The problem of problems, and its various solutions; or, Atheism, Darwinism and theism

-^— -y^

i

THE

PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS,

AND ITS

VARIOUS SOLUTI0Nif;i '■ V'V; '

OR, ^\ : l^-A'

ATHEISM, DAlflwiNISM, AND THEISM.

By CLARK BRADEX,

PRESIDENT OF ABINGDON COLLEGE, ILLINOIS,

CINCINNATI:
CHASE &c HAI^L, PUBLISHERS.

1877.

TYNDALL'S

SlTATEiffiTOPM'HE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS.

'WUajfe kre'thekiore and essence of the Evolution Hypothesis?
Strip it naf:e(T,'sAd you will stand face to face with the notion that,
not alone the more ignoble forms of auimalcular and animal life —
not alone the noble forms of the horse and the lion — not alone
the wonderful and exquisite mechanism of the human body, but
the mind itself— emotion, intelligence, and will, were once latent
in a fiery cloud. At the present moment, all our philosophy, all
our poetry, all our science, all our art — Plato, Shakespeare, New-
ton, and Raphael, are potential in the fires of the sun.

THENEWYORK"

PUBLIC LIBRARY

Tyndall.

A8T0i^, LENOX
1897.

■^ rmtm
< AN.U I

COPYRIGHTED BY CLARK BR ADEN, 1876.

CONTENTS.

Chapter. Pask.

Introduction V

I. Statement of the Problem 13

II. Data that must be used in Solving the Problem and in testing the Sol-
ution 1 3r>

III. Various Solutions of the Problem 63

^^^--— IV. Relations of lieligion and Science and Tendencies of the various hy-
potheses of Evolution 89

V. Fallacies and Failures of Atheistic and Evolution Hypotheses and

solutions 112

VI. The Theislic Soiutiou 22G

SUPPLEMENT.

VII. Science and the Fundamental Ideas of Keligion 342

VIII. Progress and the Permanence of Religion 370

APPENDIX.

Tyudall's Statement of the Evolution Hypothesis 374

Anthropomorphism of Scientists 374

Objections to the Nebular Hypothesis... 375

— The Propaganda of Atheistic Scientists 376

~ls the God Idea an Intuition? 379

Involution before Evolution 379

— Three Ways of getting rid of Intelligence in Evolution 3S0

— -Reasons why certain tribes have been called Atheistic 381

Another Subterfuge of Evolutionists 381

Matter and Force not Self-existent, but creations of mind 382

— ^-The First Cause not Unknown and Unknowable 388

Underwood's Reductio ad Absvirdum 392

Is Religion a Perversion of Man's Nature? 396

— Can Physical Science and Evolution give Morality? 398

Draper's Conflict of Religion and Science 400

Bihlical Contradiction of Science. Mosaic Record of Creation. Noachian

Deluge. Joshua's Command 402

Absurdity of Materialism — Anecdote 410

Mill's Absurd Attempt at Wit 411

The Man with Two Wives '. 412

Mimicry of Nature 413

—^ Blind, Irrational, Insensate Matter and Force 414

Parolles and his Drum 416

Proper Tests of the Two Theories 420

Evolution Hypotheses and Copernican System ...., 421

Another Absurdity in Illustration 422

Review of Huxley's Demonstration of Evolution 423

Review of Carpenter's Fallacies of Testimony for the Supernatural 444

^ Review of an Atheistic Tract 459

__^Materialism and Christianity Contrasted 468 ■

Conclusion 477

Gii)

TO REVIEWERS AND CRITICS.

The author of this volume is aware that, writing as he has on
topics that are, above all others, matters of the sharpest contro-
versy, his work will be subjected to a searching criticism. To this
lie does not object. Indeed, he invites the most sifting examina-
tion of all he has written. He, however, has two requests to make :
The first is, that all reviewers and critics carefully read the boolj:
before they review it. If there is censure or condemnation of what
is written, let it be only after the critic understands what he con-
demns, and because he understands it.

The second request is, that the publishers of all publications,
noticing and reviewing the book, and all writers reviewing it, send
one copy of the ])ublication containing such review to the author,
at Abingdon, Knox County, Illinois. The author is especially
anxious to receive all publications containing adverse criticisms,
and replies to positions and statements of the 'book. It will aid
him in his own search for the truth.

Clark Braden.

INTEODUOTIOlSr.

Every book has a life and history as real and often as interest-
ing as that of the author, for generally it is but a transcript of
the soul-life of the author. The most successful books have been
those that grew out of and portrayed the life experience and
struggles of the author. In works of a polemic character, like
the present volume, the most successful and useful have been
those in which the author reproduces his own doubts and striv-
ings for the truth and conflicts with error, and the means by
which he emerged out of them. The present book has grown out
of a life's experience. Beginning life in a community saturated
with Puritanic influences, and reared in the most implicit belief
of the Scriptures, at the early age of fourteen, the author began
to have those doubts and questions of head and heart incident to
thoughtful youth. Through them he passed into a state of skep-
ticism; and the flrst notoriety he acquired as a public speaker was
as lecturer and debater on the skeptical side of the religious
topics then agitating the minds of the community in which he
lived. In the good providence of God, at the age of twenty-four,
he met a preacher, now enjoying the rewards of eternal life, who
had had a similar experience. By him he was led to a confession
of Christ, and he began a Christian life. Immediately he was
called upon to advocate the cause he had now espoused, and
especially to discuss the views he once defended. He did this in
sermons and lectures, and especially in public debates with repre-
sentatives of skepticism in its various forms. With them he has
held twelve public oral discussions, and one written discussion in
the columns of a public journal.

For a number of years, at the request of churches of all de-
nominations, and of communities, the author has lectured on
these topics. In numerous papers and magazines he has also
written largely on them. His personal experience has given him

(v)

VI INTRODUCTION.

special advantages and training for the work he undertakes in
this vohmie. His own skepticism and doubt have given him an
insight into the springs, motives and reliances of skepticism, that
can be gained only by personal experience. As a lecturer and
debater, he has had to meet the best that can be said on the side
of skepticism, concerning the topics discussed in this volume. He
has been continually called on to answer the objections and ques-
tions of the skeptic, and to solve the troubles of the puzzled
believer. He has a number of times had his arguments in de-
fense of what he conceived to be the truth, canvassed by the
ablest skeptical minds of our country. He has been compelled,
by the demands of his work, to study for years, all that he could
collect on these topics, and as only those study who have been
compelled to make these topics a specialty that they may defend
the truth. For a number of years he has been urged to w^rite out
and publish his lectures on these topics, and especially the ones
discussed in this volume. In compliance with the request of
many of his own and other denominations, he has written this
book, in the hope that it will aid the cause of truth in the great
struggle that is now agitating this and other lands. He has been
impelled to write the book, by a conviction that of all the multi-
tude of books written not one meets a real want felt by himself
and others. He has endeavored to give the reader w^hat he has
collected to meet his own wants.

In this volume the author endeavors, in the first chapter, to
give a concise but full view of the nature, extent and demands
of the problem, for which modern skeptical science attempts to
furnish a solution, and to give the reader a clear conception of
what must be accounted for before the problem is solved. This
has never been done completely and thoroughly, and in a con-
nected manner. Glimpses of it have been given in detached
portions in multitudes of books. In reviewing the assertions and
assumptions of skepticism, writers have occasionally pointed out
something for which the speculations of the skeptic had no solu-
tion, but the boundless proportions of the problem have never
been presented in one connected view. The result has been
that the readers of the countless productions of modern
skepticism, having no clear conception of the infinite pro-
portions of the problem, have readily and easily accepted the
strange and startling phenomena collected by Darwin and
others, and the plausible speculations they base on them, as
a full solution of the infinite problem of the universe. Then the

INTRODUCTION. vii

first thing to be clone is to place clearly before the reader the
infinite proportions and demands of the problem, for which the
speculations of the materialistic scientist are offered as a pre-
tended solution, that he may clearly apprehend its extent and
nature, and by a comparison of the speculations of the scientist
wi4Ji it, apprehend their flimsiness and meagerness, and appre-
ciate their utter failure as even a plausible speculation. He will
see that they have no explanation for the real difficulties of the
problem, and in fact they leave them utterly untouched. The
work attempted in the first chapter is a vital and fundamental one.
In the second chapter the author endeavors to present the
postulata and data that w^e have and must use in solving the
problem, and without which a solution is impossible. The great
principle of a true inductive philosophy, which the scientist pro-
fesses to take as his guide, is that we should carefully examine
the phenomena, being careful to include all of them, and by such
examination learn their nature and characteristics, and from
their characteristics determine their cause, using in the solution
all the phenomena and all the aids we can obtain. While pre-
tending to take human nature as his standard in his investiga-
tions and speculations, and human reason as his means of invest-
igation, the skeptical scientist ignores the religious and spiritual
element of our nature, and utterly discards the plainest utter-
ances and intuitions of the highest — the regnant element of our
nature. Then, in the second chapter, w'e insist on a full state-
ment of all the phenomena, moral, rational, religious, and spirit-
ual, as well as physical, that we may have all the data and a full
use of all the elements of our nature. This is especially im-
portant, since the elements of our nature, ignored by the scientist,
are the very ones and the only ones that can solve the problem.
The great questions of causation and creation, intelligent causa-
tion and creation, can be solved only under the guidance and
direction of pure reason, and the rational, moral, and religious
elements of our nature, and chiefly by them. We shall endeavor
to show that so long as the scientist pursues his present course he
can only inform us of the manner in which the phenomena trans-
pire, but is utterly impotent to tell what caused them and why
they transpire.

