Chapter 3

Geology is exercising a wonderful influence on the side of religion in the minds of those who are acquainted with its facts. In the hands of Miller it gives a very decisive answer against the evolution hypothesis, which is by no means a new speculation. It was, in its general form, a very prominent doctrine of the Epicurean philosophy. "The author of the 'Vestiges,' with Professor Oken, regarded the experiment of the formation of cells in albumen by electric currents as the leading fact of the system." They claimed that currents of electricity in the earth's surface generated and vitalized the cells, and that all organic life thus originated. There is nothing to save this speculation, when it is undressed, from contempt. "The only patronage it ever received grew out of the fact that there is a species of superstition which causes people to take upon credit whatever assumes the name of science, and is opposed to the old superstition of faith in witches and ghosts." With this speculation before us, seemingly plausible, yet false, being fraught with error, we are reminded of the fact that it has been eagerly embraced by many who seem to think that it has a firm foundation in the science of Geology, which they regard as presenting the order in which created beings appeared. The author of the "Vestiges" claims that the first step in the creation of life upon our earth was a _chemico-electric_ operation, forming simple germinal vesicles. Page 155.

This is an item wholly unknown in the geological record and lies before the beginning of any kind of similitude alluded to in this article. "The idea which I form of the progress of organic life upon our earth," says the author of the Vestiges, "is that the simplest and most primitive type gave birth to the type next above it, and this again produced the next higher, and so on to the very highest." Page 170.

On account of the mere similitude existing between the doctrine of progressive creation, as it is set forth in the geological record, and the idea of progressive evolutions, as claimed by the advocates of the speculation, we deem it our duty to scrutinize severely the teachings of geology. But in doing this we do not concede that there is no other ground upon which such authors may be successfully met. There is no one point in their system which is not hypothetical. It is a system of _ifs_. There is no proof, in any single instance, that a higher has been developed from a lower species; but the question, in proper shape, is this: Has there been a succession of improvements from one geological period to another in the several divisions of the animal and vegetable kingdoms amounting to a change of species? Species are very similar in structure and capable of some improvement, but this is no evidence of the higher being developed from the lower. It is well known that the lowest forms are those found lowest in the geological series. Commencing at the bottom and running up we find, first, mollusks, then fishes, reptiles, birds, quadrupeds, monkeys, and at last man. But this does not, by any means, settle the issue. The question naturally arises whether one of those divisions, on its first appearance, was of the lowest organization of its class and reached the highest by a gradual development through successive geological periods. The geological testimony is this: First, there were no animals having any structural resemblance to the fishes prior to their creation, and when they appear they are already in possession of the highest organization and the largest cerebral development.

During the long periods of geological history there has been no advance in this class of animals. The science testifies to no successive steps here. "They stood at the head of the icthyic division at the outset; but there has been, during these periods, a progressive _degeneracy_, so that though all possessed a high organization at first, there is found in the after creations a _succession of lapses_ until the division of fishes now contains species ranking little above the earth-worm." "A single well defined placoid fossil in the Bala limestone as fully proves the existence of placoid fishes, during the period of its deposition, as if the rock were made up of placoid fossils, for it is not a question of numbers, but of rank." The question, now, comes home to us with all its force, how did fishes of this high order come to exist before any of the inferior class? Let some of our evolution savans answer.

The same thing may be said of other organic divisions. It has gone to record that the shell-fish of the Silurian system are the lowest division of the molluscous animals. While the statement is received as true, it must be remembered that there is some diversity of structure in this lower division, and that the earliest molluscs are not the lowest, but the highest in the division. The most important point, however, is, that while Brachiopoda were most abundant, the highest molluscs existed also, their remains being found in the Bala limestone, which is the lowest bed of molluscous fossils. (See Silurian System, p. 308.) The number of these higher species is not important. They existed, few or many, as early as any other of the mollusca. If the lower had not an anterior existence, the higher were not developed from them. It is also a conclusive argument against the system, that while the intermediate mollusca are very numerous, the cephalopoda, which were so early introduced, and are the higher forms that were so numerous at certain times, are now narrowed down to a few species.

Lyell was the first to drop a word of caution against "inferring too hastily from the absence of mammalian fossils in the older rocks that the higher class of vertebrata did not exist in those remote times." "The remains of vertebrate animals are already found in the lowest fossiliferous rocks, and, in addition to that, the highest forms of each class appear first."

