Scientific and Religious Journal.

VOL. 1. OCTOBER, 1880. NO. 10.




LAW AND ATONEMENT.

     "The soul that sinneth it shall die," and it "shall not die."


The first quotation, "The soul that sinneth it shall die," is often
produced in support of the scholastic idea that the law of God was
inexorable, that is absolute or unconditional, not to be moved or its
penalty escaped by reformation or petition.

The language of the text is very definite, and, when viewed aside from
its context as an inexorable law, it certainly follows that every
sinning soul must pay its penalty. Neither can I see how it can be
satisfied by punishing an innocent person in the room of the guilty, for
the innocent one was not the "soul that sinned." Yet this quality of law
is claimed in order to make out the theory of a vicarious punishment
endured by the Savior, that is, that He took the sinner's "law place."
This idea was necessitated by the theory that we all sinned when Adam
transgressed, and lost all ability to do anything for ourselves. So we
must be redeemed by satisfaction to justice, rather than by mercy. This
old Calvinistic system of error lays the penalty of the inexorable law
upon Christ. But Calvinists are not alone in this theory of a "vicarious
punishment," in order to a vicarious atonement. Neither are they alone
in the abuse of the phrase "the law," for our Sabbatarian friends are
constantly asserting that the law of God was, and is, simply the ten
commandments given, they say, to Adam in Eden, and authoritatively
published on Sinai. They assert that all the balance of the five books
of Moses was his law, written by him, but the record justifies us in
saying, that the ten precepts were not the tenth part of the words given
to Moses upon Sinai; neither were they all the words that were written
upon the tables of stone. The tables begin with the sixth verse of the
fifth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, in these words, "I am the Lord
thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of
bondage," and end with the twenty-first verse. But as the sixth verse is
fatal to the Sabbatarian theory it is clipped off along with the
fifteenth verse, which is cut out of the middle of the matter written
upon the tables, and both are gravely divorced from God and handed over
to Moses. Both, however, are in perfect harmony with the second and
third verses, which read thus: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us
in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of us here alive this day." That the sixth and
fifteenth verses were upon the tables of stone is evident from the
reading of the twenty-second verse, which reads thus: "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 wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto you."

Many persons who claim that the import of the term die, in the sentence
"The soul that sinneth it shall die," was experienced by the Savior upon
the cross dying as a substitute in the law-place of sinners, overlook
several things of first importance. First, infants were not included in
the provisions of a vicarious punishment and atonement unless it can be
shown that they sinned--were sinners. Second, no innocent person can
justly suffer in the law-place of the guilty. In all such cases justice
is dishonored and law violated, for just law limits its penalties to the
guilty.

Our salvation "is not of the law," but "by grace" or favor. Law had
nothing to do with the death of Christ. He, "BY THE GRACE OF GOD, tasted
death for every man." "If it be of the law it is not of grace." Again,
the simple sentence, "The soul that sinneth it shall die," never was
_the law_ of God in any age, but simply a fraction of the law. Did
Christ ever sin? No! Then He never honored this law, or satisfied its
penalty by dying; for if, as our friends say, the inexorable quality of
the law will forever hold the guilty to its claims, it will forever keep
the innocent from its penalty. But I aver that the inexorable quality
_that is claimed_ for the law of God never belonged to it. No, not even
to the simple sentence, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." The Lord
authorizes us to supply the condition in every instance where it is not
expressed, thus: "When I shall say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely
die; if he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right; if
the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in
the statutes of life, without committing iniquity, he shall surely live,
_he shall not die_." So the prophet gives us the second quotation at the
head of this article, "_Shall not die._" It would be just as proper to
make this last scrap of the law inexorable as its opposite. Such
teachings do violence to the truth by overlooking the merciful
provisions that are found in the laws of God, by holding inexorable law
before us as a streak of justice clothed with _black vengeance_.

The gospel of Jesus Christ knows no law in connection with Christians,
or any others, except, first, the laws of nature. Secondly, the laws of
the state or government in which we reside. Third, the law of Christ. We
are under law to Christ in common with all men, for the Father had put
all things under Him. We were never under the law given to Adam. We were
not in the garden of Eden. We believe with Paul that the first offense
in the history of mankind was the "_offense of one_," that it was "_one
that sinned_," that "_by one man's offense_ death reigned," that it was
"one man's disobedience." When men talk to me as an individual, and of
my relations to law, sin and death, I wish them to recollect that I was
never in the garden of Eden. So I claim an alibi. Adam sinned thousands
of years before I, as a man, had my existence; and as it is true that,
where there is no law there is no transgression, so it is equally true
that, where the man is not, he does not transgress. I was not in the
garden of Eden, so there I did not sin.

But we are told that the Father of mercies, by a decree of law, imputed
Adam's offense to all his children, and that he, by the vicarious
punishment endured by the Savior, took Adam's offense off from Adam's
children.

Admit it, and three things follow: First, we did not sin in fact when
Adam sinned. Second, from Adam to Christ all the innocents upon earth
were sinners by the arbitrary decree of Jehovah. Third, the Father put
this _decree-load_ of guilt upon an innocent one, and executed the real
penalty upon him. How is this? Suppose a legislative body legislates a
man a murderer because his great great grand-father killed a man, should
it not also legislate him free from the penalty of murder and never in
cruel injustice inflict it upon him or any other innocent one simply as
a satisfaction to justice? Law ought to always place us where we are in
fact, otherwise it is detestably unjust. Why should any sensible man
attribute such dealings to the Father of Spirits? The fallacy of such
teaching is seen in the fact that the penalty of the Adamic law was
executed _in the day of the transgression_, and not nine hundred nor
thousands of years afterwards. The phrase, "Dying thou shalt die" does
not help the case, for the phrase "In the day" limits the penalty as
respects the time of its fulfillment.

Adam lost citizen life in the Garden of Eden in the very day of his
offense. The full penalty was executed when he was driven out. Physical
death was an after result, growing out of the fact that Adam's posterity
was unborn when he was driven from his Eden home. The Lord did not say
to Adam, in the day thou eatest thereof you shall die and not live
again, if he had the way of redemption would have been forever closed
against him. Adam's first sons appear before us with a law of faith,
embracing typical and sacrificial duties, through which they were
brought into the way of life with reference to an ultimate arrival at
the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God.

This law of faith was given to Adam's family outside of the Garden; and
the law of Sinai was not given to Adam, nor to his immediate posterity,
for in that case Cain would have been put to death for killing his
brother Abel. It was given to Abraham's family after the exodus from
Egypt. It was a political law, because it pertained to a community.

Next in order follows the law of Christ. Beside these we know of no
revealed law, excepting those of which we have spoken. So this vicarious
punishment system of things, with all its consequences, rests upon a
something that men call the inexorable law of God, which a man can not
find in the annals of creation, providence or redemption. The prophet,
in the language of our quotation, "The soul that sinneth it shall die,"
is grappling with the system of things which we are endeavoring to
overthrow. The children of Israel fell into the sentiments of our modern
Calvinists, and claimed that "The fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the
children's teeth were set on edge." By this proverb they understood that
the son was to bear the iniquity of the father. The Lord rebuked them in
the language of our topic, and more severely in the context. [See
Ezekiel, eighteenth chapter.]

The Lord said to them, "Behold, all souls are mine. * * * The soul that
sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,
neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."

The prophet also describes a righteous man, and then adds, "If he begets
a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doth the like to
any one of these things, and doth none of the duties of a righteous
life, he shall surely die." We would naturally conclude that this vile
person would transmit moral depravity, if such was possible, but how can
moral corruption be transmitted through physical generation? Let some of
the wise crack this shell! If I was passing around through the little
city of Kokomo to-morrow, and was talking upon this theme, I would hear
some one accuse some poor soul of being a natural born thief, without
the ability to refrain from it. There is neither morality nor
immorality, vice nor virtue in an involuntary act. Are the rushings of
the Wild Cat river moral or immoral? If a man could be a natural thief,
and therefore could not help but steal, he would be no more a sinner in
the sight of God, nor responsible, nor morally corrupt than the horse
that breaks into your cornfield and fills himself.

In the saying, "If the wicked will turn," etc., "he shall surely live,
he shall not die," we discover two important things: First, the death
spoken of is not physical, for all die, regardless of character; second,
it is not moral, for the poor fellow is already morally dead--dead in
trespasses and in sin.