In the third chapter we attempt a brief outline of the various
solutions of the problem that have been offered for our accept-
ance. We have been careful to define evolution, development,
Darwin's hypothesis, and kindred speculations, with especial

VUl INTRODUCTION.

reference to the technical use that their advocates make of them,
that the reader may ever after be guarded against the common
blunder of confounding these analogous speculations that are
used technically in different senses. The reader has before him,
then, the different solutions, and is prepared to compare them
with the demands of the problem, and ready to examine them
and test them by means of the data furnished him by the second
chapter. In the fourth chapter the natural affinities of evolution,
development, and Darwinism are exhibited, and their tendencies
clearly pointed out, that all may understand their real nature.
In the fifth chapter we have endeavored to classify the objections
that can be urged against evolution, development, and Darwin-
ism. These have been gathered from all the different departments
of investigation, as fully as the authors ability and opportuni-
ties would permit, and classified so that the reader can see what
can be said against these arrogant speculations, for which we are
almost commanded to unship the faith of centuries and cast to
one side the universal intuitions and the highest aspirations of
the noblest and regnant element of our nature. AVe have ar-
ranged them as they would be naturally suggested in tracing the
course of evolution claimed by the materialist. We could of
course give only an outline of each objection, but we have en-
deavored to present the warp of the web of argument so clearly
that the intelligent reader will be able to supply the woof.

In the sixth chapter we have attempted a resume of the theistic
solution, adapted to the present state of the discussion and the
demands of the thought of the day. Particular attention is paid
to the objections of Spencer and others of the present time. In
the seventh chapter we have endeavored to show that modern
discovery and scientific generalization does not demand or warrant
a casting to one side of the cardinal ideas of religion; but, on the
contrary, they only amplify and establish them.

In the eighth and concluding chapter we endeavor to show that
jirogress and discovery can not outgrow a religion of general
principles and universal and eternally applicable truths. Then
if we have accomplished our purpose, we shall have led the
reader through a train of reasoning that will not only show that
the assaults of modern skeptical science (falsely so called) on our
religious nature and faith are baseless, but also show that our
faith is based on and grounded in the clearest and deepest and
strongest affirmations of the noblest and the regnant element of
our nature. The author believes that the course he has pursued

INTRODUCTION. ix

is the only logical, and of course the proper method of conducting
the examination of this problem of problems and its various solu-
tions. He has endeavored to avoid technical and scientific terms
and disquisitions, and if the reader wishes for an elaborate dis-
cussion of many of the objections urged in the book, against the
speculations of modern science, he is referred to the -svorks of
authors who have often devoted a volume to an objection, the
substance of which is here presented in a few lines.

We will conclude this introductory chapter by giving a parable
we often use to illustrate the course of the scientist, and in this
way prepare the reader for the following chapters. An amateur
in mathematics once submitted to the inspection of his friends
certain mathematical operations and equations, in which he
claimed that he had solved some of the most profound problems
in several departments of science. As they were quite intricate,
and displayed great skilly in mathematical manipulations, and as
the conclusions that he claimed he bad reached accorded with
the wishes and views of some of his friends, they eagerly ac-
cepted and appropriated them, and pressed them into use, and
extended them far beyond the claims of their author. But as
these conclusions and the use that was made of them were in
direct opposition to the most cherished views of all others, they
subjected them to a most rigid scrutiny. A skillful mathema-
tician urged the following objections:

I. In the statement of the problem, and many times in subse-
quent portions of the work, important elements were omitted
either through ignorance or were intentionally ignored and
rejected.

II. Many and vital points are assumed in the premises on which
the work is based, for which no proof is offered or attempted,
and they are the very things that should above all else be proved.

III. Others are assumed that are susceptible of but little proof,
scarcely enough to render them probable.

IV. Others are assumed that are worthless because many grave
and insuperable objections can be urged against them.

V. Others are assumed that are clearly and palpably untrue.

VI. In the manipulation of the equations, and in the reasoning
often the things that stood most in need of proof were assumed,
and evidently because they were necessary to establish the con-
clusion.

VII. Often there was no connection between different parts of
the work, or between premises and conclusions.

X INTRODUCTION'.

VIII. Finally, vastly more \Yas claimed in the conclusion than
was included in the x)remises or rea:;oning, or established by the
reasoning, even if these were all conceded to be correct. Such
were the objections of the mathematician.

A chemist objected that the operator had ignored the teach-
ings of chemistry in certain parts of his work, and the very
principles that were needed to enable him to prosecute his
investigations. Without them, investigation was impossible,
and unless controlled by them the results must be absurd. An
adept in natural philosophy objected that certain assump-
tions in the work and the conclusions contradicted some of
the most palpable and clearly established fticts of natural
philosophy. A physiologist objected that the mathematician
had presumed, by his manipulations of mathematical symbols,
to decide some of the gravest problems in physiology, when
his work had no connection with these problems. Not only
this, but while presuming thus to decide what was utterly
foreign to his work, he had deliberately ignored or denied the
fundamental principles of physiology, and had rejected its funda-
mental methods, and the only methods by which investigation
could be conducted in trying to solve these problems. Irritated
and chagrined by these damaging criticisms of his hobby, and
these attacks on the bantling of his brain, the author attempted
to overawe his mathematical critic by an assumption of superior
mathematical knowledge and by dogmatic assertions. His critic
coolly replied that be his superior knowledge ever so great it
could not remove one particle of one of his objections. They
were unanswered and unanswerable. The author attempted
to silence the chemist, physicist, and physiologist by quoting to
them the old adage — Ne sutor ultra ciepidam; ''Let not the cob-
bler get above his last." They retorted, "But these things are our
last, and pre-eminently our last. You are the one that has vio-
lated his own rule. Do you stick to your last? A mere mathe-
matician, you have presumed, by your equations, to decide ques-
tions that are utterly foreign to them, and that can have no
l)ossible connection with them. You presume to settle the
gravest questions in our departments, while most presumptuously
ignoring their plainest facts and fundamental methods and prin-
ciples." But enamored by a certain mathematical skill displayed
in the manipulation of the symbols, and inclined by their preju-
dices to accept the conclusions claimed, because they accorded
with their preconceived notions, certain jiarties persisted in laud-

INTRODUCTION. XI

ing the work thus criticised as the ne plus; ultra of science and
truth, and chiimed that its assumptions and begged conclusions
were the clearest of truth. In like manner we think it can he
shown that the speculations known as evolution and Darwinism
are open to the following objections:

I. In the first steps in the investigation, and all through the
investigation, important elements, vital factors, are omitted,
either through ignorance or they are deliberately ignored and
rejected.

II. Many things are assumed in the premises on which they are
based, of which there is no proof.

III. Others are assumed that are not susceptible of proof.

IV. Others are assumed that have hardly enough proof to
render them even probable.

V. Others are assumed that are worthless on account of grave
and often insuperable objections that are urged against them.

VI. Still others are assumed that are most palpably untrue.

VII. Often in the course of reasoning, the very things to be
proved, and that need to be proved above every thing else, are
quietly assumed.

VIII. Often the things thus assumed are the things needed to
establish the conclusion, and are evidently assumed because they
are thus necessary to the predetermined conclusion.

IX. Often in the course of reasoning there is no connection
between different parts of the process, or between the premises
and conclusion.

X. Finally, infinitely more is claimed in the conclusion than
is contained in the premises or the reasoning or proved by the
speculations, even if all these assumptions and speculations be
conceded to be entirely true. Such are the objections that can
be urged to the methods of what now arrogantly appropriates to
itself the exclusive use of the term science.

The student of mental philosophy and psychology can object
that the fundamental methods and principles of mental philos-
ophy and psychology are utterly ignored — the only principles
and methods by which certain portions of the investigation can
be conducted. It is sheer folly to even attempt an investigation,
except in accordance with these methods. The moralist can
object that some of the clearest and most palpable truths and
facts of mentaland moral philosophy and phenomena are flatly
contradicli ■'; with an assurance that would be sublime if it were
not so absurd. Tlie psycliologist can urge the same objection.

X 1 1 I NTRODUCTION .

Some of the clearest and most palpable facts and phenomena of
psychology are flatly denied by these men of science, so called.
The religionist can object that the scientist presumes to decide
by his methods and speculations some of the gravest problems in
morals and religion, when his investigations and methods and
the facts he reaches by them, have absolutely no connection with
them ; and he utterly ignores and rejects the plainest truths and
facts of mental and moral philosophy and religion. The scientist
ignores and rejects the plainest principles and methods of mental
and moral philosophy and religion, and denies their clearest and
plainest facts and phenomena, and rejects the only principles and
methods by which investigation can be conducted in these depart-
ments of science, and yet presumes to decide the gravest prob-
lems in these departments, by his methods arid facts, that have no
more connection with them than the rules of grammar have with
the manipulation of mathematical equations. If we urge on the
scientist the consideration of the ten objections we have enumer-
ated above, and array hundreds of illustrations of them, we are
met with an assumption of vast superiority in scientific knowl-
edge. Do n't Darwin and Huxley and Tyndall and Wallace and
that school of scientists know? What right have religious men
or priests to question their deductions, no matter how many facts
can be urged against them ? It matters not how much they may
know, their knowledge can not set to one side palpable facts. It
is bootless for the scientist to scream at the student of mental or
moral philosophy or religion, "Ne sutor ultra crepidam^^ for his
speculations embrace questions that are peculiarly and pre-
emi"tiently the last of the students of these departments. It is
the scientist that violates with the coolest effrontery the very
nuixim he so superciliously quotes to others. The careful atten-
tion and clearest scrutiny of the reader is invited to the follow-
ing chapters of this book, in which we attempt to establish the
charges here made against modern skeptical science.

THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS,

ATHEISM, DARWINISM AND THEISM.

CHAPTER I.

Statement of the Problem.

One of the wise utterances of one whom his cotemporaries
declared spoke as never man spoke was, that no wise man
would begin to build a house before he had carefully calcu-
lated the cost, and no prudent monarch would rush into a war
before he had carefully calculated and compared his own
strength and that of his enemy; and no thoughtful person
will accept a solution of a problem, much less risk priceless
interests on it, until he carefully weighs the nature and de-
mands of the problem, and thoughtfully compares the pro-
posed solution with the nature and demands of the problem,
for which it claims to account. In the last illustration used
by the Christ an army might make an imposing display, and
accomplish much in certain cases, but it would be utterly in-
adequate to cope with an army twice its own strength. If its
commander did not understand and appreciate the strength of
his enemy, he would certainly be undeceived when too late,
and meet with disaster on the field of conflict, In like
manner, if persons do not understand and appreciate the full
extent and demands of the problem for which the physicist of
to-day undertakes to give a solution, they will be apt to be be-
wildered by the strange and startling phenomena presented by
the physicist, and the plausible speculations of evolution, de-

(13)

14 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

velopment, and Darwinism presented by him, and led to ac-
cept them as a full solution of the infinite problem of the
universe. Then let us begin by endeavoring to array before
our minds the phenomena, and endeavor to grasp the infinite
demands of the problem, for which the advocates of these
speculations, either directly or by implication, claim they are
a full solution.

