africa.” Popular Science Review for 1869, p. 153. It has been customary to
speak of all these animals as “_the great extinct_ mammalia,” and to
regard them all as much larger than existing animals of the same kind, but
three of the most important still exist, and the cave-lions, at least some
of the specimens, were smaller than the lion of the present. According to
Sir John Lubbock the “Irish elk, the elephants and the three species of
rhinoceros are, perhaps, the only ones which are absolutely extinct.”
Prehistoric Times, p. 290. “Out of seventeen principal ‘palæolithic’
mammalia, ten, until recently, were regarded ‘extinct;’ but it is now
believed that the above-mentioned elk, elephants and rhinoceros are the
only extinct mammalia. Dr. Wilson affirms that skeletons of the Irish elk
have been found at Curragh, Ireland, in marshes, some of the bones of
which were in such fresh condition that the marrow is described as having
the appearance of fresh suet, and burning with a clear flame.”

Professor Agassiz admits the continuance of the Irish elk to the
fourteenth century to be “probable.” It is certain that this elk continued
in Ireland down to what is claimed as the age of iron, and possibly in
Germany down to the twelfth century. It is also certain that it was a
companion of the mammoth and of the woolly rhinoceros. The aurochs, or
European bison, whose remains are found in the river gravel and the older
bone caves, is mentioned by Pliny and Seneca. They speak of it as existing
in their time; it is also named in the Niebelungen Lied. It existed in
Prussia as late as 1775, and is still found wild in the Caucasus. The
present Emperor of Russia has twelve herds, which are protected in the
forests of Lithuania. During the session of the International
Archæological Congress at Stockholm, in 1874, the members of the body made
an excursion to the isle of Bjorko, in Lake Malar, near Stockholm, where
there is an ancient cemetery of two thousand tumuli. Within a few hundred
yards from this is the site of the ancient town. Several trenches were run
through this locality, and many relics obtained by the members of the
congress. On the occasion Dr. Stolpe, who was familiar with the previous
discoveries at this point, delivered a lecture on the island and its
remains. They all, he stated, belong to the second age of iron in Sweden,
and consisted of implements of iron, ornaments of bronze, and animal
bones; Kufic coins have been found, along with cowrie-shells, and silver
bracelets. The number of animal bones met with is immense, more than fifty
species being represented, and what is especially noteworthy, _the marrow
bones were all crushed or split_, just as in the palæeolithic times. The
principal wild beasts were the lynx, the wolf, the fox, the beaver, the
elk, the _reindeer_, etc. Dr. Stolpe refers the formation of this
“pre-historic” city to “about the middle of the eighth century after
Christ,” and says it was probably destroyed “about the middle of the
eleventh century.”

“During this period the reindeer existed in this part of Sweden.”

Recent scientific discovery demands that we should almost modernize the
animals we used to regard as belonging to a period of a hundred thousand
years ago.

“Scientists have been addicted to unwise and inconsiderate haste in the
announcement of new theories touching alleged facts; they have blundered
repeatedly in their efforts to confound the Christian and set aside Moses.
No less than eighty theories touching that many facts and discoveries have
been developed during the period of fifty years, that were brought before
the Institute of France in 1806, and not one of them survives to-day.”
Truly the history of scientific investigation reveals the same fallibility
of human nature that is known in the many errors found in the line of
theological investigation. Truth, in science and religion, stands true to
her God—_man alone deviates_.





DRAPER’S CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.


No one idea has produced a greater sensation among skeptics and
unbelievers than the idea of a conflict between science and Christianity.
The history of the affair reminds us of the ghost stories that frighten
people in their boyish days. There was, in truth, no foundation for the
sensation. Mr. Draper never intended that his work entitled “Conflict
between Religion and Science,” should be construed to mean Conflict
between the Bible and Science, or between Christianity, as set forth by
the primitive Christians and science, but conflict between apostate
religion and science; or, rather, between corruptors of the ancient
religion and science.