The term die being used in the divine law with reference to the
government of God, and under such circumstances as already mentioned,
must indicate simply the forfeiture of citizen life in the paradise of
God, in the world to come, for it is said of the wicked, "They have no
inheritance in the kingdom of God and of Christ." But if Christ took
their law-place, and was punished in their stead, satisfied justice, of
course it was done, and then universal salvation, regardless of
character, and upon simple _legal merits, must obtain_, because this
theory rests upon the hypothesis that sinners could do nothing for
themselves. But is it true that the atonement was completed upon the
cross or by the death of Christ only? I answer, he was victim upon the
cross and high priest by the power of an endless life. Priest by the
word of the oath which was subsequent to the law. He was not a priest
while he was a victim in death. In ancient times the victim was slain
and its blood was taken into the holy place, then the high priest
officiated in the holy place. But the priest never entered without
blood. So Christ, by his own blood, entered into Heaven itself, now to
appear in the presence of God for us. But all this releases us not in
the least from our own obligations to God and our humanity.

The Savior came to our earth to give us, first, his life, in order that
we might make it our own; second, his divine mind concerning us and our
expectations; third to ratify the same by his death; fourth to give us
an assurance of a resurrection from the dead, and of a future judgment.
For the first it is said "that he consecrated for us a new and living
way through the veil, that is to say through his flesh, into the
holiest." For the second we have simply the gift of a second will. "He
took away the first that he might establish the second, by the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ." For
the third it is said that "The New Testament was dedicated not without
blood." For the fourth it is said that "He hath appointed a day in the
which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath
ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath
raised him from the dead." So every one of us shall give an account of
himself to God, and receive according to his own works and not the works
of another.

One question, and only one, will be of interest to me in the judgment,
and that is this, how have I lived? What are the deeds which were done
in my body? The Lord once said of a wicked city: "Though Noah, Job and
Daniel were in it they should save none but themselves by their
righteousness." But we are told that the righteousness of Christ was the
only satisfaction; that he, dying in our law-place, paid the debt. Then
I am released. Let the debt be what it may, I can't be held to give
satisfaction. But we were always anxious to know what we were released
from. Was it physical death? No; we must die. Was it death in sin? No;
there is no getting out of that without reformation and pardon.
Vicarious punishment! What is it? What was it that Christ suffered in
the sinners' law-place? It could not be the everlasting punishment
threatened in the Scriptures, for the Savior was only about three hours
upon the cross. And if the Savior paid the debt, why is it that sinners
are to pay it themselves unless they repent?

But there is still another grave objection to the theory. It is this, It
declares that there is no forgiveness with God. He can't forgive when
Christ paid the debt. Can you forgive a debt that is paid? Is it
possible for such a thing to take place? One writer has called this old
theory "the Redeemer's glory;" but if it be his glory it is the Father's
dishonor. Elder Stockell gives the theory the very imposing title, "The
Redeemer's Glory Unveiled." But look at the following from page 157 of
his work thus entitled: "In a _strict_ and _proper_ sense the infinite
God doth not forgive sin; for it is readily granted by all who are sound
in the faith that Jesus Christ hath given full satisfaction to divine
justice for all sin, and hath fully paid the debt of his church. And if
Christ hath satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of his people,
how then can it justly, or with propriety of speech, be said that God
pardoneth our sins and transgressions? Sure I am that debt can never be
forgiven which is paid."

Others, who are not so wise, or, it may be, so frank, refuse to allow
the logical consequences of the doctrine of vicarious sufferings. This
theory represents mercy as always stultified until Christ satisfied
justice. Imagine the Savior upon the cross, innocent, suffering by sheer
necessity of justice in the sinners' law-place. Justice is standing off
to the right and Mercy is a short distance to the left. Poor Mercy! She
says, "I always felt stultified up to this hour, for Justice was always
dissatisfied and frowning." Justice responds, "True; but just now I am
being satisfied. I have always asked for this. So from this time forward
I shall be in a smiling mood. Now we can unite and let the guilty ones
go free, for I have wreaked my vengeance upon the innocent one."

Just now the poor skeptic with common sense says, "Hold! Does not the
law say 'It is the soul that sinneth that shall die?' Did I not hear you
say that you had wreaked your vengeance upon the innocent one?" Justice
and mercy both draw a veil over their faces and respond through the
advocates of this system of things, "Without controversy, great is the
mystery of godliness." The poor skeptic of common sense retires
muttering to himself something like this, "Well, if such is the mystery
of godliness, I pray that I may never fall into her hands."

Just now he is accosted by a preacher, who says to him, "Look there
upon that Roman cross. Don't you see that sinless one? He is spotless,
pure and lovely. He never sinned, neither was guile found in His mouth,
yet He was accounted guilty of all the sins of the whole human family,
at least He suffered the full penalty enacted against all the sins of
all the race, and satisfied justice." Common-sense skeptic says: "Who
required that? Who counted him guilty of the whole? Who?" The preacher
responds, "God and His justice--yes, His justice." Justice, you know,
had to be satisfied, for God Himself could not forgive a man until the
debt was paid. Do you see? Common-sense skeptic turns away disgusted,
and as he walks off he is heard to say, "Farewell, _to all of you_!"

Who can blame men who never heard any thing better for being
unbelievers? When Jehovah proclaimed His name, He said "The Lord, the
Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness
and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, _forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin_." This must be admitted by all intelligent
Christians. Mercy was never stultified. There was in all the
dispensations of God's providence free and unstultified mercy. The
infinite One was never unable to forgive sins; neither was He laid under
the necessity of punishing the innocent in the room of the guilty. No,
He never did it. His justice never required it, and it is too mean to
ascribe it to Him. His laws in all the dispensations were conditional,
contained merciful provisions. Now, let us "fear God and keep His
commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

The great thought of pardon through the abundant goodness of God runs
through all the ages, but substitution, in the sense of vicarious
punishment, does not. It is not taught even in connection with dying
animals, for the "blood of animals could not take away sins." Again, the
soul that sinneth it shall die, but animals were not sinning souls, so
that scrap of revealed law could not be honored in the death of a goat.

There is nothing in the history of the ages to necessitate the idea that
justice could not allow the free exercise of mercy towards the penitent
sinner, or that God's wrath must be appeased, or He made propitious by
means of blood. He was propitious, and therefore ordered the use of
blood for wise and benevolent purposes. The use of blood is related to
His mercy as effect is to cause, and not as cause to effect. The mercy
and goodness of God was always complete, full and unrestrained by all
external causes, except the moral and virtuous qualities of their
object. By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for every man. He did not
go to the cross because law or justice required it, but because He loved
the race. He came from heaven to earth and volunteered the cross as a
commendation or demonstration of the divine love for man. The authority
of law is never associated with the cross or death of Christ. For this
great love for man, manifested even in his death, He gained the throne
of Lordship, where He exercises himself as the Savior of men and as Lord
over all. Will you obey Him and live?




THE SIMPLICITY OF THE SCIENCE OF MIND.


Our sphere of research is simplified by dividing its objects into matter
and mind, so as to have but two centers of thought. Many have concluded
that the address of matter to our senses has made it easy to pursue
knowledge respecting bodies, while the invisibility of mind presents
insurmountable difficulties, but this conclusion is scarcely supported
by facts. If men have erred with reference to their own intellects, they
have also made many and egregious blunders concerning matter and its
qualities. We think the study of mind is just as easy as the study of
matter. Here a man has nothing to do but look into himself. With my mind
I think, reason, reflect, remember, hate, love, grieve, rejoice,
imagine, contrive, invent and will, and this very mind is conscious of
all these operations; so in this study there ought to be no mistake. We
lay it down as a truth of first importance, that all minds are alike. As
gold is gold, so mind is mind, throughout the universe. My mind is
myself, which I carry with me everywhere; it is my own personality from
which I can never part. It is the individual Walker. _Individual_ is
defined thus: An object which is, in the strict and primary sense, one,
and can not be logically divided.

An _individual_ is not absolutely indivisible, but that which can not be
divided without losing its name and distinctive qualities.
Individuality, like personal identity, belongs properly to
intelligences. Consciousness reveals it to us that no being can be put
in our place nor confounded with us, nor we with others. I am one and
indivisible. You can not amputate any of the faculties of the mind. It
is a mind which no one dissects or divides. We are assured that we are
the offspring of God. Paul says this truth had been promulgated by one
of the Athenian poets, and it was so correct that Heaven's seal was
placed upon it. Being the offspring of God we are essentially like our
Great Father Spirit, for it is one of the laws of God that the child or
descendant shall always be like its progenitor; not like him in body,
for God is a spirit. A spirit hath not flesh and bone. We are therefore
like Him in spirit. Being the offspring of the divine intelligence
declares the nature of that intelligence, just as the stream declares
the nature of the water in the fountain which feeds it. As the fountain
is the antecedent of the stream, so God is the antecedent of life and
intelligence, from whom all spirits came, and to whom all spirits must
return.