One obstacle in the way of a proper comprehension of the
vastness and difficulty of the problem, is that by constant
contact with the phenomena of nature, and the familiarity
arising from such constant contact with its most inscrutable
processes, we have lost all apprehension and appreciation of
their vastness, their intricacy, and their wonderful mysteries.
We have, from the first dawn of observation, witnessed con-
tinually transpiring before our eyes, almost unheeded, the
most wonderful and mysterious operations of nature, and have
never thought perhaps how vast, how w^onderful, and how
mysterious they are. It is only by a careful and thoughtful
survey o^ them that our minds can be aroused to apprehend,
even partially, the infinity in number, the vastness in extent,
and the inscrutable mystery in method, of the processes of
nature, for which the physicist attempts to account by the-
ory, speculation, and hypothesis. Let us then marshal before
us nature in all her various forms, and hold communion with
her, and endeavor to prepare ourselves for an apprehension
of the problem before us. When we look out on the world
around us, we see production, reproduction, growth, develoj)-
ment, decay, and dissolution ever transpiring in every de-
partment of nature. As we pass downward in the scale of
being, we descend from the wonderful processes of animal and
vegetable life, through simpler forms, into chemical organiza-
tion and mere mechanical and mineral arrangement of matter,
and mere mechanical displays of force, until we are led back
to the first constitution of things. The physicist assures us
that all that we now see is the result of evolution, develop-
ment, and progression. If so, it must have had a beginning.
Let us then, as far as we can, divest ourselves of our con-
ceptions of the universe as we now see it in its order and

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 15

]iarinony of arrangement and organization, and endeavor to
form some conception of the beginning, the first constitution
of such a course of evolution and progression. When we
have placed ourselves at this stand-point, let us trace the
course of development claimed by the physicist, and en-
deavor to aj^prehend, as far as possible, all the details of the
problem — all that has to be accounted for before the problem
is solved.

At the very outset, before we can begin our investigation,
or form a conception of the beginning of this course of evo-
lution, we encounter this question of questions: What is the
origin, the beginning of all things ? It is a favorite maxim
of the physicist. Ex nihilo nihil fit — "Out of nothing nothing
comes," hence something must have existed forever, and been
self-existent, independent, and self-sustaining. This axiom
of the physicist we will implicitly accept. Then there are
open to us but two alternatives. Either blind, irrational, in-
scn.sate matter, and blind, irrational physical force, are
eternal, self-existent, independent, and self-sustaining; or ra-
tional force, mind or spirit is eternal, self-existent, independ-
ent, and self-sustaining. The physicist takes the former al-
ternative. He has mere chaos without law, order, property,
constitution, co-ordination, adjustment, adaptation, or plan.
We have an universe pervaded by chaotic matter and chaotic
force. Whether this force would be attractive or repellant,
latent or active, constructive or destructive, we know not.
Again we have a grave problem in forming our first concep-
tion of this force. Is physical force self-active? Is there
self-activity or spontaneity in physical force? We recognize
spontaneity only in mind force. Again, as we look on matter,
we i-ecognize in it certain essential properties, so essential
that we can not conceive of its existence without them. They
are extension, form, density, impenetrability, rarity, mallea-
bility, ductility, elasticity, porosity, and inertia. If we
place ourselves back of the first constitution of things, we
can not conceive of matter as existing without them. Then
we have to make these properties eternal, if we make matter
eternal. If these properties, the primordial factors of the

16 THI-: PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

jirogressiuu tliut the physicist claims, be eternal, then the
jn-ogressiqn that he claims they produce must be eternal. If
eternal, it must become*perfect in an eternity. But iC is not
perfect, hence it had a beginning, and the matter of which
these properties are the essential properties, is not eternal,
and had a beginning. But even if we concede the eter-
nity of matter and these properties, we have but a turbulent
chaos, a fortuitous clashing together of atoms, without order,
system, or law. Then we can not conceive of the existence
of matter without these essential forces — attraction, repul-
sion, adhesion, 'cohesion, heat, electricity, chemical action, and
affinity, and crystallization. If we place ourselves back of
the first constitution of matter, we can not conceive of it as
existinp; without these forces. It matters not whether we re-
gard these forces as difterent forces, or as difterent manifesta-
tions of one force, we can not conceive of matter as existing
without them.

Even if we should attempt to hold in conception that non-
descrijDt, unthinkable something-nothing, matter without prop-
erties or force, as existing from eternity, we have only in-
creased the difficulty. If " out of nothing, nothing comes,"
whence came these properties and these forces when they
came into being? If latent in matter until progression began,
Avhence came the impulse that commenced their activity?
Here is another grave objection. If these properties were
latent or inactive, then there is no spontaneity or self-activity
in them. There is no inherent self-evolving activity in them,
as the physicist claims. Then matter and force must have
had a beginning. If not, how did they exist for an eternity
without acting on each other? If they acted on each other
in a progression during an eternity, they would have resulted
in a perfect system. Then the eternity of matter and phys-
ical force, necessary as a basis for the progression claimed by
the physicist, is an impossibility. Next we find in matter over
sixty elementary substances, known as the original element
of matter. Whence came they? Were they eternal, or was
homogeneous matter at some time charged into them? Whence
came their number and their proportion to each other?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 17

Then we have to account for the co-ordiiiatioii, adjustment,
and adaptation of these elementary substances and the
forces we see in matter, and the essential properties of matter
to each other. There has to be co ordination, adaptation,
and adjustment of all these to each other, and laws as to
when they shall act, where they shall act, how they shall act,
how long and how often they shall act, and in what order and
in what succession they shall act. We know all this is ad-
justed in exact mathematical proportion, and in accordance
with exact mathematical law. After all this assumption, and
after we have passed over all these difficulties, we have only
mineral and mechanical combination, such as would produce
homogeneous masses, or mere mechanical mixtures.

As Ave proceed upward from this we encounter chemical
action, chemical affinity, and chemical compounds arising
from them. We meet with such questions as these: Were all
these sixty elementary substances once in a chaotic mechanic-
ally mixed mass or masses? Or were they once, separate in
homogeneous masses mechanically held together? If in the
latter condition, how were they ever separated and chemically
combined as they now are? If in the former condition, how
came they to be combined as we' find them now? Hydrogen
has a greater affinity for chlorine than for oxygen. Yet we
find chlorine is united with sodium, for which it has a less
affinity than for hydrogen, and hydrogen is united with oxy-
gen in water. Nitrogen has a far greater affinity for chlorine
than for oxygen, yet we find nitrogen united with oxygen in
the atmosphere, united mechanically, and chlorine with sod-
ium. How came chlorine to select sodium with which it
makes a useful compound, and nitrogen and hydrogen to se-
lect oxygen with which they make useful compounds, and
chlorine to reject nitrogen and hydrogen with which it makes
destructive compounds ? Igneous rock composes the mass of
what we know of the earth. Feldspar forms the principal
element of igneous rock. It is composed of six elements.
How came they to leave all the rest of the sixty elements,
and unite in feldspar? No chemist, with the substances sepa-
rate, can unite them and produce feldspar. Mica, another
2

18 THi: PROBLEM OF PROBLKMS.

proiiiiiuiit cleinent in iuiicous rock, lia?; tlio six elemoiits of
feldspar, ami four other?!. So has honieblende, anotlier i)ro]ii-
ineiit elcnient in iirneous rock. No chemist, with the ele-
ineiits perfect and free, can produce tliese substances. Nor
can he if he separate them from other substances in which
they may be found. If they were once mechanically mixed
in a chaotic mass, how came they to separate and unite in
these substances?

Then whence came the principles and laws of chemical
affinity ? Some of these elementary substances will select some
of the other elementary substances, and reject others. Again,
they will unite in different proportions, and make different
compounds. They will unite with two or three others, when
they will not unite singly. Compomids will unite with other
compounds, or with certain elements of other compounds, and
form entirely difierent substances. Whence came this won-
derful operation of chemical affinity? Then there are laws
for the change of forms and characteristics by heat and
chemical action. In all this, there is exact mathematical pro-
portion and law. Simple substances will unite only in defi-
nite proportions. Different proportions give entirely different
substances. Compound substances unite with certain simple
substances, or with other compound substances, or with cer-
tain elements in them, in definite mathematical projjortion.
In this way, out of sixty elementary substances, are produced
the almost infinite variety of compounds, differing from. each
other in an almost infinite number of particulars. Now the
fjuestion arises, Was all this co-ordination, adjustment, adapta-
tion and plan the result of the aimles?, purposeless action of
blind, irrational physical force on blind, irrational, insensate
matter? Do we find in such a basis sufficient ground for all
this? There are realized in this adjustment and adaptation
an<l co-ordination in chemical action, some of the highest con-
ceptions of mathematical law and proportion, and some of
the highest ideas of pure reason. Has this a sufficient basis
and ground in mere matter and physical force?