He says, “I have had little to say respecting the two great Christian
confessions, the protestant and the Greek churches. As to the latter, it
has never, since the restoration of science, arrayed itself in opposition
to the advancement of knowledge. On the contrary, it has always met it
with welcome. It has observed a reverential attitude to truth, from
whatever quarter it might come. Recognizing the apparent discrepancies
between its interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of
science, it has always expected that satisfactory explanations and
reconciliations would ensue, _and in this it has not been disappointed_.”
Will all who read these lines take notice that Mr. Draper takes the
Christian’s side in the above statement. “_In this it has not been
disappointed._” In what? Answer—Its expectation that satisfactory
explanations and reconciliations would follow the discoveries of science,
by means of which apparent discrepancies between the church’s
interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of science would
disappear. Mr. Draper adds, “It would have been well for modern
civilization if the Roman church had done the same.” He guards his readers
by the following: “In speaking of Christianity, reference is generally
made to the Roman church, partly because its adherents compose the
majority of Christendom, partly because its demands are the most
pretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought to enforce those
demands by the civil power. None of the protestant churches have ever
occupied a position so imperious, none have ever had such widespread
political influence. For the most part they have been averse to
constraint, and except in very few instances their opposition has not
passed beyond the exciting of theological odium.” Preface, pp. 10, 11.

On pages 215 and 216, speaking upon the great question of the proper
relations of Christianity and science, Mr. Draper says: “In the annals of
Christianity the most ill-omened day is that in which she separated
herself from science. She compelled Origen, at that time (A. D. 231) its
chief representative and supporter in the church, to abandon his charge in
Alexandria and retire to Cæsarea. In vain through many subsequent
centuries did her leading men spend themselves in, as the phrase then
went, ‘drawing forth the internal juice and marrow of the scriptures for
the explaining of things.’ Universal history from the _third_ to the
_sixteenth_ century shows with what result. The dark ages owe their
darkness to this fatal policy.”

The pure Christianity, as well as Christians of 231 years, are exonerated
by Mr. Draper. Unbeliever, will you remember this? Many unbelievers, like
drowning men catching at straws, have endeavored to make it appear that
Mr. Draper’s book, entitled “Conflict Between Religion and Science,” makes
a square fight between the Bible and science. So far is this from the
truth that, on the contrary, it does not even set up a square issue
between Protestantism and science; its issue lies between Roman Catholic
religion and science. Hear him: “Then has it, _in truth_, come to this,
that Roman Christianity and science are recognized by their respective
adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they can not exist together;
one must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice—it can not have
both. While such is, perhaps, the issue as regards Catholicism, a
reconciliation of the reformation with science is not only possible, but
would easily take place if the protestant churches would only live up to
their maxim taught by Luther and established by so many years of war. That
maxim is the right of private interpretation of the scriptures. It was the
foundation of intellectual liberty.” (Did Luther say the foundation of
intellectual liberty?) But if a personal interpretation of the book of
Revelation is permissible, how can it be denied in the case of the book of
nature? In the misunderstandings that have taken place, we must ever bear
in mind the infirmities of men. The generations that immediately followed
the reformation may perhaps be excused for not comprehending the full
significance of cardinal principle, and for not on all occasions carrying
it into effect. When Calvin caused Servetus to be burnt he was animated,
not by the principles of the reformation, but by those of Catholicism,
from which he had not been able to emancipate himself completely. And when
the clergy of influential protestant confessions have stigmatized the
investigators of nature as infidels and atheists, the same may be said.
(No man should be called by a name that does not truthfully represent
him.) Now listen to Mr. Draper: “For Catholicism to reconcile itself to
science, there are formidable, perhaps insuperable obstacles in the way.
For protestantism to achieve that great result there are not.”—_Conflict
Between Religion and Science_, pp. 363, 364. Thus Draper speaks for
himself.





FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, OR WHAT CHRISTIANITY HAS DONE FOR
CANNIBALS.


The Fijians, a quarter of a century ago, were noted for cannibalism. The
following scrap of history may be of importance as a shadow to contrast
with the sunshine. It is taken from Wood’s History of the Uncivilized
Races:

The Fijians are more devoted to cannibalism than the New Zealanders, and
their records are still more appalling. A New Zealander has sometimes the
grace to feel ashamed of mentioning the subject in the hearing of an
European, whereas it is impossible to make a Fijian really feel that in
eating human flesh he has committed an unworthy act. He sees, indeed, that
the white man exhibits great disgust at cannibalism, but in his heart he
despises him for wasting such luxurious food as human flesh.... The
natives are clever enough at concealing the existence of cannibalism when
they find that it shocks the white men. An European cotton grower, who had
tried unsuccessfully to introduce the culture of cotton into Fiji, found,
after a tolerable long residence, that four or five human beings were
killed and eaten weekly. There was plenty of food in the place, pigs were
numerous, and fish, fruit and vegetables abundant. But the people ate
human bodies as often as they could get them, not from any superstitious
motive, but simply because they preferred human flesh to pork.... Many of
the people actually take a pride in the number of human bodies which they
have eaten. One chief was looked upon with great respect on account of his
feats of cannibalism, and the people gave him a title of honor. They
called him the Turtle-pond, comparing his insatiable stomach to the pond
in which turtles are kept; and so proud were they of his deeds, that they
even gave a name of honor to the bodies brought for his consumption,
calling them the “Contents of the Turtle-pond.” ... One man gained a great
name among his people by an act of peculiar atrocity. He told his wife to
build an oven, to fetch firewood for heating it, and to prepare a bamboo
knife. As soon as she had concluded her labors her husband killed her, and
baked her in the oven which her own hands had prepared, and afterward ate
her. Sometimes a man has been known to take a victim, bind him hand and
foot, cut slices from his arms and legs, and eat them before his eyes.
Indeed, the Fijians are so inordinately vain that they will do anything,
no matter how horrible, in order to gain a name among their people; and
Dr. Pritchard, who knows them thoroughly, expresses his wonder that some
chief did not eat slices from his own limbs.

“Cannibalism is ingrained in the very nature of the Fijian, and extends
through all classes of society. It is true that there are some persons who
have never eaten human flesh, but there is always a reason for it. Women,
for example, are seldom known to eat ‘bakolo,’ as human flesh is termed,
and there are a few men who have refrained from cannibalism through
superstition. Every Fijian has his special god, who is supposed to have
his residence in some animal. One god, for example, lives in a rat,
another in a shark, and so on. The worshiper of that god never eats the
animal in which his divinity resides, and as some gods are supposed to
reside in human beings, their worshipers never eat the flesh of man.”

Recent History Of The Same People In Brief.

“In the Fiji islands, where half a century ago the favorite dish of food
was human flesh, there are at present eight hundred and forty-one chapels,
and two hundred and ninety-one other places where preaching is held, with
fifty-eight missionaries busily engaged in preparing the way for others.
The membership numbers twenty-three thousand two hundred and seventy-four
persons.” _The Evangelist of January 29, 1880._ It is possible that some
infidel might have been literally eaten up had it not been for the
influence of the Bible. “According to the accounts of some of the older
chiefs, whom we may believe or not as we like, there was once a time when
cannibalism did not exist. Many years ago some strangers from a distant
land were blown upon the shores of Fiji, and received hospitably by the
islanders, who incorporated them into their own tribes, and made much of
them. But, in process of time, these people became too powerful, killed
the Fijian chiefs, took their wives and property, and usurped their
office.”

In the emergency the people consulted the priests, who said that the
Fijians had brought their misfortunes upon themselves. They had allowed
strangers to live, whereas “Fiji for the Fijians” was the golden rule, and
from that time every male stranger was to be killed and eaten, and every
woman taken as a wife. The only people free from this law were the
Tongans.