Our studies in respect of mind are wonderfully simplified when we
recollect that in ourselves we see all other men, spirit or mind being
in its essence and attributes essentially the same; but the fountain is
always greater than the stream, so God is more wise and powerful than
any of his offspring. But as each perfect sunbeam, however small or
weak, has all the essential properties of light, and each grain of pure
silver all the properties of that metal, so mind, as the living
offspring of the divine mind, is in the "likeness and image of God."
This branch of study becomes remarkably simple when we reflect that in
ourselves we see all men and women, angels and demons, and even God
himself. The whole universe of mind is reflected in that inner-man
mirror which we call _ourself_. We have guarded this subject by the
language, _the essential attributes of mind_. By this qualifier we wish
it understood that mind, like body, has its accidental or acquired
qualities. Vice, virtue, folly, wisdom, malignity and benevolence are
not essential to mind, but like the accidents of matter known as
roughness or smoothness, softness, hardness, blackness, etc., are merely
qualities or attributes of its conduct. Vice is vicious action and
virtue is virtuous action. But action arises from will and will from
thought. All minds are free agents, being vicious or virtuous from their
own choice. There is as much piety, morality or immorality in the
flowing of the Wabash river as there is in involuntary action. So
ability to choose is the great factor of morality, virtue, immorality,
and vice.

In scientific investigations lying in the realm of the physical there
are countless objects to engage our thoughts, but here we have but one,
and we always carry it about with us and are continually using it. Our
_consciousness_ is to all the operations of our spirits what seeing,
touching, hearing, tasting and smelling is to surrounding bodies. It
enables us to examine all the minds in the universe. Would you like to
have an organ which would enable you to see spirits? In your
_consciousness_ you have a faculty superior to all the five senses put
together. In our consciousness we see and feel ourselves, and in so
doing we see not only the minds of others, but our great Father himself.
We can not tell what instincts are in the bee, or what sagacity is in a
spaniel, because we are neither spaniels nor bees, but we are of a more
noble race. We are in possession of minds or spirits, and consequently
identified with all minds or spirits, so the science of mind, or
psychology, is the knowledge of ourselves.

Christianity, as a spiritual system, takes us and all its votaries into
this intellectual temple, where we may certainly know God through a
correct knowledge of self. In this temple we have a sample of the
spirits of men, angels and demons, and over all, an example of the
spirit we worship. These invisible intelligences are the wonderful
agencies through which good and evil are effected. Natural laws are
only the rules by which the great Father Spirit acts. Laws are rules by
which agents act, and they always imply agents. Men of olden times are
often spoken of as great metaphysicians. Who has not heard of Homer,
Herodotus, Pindar, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plato and many others. But
those ancient men, here as in physics, dealt so much in fancy that they
were not disposed to enter into the simple examination of their own
minds or spirits. Entangled in the doctrines of chance, fate and destiny
they robbed the Creator of the sceptre of the universe. They placed
Jove, their supreme deity, under a decree that he could not change;
confessed that he could not, in many instances, help them when he
desired to do so. The greatest hindrances to progress among them were
their failures to know the true character of Jove, or their want of a
correct knowledge of God, and the distinction between mind and matter.
They failed to separate between the two. Their gods were continually in
an abominable quarrel about some interest that involved human welfare,
and for that very reason their theory of mind was nothing but a confused
mass of childish stories. They had no starting point from which to
reason. They, failing to separate between mind and matter, were led into
endless theories about what they denominated the animal and intellectual
soul. The idea of one of their own poets that we are God's offspring was
of no avail, in science, to them, because they neither knew themselves
nor their gods. We are, therefore, indebted to the Bible for our
superior knowledge in the science of mind. If the Gospel had never
reached us we would have been as great dreamers in mental science as the
mystics of India.

The doctrine of one Creator, who is a perfect spirit, and the father of
our spirits, and that he presides over all nature for the good of the
whole; that matter is inert, and moves not unless as it is moved; that
all life and force is in mind or spirit; that all spirits are free
agents, and act from choice; that all spirits have the same essential
attributes; and that man is of the divine "_genos_" kind or sort, and,
as an intellectual being, is therefore in the image of God, has
simplified and extended our researches in the science of mind, and based
them on reason and common sense as well as revelation. From such
considerations the doctrine of universal brotherhood has proceeded along
with the equal, civil, political and religious rights of all mankind.
The ultimate fruit of all is the abolition of oppression and slavery
throughout the world, and the desire to see all men elevated to their
proper rank as intellectual and moral beings. Thus our views of God and
nature, of mind and matter, are of immense practical value to our race.

Do you say mind or spirit does not belong as a real factor to science?
Well, we are astonished! Science is correct, or certain knowledge
arising from a deep and rational inquiry into the object or subject of
investigation. The question therefore comes back again, have we any
knowledge of mind? This is to ask, whether consciousness is knowledge!
The term comes from the Latin "_con_," which signifies together, and
"_scio_," I know, and is used to convey the idea that we know the thing
altogether, that is, have perfect or full knowledge. It is the mind's
testimony concerning itself. Now, if I can become acquainted with
external and material objects through my senses, certainly my
consciousness of my own mental operations is, and must be, more certain
and self-evident. In judging, reasoning, reflecting, choosing, desiring,
remembering, loving, hating and hoping, along with all other operations
of mind, I must know the operation intimately, perfectly and altogether.
If I am reflecting, I know it, and this consciousness is science, is
certain knowledge, is the very thing from which no man can escape so
long as he is a rational being. Here is my individuality, my
personality, in that which is the indivisible unit of my nature, from
which I can not emigrate, and one attribute of which I can not
amputate--the _I_! The thief may escape from justice, but he can not
escape from the dishonest wretch--_himself_.

The murderer in America may flee to England or France, but through
conscious memory he is, and will forever be, compelled to keep company
with the murderous villain. He has this consciousness and will keep it
through eternity, even though he should be pardoned. Here, then, is
certain knowledge, more than seeing, hearing, or any other sense
belonging to the physical, for it is the conscious knowledge of that
which sees and hears, and which reaches out through the senses and
connects itself with the objective. It is therefore certain that, in
case there is no such thing as mental science, there is no such thing as
science at all, in all the realm of the universe; because the mind, in
the act of knowing, knows itself or is conscious of its own operations,
otherwise it could know nothing whatever, could not be mind.

Have we not the most certain evidence of the existence of mind? Is light
a certain evidence that there is light, or a source of light? Is not
reasoning a proof that there is something which reasons? Can there be
light without a cause? Can there be invention without an inventive
being? The mind is like a telescope in this respect, that it shows
itself in showing that about which it is occupied. The man who is
content to believe what he sees, hears, tastes, smells and feels, is
only a sensuous believer--an animal, and not a man. Reason's glory is
that it perceives the invisible.




OUR INDEBTEDNESS TO REVELATION--No. IV.

BY P.T. RUSSELL.


LANGUAGE AND RELIGION, FROM WHENCE?

There are conditions under which circumstantial evidence is the best
possible testimony. These conditions are found inseparably connected
with our present subject. That men now possess the same powers of body
and mind that they always manifested is disputed by no intelligent
individual. Those powers have been, through all the ages, precisely the
same both in number and kind. Has the history of humanity furnished a
single case in which a person, perfectly deaf during all his life, had
the ability to speak words? Such is unknown in the history of the past,
and also in the records of the present. History is as blank at this
point, as a barren oasis. All the other faculties are as perfect with
the deaf as they are with those whose hearing is perfect. Their
inventive genius is equally vigorous; this being true, why should the
defect of the ear deprive them of the power of speech? Will the Deist
answer this question? Mr. Skeptic, as you are in the same difficulty
with the Deist, you may help him if you choose. If you are, as you
pretend, free and fearless thinkers, give us your thoughts upon this
question. If you are cowardly, then stand off and sneer at the question
which you dare not try to answer. The facts developed at this point
ought to be remembered, and the question, why can the deaf, described,
never talk? ought to be pressed home to every heart.