Then in the wonderful and beautiful process of crystalli-
zation, observed in all clioinical action of solids, and most

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 19

liquids, there is seen exact mathematical proportion and geo-
metrical forms. Geometry, the most abstract and purely
mental of all departments of science, the product of pure
reason, has furnished us certain beautiful forms, and the laws
of fiices and angles. The geometrical department of the
fine arts is one of the most purely ideal of all departments
of science; yet in crystallization, we find all these ideas, laws
and principles realized, as they never are in the utmost ef-
forts of man. In so common a substance as the snow, and
in so simple a formation as the snow-flake, there are to be
seen sixty-four of the most beautiful combinations of geomet-
rical forms, in crystals. In so simple, and so apparently
crude a substance, as a mass of granite, we find three unique
crystals, universally side by side, and symmetrically arranged.
Are these highest conceptions of pure reason, thus so uni-
versally and so wonderfull}^ realized in crystallization, through
all nature, the product of blind, irrational physical force, op-
erating on blind, irrational, insensate matter? And yet we
are only on the threshold of our subject. If we look out on
the universe, we see matter arranged in vast bodies — suns
and planets — with exact geometrical forms, moving in orbits
with exact geometrical forms. The masses of these bodies
bear exact mathematical relation to each other, in each sys-
tem. So also do their distances from each other, and their
velocities in their orbits. So also these masses and distances
and velocities have mutual mathematical relation. They are
arranged in systems in accordance with these laws. Second-
ary planets revolve around the primary in accordance with
mathematical law, and the primaries with the secondaries
around the central sun; and the sun, with all his attendant
orbs around him, sweeps majestically in an orbit of incon-
ceivable magnitude and in an inconceivable period of time,
around another center, and this relatively infinite system
around another center, until the mind is lost in the concep-
tion! Our problem demands an adequate solution for the
realization of these vast conceptions of pure reason in the
constitution of the universe. These mathematical and geo-
metrical ideas are the highest conceptions, the most abstract

20 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

aiKl ideal conceptions of pure reason. Is this complete real-
ization of them, in the infinite universe, the result of blind,
irrational physical force operating on blind, insensate matter?
Crravitation, and all displays of force, operate throughout this
boundless universe, co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted in ac-
cordance with exact mathematical laws, as to when, where,
how long, and how often, and in what order and succession,
and in what manner they act. Can the realization of these
highest conceptions of pure reason, throughout the vast uni-
verse, be the result of bUnd matter and force? The vastness
and the tremendous power of w^hat we have been considering
should impress all minds who investigate the problem, but
there is still left that which is more intricate and mysterious,
and that which requires even more efibrt of mind to investi-
gate it, even if it be not so overpoweringly vast and sublime.
"We have so far had only mineral organization and chemical
compounds. The most mysterious and inexplicable elements
of the problem have not, as yet, been even suggested. In
the vegetable, we have organization, growth and reproduc-
tion, and something that originates, determines and controls
this organization, growth and reproduction, and in accord-
ance with a rational plan and system. Or, at least, all this
phenomena can be interpreted and arranged in accordance
with u rational system, or our science of botany would be an
utter impossibility. That which originates, controls and de-
termines, we call vegetable life, or vital force exhibited in
vegetable life. Now, whence came it? It is not the force or
one of the forces seen in chemical action or in inorganic na-
ture, for they are destructive of this force seen in vegetable
life. About sixteen of the sixty simple elements enter into
the composition of plants. How came they to separate from
the rest of the sixty, if once united with them in a chaotic
mechanical mixture, and unite in vegetable forms? How-
came thoy to do this, when some of them have greater affin-
ity f )!• otlier elements than for any found in the vegetable
coinj)()nnd? The chemist may take these elements and unite
them with all his skill, and he can not produce the simplest
vegetable organism, or a symptom of vegetable life. On the

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 21

contrary, the action of mere physical forces, or chemical
action, on these vegetable organisms, is to destroy them, and
to decompose them. As soon as vegetable life leaves the
plant, the operation of other forces destroys its organization
and decomposes it. There is in the plant that which resists,
which overcomes these destructive tendencies, and co-ordinates
them with the growth of the plant, controls them, and makes
them subordinate to that end. Whence comes this wonderful
vital force, this wonderful jDrinciple or power of vegetable
life? Did blind, irrational physical force evolve it out of
blind, insensate matter, destitute of all such existence ? Did
matter and force, destitute of all vegetable life, evolve wdiat
is not in them, and what they destroy? Did blind, insensate
matter, so modify blind, irrational physical force, both being
destitute of vital force, as to change it into vital force? How
could it, when they are not only destitute of vital force, but
destructive of it? Did it exist forever latent and nascent in
matter, or is it created by evolution? If it was forever latent
in matter and force, how was it developed? What impulse
started the evolution? How could it exist latent in that
which is destructive of it, or be created by evolution out of
what is destructive of it? And, above all, what is meant
•by this evolution that so wonderfully creates or develops this
wonderful vital force ? Is it not made a god by such an as-
sumption ?

All human experience declares that all vegetable organiza-
tion and growth is from a vegetable cell or germ. No seed
no plants, says all human experience. Then whence came the
first seed or germ? How did the sixteen elements that are
found in vegetables separate from the rest of the sixty, out of
a chaotic mechanical mixture of these elements, or out of
chemical compounds and unite in the vegetable gierm, especi-
ally when they have a greater affinity for other elements than
for any in the germ ? Then how came they to take the exact
proportions that are found in vegetable e:erms ? No chemistry
or manipulation by science can produce the combination from
the elements, or the cellular organization or structure of the
vegetable cell or germ. Nor, above all, can chemistry originate

22 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

or evolve the life principle seen in the vegetable germ or
growth. If it is the life principle that produces the cellular
structure and growth, they can not produce or create that. If
form and cellular structure produce vital force, they can not
produce such form and structure. The problem then is, Whence
the vital force or Avhence the cellular structure? or, perhaps
more accurately, whence came both ?

- All vegetable matter is made up of cells. Whence the first
cell ? The germ is made up of cells. Was this germ in form
and cellular structure evolved out of matter, destitute of either
by blind force ; destitute of and destructive of the force mani-
fested in them and of such cellular structure or germ? But
"when we have the germ, whence came the wonderful co-ordi-
nation of matter and its properties and physical forces below
vital force, to the growth and development of the germ? How
came the force in the germ to control and co-ordinate matter
and force destructive of the germ and its growth and antagon-
istic to vital f )rce, and subordinate them to this growth and
development? Then whence came the types and varieties of
vegetable growth ; the almost infinite varieties of form, repro-
duction and products ? Whence came these results of these
processes of reproduction and growth ? Whence the almost
infinite variety of co-ordination, adaptation and adjustments to
the surroundings and to each other? It is thought that there
are over three hundred thousand varieties difl^ering from each
other in almost every one of these particulars, in almost infi-
nite diversity. AVhence came they all, and their still more
wonderful co-ordination and adaptation and adjustment to sur-
roundings and to each other, and the co-ordination of surround-
ing nature to them ? Let us take a single illustration. Cer-
tain })lants, orchids of certain species, are fertilized only by
certain insects. Certain insects, moths, perform for these
plants this process necessary to reproduction. In the plant
there are, Darwin says, traps, gins, pitfiiUs and spring guns,
and snares, to allure the moth and compel it to do this work
of carrying the pollen from one sex of the plant to the other.
Whence came this co-ordination, contrivance and wonderful
design? Tiiis is but a single specimen. Thousands, yea mil-

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 23

lions of such illustrations could be cited. ' Our problem de-
mands Whence came all this? Is all this the product of blind,
irrational matter, and blind, irrational physical force? Can
these results, Avhich require the highest efforts of master minds
to apprehend them and construe them — these results so con-
current with and analogous to the highest conceptions of rea-
son, be the result of mere blind irrational matter and force ?

But there is a still more profound mystery. An infinitely
higher step has to be taken. So far, we have but mechanical
arrangement of matter, chemical action and vegetable life.
Above and distinct from these, we encounter animal life, or a
life force capable of instinct, sensation, locomotion, and volun-
tary motion, and, to a limited extent, understanding. Whence
came this wonderful faculty or power sensation ? Was it eter-
nally latent in matter ? If it was, how was it developed? Can
we say that chaotic matter, mechanical and mineral aggre-
gations of matter, chemical compounds, or even vegetable com-
binations, have latent in them this wonderful property of sen-
sation ? It is the very caricature of all reason to say so. If
not latent in them, whence came it? If not in them, it could
not be evolved out of them. If not evolved, did blmd in-
sensate matter, and blind u-rational force create what was
not in them, and that of which they are destructive? No
chemistry can detect or evolve this wonderful principle of ani-
mal life. Nq manipulation of matter and force can produce
it. There are about sixteen substances that enter into animal
organisms. How came they to separate from the rest of the
sixty in mechanical mixtures or chemical compounds, and unite
in the animal organization, especially since they have in many
cases greater affinity with other substances not in the animal
organization, than for any in it? How came sixteen to unite
in vegetable organizations and sixteen in animal organizations?
The chemist, with all his intelligence and skill, may unite these
elements, and he can not produce one vegetable or animal cell or
structure, or one symptom of vegetable or animal life. Vege-
table life or organizations can not produce animal organization
or life, nor be transmuted into them. Vegetable substances
can be appropriated by animal organization and digested and

24 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

assimilated, hut animal lite or organization can not be evolved
out of vegetables, nor can vegetables be transmuted into ani-
mals, or made to take on or display one particle of animal life
or structure.

All animal life is from an egg or gei-m. Whence came the
egg? Experience declares it came from an organization pre-
cisely such as afterwards is evolved out of the germ. How
came the sixteen elements in the animal to unite in tlie germ?
Then each germ and all animal matter is made up of cells.
Whence came the cells ? Chemistry, with all its accumulations
of the efforts of the intelligence of thousands of years, can not,
with these elements, produce one cell, nor the germ in which
the cellular structure appears. Dr. Bastian, with his experi-
ments with the microscope, has demonstrated that vegetable
and animal cells are radically different in structure, thus plac-
ing an impassable chasm between vegetable and animal life
or organization, showing that one can not be evolved out of
the other. x-Vlso, what will develop one of these cells, the
means necessary to the development and growth of one "will
destroy the other, thus showing the utter impossibility of de-
veloping one into the other. Then whence came the aggrega-
tion of these cells into the ovum? Whence came the first
ovum? Then the wonderful growth, development, sustenance,
and forms and processes of the animal frame. How are they
evolved out of the gelatinous globule, the germ. Sensation, res-
piration, inspiration, secretion, excretion, absorption, digestion,
circulation, and reproduction of the animal organism — whence
came they ? Then whence came all the families, species and
varieties of animals, differing so wonderfully in form, means
of life, growth, sustenance, reproduction, and every process of
the animal organization? Whence came the adjustment of
vegetal)le and animal lif(> to each other, and the adjustment,
adaptation, and co-f»rdinati()n of each animal to physical nature
and forces, and to vegetable life and surroundings? Are all
tliese tilings that are co-ordinated and construed only by
the hiLdiest eff.rt of reason, and can be expressed properly
oidy when co-ordinated ])y the highest conceptions of reason,
and whi.-h show perfectly realized the highest ideas and con-

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 25

ceptions of reason, the result of the aimless, purposeless ongo-
ings of blind, irrational force and blind, insensate matter?