There is nothing so well evinced in all the realms of scientific investigation as the utter impossibility of getting, by the light of nature, away from the idea of the Christian's God. _Everywhere_ we trace his footsteps. Traveling through the ages to the beginning, in thought, our first view is that of "an unlimited expanse of unoccupied space," or, if aught exists, it lies hidden in the invisible state. But all at once, as if by magic, and in obedience to the will of the Eternal Intelligence, the invisible becomes visible, worlds exist and become obedient to law. The divine perfections are to be displayed through future ages. And now, if we look out upon the surging billows of the ocean, our mind swells with the thought that God is there in all his majesty. With our thoughts confined to our earth we pass from age to age tracing the divine power from the laws of motion to chemical action and crystallization, until we behold a wonderful change upon the face of nature. And now, for the first time, a new principle is manifested, a new order springs into being--it is vegetable life and being in all its lovely grandeur. It matters not to us whether it came about gradually or all at once, for wisdom is there. All nature seems to turn to this new principle. "The elements of the inorganic world are subserving the purposes of organic life." The Creator has bound them to organic life. Every plant selects its food from the elements of earth by a chemistry of its own. The atmosphere around us is no less to the vegetable kingdom than a great pasture field. Every leaf is feasting, and every fiber is touched by the light. What wonderful correlations meet us at every turn! What adaptation of means to ends! Above all the beauty and grandeur of the vegetable kingdom we find the glorious animal, with man at the head, as lord over all below him. With man the moral government of God begins; physical creation is over. The subsequent manifestations of the divine glory are to be realized in the training and discipline of men and women as moral beings; and their mutual association with him, in the eternal world, is the ultimate.

C. R.

PANTHEISM IS DECEPTION AND HYPOCRISY.

"Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall he be not correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?"--Psalm xciv, 8, 9.

Pantheism, personified, is a hypocrite, a deceiver. The name God, as a proper name in the English language, means the Divine Being, Jehovah, the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator and Lord of the universe. Pantheists say they believe in God, but they tell you, when pressed, they mean by that name "everything"--_God is everything._ The term "Pantheist" is from _pan_, all, and _theos_, God. Webster defines the term thus: "One that believes the universe to be God; a name given to the followers of Spinoza."

Has any man the right to pervert language, fixing new meanings to words in common use which are in direct opposition to established usage? The man who knows the meaning of a word and uses it in a contrary sense is guilty of an abuse of language; and if he fails to make known the fact that he is using the term in a sense differing from established usage, he is, then, a deceiver. Pantheists are simply Atheists in disguise, the only difference being in their professions. The Pantheist says, "I believe in a God;" but this saying is only a distinction without a difference. The atheist is the frank, outspoken man of the two.

What must we think of the man who says, "I believe in God," and then explains himself to mean, by the name God, heat, steam, electricity, force, animal life, the soul of man, magnetism, mesmeric force, and, in one word, the sum of all the intelligences and forces in the universe, at the same time denying the proper currency of the term God by denying the existence of a personal God. All Christians should demand that Christian terms be used in their own proper currency. But infidels will always do as they have hitherto, will often get out of their own "ruts," by the most perfect abuse of language. They can not, it seems, leave off the use of language which is only appropriate to the Christian idea. Their divinity, by their own confession, differs essentially from God, and let them use a different word to describe it. Let them do like their heathen brethren in India, call it Brahma, or whatever else they please, and cease "stealing Heaven's livery to serve the devil." Let them cease to profane religion and offend common sense by giving the name of the glorious Father of Spirits to their million-headed nondescript. Pantheism dethrones Jehovah and places no other intelligence in his place as Creator and Ruler of the universe; and, being conscious of the odium that necessarily attaches itself to Atheism, on account of its everlasting foolishness, they steal the name of God to cloak their Atheism.

