Chapter 2

In all time past it has been conceded that the maxim, "_vox populi, vox dei_," is true when taken in its broad or universal sense. "We are apt to attribute that to be true which all men presume. It is an argument with us that anything which seems true to all, as that there are gods, shows that they have engrafted in them an opinion concerning gods, neither is there any so void of laws or good manners that doth not believe that there are some gods."--Sen. Epist. C. 17. "This seems a firm thing which is alleged why we should believe gods to be, because no nation is so fierce, no man so wild, whose mind has not been imbued with an opinion concerning gods, or that uses proceed from bad customs. But all do however conceive a _Divine power_ and nature to exist. Now, in all things, the consent of all nations is supposed to be the law of nature."--Cicero, Tusc., q. 1, p. 299. "In such a quarreling and tumult and gangling, you may see this one thing by common consent, acknowledged law and speech, that there is _one God, the king and father of all, and many gods the children of God_. This the Greek says; and this the Barbarian says; the inhabitant of the continent and the Islander, the wise and the unwise do say the same."--Max. Tyn., Dis. 1, p. 5. "It is an ancient saying and running in the race of all men, that from God were all things, and by him all things were constituted, and do consist."--Demundo (dedicated to Alexander), cap. 6. Here I rest, not for want of more witnesses, for the testimony of all antiquity is full on this point. There is not an ancient tribe, race, or nation, of which we have any information, historic or traditional, who did not acknowledge the existence of _one Supreme Being_. In this the chain is unbroken, so Monotheism must have been the first religion. The chain of Polytheism is broken many times. All nations did not acknowledge the existence of many gods. Indeed, no nation of antiquity acknowledged a plurality of supreme gods, while all nations acknowledged a _Supreme God_, who, with them, was the father of gods and men. So in this way the chain was always broken, _never whole_. Polytheism then could not, in the very nature of things, be the original religion with Monotheism engrafted upon it. Simple Polytheism never existed with any nation; it always displayed a supreme head, a Supreme God--father of gods and men. And even this form of Polytheism was acknowledged by a part of our race only. The idea is worthy of being repeated, that all nations of men throughout all antiquity acknowledged one living and true supreme and master God presiding over all gods and men. This idea lies at the foundation of all ancient Polytheism, and most certainly at the foundation of all ancient Monotheism. Now, as religion simply consists primarily in man's relation to God, with the accessory idea of dependence upon and obligation to him, the question is: Was that religion earthly or Divine in its origin? Were these thoughts the thoughts of men only, or were they too high for us? Can you think of your relation and obligation to a being of whom you have never heard or learned? No. Neither could man in the beginning, nor at any subsequent time. Religion came not from earth. Human genius was not and could not have been its foundation. There is but one other possible source, which is simply the will and teachings of the creator. Religion is unearthly, and hence Divine in its origin. The stream always declares the nature of the fountain.

Gentlemen skeptics, you boast of free and fearless thought. Make your vaunting good. Examine, if you dare, and let us have your strong reasons, if you have any.

The nature of man made revelation a necessity. This will be the theme of my next. Truth never fears the light, but known error is a coward, and loves the dark.

* * * * *

A NOBLE book! All men's book. It is our first statement of the never-ending problem of man's destiny and God's ways with men on earth.--_Carlyle._

FORCE AND LIFE.

DR. J.L. PARSONS.

The origin of force and life in the universe is a great puzzle to materialistic scientists. In the azoic period of our earth there was no life on it. The living creatures now on the earth must, therefore, have had some origin. That origin is not due to spontaneous generation, according to the testimony of the most enlightened scientists, Professor Haeckel to the contrary notwithstanding. The various vital manifestations and exhibitions of force in the universe are due to some cause. The intuitions of mankind, as well as the teachings of science, declare there must be a cause lying behind the universe which has produced it.

Two great philosophies contend for the mastery in the solution of the problem of life. Materialistic philosophy seeks to account for the origin of all things on principles which deny the existence of God, the Creator, and which make man wholly a material being. Christianity declares that the God of the Bible is behind the universe as its cause. The only things which materialists recognize as having any existence in the universe are matter and force. If force be used in the sense of mind or spirit, which it is not in this case, I have no objection to this statement. One of the first elementary lessons in material philosophy is the _inertia_ of matter. Being at rest matter has no power to set itself in motion. Being in motion it has no power to put itself at rest. It is moved by a force which is in no sense an attribute of matter. Since the earth is in motion and teems with life, that motion and life must be due to force, which is the only remaining existence in the universe. As a cause lying behind the universe, this force is denominated the unknown force.