MATHEMATICS WILL AID US HERE.

When we see a constant increase in the number of persons or things in an
undeviating ratio, with the aid of mathematics we can pass back to the
first of the series, to the first man living at the base of the human
series. Ever remember that there can not be a series without a unit
lying at its base.

Why do the life-long deaf never talk? You answer: All Adam's children
learn to talk by hearing others talk, and as those deaf ones never
heard, so they never learned to talk. Very well. The first man, at the
beginning of the series of humanity, had no powers or faculties which
his descendants do not possess, and as they all have been under the
necessity of learning to talk by hearing others talk, will you
unbelievers and skeptics tell us, if you can, how that first man became
a talker? Can the life-long deaf talk as well as those whose ears are
perfect? No. Well, then, the difficulty rests upon you. That you may
remember it, I will repeat it once more, it is this: who did the first
man hear in order to learn the talker's trade?


WHERE DID LANGUAGE COME FROM?

Do you tell us that society made language? Then society must be older
than language, for the maker is always, of necessity, older than the
thing made. But without language there could be no interchange of ideas,
and without this society could not exist. Where there is no intelligent
communication of ideas we never think of society. Society does not exist
where there is no intelligent communication of ideas between persons.
The trees in the grove are never spoken of as a society. They are not
and can not be in the social state. Neither are the brutes around us.
Man is the only being upon earth capable of becoming a constituent
element or part of society. Mr. Blair says, in his lectures on
Belleslettres, "It would be extremely difficult to conceive how society
could exist without language." Now, as society can not exist without
language, it is certain that society could not be the author of
language, for the author must be older than his production. But Mr.
Blair springs another difficulty. It is in these words: "It would be
equally difficult to conceive how language could exist without society."
A moment's reflection will satisfy all reasonable persons that language
can not exist without society, and that which can not exist without the
other can not be the maker--author--of the other, for the maker must be
older than the thing made. Then, as neither of these could exist without
the other, neither could be the author of the other. So language and
society are both effects, and their cause is outside of or antecedent to
both, for every effect has an antecedent cause.


WHO, OR WHAT, IS THAT CAUSE?

First, it must have existed before man. Second, it must have possessed
the powers of speech; and, therefore, must have been an intelligence. We
have already seen this in our reflections upon the fact that the
life-long deaf, who are deprived of hearing words spoken, are always
dumb; so man, if he had never heard words spoken, would have remained
dumb. He that created the ear, could He not hear? Did He not know what
He was doing? He that arranged the vocal powers of man, could He not
speak? Is there no evidence of an intelligent authorship here? He who
not only created but also endowed man with all His noble and God-like
attributes, would He not delight in visiting man and talking with him
and learning him the art of speech? Did man not have the privilege of
learning to talk? Did he not hear and learn from the "ancient of
days"--from his great author? Is it not unreasonable to suppose that the
author of man's being took no delight in him? _Without this_ the first
man could never have commanded the use of words. Here we have the
"Arriere pensee" clue, that is, the clue in mental reservation; and here
we meet the axiom. The clear is the true, and the "Ariadne," the clue
that leads us out of the labyrinth. Language at the first must have been
specific. This, in the nature of the case, must have been true; that is,
each and every word must have been used in such a manner as to convey a
certain definite idea. As we have already seen how mathematics aid us in
passing back to the first man, so we can easily see how to reach an
approximate idea of his mental condition. Physiologically, he might have
been a full developed athlete, but in mentality, like the helpless
infant. He is at the first uneducated. True, he possesses powers of
mind, but they are inactive. No thought has passed through his mind to
wake him up. He opens his eyes and immediately he thinks, he hears, and
thought is increased. He is connected with the objective world of things
by means of the five senses, and his mind goes to work upon these. His
thoughts are all his own; he himself thought them; they were within his
reach. He saw and heard, but his thoughts, like yours and mine, did not
go beyond his perceivings. Yes, he wakes up and hears a rustling sound
in the air just above his head; looking up he discovers a pair of the
birds of Paradise flying over him; they light on the branch of a tree
near by. These were the first things seen; he saw them in the morning of
the first day of his life. He looks and looks, and thinks these birds
are older than himself, for he remembers having seen them at the moment
of the first consciousness. The question possible came up, Whence came
they, and all the other things which I now see and hear? Were they
always here? No answer is found. His curiosity is aroused; his reason
is perplexed; he _would be_ puzzled. He now reaches for thoughts too
high for him; neither bird, beast, nor any other part of all creation
can give the light he seeks. Whichever way he turns he receives no
answer; he is bewildered; he is now anxious for light and ready to
receive it. Man has found his extremity, and this is God's opportunity.
He visits man and talks to him, and man, hearing the speech of his
Creator, learns to talk. He is now able to ask for the solution of the
perplexing problem of the ages, From whence came all these beautiful and
useful things with which I am surrounded? Did they come of themselves,
or did somebody make and arrange them? Here the Lord drives away all his
troubles, simply saying: "I created all these things; the earth and the
heavens, and all that is in them, the sun, moon and the stars also, and
I now place you here in this beautiful Eden, earth, to dress and keep
it." Thus man obtained the use of language and the foundation of
religion at the same time. Of this I will speak more at length in my
next. Tell them farewell.

N.B.--Let the determined skeptic answer these essays if he can, and if
he can not, let him be an honest man and surrender.




MIND AND INSTINCT, OR STRICTURES UPON THE TEACHINGS OF EVOLUTIONISTS.


The evolution imagination ventures to affirm that man's intellectual
superiority over the brute "is not _qualitative_ but _quantitative_."
Then it follows, of necessity, that intellectually considered the brute
is the image of man just as much as man is the image of God, the
difference being _quantitative_ and not _qualitative_. Evolutionists
claim that "man's superiority over the brute results from greater
complexity and superior development of the brain." Now if man, as they
say, once lived the life of the brute, and his superiority now is simply
quantitative, why is it that his inferiors of to-day are not passing
into real manhood? They are far superior to any creature which is "not
far from the tadpole stage of evolution." If we were once there, and
evolutionists say we were, why not take all brutes in as our
_kins-folk_.

Now, since evolutionists have learned the secret of mind-making by
training dogs and other animals to certain habits, and giving time for
heredity to transmit those habits, they being "immediately petrified in
brain structure," why should we not go to work and bring about a
millennial glory, at least by the third or fourth generation? If so much
has been overcome as lies between man and the tadpole, with the tadpole
capital only to work upon, perhaps we might, with our present capital,
bring into existence a race of gods. Why not? We are taught that
"instinct is habit petrified in brain structure and transmitted by
heredity," that it is, consequently, "organized ancestral experiences
that are the source of instinct, but not always." Why this modification
in the teachings of evolutionists? Do they not know that the
acknowledgment of the existence of an original instinctive endowment
breaks down the whole theory of mind-being from environments? And what
right have Atheists to claim instinct as an original endowment, in
certain cases? The very idea is destructive of their speculation, for in
order to an original endowment, as they term it, over and above that
which is the result of ancestral experiences petrified in brain
structure and transmitted, there must be the endowment, that which
endows, and the endowed. These three things stand or fall together. But
why should they claim this exception of an original endowment? The
answer is easy. Facts that are utterly against them are known to exist
in the world of instincts. We have an example in the instinct of the
honey bee. Neither the drone nor the queen ever built a cell. So this is
conceded to be an original endowment. O, ye evolutionists! will you tell
us where this cell-building instinct came from? You claim that it was,
or is, an original endowment. _From whom?_ Again you tell us that
instinct depends upon brain structure in every instance; then what is
the difference between instinct and intellect or mind? You tell us that
mind also depends on brain structure, and you say that intelligence is
unlike instinct, because it works by experience, not ancestral, but, on
the contrary, by individual experience.

Then we have it thus:

First. Instinct works by ancestral experience, petrified in brain
structure, and transmitted.

Second. Mind works by individual and not ancestral experience.

Third. Instinct is sometimes an original endowment.