The state of the Fijians is wonderfully changed—even an American infidel
may now visit those people without being flayed and roasted and devoured.

“The Samoan islands have been entirely christianized. Out of a population
of forty thousand, thirty-five thousand are connected with Christian
churches.

“In 1830 the native Christians in India, Burmah, and North and South
Ceylon numbered 57,000. Last October there were 460,000. Facts similar in
character might be given of Madagascar, South Africa and Japan.”
_Evangelist._ What a curse (?) the Bible is to the poor heathen. It robs
them of their “long-pig,” human flesh, as well as their cruel, murderous
habits, and curses them (?) with virtue and the hope of “HEAVEN.”





ARE WE SIMPLY ANIMALS?


What is man? The materialist says, “He is the highest order of the animal
kingdom, or an animal gifted with intelligence.” If such be true, it may
be said with equal propriety, that animals are men without reason. Are
they? Does manhood consist in mere physical form? Can you find it in
simple physical nature? Man holds many things in his physical nature in
common with the animal; but is he, on this account, to be considered as a
mere animal? There are plants that seem to form a bridge over the chasm
lying between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Are those plants animals
without sensation? Why not? What is the logical and scientific difference
between saying plants, which make the nearest approach to the animal are
animals without sensation, and saying animals are men without
intelligence? Let it be understood at all times, that if man is simply an
animal endowed with the gift of reason, an animal may be simply a
vegetable endowed with the gift of sensation. “The bodies of mere animals
are clothed with scales, feathers, fur, wool or bristles, which interpose
between the skin and the elements that surround and affect the living
animal.” All these insensible protectors “ally animals more closely to the
nature of vegetables.”

“The body of a human being has a beautiful, thin, highly sensitive skin,
which is not covered with an insensitive, lifeless veil.” Man’s body is in
noble contrast with all mere animals. It is so formed that its natural
position is erect. “The eyes are in front; the ligaments of the neck are
not capable of supporting, for any considerable length of time, the head
when hanging down; the horizontal position would force the blood to the
head so violently that stupor would be the result. The mouth serves the
mind as well as the body itself. According to the most critical
calculation, the muscles of the mouth are so movable that it may pronounce
fifteen hundred letters.” What a wonderful musical instrument.

The mouth of the mere animal serves only physical purposes.

Man turns his head from right to left, from earth to sky, from the slimy
trail of the crustacean in the ocean’s bottom to the contemplation of the
innumerable stars in the heavens. The human body was created for the mind;
its structure is correlated with mind. The animal has a sentient life; man
an intelligent, reasoning nature.

When animals are infuriated and trample beneath their feet everything that
lies in their way, we do not say they are _insane_, but _mad_. “Man is an
intelligent spirit,” or mind, “served by an organism.” We know that mind
exists by our consciousness of that which passes within us. The propriety
of the sayings of Descartes, “_I think, therefore I am_,” rests upon the
consciousness that we are thinking beings. This intelligence is not
obtained by the exercise of any of the senses. It does not depend upon
external surroundings. Its existence is a fact of consciousness, of
certain knowledge, and hence a fact in mental science.

We are continually conscious of the existence of the mind, which makes its
own operations the object of its own thought; that it should have no
existence is a contradiction in language.

Experience teaches us that the materialistic theory of the existence of
the mind is utterly false. In an act of perception I distinguish the pen
in my hand, and the hand itself, from my mind which perceives them. This
distinction is a fact of the faculty of perception—a particular fact of a
particular faculty. But the general fact of a general distinction of which
this is only a special case, is the distinction of the _I_ and _not I_,
which belongs to the consciousness as the general faculty. He who denies
the contrast between mind-knowing and matter-known is dishonest, for it is
a fact of consciousness, and such can not be honestly denied. The facts
given in consciousness itself can not be honestly doubted, much less
denied.