_Pantheism is demoralizing._ It cuts a man loose from all the sanctions of moral law, by denying the resurrection, the judgment and the future retribution. It annihilates from the mind of its votary the idea of God's moral government. If man, as it avows, be the highest intelligence in the universe of worlds, to whom will he render an account? Who will call upon him to answer? If men and women are simply developments of God, will God be offended with himself? "Evil is good," we are told, "in another way, we are not skilled in." See the author of "Representative Men," Festus, page 48. "Evil" was held by some of the old heathen philosophers to be "good in the making." They argued that it was the carrion in the sunshine, converting into grass and flower. And then, to apply their figure, man in the brothel, jail, or on gibbets, is in the way to all that is lovely and true. Such reminds us of the ravings of lunatics. It is the climax of profanation of the moral government of God. Let those who fear no God, but have wives and children and property to lose, reflect upon the propriety of lending their influence to a system fraught with such consequences. The system positively denies the distinction between good and evil. It declares that we can not sin; that we are God, and God can not offend against himself; that sin is all simply an old lie; that impiety, immorality and vice of frightful mien are wedded in eternal decrees, and that man can not sever them.

_Pantheism is veiled Atheism._ It is not necessary to argue this proposition at length. Pantheists often speak of the great being, which, according to Pantheism, is composed of all the intelligences of the universe. Can any man conceive of such a being? Can intelligences be piled one upon another, like brick and mortar, and thus be compounded? And if my spirit be the highest intelligence in the universe, did it create itself? Does it govern itself? Did it create the universe? Does it govern it? Some Pantheists have gone to this length! M. Comte says: "At this present time, for minds properly familiarized with true astronomical philosophy, the heavens display no other glory than that of Hipparchus, or Kepler, or Newton, and of all who have helped to establish these laws." "Establish these laws!" They were laws governing the planets thousands of years before these astronomers were born.

Pantheists often express very high respect for the Christian religion. Some of the more vulgar sort, however, speak of it as a superstition. But the wiser ones have reached the perfection of Jesuitism, that is to say, they indulge in hypocrisy and deception to effect a purpose. They grant that the Christian religion is the highest development of humanity yet attained by a majority of the race. The heathen of every grade of character, and the Christian, with all others who may not be classified by us with either, are all, in their scheme, so many successive developments of humanity. It is a trick of their trade to clothe their abominations in Bible language by wresting the Scriptures. They speak of the "beauty of holiness in the mind, that surmounted every idea of a personal God;" and of "God dwelling in us, and his love perfected in us," when they maintain that he dwells in every creature and thing. They say they can accept the Bible--that is their phrase--notwithstanding it pronounces death upon the fools who, "professing to be wise, change the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator," as a mystic revelation of the Pantheism which leaves us to "erect everything into a God," provided it is none, inasmuch as "every product of the human mind is a development of Deity." So the Bible, in the conclusion of their system, is on a level with Thomas Paine's writings as respects inspiration and origin. The great Pantheistic divinity is spoken of by Pantheists as the great soul of the universe, while the more materialistic look upon it as the universe itself, body and soul. With them the soul is the fountain of all the imponderable forces, vegetable and animal life, the mesmeric influences, galvanism, magnetism, electricity, light and heat; and the body the sum of all the ponderable substances; in one word, "God is everything, and everything is God." This system is called "Monotheistic Pantheism." It is a vast generalization of everything into a higher unity, which exalts men and paving stones, and cats, dogs and reptiles, and monkeys, to the same level of God-head, or divinity. Man, the soul of men, as the system would term it, is the greatest manifestation of the divine essence. Yes! DIVINE ESSENCE! for, with Pantheists, there is no _personal_ hereafter. This system of Pantheism is an old, worn-out theory; it has putrefied and rotted with the worshippers of cats, monkeys, and holy cows and bulls, and pieces of sticks and stones on the Ganges more than two thousand years ago. It is now dragged up from the dung-hill and presented as a new discovery of modern philosophy, sufficient to supplant the Ruler of the universe. How strange it is that men of ordinary intelligence will embrace the idea, rather than submit to the dictates of conscience and the Bible! This world of ours is not an abstraction in philosophy that consists of one simple substance called matter, nor yet of one substance, for there are many different material substances, such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, aluminum and iron, and more than fifty others already discovered.