Now, can we or any others tell how it is that mind depends, just like
instinct, wholly upon brain structure, and is, at the same time, unlike
instinct in that it is wholly dependent on individual, not ancestral
experience? And if mind or intelligence does not depend on ancestral
experience, how is its origin to be accounted for on the hypothesis of
heredity through evolution of species, starting, without life, instinct
or mind, by blind forces operating on dead matter, and the forces
themselves simply the forces of dead matter? The capacity for
intellectual improvement is a remarkable peculiarity of man's nature.
The instinctive habits of the lower animals are limited, are peculiar to
each species, and have immediate reference to their bodily wants. Where
a particular adaptation of means to ends, of actions to circumstances,
is made by an individual the rest do not seem to profit by that
experience, so that, although the instincts of particular animals may be
modified by the training of man, or by the education of circumstances,
so as to show themselves after a few generations under new forms, no
elevation of intelligence ever appears to _take place spontaneously_, no
physical improvement is manifested in the species at large. On the other
hand, we observe in man not merely the capability of profiting by
experience, but the determination to do so, which he is enabled to put
into action by the power which his will, when properly disciplined,
comes to possess, of directing and controlling his current of thought by
fixing his attention upon any subject which he desires to keep before
his mental vision. This power, so far as we know, is peculiar to man,
and the presence or absence of it constitutes the difference between a
being possessed of powers to determine his own course of thought and
action, and a mere thinking automaton.--_Carpenter's Physiology._




REVIVAL OF LEARNING.


TO WHOM ARE WE INDEBTED?

Charlemagne, Emperor of Germany, who is known as a Christian prince, and
Alfred the Great, of England, lived in the eight and ninth centuries.
The darkest period in the dark ages was between the fifth and the
eleventh, but they are known as the _earliest_ luminaries of the modern
world. They encouraged learning both by example and patronage, but they
could not overcome the gross ignorance of their times; nevertheless they
shed a strong and living lustre over the age in which they lived. (See
_Elements of General Knowledge_, by Henry Kelt, Fellow and Tutor of
Trinity College, Oxford, p. 246.) Where, and under what circumstances,
were their schools established? They were confined to churches and
monasteries, and the monks presided over them, but they were inadequate
to the task of diffusing knowledge in any extensive circle. The reign of
heathenism and ignorance continued.

The Arabians had introduced the knowledge of arithmetic, geometry,
astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and the philosophy of Aristotle into
Spain. (See Warton on Pope, vol. 1, p. 184.) At the beginning of the
eleventh century several enlightened scholars undertook to educate the
youth of the cities of Italy, and at a later period those of France,
England and Germany. To the stability and prevalence of the education
thus begun is the establishment of the universities of Europe
attributable. Those of Paris and Oxford carry their claims to antiquity
to the times of Alfred and Charlemagne, but it is said that the real
claims of Paris stop with Phillip Augustus in the twelfth century. In
the year 1264 Merton College was founded by Walter de Merton, Lord
Chancellor of England and Bishop of Rochester, but the honorable title,
"Mother of Universities of Europe" is due to Bologna. It was in her
walls that learning, in the eleventh century, first attempted to raise
her head.

It is said upon good authority that 10,000 students were assembled here
in the next century, that is, somewhere about the beginning of the
fourteenth century, and that each country in Europe had its resident
regents and professors at Bologna. Here the studies of the civil and
canon law constituted the almost exclusive objects of application, but
Paris directed the attention of her scholars to theology. Oxford began
at this time to acquire fame and to rival the foreign universities in
the ability of its professors and the multitude of its members; in the
year 1340 they amounted to 30,000. Many other universities were soon
established upon the models of Bologna, Paris and Oxford. In these logic
and scholastic divinity were for centuries the reigning subjects of
pursuit. The works of Aristotle were studied with great eagerness. Upon
the logic of Aristotle was founded the cultivation of scholastic
theology and casuistry, which is a department of morals; its object is
to lay down rules for directing us _how_ to act where there is any room
for doubt or hesitation. To this belongs the decision of what are called
cases of conscience, that is, cases in which we are under obligation,
but which, from certain surroundings, give rise to doubt, or how far the
obligation may be dissolved; such as the obligation to keep a promise
obtained by fraud or force.

To make nice distinctions between one word and another, to separate
subjects by infinite divisions, not as the real nature of things, but as
fancy directed, and to draw conclusions with no moral end in view, were
the pursuits of the schoolmen. The decrees of the councils of the Church
of Rome, its edicts and ceremonial and ritual observances, were
scrupulously regarded instead of obedience to the pure and practical
elements of Christianity. Classical learning was entirely neglected.
Here is the feature of Roman church history which infidels have
endeavored to use falsely against _even Rome_, to wit: the opposition of
the churchmen of those times to _classical learning_. This was
considered dangerous to true piety, and calculated to corrupt the pure
theology of the gospel, because the orators of Greece and Rome were
regarded as blind guides of erring reason and seducers to the paths of
sin and destruction. Virgil and Horace were looked upon merely as the
advocates of a profane and idolatrous mythology, and Cicero was regarded
as a vain declaimer, impiously elated with the talent of Pagan
eloquence, but the infidel charge that the church has always been in the
way of scientific education, _expressed in unqualified terms_, is simply
false in fact. That there was a time when she was opposed to classical
learning is a well attested fact, but she, at the same time, taught and
operated in universities and monasteries, as stated above. The first
dawnings of modern literature are seen in connection with the
cultivation of the language of Provence and the productions of the
Troubadours. The first great teacher in this connection was William,
Count of Poiton, a nobleman, distinguished by his powers in the
crusades. Many of the men of note who were in the crusades, were of his
character. Their writings upon the topics of war, gallantry, satire and
history, first roused Europe from her ignorance and lethargy, first
taught her to think and reflect and judge upon subjects of imagination.
The Troubadours sustained the middle place between Gothic ignorance and
Italian excellence, and literature is indebted to them for rearing the
first fruits of European genius and inspiring the moderns with the love
of poetry. Their influence and language spread over all the countries of
Europe. Their bards were in the courts of kings and the castles of
barons. The commencement of the crusades and the beginning of the
fifteenth century, mark the limits of their fame. Their romance had its
rise in the manners of chivalry, and fell into disrepute when chivalry
declined. In the fourteenth century men of intellectual genius in Italy
resolved to cultivate their own native language and to combine with its
grandeur the charms of imagination and the acquirements of classical
learning. The poetry of the Tuscan school, the works of Dante, Ariosto,
Boccio and Petrarch, have never yet been excelled by four succeeding
centuries of genius and literature. The way was open for the revival of
classical learning in the fifteenth century, and for the cultivation of
all the arts and sciences connected with its cultivation.

The downfall of the Roman Empire in the east and the discovery of the
art of printing happened about the same time. Scholars had long trembled
in view of the approach of Mahomet the second. Constantinople was
captured by the Turks in 1458; then Chrysoloras, Gaza of Thessalonica,
Demetrius Chalcondyles, Johannes Lascaris, Callistus, Constantius,
Johannes Andronicus, and many other learned Greeks, fled into Italy for
protection, where they found, at Florence, several Greek professors who
had been persuaded by Cosmo de Medici to settle in that city. They
settled in Florence and there interpreted the ancient writings which had
been kept in the eastern metropolis. The best Italian scholars fell in
with them and soon became enamored with the spirit of poetry, eloquence
and history. Here a better philosophy was soon taken up, and the cunning
of scholasticism, as known in the empty speculations of metaphysicians,
gave place to the more profitable principles of moral philosophy. The
study of the Greek language was introduced in England by William Grocyn,
a fellow of New College, Oxford, who died about the year 1520.

"To the mechanical genius of Holland we must ascribe the discovery of
the art of printing, for the original inventor was Laurentius John
Coster, of Haerlem, who made his first essay with wooden types about the
year 1430. The art was communicated by his servant to John Faust and
John Guttenberg, of Mentz. It was carried to perfection by Peter
Shoeffer, the son-in-law of Faustus, who invented the modes of casting
metal types."

Trihemius, in his Chronicle, written A.D. 1514, says he had it from the
mouth of Peter Shoeffer that the first book they printed with movable
types was the Bible, about the year 1450, in which the expenses were so
great that 4,000 florins were expended before they completed twelve
sheets. The author of a manuscript, Chronicle of Cologne, compiled in
1499, also says that he was told by Ulric Zell, of Cologne, who himself
introduced printing there in 1466, that the Latin Bible was first begun
to be printed in the year of Jubilee, 1450, and that it was in large
type. Mr. Edwards, of Pall Mall possessed a copy of this curious Bible
in three volumes, bound in morocco. In his catalogue it was valued at
£126. There, is a beautiful copy of this work in the Bodleian (or
Bodleyan) Library in the University at Oxford.

The art of printing soon spread over the greater part of Europe, and
to-day our world is a world of books, and the love of the Bible was the
origin of printing.