Materialists have claimed that mind is simply the result of the molecular
action of the brain. This theory is as unreal as Banquo’s ghost—it will
not bear a moment’s investigation. It is simply confounding the action of
the mind upon the brain with the mind itself. Every effect must have a
cause. When I make a special mental effort what is the cause lying behind
the effort? Is it the molecular action of the brain? I _will to_ make the
effort, and do it. Then will power lies behind brain action. But power is
a manifest energy; there is something lying behind it to which it belongs
as an attribute; what is it? Answer, _will_. But, where there is a _will_
there must of a necessity be that which _wills_. What is it that _wills_
to make a special mental effort—that lies away back “behind the throne”
and controls the helm? It is evidently the I, _myself_, the “inner man,”
_the spirit_. On one occasion, when some of the disciples of the Nazarene
were sleepy, Jesus said to them, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the
flesh is weak.” It is the spirit that _wills_ to make a special mental
effort. Here is the “_font_” of all our ideas. “What man knoweth the
things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” 1 Cor., ii, 11.
_Will_, as an effect, belongs to the spirit of man, as _the cause_ lying
behind. Beyond this no man can trace this subject, short of crossing over
from the spirit of man to the invisible Father of spirits. The spirit of
man is a _wonderful intelligence_! “The body without the spirit is dead,
being alone.” When we analyze the physical structure back to the germ and
sperm-cells we are brought face to face with the invisible builder. Call
it what you may, it still remains the same invisible architect, which,
being matter’s master, built the organism. We live, and breathe; we die,
and cease breathing. Dead bodies do not breathe. Therefore, life lies
behind breath, and spirit behind life. So life and breath are both
effects, which find their ultimate or cause in _spirit_. This at once sets
aside all that materialists have said in order to show that spirit and
breath are one and the same. The original term, translated by the term
spirit has, in its history, away back in the past, a _physical_ currency.
The old-fashioned materialist or “soul-sleeper” finds his fort in this
fact. His entire aim is to get the people back to an old and obsolete
currency of the term “_pneuma_.” If we lay aside words which were used in
a physical sense, in times gone by, we will not have many words to express
the ideas embraced in mental science. In ancient times “_pneuma_”
signified both mind and wind, or air. In later times it lost its physical
currency, and no longer signifies, in its general currency, breath or air.
The adjective, “_pneumatikos_,” is _never used_ in a physical sense. It
came into use too late.

We have many examples of old meanings passing away from words.
“_Sapientia_,” in Latin originally meant only the power of tasting. At
present it means _wisdom_, _prudence_, _discretion_, _discernment_, _good
sense_, _knowledge_, _practical wisdom_, _philosophy_, _calmness_,
_patience_. The word “_sagacitas_,” originally meant only the faculty of
_scenting_, now it means the power of seeing or perceiving anything
easily. In old literature we may read of the sagacity of dogs; keenness of
scent. But it is now sharpness of wit; keenness of perception, subtilty,
shrewdness, acuteness, penetration, ingenuity. The terms, “attentio,”
“intentio,” “comprehensio,” “apprehensio,” “penetratio,” and understanding
are all just so many bodily actions transferred to the expression of
_mental energies_. There is just the same reason for giving to all these
terms their old, obsolete, physical currency that there is for giving to
pneuma, or spirit, the old obsolete currency of wind or air. You must ever
remember that it is the business of lexicographers in giving the history
of words, to set before you the first as well as the latest use of terms.
In strict harmony with all this Greenfield gives “_pneuma_” _thus_:

1. Wind, air in motion, breathing, breath, expiration, respiration,
spirit, i. e. the human soul, that is, the vital principle in man, life.
Matthew xxvii, 50; Rev. xiii, 15.