Then that -wonderful attribute of animal life, known as
instinct, which so often displays memory, reflection, compari-
son and understanding, almost rivaling human reason, whence
came it? Was it eternally latent in physical force and
matter ? Can we believe that chaotic matter, mineral or
mechanical aggregations of matter, or chemical compounds,
or even vegetable life, ever contained, or now contain, the
wonderful instinct of the dog or horse? If latent in them,
what developed it? If not latent, how could it be evolved
out of them, out of what did not contain it? The displays
of instinct are so often manifestations of calculations for,
prevision of, and provision for results, not capable of being
conceived of and being held in mere instinct. The cuckoo
lays eggs in other birds' nests, and makes them rear her
young. The bee builds a cell which displays perfect archi-
tectural skill and geometrical knowledge in economy of space
and securing strength. The intelligence is not in the bee.
Is it not back of the bee, implanting the instinct as an im-
pulse working out so wonderful an intellectual result ? Cer-
tain ants make workers and slaves of others. The Avorking
bee kills the drones. The queen bee kills her daughters.
Whence come these w'onderful instincts which secure results
and display conceptions of reason far above the instinct of
the animal ? Did blind, irrational force evolve the instinct
that secures these intellectual conceptions so far above itself?

To state the problem in full, we would have to insert all
we know of astronomy, chemistry, mechanics, botany, zool-
ogy, and all the sciences, and in each department of them, and
Ave have as yet but a glimpse of the infinity of nature. Take
a single vegetable, and learn all that can be learned of its
growth, sustenance, organization, processes, and reproduction.
Then think of the hundreds of thousands of varieties of veg-
etables, differing from each other in nearly all these particu-
lars. Then take an animal organization, man's physical
organization, for instance. Study the Avonderful processes of
production, growth, sustenance, and reproduction of the phys-
3

26 THE PKOBLKM OF PROBLEMS.

iciil man. Learn all you can of the wonders of circulation,
secretion, excretion, respiration, absorption, digestion, and
reproduction of the physical man. Take the wonderful and
mysterious process of reproduction that man has been study-
ing for thousands of years. Read the countless volumes that
have been written on this one process, and the innumerable
wonders revealed in them, and reflect that they touch but
the outskirts of the subject, and that the real, the essential,
is still shrouded in profound mystery. Trace this amazing
process through all its wonderful and beautiful manifesta-
tions, and reflect that this is but a glimpse of one of the pro-
cesses of our physical frame. Multiply all this by the num-
ber of processes, and then grasp, if you can, the infinite, the
unfathomable adaptations, adjustments and design seen in
nuui's organization alone. Then reflect that there are hun-
dreds of thousands of animal organizations, diflering from
each other in nearly all of these particulars in a most wonder-
ful manner. Then reflect on the adaptation, adjustment and
co-ordination of these almost countless varieties of animals
and plants to each other and to surroundings, and you begin
tc ajiprehend — and you can only apprehend — a glimpse — and
it is only a glimpse — of the demands of the problem. Then,
take ihe adaptation of organs and functions to ends. Take
the hand of man, witli its four hundred thousand adaptations,
as exhibited in tlie large volume of one of our greatest anato-
mists. Reflect that it is but one organ of a multitude in the
human frame. Then take all the organs of the human frame.
Then all the organs and functions of all animals, differing so
widely from each other. Then take the adaptation of analogous
organs and functions to widely different circumstances and uses,
as the hand of man, tlie wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale,
and the flipper of a mole. Take also the accomplishment of
tlie same ends or purposes by so widely different organs and
functions in countless other cases. When you have all these
before you, then ask whence came all this? Are these results
that can only l)e apprehended l)y the highest efforts of our
mind, and can be construed only by the highest conceptions

STATEMENT OF THE PliOBLEM. 27

of our reason, the result, the aimless, purposeless working, of
blind, irrational force and blind, insensate matter?

Geology tells us that there have been ages or epochs in the
earth's history, during which noiife or types of life existed.
Then, as the earth became fitted for them, lower forms of life
appeared. As the earth became unfitted for these, and fitted
for higher types of life, the lower degenerated and dis-
appeared, and higher types took their places. It teaches,
however, that each species appeared and existed in its great-
est perfection when we first meet with it. It teaches also
that very highly organized types of life, wonderful organiza-
tions suddenly appeared without any typical progenitors. It
teaches that, so far from a change of conditions developing
any species into another, the change of conditions caused each
species to degenerate until it became extinct, and they were
succeeded by higher and radically distinct types, in their
highest perfection at the commencement of their history. Our
problem demands. Whence came these types that thus sud-
denly appear in their greatest perfection at first ? Especially,
whence came these wonderful and highly organized forms
of life that suddenly appeared without any typical progeni-
tors ? If we concede a course of evolution, a process of
development, it does not solve the problem. Indeed, we are
just as far from the solution as we were before the hypothesis.
Tt merely tells us how the phenomena have been produced,
in what manner they have occurred ; but it does not give
the slightest hint as to the cause of the phenomena. The
questions stand just as they did before the hyj)othesis. Whence
came matter and force ? Whence came the essential proper-
ties of matter, and the essential forces of matter, or the
essential manifestations of force in matter? Whence came
the co-ordination, adjustment and adaptations of these proper-
ties and forces? Whence came the adjustments' and adapta-
tions seen in the heavenly bodies and systems? Whence
came vegetable cells, germs, forms, life, growth, and repro-
duction? How came these elements to be organized into a
seed or germ? Then, whence came the growth and wonderful
reproduction, the sj^ecies and varieties? All animal life is

28 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

from an og^ or germ. Whence came animal cells and their
organization into the germ ? Nature does not produce the
germ now, except through a pre-existent organization, such
as is develoi)ed out of the germ. Did she ever do so? If
so, what proof have we of it? How does any one know or
prove it? How could she do it? How could it produce
out of lower forms of existence that which they destroy ?

If all life was in a primordial germ, then all possibilities of
life Avere there, or whence came these varieties of existence?
Whence came the difierentiation, selection, and difference of
development? If conditions make the difference, then each
•cell must have contained in itself all conditions or adaptation
to all conditions. If different conditions existed in different
cells, or different conditions existed around different cells,
and adai)tability to all conditions in each cell, whence came
tliey ? If diflerent life and different conditions existed in dif-
ferent cells, or different conditions surrounded different cells
eoutaiiiing different life, whence came they, and the concur-
rence of suitable conditions with appropriate life? If the
same life and conditions existed in each cell, or the same life
existed in each cell, and different conditions surrounded dif-
ferent cells, where came the difference in development, or
the wonderful adaptation of this one life to different condi-
tions ? All life and all conditions, then, must exist in each cell,
or all life and power of adaptation to all conditions must be
in each cell. We, then, make a fetich, a god of this gela-
tinous globule, the germ or the cells of Avhich it is composed.
Not only this, but we have to suppose a wonderful co-ordina-
tion of conditions and adiii)tation in the same place and at the
same time, so as to evolve out of what has no sex two be-
ings of op[M)site sexes. Then all along the course of devel-
opment wo have to su})pose the evolution, at the same time
and j)laee, of two beings of opposite sexes, each having the
sante imi)n)vement, out of what did not possess it, and that
their ollsjuiug associate sexually only with each other. All
along the chain of evolution, in almost inuumerable cases, we
have to assume that existences produce other existences that
contiiin what thev did not contain.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 29

In this manner, we have to interpolate in our series of ma-
terial forces and matter, their adjustment, chemical action,
crystallization, vegetable cells, germs, life, growth, reproduc
tion, varieties, and species, animal cells, germs, life, growth,
reproduction, sensation, instinct, and species and varieties.
New agencies are continually appearing out of what does not
even suggest them, and out of what it is a mockery of reason
to assume contains them, order, affinity, life, plants, sensation,
and instinct. Then we see incipient organs that are a burden
in certain species for a long time, become after a time highly
useful in higher species. Silent members, that after awhile
become completed, and become highly useful, are met with in
this course of development as an inexplicable problem.
Then there appear all along the course of development won-
derful adaptations to emergencies of heat, cold, water and
drouth, and other surroundings, as seen in the stomach of the
camel, the water receptacle of plants, etc. Also, wonderful
adjustments of organs and functions to ends, as seen in the
neck of the giraffe, the proboscis of the elephant, ^and the
electric organs of fishes, the illuminating organs of insects,
and the mammary glands of mammalia. We see the laws
of nature overcome in nature by the application of other
forces by means of mechanical contrivances just as in man's
labors and arts. The tubular bridge has the greatest strength
of material compatible with the greatest lightness of struct-
ure that can be secured. The frames of birds are constructed
on the same principle. The wing of a bird is a wonderful
machine for overcoming gravity and securing motion through
the air of a body far heavier than the element on which it
floats, or through which it so easily moves. It took man
thousands of years of hard study to attain to a knowledge of
electricity and the battery. In the electric organs of certain
fishes, we find displayed a perfect knowledge of battery, coil,
pile, and medium through which electricity will act on the or-
ganization of other animals.