COUNCILS.

UNITY OF ROMAN CHURCH.


The Council of Nice assembled in Asia Minor by the direction of
Constantine in the year 325. Here we see more than two hundred and fifty
bishops, mostly from the east, with presbyters, deacons and others,
engaged in an effort to settle the Arian heresy, which consisted in
maintaining that Christ was the most exalted of all created things, but
inferior to God the Father. This opinion was first ventilated in the
year 318. It was publicly condemned by the Council of Alexandria in the
year 320, and then by the Council of Nice. This Council maintained the
perfect equality of essence of both Father and Son, and could only
express their relation by terming it eternal generation, which Dr. Adam
Clark calls eternal nonsense.

"Arius and his partisans were banished by the Council of Alexandria, but
as he had powerful adherents he found means to return at the express
command of Constantine. He was on his way to receive the oath of
ministerial allegiance when he very suddenly, as some say, died by
poison. His death was in the year 336. It is said that Constantine was
baptized into the Arian communion in the year 337. The followers of
Arius increased greatly after his death. Under Constantius, called
_Flavius Julius_, Arianism became the religion of the court, and it even
penetrated as far as Rome, which was obliged to receive into its
communion Felix, an Arian bishop. But the divisions which grew among the
Arians themselves prepared for the Catholic church an easy victory over
them and led to their final extinction." It is worthy of being
remembered at all times, and under all circumstances, that this whole
controversy is unauthorized in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith in him
as the Son of the living God being the great truth upon which the Church
of God is built. What eternal nonsense it is to be quarreling about
whether he and his Father are of the same essence. The truths of
Christianity and of Protestantism are found in the teachings of the
anti-Nicene fathers, but we must remember that these were uninspired
men, and therefore displayed no _standard_ of truth. The term fathers,
without qualification, includes a vast range, comprising a period of
eleven hundred years, from Clemens to Bernard, from the Bishop of Rome
to the Monk of Clairvaux.

Immediately after the Council of Nice their works took on the infections
of popery. Each succeeding writer in each succeeding century added to
the gathering mass of error and superstition. The filth and dirt
accumulated until the system of delusion was fully developed in the "man
of sin." The Fathers, as they are called, are entitled to no more than
other men. They should never be resorted to as authoritative or
inspired, for they were not. They may be used as witnesses to show the
customs of their times. So far as they are concerned as _the standard_
of truth, we may just as well, with safety and without remorse, deliver
them to the Vatican to rot with the lumber and legends of the dark ages.
The anti-Nicene fathers had many errors, but theirs were not the errors
of Romanism. The religious productions of the first three centuries of
our era contain, in the main, the principles of Protestantism. The
post-Nicene fathers, or popery, may be compared to a field of wheat
overrun with weeds. The great work of the Protestant reformers was to
eradicate the weeds. Failing to accomplish this in the Roman field, they
gathered the pure seed grain and sowed it in the Lord's field, "the
world," where it now waves in beauty, tending to a glorious harvest.
Once on a time a person was asked where Protestantism was before the
Reformation. He answered in turn, It was where your face was this
morning before it was washed. The reply was just. Dirt could be no part
of the human countenance, and removing the filth by washing could
neither change the features of the face nor destroy its identity. By
this cleansing operation the face only assumed its normal and natural
appearance. In like manner the superstitious traditions of the Roman
church were no part of Christianity. It was but proper that the
reformers should dismiss the adulterations of the ages and plant their
feet away back in the land of Israel with the Christ of God.

Arius was regarded as an innovater on the true faith. The great enemy of
Arianism was simply Trinitarianism. The council of Nice was presided
over by Hosius. The assembled fathers declared the consubstantiality of
the son for the establishment of Trinitarianism and the extermination of
Arianism. This wonderful term, _consubstantiality_, had been rejected by
the synod of Antioch sixty years before, and by Dionysius, of
Alexandria, in opposition to Sabellianism.

In 359 the Emperor Constantius assembled the council of Rimini, a city
of Central Italy. Six hundred bishops and a number of priests now undo
all that the council of Nice had done. This council was as accommodating
to Arian Constantius as to the Trinitarian Constantine. Constantius,
forsaking the Trinitarian system, adopted Arianism, and Greeks and
Latins complied with the imperial wishes, and, like dutiful subjects,
signed the Arian and semi-Arian confessions of Sirneium, Seleucia, Milan
and Ariminum. The western and eastern prelacy subscribed in compliance
with their sovereign to the Arian creed, which, as Du Pin has shown, was
signed by his infallibility, Pope Liberius.

Next in our programme comes Theodosius I., assembling a council of one
hundred and fifty bishops at Constantinople in the year 381. Theodosius
was a zealous Catholic; he was baptized before the end of the first
year of his reign, and immediately published an edict in support of the
doctrine of the Trinity, branding all who did not hold it as heretics.
His council was presided over by St. Gregory Nazianzen. The chief work
of this council was to anathematise the Council of Rimini, which was
composed of six hundred bishops and a multitude of priests. This work
was done, and so one hundred and fifty bishops curse and denounce as
heretical and false six hundred bishops and a multitude of priests; so
the voice of the many is not always the voice of God, nor yet the voice
of a council the voice of a Pope; neither is the infallibility of a Pope
always found in a council, nor is the infallibility of one Pope always
found in the voice of another.

Theodosius II. convened a council in 431. Nestorius, bishop of
Constantinople, seems to have been the cause of this convocation, having
persecuted all who were not of his opinions; now undergoes persecution
for having plead that the Holy Virgin Mary was not the mother of God. He
plead that Jesus Christ being the word, _consubstantial_ with the
Father, Mary could not, at the same time, be the mother of God the
Father and of God the Son. To settle this quarrel Nestorius demands a
council and obtains it. This council condemned Nestorius, and one of its
committees displaced Cyril. The Emperor, Theodosius II., reversed all
that was done, and then permitted it to reassemble. The deputies from
Rome, John, Patriarch of Antioch, with twenty-six suffragans, arrived
five days after the transaction, and it is on record that his arrival
was followed by one of the most distinguished cursing matches of
antiquity. The Roman bishops on occasions of this character always had
recourse to cursing, and they scarcely ever failed to ease themselves up
with an overflow of anathemas and execrations. Cyril and Nestorius
exchanged mutual imprecations, even before the sitting of the council.
The saint, it is said, had launched twelve anathemas at the heretic in
an Alexandrian synod in the year 430, and the heretic Nestorius thanked
the saint by returning the same number of inverted blessings. This has
been a heavy business among Popes for many centuries. John and Cyril
engaged in the same kind of warfare immediately after John's arrival at
Ephesus. John and his party congratulated Cyril, Memnon, and their
accomplices by deposing and excommunicating them, and now the parties
continue, for some time, to give vent to their feelings in mutual
anathemas. These benedictions were the only articles of mutual exchange,
current and of legal tender value between the parties. At last the
Emperor had Nestorius and Cyril arrested, and ordered all the bishops to
return each to his church, and so no conclusion was reached. The Greeks
called the second assembly at Ephesus a gang of felons, but the first,
it is said, excelled it in all the arts of villainy. The contest was
finally ended, not by the church, but by the state. The Emperor
reinstated Cyril and banished Nestorius, and the western diocese was in
the end reduced to submission and the church to unity, not by
ecclesiastical authority, but by imperial power. (See Evagrius 1, 5;
Liberatus c. 6; Godeau 3, 310.) The Council of Chalcedon met in the year
451. St. Leo, bishop of Rome, took the advantage of the troubles which
the quarrel about the two natures occasioned in the empire, and presided
at the council by his legates, which was a new feature in councils. But
the fathers of the council apprehending that the church of the west
would, from this precedent, pretend to the superiority over the eastern
church, decided, by their twenty-eighth canon, that the see of
Constantinople and the see of Rome should enjoy alike the same
advantages and privileges. This was the origin of the long enmity which
prevailed and still prevails between the two churches, the eastern and
the western. This council endorsed and established the "two natures in
one person." The twenty-eighth canon of this council has been rejected
and condemned by the Latins, yet Pelagius, Gregory, Pascal and Boniface
acknowledged this council, thereby placing the seal of infallibility
upon it as much as they ever did upon other councils.