2. Of the rational soul, mind, that principle in man which thinks, feels,
desires, and wills. Matthew v, 3, 26, 41.

3. Of the human soul after its departure from the body, a spirit, soul.
Acts xxiii, 8, 9; Hebrews xii, 23.

4. Spc. Spirit, that is, temper, disposition, affections, feelings,
inclination, qualities of mind.

5. Construed with “_mou_” and “_sou_” (_I_ and _thou_), it forms a
periphrasis for the corresponding personal pronoun. Mark ii, 8; Luke i,
47. A spirit, that is, A SIMPLE, SPIRITUAL, INCORPOREAL, INTELLIGENT
BEING. Spoken of God. John iv, 24. Of angels. Hebrews i, 14. Of evil
spirits, Matthew viii, 16; Mark ix, 20. A divine spirit, spoken of the
spiritual nature of Christ. 1 Corinthians xv, 45; 1 Peter iii, 18. Of the
Holy Spirit. Matthew iii, 16-28; John xv, 26; Acts i, 8; Romans ix, 1.

Robinson, in his Lexicon, sums up the history of its use thus:

1. Pneuma, from pneo, to breathe. A breathing, breath.

1. Of the mouth or nostrils, a breathing, blast. The destroying power of
God. Isaiah xi, 4; Psalm xxxiii, 6. The breath. Revelations xi, 11.
“Breath of life.” Genesis vi, 17; vii, 15-22.

2. Breath of air. Air in motion, a breeze, blast, the wind.

3. The spirit of man, that is, the vital spirit, life, soul.

4. The rational spirit, mind, soul (Latin _animus_), generally opposed to
the body or animal (disposition) spirit. 1 Thessalonians v, 23; 1
Corinthians xiv, 14.

5. It implies will, council, purpose. Matthew xxvi, 41; Mark xiv, 38; Acts
xviii, 5; xix, 21; 1 Chronicles v, 26; Ezra i, 1.

6. It includes the understanding, intellect. Mark ii, 8; Luke i, 80, and
ii, 40; 1 Corinthians ii, 11, 12; Exodus xxviii, 3; Job xx, 3; Isaiah
xxix, 24.

7. A spirit, that is, a simple, incorporeal, immaterial being, possessing
higher capacities than man in his present state. Of created spirits, the
human spirit, soul, after its departure from the body and as existing in a
separate state. Hebrews xii, 23; that is, to the spirits of just men made
perfect. Robinson renders it thus: “To the spirits of the just advanced to
perfect happiness and glory.”

It is spoken of God in reference to his immateriality. John, iv, 24. Of
Christ in his exalted spiritual nature in distinction from his human
nature. In Hebrews, ix, 14, in contrast with perishable nature. “The
_eternal spirit_,” Holy spirit, spirit of God.—_Robinson’s Lexicon._

From all this it will be seen that it is impossible to limit the term
spirit to its ancient _physical_ currency. Our term _mind_ is, for two
reasons, a better word for its place in modern literature. First, it never
had a physical application. Second, the terms are used indifferently in
the New Testament when they relate to man. See Romans, i, 9 and vii, 25.
All spirits are _one_ in kind; in _character_ the difference lies; that
is, spirits are all _imperishable_. It is not in the nature of a spirit to
cease to be. If it is, then there is no imperishable nature that is
revealed to man. I submit for consideration the thought that there is no
difference in the final results between the man who denies the existence
of spirits altogether and the man who allows that spirits may cease to
exist.

“We are cognizant of the existence of spirit by our direct consciousness
of feelings, desires and ideas, which are to us the most certain of all
realities.”—_Carpenter._

“The body continually requires new materials and a continued action of
external agencies. But the mind, when it has been once called into
activity and has become stored with ideas, may remain active and may
develop new relations and combinations among these, after the complete
closure of the sensorial inlets by which new ideas can be excited ‘ab
externo.’ Such, in fact, is what is continually going on in the state of
dreaming.... The mind thus feeds upon the store of ideas which it has laid
up during the activity of the sensory organs, and those impressions which
it retains in its consciousness are working up into a never ending variety
of combinations and successions of ideas, thus affording new sources of
mental activity even to the very end of life.”—_Carpenter._

In death the spirit returns to God, who gave it, retaining, doubtless, all
its store of ideas and all its own inherent activities, which will
continue while eternity endures.