There is another department of nature, another class of
ideas, of the highest and most purely ideal character real-
ized in nature. They are the conceptions or controlling ideas

30 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS

of order, beauty, harmony, and sublimity. In crystalliza
tion, as we have said, we have wonderful displays of order,
symmetry, and beauty. In vegetable life and forms, these
ideas have been controlling ideas in nearly every variety of
existence. In a large portion of vegetable nature, beauty
seems to have been the sole idea. Such is the case with the
almost countless varieties of flowers, leaves and forms of
vegetable life with which nature is rendered so resplendently
beautiful. A vast majority of plants seem to have been
varied from others merely to express different forms and
ideas of beauty. The same holds true of animal forms and
colors. Think of the almost infinite varieties of colors and
blendings of hues to express beauty in animals and plants,
and in the clouds, and even mineral products of nature. Of
the humming-bird alone there are over two hundred varieties,
all expressing peculiar, unique, and surpassing forms of
beauty. Of the rose, there are over six thousand varieties,
expressing different ideas and conceptions of beauty. Then,
also, the realization of the purest and highest conceptions of
beauty, harmony, and sublimity, seen in all nature, is to be
accounted for in the solution of our problem. Did blind, ir-
rational force and blind, insensate matter, in their aimless,
purposeless ongoings, evolve these highest conceptions and
ideals of pure reason? What have they to do with the
beautiful, the sublime, the ideal.

Tlicre has been also correlation of growth. Change in any
organ or function of any animal is correlated by change in
other organs so as to secure symmetry in the animal, and
adaptation of all organs to each other. Symmetry of sides
is secured, and there is also a correlation of surrounding
nature to such growth and development of animals and
plants, and also of animals and plants to each other, and
growth and development in each other. There has been an
order of oreation — in time, in method, in system, in develop-
ment. This has existed in all epochs of the world's history.
By a comparison of fossil types of life, and those now exist-
ing, man has reached the idea that there has been developed
in creation controlling idea.s, and these controlling ideas have

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 31

been ideal concepts, archetypal forms, with variations from
them. These ideas, the highest conceptions and achieve-
ments of zoological science, and by which its classifications
are made, and without which it could not be a science, are
realized in nature in this course of development. Is this
realization of the highest conceptions of reason, in the course
of development, observed in nature, and the results in which
they are realized, the product of blind, irrational force and
blind, insensate 'matter?

Perhaps the reader is already bewildered, and almost over-
powered with the vastness and mystery of the problem, and
yet we have not reached the most wonderful and incompre-
hensible part. We have in man rational life, a life princi-
ple capable of reason and moral action. In man we have
spontaneity, spontaneous volition, and action, power to arouse
the mind to act, power of memory, reflection, aiid abstrac-
tion. We can think of our thoughts and reason concern-
ing our reasonings. Whence come this wonderful power?
Whence came self-consciousness and thoughts of infinity, cau-
sation, and right and wrong, and moral desert? Whence
came rational ideas of space, time, causation, and infinity,
and abstract ideas of numbers and forms, as in arithmetic
and geometry, and the wonderful development of mathemat-
ics as seen in its higher and abstract departments ? Whence
came the artistic capacity and feeling in music, painting, and
scidpture ? The masterpieces of painting and sculpture,
whence came the power that produced them? The produc-
tions of Beethoven, Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Handel and
Haydn ? The masterpieces of architecture ? Whence came
they all? Whence car^e instrumental and vocal music?
Whence came the power of the human voice in speech and
singing? A Solon, a Solomon, a Daniel, a Plato, a Milton, a
Shakespeare, a Bacon, or a Newton, with all their wonderful
powers of mind and soul, whence came they ? Study their
works. Reflect on the vast knowledge, the profound thought,
the almost divine power of reason, the marvelous power of
descriptive eloquence and imagination exhibited in them.
C/ontemplate the amazing display of rational and moral force

32 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

seen in such lives! Weigh well the aspirations, doubts,
hopes, speculations, reasonings, and discoveries of such a
soul ! Consider well its amazing powers of apprehension,
reason, comprehension, sorrow, joy, and despair! Think of
its incalculable obligations and responsibilities of good and
evil ! Tlien ask, whence came all this wonderful power, this
wonderful form of life so divine ?

Look out on man's history as a race — his achievements in
science and art. Survey his cities, his temples, his buildings
and structures of all kinds ; his empires and civilizations ;
his discoveries. Survey his inventions in the arts. Peruse
his masterpieces in the field of thought. Consider his
achievements in moral life as seen in a Confucius, a Gau-
tema, a Zoroaster, an Abraham, a Moses, a Socrates, a Paul,
a Howard or a Washington, a Luther or a Wesley. Then
ask. Whence came these wonderful minds, these godlike souls?
Their achievements are the work of what ? Of blind, irra-
tional physical force, so modified by the organization of
blind, insensate matter as to be capable of such divine re-
sults ? Believe it who can ! Is it not the very travesty of
reason, the very mockery of common sense, to suggest such
a thought? If it be claimed that it is the same force seen
in insensate matter, modified by that organization of matter
known as our bodies, where comes that wonderful organiza-
tion of matter that produces so stupendous a result ? Could
matter develop itself into such an organization ? Could such
an organization be the result of the action and interaction
of blind, irrational matter and force on each other? Is the
mind nascent or latent in minerals and earths waiting for de-
velopment? If not, whence does ii come when it first ap-
pears ? Whence came the organization and means of develop-
ing it? Then who, for one moment, can believe that the
acliiovcmonts and mental and moral actions of a Socrates, a
Solomon, or a Paul, are the result of the same force as burns
in the brand or whirls the dust? If it is merely the same
force seen in insensate matter, modified by the organization
of matter, how comes this force to be so wonderfully modi-
fied ? Could this wonderful development of the force seen in

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 33

matter that is displayed in mind and reason, and that won-
derful organization, our bodies, have resulted from the action,
reaction, and interaction of blind irrational matter and force ?
Could such development of matter and force have originated
in any other way than in the origination, control, and direc-
tion of a pre-existing mind acting on a plan with this wonder-
ful development before it as an end ? When we ask the
physicist whence came this wonderful modification of force, he
replies that it is occasioned by that wonderful organization
of matter, the body. When we ask, whence came such a
wonderful organization of matter, he replies, it is the result of
the action on matter of that marvelous force, the mind.
Thus he makes both matter and force cause and effect, and
reasons in a circle. Not only so, but he has to assign to force
intelligence, to secure such results, or he makes matter and
force evolve what is not in them, and violates every principle
of reason by making the effect infinitely greater, and entirely
different from the cause.

We have, then, either to assume the eternity of mind latent
and nascent in matter, or make matter and force evolve what
is not in them. Not only so, but how could there,sin either
case, be this wonderful development, without mind back of it,
to originate it, and adjust matter and force, and to control the
course of development ? Such are some of the demands of the
problem for which the physicist offere his speculations as a so-
lution. If we concede his theory of development, evolution
and progress, still the question stands imsolved. Whence came
the wonderful force that raises the animal or plant from inor-
ganic matter? Or higher forms from lower? Whence came
sensation, instinct and reason? AVere they in star-dust, cha-
otic matter, nebulous masses? Or were they added? If you
say conditions produced them, what is that but a phrase to
conceal ignorance, for conditions may modify, but they create
nothing? What power is adequate to aU this? What power
or force do the elements of the problem demand, as an ade-
quate cround or basis? Whence came the universal, catholic
ideas of God, and creation and government by him, of moral-
ity, moral desert, responsibility, retribution, providence, prayer.

34 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

revelatiou, miracle, sacrifice, mediation, atonement, incarna-
tion, religion and worship? Are they not the answer of reason
and man's rational religious nature to this question? And
our problem demands, whence came these ideas? They are
one of the most difficult features of the problem. Whence
came these univei-sal ideas, that man alone has, and what
power evolved them ? There is an all-pervading plan or sys-
tem in nature, including every atom, every organ, every func-
tion, every plant, every animal, every species, every genus,
each planet, each system, and finally the Cosmos. Reason
passes upward through order, life, sensation, instinct, under-
standing, reason and moral qualities and power, to mind, law,
right, and holiness. Reason insists on including all these ele-
ments in the problem, and on using them as the chief means
of solving it.

Reiison insists on asking these questions and including them
in the problem. Of what is each existence made ? In what
manner made? In what form? By what or whom made?
For what end? We can not investigate or describe a single
process in nature, without asking all these questions, and in-
cluding all these ideas. We use teleological ideas and lan-
guage in investigating and describing every existence and
process in nature. We use terms implying the existence and
action of mind. The physicist does this himself, even wdien
arguing against them. Such are the characteristics of the
process of nature, that we can not adequately describe them
otherwise. Another query that arises is. What does nature
do now? It makes out of crude material new mixtures and
compounds, but not new plants or animals. They come alone
through an existing organization. ]Man makes watches and
telescopes, but these do not make other watches and telescopes.
Nature takes the same materials and makes a crude mixture
we call dag. Nature does not make inorganization do the
work of organizati(jn, unintelligence do the work of intelli-
gence. Then the quer\' arises. How can we account for what
nature does not now, in a single instance, do? Can we ascribe
to nature what she does not now do, and what we have not a
shndow of evidence tliat slie ever did?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. 35

Then we are conscious of spontaneity in ourselves, sponta-
neous action, thought and volition. We can arouse processes
within, just as what acts through the senses arouses processes
of thought. What is this spontaneous, self-acting agent that
arouses within us processes of thought and emotion? What
is it that takes cognizance of these processes, these acts of itself?
If that which acts through the senses, and arouses these pro-
cesses, be a real substantive agent, is not that whicli acts
within and produces the same results also a real substantive
agent? This is another profound query in the problem that
Ls overlooked or ignored by the physicist. Then we have
nothing at one extreme of our path of investigation, and man
and his highest achievements and powers at the other. In
the first constitution of matter and force, we have the highest
ideas of reason realized. In the co-ordination of matter and
force, in chemical action, in crystallization, in vegetable life,
in animal life, in rational life and its achievements, in the
all-pervading plan and imity of the universe, are realized the
highest conceptions of reason. The course of development is
one along which we can travel only by means of these ideas,
and because they are realized in it. Then the question is,
Whence came all this? Such is a mere glance at the prob-
lem, and the requirements of an adequate solution. We can
give but a hint of the various fields of thought to be trav-
ersed in endeavoring to grasp the demands of the problem.
The world 'and its countless existences, and their countless
processes, the universe and its vast worlds and systems, are
the elements of the problem. The question is. How came
they into being? Would not we be justified in stopping and
affirming, "In the beginning Jehovah created the heavens
and the earth"?

36 THE PKOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

CHAPTER II.

POSTULATA AND DaTA. — OuR MEANS OF SoiA^NG THE

Problem.