In 553 Justinian assembled a council at Constantinople to discuss the
three chapters, as they were designated, composed by Ibas, Theodoret and
Theodorus. Vigilius, bishop of Rome, with bishops and deacons from
Italy, Africa and the east, was in Constantinople during the entire
sittings of this council, and refused to attend although invited. But
the council went on, all the same. His infallibility, supported by his
clique, opposed the emperor and his council, but in vain. He formed his
bishops and deacons into a separate council, published a constitution
defending, in _modified terms_, the three chapters, and interdicting all
further discussion upon the subject by the authority of the Apostolic
See; pronounced anathemas against the persons and defenders of the
authors of the three chapters. Having now made himself a partisan of the
authors, who were condemned by the emperor's council, he was cursed for
promoting heresy, and banished in dishonor. This served to bring him to
his senses upon several matters, and so he turned about and approved
what he had before condemned. And so heresy was converted into orthodoxy
by the magical power of an emperor at the expense of the infallibility
of Vigilius. The Italians, Tuscans, Ligurians, Istrians, French,
Illyrians and Africans, who took a stand against the emperor, were like
the pope, the "vicar general of God," converted by the sword of
Justinian. The Italian clergy who resisted were banished.

"In 681 there was a council at Constantinople, convoked by Constantine,
_the bearded_. This council was called by the Latins '_in trullo_,'
because it was held in an apartment of the imperial palace. The emperor
himself presided. The bishops of Constantinople and Antioch were on his
right hand, and the deputies from Jerusalem and Rome were on his left.
In this council it was decided that Jesus Christ had two wills." Here
"Pope Honorius I. was condemned as a monothelite, that is, as wishing
Jesus Christ to have but one will." O, shame! What will come next? Well,
we are out at sea in the very darkest periods of the dark ages, and
there is no telling how much our senses may be shocked. We find next
what is known as the Second Council of Nice. It was assembled by a
woman, Mrs. Irene, in the name of her son, whose eyes she had caused to
be put out. Her husband, Leo, had abolished the worship of images as
leading to idolatry. This woman re-established this worship. During
Constantine's minority she executed the imperial power. She was a bold
defender and patron of emblematic or image worship. It is said that she
had the ambition of Lucifer and the malignity of a demon. She is accused
of being connected with the murder of her husband. "She put out the eyes
of Nicephorus, and amputated the tongues of Christopher, Nicetas,
Athenius and Eudoxas, Constantine's sons, for _suspicion_ of conspiracy.
She destroyed the eyes of her own son." "No woman," says Bruys, "was
ever less worthy of life than this princess." Her ambition, says Godeau,
made her violate all the laws of God and man. Now listen, but first
prepare to experience all that the opposite extreme can possibly
produce. Is there any place in your nature where life and death, or
heaven and hell, can meet in festive joys? No. Then bear with my story
the best you can, for it must be told. Here it is: Theodorus and
Theophanes extol that vile woman for her VIRTUE AND EXCELLENCE(?). The
Greeks placed her among the saints in their menology, and in holy
festivity celebrate her anniversary. Hartman and Binius, in more modern
times, flatter her prudence and piety(?). Alexander lauds her religion
and faith as worthy of immortal honor(?), though the blinding of her
son, he admits, exposed her to reprehension. Baronius justifies the
assassination of her son. He commends the inhumanity which arose from
zeal for religion. Here let the curtain drop till my next on councils
makes its appearance.




INFIDELS IN EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY.


We should not be surprised when wicked men of every grade of character
assail our religion, for its great Author erected a standard of duty too
perfect to suit their unruly passions and lusts. Opposition to
Christianity is the natural correllate of an unregenerated heart. This
fact was the cause of all the sufferings of the primitive Christians,
not the only cause, but the _first_ and _leading_ cause. One striking
circumstance is worthy of notice, which is, that they have censured
Christians for their zeal with an unsparing tongue, and, at the same
time, they have shown as much if not more vehemence and obstinacy in
their own good-for-nothing opposition. Every kind of opposition has been
manifested which the ingenuity of man could dictate. Indeed, there is
little urged against Christianity in our day that is original. Almost
every cavil and argument may be traced to Voltaire, Porphyry, Celsus and
Julian, the old enemies of the Christ. Infidels, who dislike (will you
hear it?) the labor and trouble of investigating the question of the
claims of the Christian religion upon their intelligence, seize with
avidity upon the labors of others and parade them before the public
mind. Just now there is no question put so often by men who feign to be
unbelievers as, "What do you think of Colonel Ingersoll?" "He stirs you
up." The little city of Logansport was favored not a great while in the
past with a visit and lecture from the Colonel. After the lecture was
over some half a dozen gentlemen were taking a lunch at an eating
restaurant, and there was one very talkative creature in the group who
had much to say of the Colonel's effort and of the "unscientific and
absurd character of the Bible." Finally, one noble-hearted gentleman
said to the boasting skeptic, Now you have said a great deal about the
Bible, and I venture the assertion that you can't quote one verse that
is in it. I challenge you to do it. Just give us one, long or short,
from any chapter in all the Bible. The man failed. He couldn't do it.
Then, said the Christian gentleman, you fellows are always talking about
science and about the "unscientific character of the Bible," so I will
now ask you one of the most simple questions known in science, and we
will see whether you will answer it. It is this: How many teeth have you
got in your mouth; how many does a man have? To the utter astonishment
of the company the man failed again, and the company told him laughingly
that he must treat to the cigars. Such fellows know comparatively
nothing, and yet they are always championing their men, who contain all
their knowledge and do their thinking for them. Ask the infidel who his
leaders are and he will point you to Hume, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, etc.
Are Christians always holding up their great minds? Suppose we test the
merits of the case in this manner, then who are your infidels that will
compare with Jesus Christ and his apostles? or, with such men, even, as
Milton, Clarendon, Hale, Bacon, Boyle, Locke, Newton, Addison,
Lyttleton, West, Johnson and Campbell? Where are your persons of such
profound understanding? To compare such persons as these with Voltaire,
Hume, Gibbon and Thomas Paine, is as silly as to compare manhood with
infancy. No infidels try Christianity upon its own merits. If they were
candid men they would separate Christianity from all foreign and
irrelative circumstances, and test its evidences seriously, as the
magnitude of the question deserves. Apply the same unbelief to the
common and ancient records of history and you will at once get the
credit of being rash and foolish. The scoffs and sarcasms and
sophistries of infidels are not from a love of truth. Whatever the cause
or causes may be, one thing is certain, and that is, that they do not
understand Christianity itself, nor the nature and magnitude of its
evidences. They condemn that which they never gave themselves the
trouble to investigate.

Whoever investigates the religion of Jesus Christ will find that the
character of its founder is far superior to any other character, and his
apostles far superior to any other fishermen. To believe that his
religion is of simple human origin is like believing that a first-class
ship of war is the invention of a child. "The majesty of Christ and the
divinity of his religion appears in nothing more than this, that in
proportion to our acquaintance with the Scriptures of the New Testament
does the light of truth shine upon the mind." The seeming successes of
infidelity, and the multitude of apostates scattered over our country,
makes us naturally more anxious to warn the rising generation against
the errors of those who would mislead them. But there is nothing in
these fearful signs of the times to shake our faith or excite our
fears, because the faithful Bible student finds the condition of our
world just such as the Scriptures have foretold. All the surroundings
that characterize the conduct of infidels; their expertness in ridicule;
their extreme folly and resoluteness; their licentiousness and anxiety
for change in laws as well as society; the snares laid out by them to
catch the unsteadfast, and their vain professions to free the world from
slavery, while they themselves are in bondage to corruption, are drawn
by the divine pencil of prophecy with so much exactness that "he who
runs may read." By examining the word of God you will find that the
_Free-thinkers_ of our country, the _Illuminati_ of Germany, Darwin,
Strauss, Huxley, Tyndal, Renan, and the man of our own land who is most
noted in our midst for oratorical accomplishments without logic,
argument or truthfulness of statements touching the Christian religion,
are all present evidences of the divinity of the prophetic words of the
New Testament.




WOMAN AND HER RANK.


I presume that Adam knew nothing of the subject of woman's inferiority.
I do not think that he ever said to Eve, Don't soar so high nor dive so
deep into philosophy, science and religion, because you are a woman. I
don't think he ever said to his wife, Astronomy is beyond your reach,
nor Science is too deep for your slender powers.