Now, let us suppose that all these elements or substances existed as a cloud of atoms millions of ages in the past; are we, then, any nearer the solution of the great problem of world making than we were before? The atoms must be material, for a material world is to be made of them; and they must have extension; each one of them must have length, breadth and thickness; and, as inertia is a property of each and every atom, the Pantheist has only multiplied the difficulty by millions, for matter can not begin, _of itself_, to move. Did the dead atoms dance about and jumble themselves together as we now find them? Is the one substance theory correct? Monotheistic Pantheism _is scientifically false in fact_. Some of these men who tell us of a world without an intelligence in the past, who have such implicit confidence in the powers of matter, tell us, that "millions of ages" in the past the world existed as a great cloud of fire mist, which, after a long time cooled down into granite; and this, by dint of earthquakes, broke up on the surface, and washed with rain until, after ages upon ages had passed, clays and soil were formed, from which plants, of their own accord, sprang up without a germ; in other words, germs came into being spontaneously and grew up, as we see them, developed in all their grandeur. This chance life, somehow, chanced to assume animal form and fashion until, in the multitude of its changes it reached the fashion of the monkey; and then, at last, the fashion of man, both male and female. Truly, the Atheists and Pantheists of our country need not complain of any want of power to believe while such is their basis of faith upon the subject of world making. But they, to avoid the difficulty that nothing made something, tell us "the fire mist was eternal," that it did not make itself. Very well, let us have it that way; then we must be allowed to ask, how an eternal red hot mist cooled off? And also what there was to cool it, when it was all there was, and it was red hot, and always had been? In other words, how could an eternal red hot cool down without something else in existence to cool it? Why should it cool at all? And why did it begin to cool just when it did? The utmost that any scientist can do is to show that such a change took place, but he can not tell you why it took place. Change _it did_! But change is an effect, and requires a cause. And, according to their theory, there could be no cause outside of the fire mist; for they say there was nothing else in the universe. Then the cause was inside of the fire mist. But how can red hot cool when all there is, is red hot? Had this first mist, to say nothing of organic life, a mind? Did it become sensible and resolve to cool off a little, and settle itself into orderly worlds? What became of its mind? Did it divide, and a part go to each planet? Has each planet a great "soul of the world," as well as our earth? If so, had we not as well build an altar to each planet and go back to the religion of our banana-fed ancestors, who burned their children alive in sun worship?

The Christian religion is so fearfully demoralizing (?) that it is a great pity that these Godless, Christless souls called Pantheists and Atheists can't get some solution of the great problem of world-making that would dispense with the Bible. How well they could get along if--if--if--they only had this great question settled.

"IN GOD WE TRUST."

SUBSTANCE OR SUBSTANCES--WHICH?

OR,

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND MIND.

"_Substance_ is that which is and abides;" "that which subsists of or by itself; that which lies under qualities; that which truly is--or _essence_." "It is opposed to _accident_." "In its logical and metaphysical sense it is that nature of a thing which may be conceived to remain when every other nature is removed or abstracted from it; the ultimate point in analyzing the complex idea of any object. _Accident_ denotes all those ideas which the analysis excludes as not belonging to the mere being or nature of the object." It is said that our first idea of _substance_ is, possibly, derived from the consciousness of self, the conviction that, while our sensations, thought and purposes are changing, we continue the same. "We see bodies also remaining the same as to quantity or extension, while their color and figure, their state of motion or rest may be changed." It has also been said that _substances_ are either primary, that is singular, individual _substances_; or secondary, that is genera, and species of _substance_.

Substances have been divided into complete and incomplete, finite and infinite. But it is to be remembered that these are merely divisions of being. Substance is properly divided into matter and spirit, or that which is extended and that which thinks.

"The foundation principle of substance is that law of the human mind by which every quality or mode of being is referred to a substance," or the consciousness of a cause for every effect. "In everything which we perceive or can imagine as existing, we distinguish two parts, qualities variable and multiplied; and a being one and identical; and these two are so united in thought that we can not separate them in our intelligence, nor think of qualities without a _substance_." So it is a self-evident or first truth, that there is a subjective or inner man which thinks, reflects and reasons, for memory recalls to us the many modes of our mind; its many qualities and conditions. What variety of mental conditions have we not experienced? These are all so many evidences of an internal _substance_ that we call spirit. That spirit is to be distinguished from thought as cause is from effect is evident; and also from matter lying in the accident or quality of body, is certain, from the fact of its being subject to such rapid and instantaneous changes of condition. Amidst all the different modes, qualities, or accidents of mind, we believe ourselves to be the same individual being; and this conviction is the result of that law of thought which always associates qualities with things.