In the previous chapter we endeavered to place before the
reader the requirements of the problem, and to give him some
conception of its infinite extent. The next question is, Wliat
means have we of solving the problem ? The agent on which
we shall rely to do the work before us shall be the human
mind ; and in that term we include man's entire rational,
moral, and religious nature. Our first postulate then is, that
man's entire mental nature, his rational, moral, and religious
nature, shall be accepted, and no part ignored, discarded or
denied. If we employ but a part of our instrument or agent,
we can have but a partial result. If we reject or deny a part
of our agent's powers or means of solution, we reject a part of
our means of solving the problem, and a part of our agent's
solution. Our second postulate shall be the integrity and re-
liability of our nature, our wliole nature, its each and every
part, rational, moral and religious, and the reliability of its
intuitions, its universal decisions, its catholic ideas, in each
and every part, rational, moral and religious. Correction of
errors by a higlier use of reason, will be accepted of course,
])ut the error must l)e established by a higher use of reason,
and not by discarding reason; and that which is substituted
instead must be established by a higher use of reason, and not
by a denial of reason. Our third postulate is the paramount
autliority of our catholic ideas and intuitions in investigating
the pro])lem and in solving it. If our nature — our whole
nature— rational, moral and religious, be not reliable, and its
deductions and decisions valid, all reasoning is at an end, even
reasoning to convict our nature of unreliability. We can not
set to one side a part of our nature as unreliable, and pretend

OUE MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 37

to accept human nature as our guide and standard. Our moral
and religious nature must be accepted and trusted as implicitly
as our rational nature, or what is called our rational nature,
for we confess our inability to separate one from the others.

Our fourth postulate is that our investigation shall be con-
ducted in strict conformity to the methods of inductive philoso-
phy, and our solution reached by exact obedience to its laws.
We must first learn what the phenomena really are, how tliey
actually transpire; inquiring without prejudice or preconceived
opinions what are the facts. We must also observe carefully
what are the characteristics of the phenomena, for they are
our principal, and often our sole means of determining the
cause. Concerning each phenomenon and existence we must
Dsk : Of what made, or the material cause? In what manner
made, or the modal cause? In what form made on the for-
mal cause? Then, by what, or whom made, or the efficient
cause? And, finally, for what purpose, or the final cause?
Concerning phenomena, we inquire, Did they really transpire ?
when ? in what manner ? in what order ? in what connection ?
What are the characteristics and nature? What produced
them? For what end or purpose Avere they produced? As
our deductions concerning the efficient cause of each existence
and phenomenon, and especially concerning the nature and
character of the efficient cause of each existence and phenom-
enon, and our deductions concerning the design or final cause,
must be largely deductions of reason based on the character-
istics of the existences and phenomena, we must have clear
conceptions of the principles that should control reason in this
work, and of what decisions of our nature must be accepted
and what can be questioned. We must have clear conceptions
of the regulative principles and ideas of reason that can not
be questioned, and of those catholic ideas and decisions that
can not be denied without denying reason itself. As the phys-
icist denies all the catholic ideas and intuitions of our nature
that conflict with his predetermined conclusions, we are under
the necessity of stating them at some length, reaffirming and
re-establishing them. We may be under the necessity also of
repeating them in different parts of the book in order to com-

38 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

plotcness of our argument. But if, by reiteration, we can
emphiu^ize them and impress them on the mind of the reader,
we shall accomplish what we desire above all other things.

The sources from which we obtain knowledge are : 1. Con-
sciousness. 2. Sensation. 3. Intuition. We shall implicitly
rely on these sources of knowledge and accept their affirma-
tions when correctly expressed, properly limited and stripped
of error. We shall insist also, on the agreement and harmony
of all of these sources of knowledge in their affirmations if
correctly interpreted. Neither one can say to the other, " I
have no need of thee." Each is dependent on the others for
fundamental ideas it uses in its work, for regulative principles
and aid in perfecting its work. No system of truth can be
based on consciousness, or sensation, or intuition alone. There
is in the mind inherent faculty or power, and the mind has
regulative principles controUhig its action. When the senses
appealing to the mind furnish the occasion, the mind has not
only the contents of sensation, but also original convictions of
reason above the contents of sensation. These are self-evident
trutlLS, and are fundamental ideas, and regulative principles.
The tests of intuition are:

I. They express the relation of things ; the underlying prin-
ciple, the central idea of things.

II. They are self-evident. ^^

III. They are necessarily true, and can not, in the nature and
relation of things be otherwise than as they are, and true. *

IV. They are catholic or universal ideas, or all men have
them from a proper exercise of the faculties Of their reason.

In appealing to the intuitions in our reasoning we mu-t de-
cide: I. Are tliey intuitions? Do they express general prin-
ciples? Are they self-evident? Are they catholic in their
nature? II. Are they correctly expressed? If these queries
are answcroil in the affirmative they must bo implicitly accepted
or all reasoning is at an end. To reason at all, we must accept
the reliability and veracity of our nature in its intuitions, and
its integrity in :ill its partes, rational, moral and religious. If
our nature in its intuitions, be false and unreliable in any
part, monil, rational or religious, there can bo no basis for

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 39

reasoning ; no means of reasoning, no test of reasoning, no
regulating reasoning, and no reasoning in any sense. This
should be borne in mind, in examining the speculations of the
physicist, when he rejects the intuitions of our rational, moral
and religious nature, as delusive imaginings or raetaphy?:ical
speculations.

We are now ready for the fundamental primal intuitions
of our nature, on which we must base our solution of the
problem stated in Chapter I, and by means of which we must
solve the problem, and by which we must test our solution.
What, then, are the postulata and data of reason? what are
the characteristics of the phenomena, the nature of the phe-
nomena, the elements we must use in solving the problem?
These must be fully and clearly stated and established, or we
can not reach an adequate solution of the problem. As fun-
damental primal intuitions of our nature, and back of which
we can not go, and which can not be questioned, we postulate :
There is a Me, and there is a Not-Me. There is a Perceiving
Self, and a Perceived-by-Self. These are distinct and differ-
ent, and can not be confounded in our thinking, or the exist-
ence and reality of either questioned in our reasoning. There
is body or matter, and there is mind or spirit. Body or
matter has objective and independent being — that is, it is not
dependent on observation for being ; and it has external and
extended reality ; and there is in body or matter potency
affecting self, and causing it to be perceived by mind or self.
We cognize or intuit in body or matter extension, divisi-
bility, size, density, porosity, figure, impenetrability, mobility,
inertia and situation. We cognize or intuit force as affecting
matter, and force in bodies affecting other bodies. We intuit,
by conscious, an existing, independent, abiding, potential self,
as different from matter in Avhich it resides, or our bodies, and
as distinct from the organs which it uses, and which reveal
matter and themselves and our bodies to the mind or self.
We intuitively know and feel that the knowing mind is dif-
ferent and distinct from our bodies known by it, and in which
it resides, and which it uses, or matter known by it, or the
organs or functions of our bodies it uses, and whicii reveal

40 THE PROBLEM OF PKOBLEMS.

matter and our bodies and themselves to the knowing mind.
The faculties of the mind are consciousness and thinking,
moral, responsible, personal attributes.

We intuitively know and feel that matter has not these
attributes, but that it has other properties that reveal it to the
mind that has these attributes. We intuitively recognize that
force belongs to body or matter, and faculty to mind. AVe
intuitively know also that the force that we see in matter, the
force that we control and use by our minds, the force that we
cognize operating in our bodies, often independent of, and in
opposition to, our mind, or in obedience to it, is not our mind,
nor the same force as our mind. We intuitively recognize a
difference between physical force, seen in insensate matter —
vital force, sensation, and rational or -mental force or power.
We can not resolve mind into matter or matter into mind, or
physical force into mind or mind into mere physical force,
modified by organization, no matter what our theories may
be. We intuitively make the distinction, even while denying
it and attempting to disprove it. These fundamental distinc-
tions must be borne in mind in all our investigations and rea-
sonings. We have also these necessary beliefs, space, infinite
space, time infinite duration or eternity; also mathematical
axioms and postulates, and the regulative principles of every
department of science; also the primal and necessary belief
of cause and effect. As this intuition, and the reasoning
inseparably connected with and flowing from it, is the basis of
all theistic arguments, the physicist has attempted to get rid
of the argument by denying the intuition and falsifying our
nature. There is no such thing as cause and effect. It is
merely a generalized statement of invariable sequence, that
things occur in an invariable order or succession. There is
no potency in the cause to bring the eflfect out of non-being
into being. It is merely time-succession.

The intuition of cause and effect is more than a recognition
of invariable association and succession. We recognize no re-
lation of cause and effect in the invariable association of day
and night, but we do in tlie conjunction of moon and tide. We
might see one train of cars follow anothe]- for thousands of

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 41

years, or forever, and never dream of uniting them in the re-
lation of cause and effect; but the first time we see the loco-
motive and train, ^\•e instantly recognize the first as the cause
of the* motion of the second. We recognize a potency in the
locomotive to cause the motion of the train. Then when the
mind recognizes this relation of cause and effect, there is more
than invariable association or succession. The mind recos:-
nizes in the properties or forces of one,power or potency that
])rings the other out of non-being into being. We may gaze
on invariable succession forever, and never think of cause and
efiect, for we do not recognize a potency in one to bring the
other into being. This intuition is not the result of abstrac-
tion or a generalized conclusion, for man acts on it before he
can generalize or abstract. It is one of the first conceptions
of the mind. Eight here Ave lay down another postulate, the
basis of all proper reasoning on this subject. Whence came
the first cognition of this relation of cause and effect? What
caused the mind to evolve this intuition? The germinal idea
and basis of all ideas and reasoning on this subject, we affirm
to be the consciousness of man, that he is one indivisible, con-
scious, thinking, willing, planning, responsible, free, moral
self. He is conscious that there is, in himself, potency or
power, controlling matter and force, and using them for
certain ends. His idea, then, of power, force, and causation
arises in consciousness of an energizing w^ill, which is power
in action, controlling second causes, our powers to produce
an effect, our conduct. Almost the first intuition the child
displays, is this intuition of personal, responsible causation.
Hence he recognizes causation wherever he observes a phe-
nomenon, and makes the cause a personal, responsible cause.
He assigns personality and responsibility to every object
around him. Then physical science obtains this regulative
idea of causation from mental phenomena and intuition. So
also it obtains its conception of force and power which it uses
in its investigations, and in construing the phenomena of the
physical world. The ideas of law, order, and system are ob-
tained also from the moral and mental world. They arise

4

4 '2 THE PROBLEM OF PPwOBLEMS.

from consciousness of duty, obligation, plan, method, and sys-
tem in our conduct and actions, and mental and moral life.