Home is a woman's empire, but this very fact demands that her
intellectual powers should not be inferior to her husband's. A vast
majority of people have their minds influenced and their characters
formed by their mothers. Foolish and silly, as well as lazy women
generally, have their counterparts in their offspring. By following the
outlines of nature in her facts we have become scientific, and all the
wisdom we can get from this source will be still more advantageous. The
woman's physical nature should ever teach us that she is not to be taxed
with physical labor beyond her strength and sphere of life. Such
taxation is barbarism and savageness. This heathenism always _destroys
home_. The American Indian has no home; he lives an idle, lazy,
good-for-nothing life, while his wife, or woman, as the case may be,
does all the drudgery. For this _very reason_ he was never elevated, as
a general rule, above a shot-gun and a hound dog, and never had a home
superior to Doolittle's birth-place, which, he said, was "at Cape Cod,
Nantucket, and all along up and down the shore."

It is said that the English is the only language in which the word
"home" occurs. What infamous hours many bachelors keep; many of them die
of dissipation because they have no mother, sister, or wife to look
after them and render their homes pleasant and attractive. What an odd
looking thing a house is without a female occupant. "Won't you tarry
awhile?" "Can't you stay awhile?" "O, don't be in a hurry." Such is
often heard, and the reply is, "No, I am much obliged to you, I must go,
for my mother, my sister, or my wife, is expecting me." But for these
sentiments he would stay until midnight; so some unmarried men are the
most contemptible _bores_. When you get acquainted with them you
naturally hate to see them coming. Some married men fall into the same
way of _boring_ their neighbors. When I see a man doing this I suspect
that he has lost his love of home associations, and ask myself the
question, What is the trouble?

There is always an adequate cause for every effect. Modern "Freeloveism"
looks to the annihilation of home, for the reason that it proposes no
definite home for male or female. No people destitute of the light of
the Bible ever possessed a home, such an one as ours.

One of the great abominations of infidelity is often met within the
advocacy of _Freeloveism_, and matrimony binding at the option, simply,
of the parties. What is a vagabond on the earth but a man without a
home? Slaves have been the same in every age, and a government that does
everything for its subjects will always keep them in degradation. A
father and mother who would not effectually ruin their children must not
raise them in indolence and affluence, doing everything for them and
teaching them nothing in a practical way; even so a woman must be
elevated until her post is one of honor. You might as well tie a man
hand and foot, and command him to run a race, as to deprive women or
others of their natural rights, and then expect them to rise or progress
the same as those who are in the full possession of all their liberties.
Give to all freedom and scope for their talents, and allow them to rise
or fall at pleasure, but ever point them upward and onward.

Women were slaves in Egypt, in Babylon, in Ninevah, in Persia, in Greece
and Rome, and all those nations _sunk_. She is now a slave in China, in
India and in Turkey.

Adam said: "She is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be
called woman for she was taken from man. Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be
one flesh."

Say what you will of gallantry, and of the flattery of the sex, but here
you have the intelligent and affectionate language of the first man,
which, for beauty and love, as well as simplicity, has never been
surpassed. "She is bone of my bone," and consequently of my own rank. We
are one. She is flesh of my flesh and therefore is my equal. "She shall
be called woman," that is, a female man.

It is authoritatively asserted that the Hebrew term translated woman
signifies a female man, just as in Latin "equa" is the feminine of
"equus," "Julia" is the feminine of "Julius." But if she was a female
man she possessed all the attributes of humanity, and therefore her
dignity was and is the same as the other sex. Adam gave to Eve a
position, an honorable position, for he took her in as a part of
himself. His honor was her honor, his rank was her rank, and she was his
helpmeet. My ideal woman is not one who is good for nothing, "bred only
and polished to the taste of lustful appetence; to sing, to dance, to
dress, to troll the tongue and roll the eye." She should be a helpmeet
as termed in the Bible. She should be a creature not too bright and good
to labor in her proper sphere, that is, to prepare daily food, serve it
up and guide the house. A high legal dignitary placed an epitaph upon
the tomb of his wife, that read: "An excellent woman and a good cook."

When a stout, able-bodied woman sits herself down and whines out, "I
can't work," she gets down very low. What is such a woman good for?

It has been said that woman is man's imaginative side. Well, I imagine
that there is a great deal of truth in the remark so far as many men are
concerned, and this simple fact has ruined many a wife. A woman may
operate very well upon a man's imagination, but that will never help him
to make a living.

Let woman be, to all intents and purposes, the equal of man, trained for
the work of every-day life, for this is what the word education means.
Then throw open to her all the employments lying within her strength,
which are now monopolized by men, and let this new advantage work a
reformation in her education. What is her education even now, and in our
own country? Instead of being educated for health and long life, they
are trained in many instances for disease and a premature death. The
history of woman, as woman, is not in our reach; at least I am not
prepared to say it has been written. I wish it had, for I am persuaded
that woman has been the great redeeming element upon the human side of
bliss, without which our world could not exist.

      *      *      *      *      *

"And they charge that he (Thomas Paine) was a drunkard. That is another
falsehood. He drank liquor in his day, as did the preachers. It was no
unusual thing for the preacher going home to stop in a tavern and take a
drink of hot rum with a deacon, and it was no unusual thing for the
deacon to help the preacher home."--_Ingersoll._

Therefore, if a man stops at a hotel and drinks till he has to be helped
home, he is no drunkard? No! Ingersoll is a temperance man (?) and he
knows.




THE TESTIMONY OF AN INFIDEL IN WHOSE HEART EVERY SPARK OF TRUTH AND
JUSTICE WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED.


J.J. Rousseau says: The gospel, that divine book, the only one necessary
to a Christian, and the most useful of all to the man who may not be
one, only requires reflection upon it to impress the mind with love of
its author and resolution to fulfill his precepts. Virtue never spoke in
gentler terms; the profoundest wisdom was never uttered with greater
energy or more simplicity. It is impossible to rise from the reading of
it without feeling a moral improvement. Look at the books of the
philosophers with all their pomp, how little they are compared with
this. Shall we say that the history of the gospel is a pure fiction?
This is not the style of fiction, and the history of Socrates, which
nobody doubts, rests upon less evidence than that of Jesus Christ; and,
after all, this is but shifting the difficulty, not answering it. The
supposition that several persons had united to fabricate this book, is
more inconceivable than that one person should have supplied the subject
of it. The spirit which it breathes, the morality which it inculcates,
could never have been the invention of Jewish authors, and the gospel
possesses characters of truth so striking, so perfectly inimitable, that
the inventor would be a more astonishing object than the hero.--_J.J.
Rousseau, vol. 36, pp. 36, 39._

      *      *      *      *      *

Have infidels been martyred on account of their infidelity? Men are not
so foolish as to have themselves devoured by wild beasts or perish in
slow fires rather than recant from a theory they never espoused, Col.
Ingersoll to the contrary, _notwithstanding_. Men do not prefer red-hot
iron chains to denying a Lord in whom they never believed. Infidels have
nothing to lose by recanting. Colonel Ingersoll says, "I think I would.
There is not much of the martyr about me," _so we think of the Colonel_!




THE JEWISH RELIGION AND INSTITUTIONS KNOWN AMONG HEATHEN WRITERS.

BY HENRY KETT, B.D.,

     _Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. Published first in
     1812._


"The transactions and literature of the ancient Jews were too remarkable
to escape the attention of the learned and inquisitive Pagans when Judea
became a province of the Roman Empire. Many particulars relative to the
eminent character of Joseph as a minister to Pharaoh, and as an inspired
prophet, to the emigration of the Jews from Egypt, their miraculous
passage through the Red Sea, their settlement in the Holy Land, the
institutions and ceremonies of the law, the splendor of Jerusalem in its
most flourishing times, the magnificence of the temple, and the supreme,
eternal and immutable nature of their worship, are related by Diodorus
Siculus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Justin."




CENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST.


The fragments of Sanchoniathon, the most ancient historian of Phenicia,
who is supposed to have flourished not long after the death of Moses,
confirms the Bible account of the origin of the world and of many men
and places mentioned in the Pentateuch. Berosus, the Chaldean, and
Manetho, the Egyptian, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
king of Egypt, represent several circumstances known in the accounts
given by Moses. They wrote about the time when the Old Testament was
translated into Greek. Their evidence, to say the least, shows the honor
that was paid by the most learned persons of the East to the records of
the Bible.

      *      *      *      *      *

I know the Bible is inspired, because it finds me at greater depths of
my being than any other book.--_Coleridge._


Transcriber's Note

The punctuation and spelling from the original text have been faithfully
preserved. Only obvious typographical errors have been corrected.







--- Provided by LoyalBooks.com ---