Chapter II: Part 2

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._