Prior to and in the azoic age we have nothing in the universe but matter and force, and according to Mr. Spencer, not only an unknown force, but also an unseen and an unknowable force. Subsequent to the azoic period and now we have the earth full of life, intelligence and religion due to the unknown force. This unknown, unseen and unknowable force may be studied in the light of its manifestations and effects, Mr. Spencer to the contrary notwithstanding. Since all effects are contained in their causes, the universe as an effect must have been and must be contained in the great unknown force as its cause. The characteristics which mark the effect must mark the cause also. If the stream be fresh water, the fountain which sends it forth must be fresh water also; for the stream is contained in the fountain. If there be no fountain there can be no stream. If there be no cause there can be no effect. If there be no involution there can be no evolution. The stream can not rise higher than its fountain. The universe now contains life. The unknown force must also contain life; for all effects are contained in their causes. The universe has in it mind. The unknown force must have mind; for all effects are contained in their causes. The universe has in it goodness and religion. So must the unknown force possess goodness and religion; for all effects are contained in their causes. The unknown cause of all things must possess mind, intelligence, goodness, holiness, else these things could not have proceeded from the unknown cause. "_Ex nihilo nihil fit_" is still true. But life, mind, energy, holiness, are attributes of the God of the Bible. Whenever science divests the unknown force of these attributes which characterize Jehovah, she has left a cause wholly inadequate to the production of the universe. Whenever she invests the unknown force with life, power, intelligence and goodness, she has set up the God of the Bible.

Again, man is possessed of a mind and a religious element in his nature. If man's origin be due to the monkey or the tadpole, then the monkey or the tadpole must have a mind and a religious nature; for all effects are contained in their causes. The monkey must have a mind superior to that of Newton's, and the tadpole must be more religious than man; for the stream can not rise higher than its fountain!

Man has a religious element in his nature. That element seeks to be satisfied religiously, as the eye instinctively seeks for light, the ear for sound, or the body for food. Until the constitutional elements of man's nature are changed, he will instinctively seek for a God capable of satisfying this element of his being. This part of man is satisfied in the Bible and in the God of the Bible. Hence I conclude that the race as a race will never go into atheism.

As for myself, I heartily believe and fully accept the statement of the inspired bard of Israel concerning the problem of force and life: "With thee is the fountain of life." God the author of life and the source of all the force in the universe. I do not for one moment believe the teaching of my learned skeptical professor of physiology, Sanford E. Chaillei, that life is the result of organization; that digestion is a chemical process; and that animal heat and force result from this process. His favorite illustration was the steam engine. The fuel in the fire-box generated the heat which made the water in the boiler boil, and thus the _steam force_ was produced that moved the boat on the river. But, unfortunately for this illustration the Professor always left out of the consideration the fireman. No amount of fuel and water would ever generate force sufficient to turn a wheel without a fireman to light the fuel. So no amount of bread and meat in a man's stomach would ever generate enough force to produce a single blood corpuscle without the vital force to set in motion and keep up the process of digestion and assimilation. Without a God to endow the body with this vital force, there would be none, and consequently no digestion and no animal heat or physical force. If animal life and force result from organization and chemical digestion, a chemist could make a dead body live, where the organs are not destroyed, by putting food into the stomach and giving it time to chemically digest, which it would do in a short time, but it will neither produce animal heat nor support life. If digestion is a chemical process, the chemist ought to be able to take bread and meat and make a red blood corpuscle, which he can not do. Digestion and assimilation are _vital_ processes. The vital force always eludes the test of the chemist; but that force is always present in the living animal economy. The chemist can purchase every ingredient that enters into the composition of bone except the vital force, without which he can not make an inch of bone. The making of bone is a vital process which takes place only in the living animal economy. No physician can possibly have a correct physiological theory of the cure of disease who ignores the presence and power and office of the vital force in the human system.