OUR RELATIONS TO THE ANCIENT LAW AND PROPHETS—WHAT ARE THEY?


The above questions can not be answered intelligently without a knowledge
of the character of the law, and of its relations to humanity, as well as
a knowledge of the relations of the ancient prophets. The law given at
Sinai as a “covenant,” with all the laws contained in the “Book of the
Law,” was political in character; that is to say, it pertained to a
community or nation. Such law is _always_ political in its character. The
ancient law pertained to the nation of the Jews. It was given to them as a
community, and to no other people. Moses said, “And the Lord spake unto
you out of the midst of fire: Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no
similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant,
which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote
them upon two tables of stone.” Deut. iv, 12, 13. “And the Lord said unto
Moses, Write thou these words; for after the _tenor_ of these words I have
made a covenant _with thee_ and _with Israel_.... And he wrote upon the
tables _the words of the covenant_, the ten commandments.” Exodus xxxiv,
27, 28. “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord _made
not_ this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who _are_ all of us here
alive this day.” Deut. v, 2, 3. “Behold, I have taught you statutes and
judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in
the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for
this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations,
which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is
a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great who
hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we
call upon him for? And what nation is there so great that hath statutes
and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this
day.” Deut. iv, 5, 8.

The law or covenant, as written upon the two tables of stone, is given in
full in one place, and only one, in all the book of the law, and I will
now transcribe it from the fifth chapter of Deut. Here it is: “I am the
Lord, thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house
of bondage; thou shalt have none other gods before me; thou shalt not make
thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath
the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them or serve them, for I,
the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth _generation_ of them that hate
me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my
commandments.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain; for the Lord
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord, thy God, hath commanded
thee. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh is
the Sabbath of the Lord, thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor
thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates, that thy man-servant and maid-servant may rest as well as thou; and
remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord,
thy God, brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched
out arm; THEREFORE, THE LORD, THY GOD, COMMANDED THEE TO KEEP THE SABBATH
DAY.

“Honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee;
that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

“Thou shalt not kill.

“Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

“Neither shalt thou steal.

“Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet
thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant,
his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

“These words the Lord spake unto _all your assembly_ in the mount, out of
the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick darkness, with a
great voice; and he _added no more_. And _he wrote them in two tables of
stone_, and delivered them unto me.”

This is the covenant as it was written upon the tables of stone. It is, by
its facts, limited to the Jews, for they are the only people who were ever
delivered from bondage in Egypt. The abrogation of this covenant is
clearly presented in the following language, found in Zechariah, the
eleventh chapter and tenth verse: “And I took my staff, even Beauty, and
cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with _all
the people_. And it was broken in that day; and so the poor of the flock
that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. And I said unto
them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they
weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” This language had its
fulfillment in the sale which Judas Iscariot made of his Lord and the
abrogation of the ancient covenant or law.

The prophets were not confined to the kingdom of Israel, or to any one
kingdom, nor yet to any one dispensation.

They bore the word of the Lord to all the nations, as we learn from such
language as this: “The burden of the word of the Lord to Ninevah, to
Sidon, to Tyre, to Idumea, to Babylon, to Samaria, to Egypt,” and to many
others. It is very remarkable that no such latitude or longitude of
relationships belongs to the ancient law. It was confined to the
Israelites.

The Heavenly Father spake not to the ancients by his Son, but by the
prophets. And much of that which they spake pertained to our own
dispensation and to our own religion.

Much, very much, of that which they gave lies in the very foundation of
our religion. We should always distinguish, _carefully_, between the Law
and the prophets, and between these two and the psalms, remembering,
however, that prophesy belongs also to many of the psalms. The abrogated
covenant, or law, that was done away, was written upon stones. It, with
all the laws which were after its _tenor_, was supplanted by the law of
Christ. It was added because of transgression _till Christ, _“the seed,”
should come. When he came it expired by limitation, and through his
authority the neighborly restrictions or limitations were taken off from
moral precepts, which were re-enacted by him.





THE FUNERAL SERVICES OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL LEAGUE.


The decent members of the Liberal League, who formed it to express their
convictions, and who withdrew and formed a rival League when they found
that the old organization had gone over to the defense of indecency, who
gave to the League all the character it had, and who had great hopes at
one time of destroying the influence of the preachers of the Gospel of
Christ, and thereby ridding our country of that terrible pest called the
Bible, have given up their name. Their “priests” have adopted the
following arraignment of their old organization, a legitimate child of
their own:

“Voted that, in the judgment of this Board, the name ‘National Liberal
League’ has become so widely and injuriously associated in the public mind
with attempts to repeal the postal laws prohibiting the circulation of
obscene literature by mail, with the active propagandism of demoralizing
and licentious social theories, and with the support of officials and
other public representatives who are on good grounds believed to have been
guilty of gross immoralities, that it has been thereby unfitted for use by
any organization which desires the support of the friends of ‘natural
morality.’ ”

Thus the child went into a far country and fed among swine, and, failing
to come to itself and return to its father’s house, the old gentleman
disinherited it, _once_ and forever. A younger son, however, is christened
“Liberal Union,” and whether it will remain at home to take care of the
old man in his dotage remains to be seen.





HUXLEY’S PARADOX.


“The whole analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing
an argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary
causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe, that, in
view of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,
and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can
see no reason for doubting that all are co-ordinate terms of nature’s
great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the
organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will.” _Huxley’s
Evidence of Man’s Place in Nature_, London, 1864, p. 107.

A writer in the _Spectator_ charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. The
professor replies, in the number of that paper for February 10, 1866,
thus: “I do not know that I care very much about popular odium, so there
is no great merit in saying that if I really saw fit to deny the existence
of a God I should certainly do so for the sake of my own intellectual
freedom, and be the honest Atheist you are pleased to say I am. As it
happens, however, I can not take this position with honesty, inasmuch as
it is, and always has been, a favorite tenet that Atheism is as absurd,
logically speaking, as Polytheism.” In the same sheet, he says: “The
denying the possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as
Atheism.” Is Huxley in conflict with Huxley?





THE TRIUMPHING REIGN OF LIGHT.


The next psychic cycle, it seems to me, will witness a synthesis of
thought and faith, a recognition of the fact that it is impossible for
reason to find solid ground that is not consecrated ground; that all
philosophy and all science belong to religion; that all truth is a
revelation of God; that the truths of written revelation, if not
intelligible to reason, are nevertheless consonant with reason; and that
divine agency, instead of standing removed from man by infinite intervals
of time and space, is, indeed, the true name of those energies which work
their myriad phenomena in the natural world around us. This
consummation—at once the inspiration of a fervent religion and the
prophecy of the loftiest science—is to be the noontide reign of wedded
intellect and faith, whose morning rays already stream far above our
horizon.—_Winchell._ Re. and Sci. p. 84.

                  -------------------------------------

“Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert and
dead, assumes action, intelligence, and life, when it is combined in a
certain way.”—_Atheist._

“But how does a germ come to live?”—_Deist._

“Life is organization with feeling.”—_Atheist._

“But that you have these two properties from the motion of” dead atoms, or
matter alone, it is impossible to give any proof; and if it can not be
proved, why affirm it? Why say aloud, “I know,” while you say to yourself,
“I know not?”—_Voltaire._

                  -------------------------------------

When you venture to affirm that matter acts of itself by an eternal
necessity, it must be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid, otherwise
you rest your system only on a perhaps. What a foundation for that which
is most interesting to the human race!—_Voltaire._