The body of man was formed of the dust of the ground according to Moses, and no mistake; Mr. Ingersoll to the contrary notwithstanding. Moses further says that the Lord God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." According to this author, life did not result from organization. What the Almighty breathed into his nostrils was not atmospheric air; for the air was in his nostrils before Jehovah breathed the breath of life into them, and yet it did not make this body live. Using the term breath in the sense of air that we breathe, the old adage that "men die for the want of breath" is not true; for the body dead is surrounded with the same air as when it was living. When the Creator breathed the breath of life into the newly-formed body, and man became a living soul, he imparted more to it than simply air; and when the body dies, something more than simply air or breath has departed from it. Solomon was wiser than the average wise acre or the conceited materialistic doctor when he said concerning death: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." "The body without the spirit is dead," says Inspiration. It is the presence of this spirit in the human body, imparted to it by the Almighty, which vitalizes the body, which produces the vital force, by which force the body is builded and its operations carried on.

As the Creator formed the body of the first man of the dust of the ground, and vitalized it by breathing into it the breath of life, and endowed it with a living germ and vital force by which, under proper circumstances, it reproduces itself; so God said: "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, _whose seed is in itself_, upon the earth." The seed has in it a germ of life and a hidden vital force which heat, moisture and the soil have the capacity of developing, so that it reproduces itself. Every vital manifestation of this seed is the result of vital force with which the Creator has endowed every perfect seed. This force in the animal and vegetable kingdoms produces vital manifestations.

Chemical and other physical forces never produce vital manifestations. "Gravity is that species of force by which all bodies or particles of matter in the universe tend toward each other." The reason why bodies are drawn towards each other in this manner is because God has endowed them with a force which compels them to act in this way. To call it the force of gravity is no explanation of either the origin or nature of this force. To say that gravity makes the apple fall down instead of up is a polite way of expressing one's ignorance of such questions. To say that nature makes a seed grow, that nature heals a wound, is only to make a show of learning. God made the worlds and upholds them by the power of his word. God energizes nature. All the physical and vital forces of the universe are but the manifestation of his power. God has endowed all things that grow with the germ of life. Atheistical philosophy starts without God and ends without him. It seeks for spontaneous generation, but never finds it. It would have a stream without a fountain, and an effect without a cause, and a world without a Creator. I have no use for any theory of life, or of medicine, which denies the existence of God, whom I regard as the source of all the forces in the universe. Nature is only the manifestation of his power and wisdom. There is nothing supernatural in the universe unless it be God himself. All the wonderful phenomena of the human body are the result of a living force with which he has endowed it, and are to be explained, if explained at all, by a better knowledge of the intentions and workings of this force. This knowledge will be obtained by a more careful study of nature, by a more intimate acquaintance with him and his works. Anatomically, physiologically, and intellectually, "man is fearfully and wonderfully made"; and every wonderful thing connected with him is worthy of our careful consideration.

_Kokomo, Ind._

"ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS."

ANSWERED, PERHAPS THE THOUSANDTH TIME, BY REQUEST FROM LOGANSPORT.

"Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death."--Second Samuel, vi, 23. "But the king took the five sons of Michal, _whom she brought up for Adriel_, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite."--Second Samuel, xxi, 8. Dear friend, if you will notice the last quotation closely you will find that the words which I have italicised clearly indicate the true solution of the difficulty, which has no real historic existence. Those sons _were not the natural sons_ of Michal, but adopted sons, which she brought up for Adriel, whose wife was _Moreb_, the natural mother of those children. But, somehow, it comes to pass that you refer me in both cases to the first book of Samuel instead of the second. How is this?

_Second case._ "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham." The contrary does not happen to be a contradiction. Here it is, "Let no man say when he is _tempted_ I _am tempted_ of God; for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man with evil."--James i, 13. Any grammarian can see at once that there is no contradiction here. God did (try) tempt Abraham. When was this and what was it for? Well, it was thousands of years before James's _present tense_ language was written. Suppose I give a parallel. Here it is: Let no Jew say when he offers a lamb he offers it to obey the Lord, for the Lord accepteth not lambs, neither does he require them of any man. The contradiction is found in the fact that some thousands of years in the past, the Lord did, for wise and benevolent purposes, require Jews to offer lambs. Now, can any man fail to see that there is no contradiction here. God did tempt Abraham. What was it for? Answer. He simply designed to teach Abraham, in a way that would impress the lesson upon the mind for all time to come, that the human beings were not to be offered in burnt sacrifices as the heathen were wont to do. His angel said to Abraham, "Stay thy hand." See! there is an offering fast by the horns in the bushes. _Don't kill your son!_ Yes, God did try or tempt Abraham. It was a grand trial of his loyalty to God. And it was God's most effectual way of teaching Abraham and his posterity that they must not offer their sons and daughters in the fire as the heathen did. There is not only no contradiction here, but a grand lesson also, which represents God in just the reverse of the infidel interpretation of the case.

_Third case._ "And the man which journeyed with him stood speechless, _hearing a voice_, but seeing _no man_."--Acts iv, 7. This voice heard by those persons was in the _Hebrew tongue_, and as such was _not understood_ by those who were with Saul. So we have it upon record in the 22d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that "they saw _the light_ and were afraid, but they heard not," that is, _understood not_, the voice. That the voice was in the Hebrew is asserted in the twenty-sixth chapter and the fourteenth verse. We often hear a man's voice, and fail at the same time--say we did not hear because we did not understand the words uttered. Such is the latitude of the original term translated by the word _hear_. So there is no contradiction here. The term _hear_ in one passage is used with reference simply to the noise; in the other it is used with reference to the _words spoken_, which they _understood not_. So it is said, they heard them not. Can you hear a man speaking in a dead language? You can hear the voice in the sense of hearing the noise, but you can't hear the voice in the sense of _hearing the language_. No man can hear a language unless he understands it in the sense of the original term.

_Your fourth case is in the following quotations_: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."--Gen. xxxii, 30. It somehow happens that my good querist in giving this quotation refers me to the 31st chapter, which is wrong again. He says he has taken advice, and has read the contexts. Well, perhaps he has. But this is the second mistake _any way_. The first is reference to the wrong book. The second is reference to the wrong chapter. How is this?

Our querist's contrary is, however, in these words, "No man hath seen God at any time."--John's Record i, 18. Our friend, proposing these contradictions for my consideration, says he has "given himself the trouble to investigate;" has "read the context in connection with each quotation, and still they are not clear," yet for the last quotation he refers me to 1 John iv, 12. Well, well; how shall we understand this? And how shall we harmonize the quotations? Well, "No man hath seen _God_ at any time"--this is true, for he is "the King Eternal, immortal, _invisible_, whom no man hath seen" with the literal eye, "_nor can see_." This teaching is positive and pointed, but in ancient times even "those to whom the word of God was sent were called gods." So said Jesus. The one Jacob saw was called a man. And again, there was a messenger--an angel, if you please--that bore Jehovah's name upon him. (See Exodus xxiii, 21, _and context_.) This was the angel of God's presence. "The angel of his presence saved them."--Isaiah lxiii, 9. God's great messenger bore his name. Men saw him, the angel, and seeing him saw God, for this angel was God with them--God's representative bearing his name. This angel God, or angel having God's name in him, talked with Moses. Moses saw him, and it is truthfully said that Moses saw God, that is, saw this angel whose name was that of God. "And when forty years were transpired there appeared to him, Moses, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him." * * * * * This (Moses) is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spoke to him in the Mount Sinai and with our fathers, etc. Moses went up into Sinai and saw God, but it was simply the angel that bore his name--the angel of his presence. That is all there is of it. I once sat in a church-house in Logansport when there were present representatives from different states in our Union, and a gentleman made a little address and introduced them to the audience, saying, Ohio is here, Iowa is here, Kentucky is here, Illinois is here, California is here. How was this? Well, those men were messengers from those states, and their presence was the presence of those several states. Just so the angel of God's presence was with Moses; and Stephen said, _with our fathers_. The presence of this angel was the presence of God, and they who saw him saw God, for this angel's name was _God_, or, in other words, "God's name was in him." But the God whose name this angel bore, and whose name even men bore who were called Gods, because to them the word of God was sent, and they, having God's word, were his representatives, _has not been seen at any time, neither indeed can be with literal eyes_.

N.B.--Friends who wish to engage our attention and space must remember the important rule among editors, and send their name along with their requests and articles.

SOME THINGS THAT NEED THOUGHT.

It has been said of past nations, that side by side have grown in their midst the elements both of greatness and of ruin. There is one phase of our society, as Americans, which is more to be dreaded than all others known to the philosophic mind, that is the reckless licentiousness which characterizes many politicians during political campaigns.