Man is conscious, also, that his mind is an intelligent cause,
producing order, arrangement, adaptation, adjustment, co-or-
dination, design, contrivance, plan, method, and system, with
prevision of, and provision for desired ends. He intuitively''
re:isons and knows that co-ordination, order, adaptation, and
adjustment, necessarily imply design, contrivance, plan, method,
and system, and that design, contrivance, plan, method, and
system necessarily imply an intelligence ; the efficient cause
of this design, plan, and system, and that they can be pro-
duced by intelligence alone. It is an intuition, as palpable as
consciousness, that there is causation in the universe; that
there is ix)tency in certain things to bring others into being.
It is an intuition as palpable as consciousness, that co-ordina-
tion, adaptation, adjustment, design, plan, law, order, and
method, imply intelligent causation. It is a truth as palpable
as existence, that there is co-ordination, adjustment, arrange-
ment, adaptation, design, plan, law, method, and system in na-
ture. If a man denies this, he is not capable of being rea-
soned with, nor worthy of one moment's further notice, for
he has bid adieu to all common sense. In reasoning on cau-
sation in nature, we inquire; 1. What are the phenomena —
what has transpired? 2. Time of the phenomena, or when it
occurred — how often it occurred — how long it was transpir-
ing, and in what order of succession it occurred? 3. In what
manner, or how transpired? 4. What are the characteris-
tics of the phenomena? 5. What produces the phenomena,
or what is the efficient cause? 6. For what end or purpose
were the phenomena produced ? The first four queries are pros-
ecuted chiefly as a means of determining the last two, and ser-
viceable as they aid in this. The real object of science is to
determine the efficicMit cause, and the final cause or purpose
of things. What claims to be science, par excellence, at the
present time, would reject as irrational and futile all inquiry
concerning the efficient cause, and the final cause of phenom-
ena. But in so doing it attempts to discard one of the most
persistent and universal tendencies of human thoujrht. Man

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 48

invariably inquires when he observes a phenomenon, What,
or who caused it, and for what purpose was it caused? All
other inquiries, such as the pliysicist would permit us to make,
are merely prosecuted as a means to determine the efficient
and the final causes. They are valuable only as they throw
light on them.

We are not precluded from inquiring into the efficient
cause and the final cause, when we know the characteristics
of the phenomena, and how they transpired, and have clas-
sified them into bundles, and have labeled them after the
manner of what is now called science. On the contrary,
these are but steps to the real end of scientific investigation,
the efficient cause, and the final cause. Nor would we be
precluded from inquiring into the final cause, even if we kncAv
the efficient cause. The mind persistently and intuitively
inquires after final cause, as for what purpose a thing was
done. The watch, the mind persistently declares, must have
had a final cause or purpose, and it is never satisfied until it
learns it. So it declares the eye must have had a final cause
or purpose, and whether the physicist will or not, it will pros-
ecute this query as persistently as it will reason at all. The
inquiry into efficient cause always leads to intelligent cause,
and the inquiry into final cause as clearly establishes an intel-
ligent cause as the eye and its use in sight establishes the ex-
istence of the sun, and that it is the source of light. Hence,
the physicist would cut off all such inquiry. But he can not
avoid intelligent causation in that way, any more than he can
avoid light by exhorting men to put out their eyes, for they
will not do his bidding and deprive themselves of sight. Nor
will they do his bidding, and cease to inquire into the final
cause of things as determining the character of the efficient
cause. Nor will they do still greater violence to their com-
mon sense, and cease to inquire after the efficient cause of
phenomena.

Then one of the fundamental postulates of all reasoning in
solving our problem is the idea of causation. There is causa-
tion in the universe. Every eflfect must have had an ade-
quate cause. An effect implying intelligence must have had

44 THE TROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

an intelligent cause. Co-ordination, adjustment, plan, law,
and system must have had their origin in intelligence as their
efficient cause. The object of all scientific research is to de-
termine the efficient and the final cause of phenomena. Such
is the object of our present inquiry. When we have deter-
mined this, we have solved our problem. Another funda-
mental idea: In all our reasoning we pass from a knowledge
of the finite to an apprehension of the infinite ; to a knowl-
edge that the infinite exists, and to an apprehension of some
of its characteristics. From a knowledge of finite portions of
space, we pass through a relative infinity of finite portions
of space to an apprehension of absolute infinite space, and
how that space must be absolutely infinite. From knowledge
of finite duration we pass through relatively infinite duration
to absolute duration or eternity. From a relative infinity of
microcosms we rise to an apprehension of the macrocosm or
universe. From a relative infinity of finite causes, systemat-
ically correlated as a whole or a system, we rise to an appre-
hension of that whicli includes all causation — the absolute
cause — the uncaused. From a relative infinity of conditions,
co-ordinated and correlated as a whole, we rise to an appre-
hension of that which includes all conditions, and is uncondi-
tioned. From a relative infinity of the contingent, we rise to
an apprehension of the necessary and absolute. From a rela-
tive infinity of finite beings, we rise to an appi'ehension of ab-
solute being. From relative infinite displays of forces, we rise
to an apprehension of infinite force or omnipotence. From
a relative infinity of displays of intelligence, we rise to an
apprehension of infinite intelligence.

Now, if our nature be reliable and a valid basis for reason-
ing, and a trustworthy means of reasoning, these catholic and
universal apprehensions must be valid and true. The objec-
tive reality corresponds with the subjective notion. The
physicist accepts the verity of our apprehensions of infinite
space, infinite duration, and assumes the absolute and uncon-
ditioned in matter and force, assuming, as he does, that they
are eternal, uncaused, and absolute. AVe insist that we
should acff.pt tlie equally universal apprehension of infinite

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 45

intelligence, infinite causation, infinite intelligent causation.
Vie have precisely the same ground for accepting the latter
apprehension, that he has for accepting the former apprehen-
sions. There is a gross inconsistency in his course that shows
that the wish is father to the thought, and that not reason,
but passion and prejudice, control him in his course. We
must not confound apprehension with comprehension — a
knowledge that a thing exists with a perfect knowledge of it.
As all admit, we can apprehend infinite space and duration, so
we can apprehend infinite intelligence. We wish now to call
particular attention to the following data that we have and
must use in solving the problem. AVe see around us propei--
ties, attributes, and qualities — the attributes of subject. We
can compare these, and classify them, and generalize them,
and learn thus the nature of subject. We see protension,
movement, and succession, events transpiring in time, and
having a beginning, necessary order and arrangement, expres-
sive of power, and regulated power, which throws these char-
acteristics back on the power that produced them, on that
wdiich regulates the power, and produces order, arrangement,
system, plan, and law. We see that all things have a rela-
tion to each other, a relation to the whole, and a comprehen-
sive unity, which suggests system, method, plan, and law.
We see things conditioned in time and space, which suggests
the unconditioned as the necessary antithesis and ground of
the conditioned. We see, in every part of the universe,
things which have a necessary relation to reason and thought.
Numeral and geometrical relation and proportion, in the def-
inite proportion of the primitive elements, in the primordial
constitution of things, and in chemical combination — sym-
metrical relation and arrangement of parts in crystallization,
and of parts and organs in all organized beings — the numeri-
cal and geometrical relation and proportion of the forces and
motions, masses and distances, and orbits of the planets and
other heavenly bodies and systems, all of which are in exact
mathematical relation and proportion. This science — mathe-
matics— is the highest achievement of pure reason and of
abstract thought, and its very highest ideas are realized in

46 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the universe, from each molecule in it up to the infinite
universe.

The arrangement, co-ordination, and adjustment of all
forces and powers in nature, is also in accordance with exact
mathematical law, another realization of one of the highest
conceptions of reason. Then these forces are co-ordinated,
adjusted, and adapted to each other and the whole of nature.
There is a regular and uniform succession of new existences.
All this necessarily implies design, plan, method, system,
and law. There has been, from the commencement of or-
ganic existence, an evolution of new species conformable to
fixed and definite ideal archetypes, which necessarily implies
a comprehensive plan and law, system and method, and co-
ordination, adjustment, and adaptation. All these have the
necessary ground in reason and thought. There is, all
through organic nature, the adjustment and adaptation of
organs to special functions. Diversified homologous organs,
which are njade to fulfill analogous functions, and the same
organs made to fulfill various functions, yet maintaining
a general plan, necessarily implies knowledge, alternativity
and choice. All these have their necessary and only con-
ceivable ground in reason and thought. All these, also, show
prevision of, and provision for, coming existences. So does
the progressive unfolding of species in accordance with ideal
archetypal forms. So does the provision for coming exist-
ences revealed by geology. So also does the course of
evolution claimed by the physicist. All this has its only
conceivable ground in reason and thought.

We liave in the universe also these facts, which have their
necessary ground in reason and thought, since they have a
necessary relation to moral ideas and ends. There is a uni-
versal tendency to discriminate between acts as voluntary and
involuntary, and to attach accountability, and responsibility
to the latter, and regard them as either right or wrong. All
this indicates a relation to an immutable standard of right.
The universal sense of dependence, obligation and duty indi-
cates relation to superior power, to absolute authority. The
universal conscioasness of accountability and responsibilitv, and

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 47

the universal conviction that we endure the consequences of
our actions, as a reward or punishment, indicates a relation
to a Supreme Judge. The happiness that we see resulting
from good conduct, and the misery we see resulting from evil
conduct, here in this life, and the universal anticipation of a
future life, in which it will be the same, indicates a relation
to a Supreme Judge and Executive.

As the physicist professes to take reason as his means of
solving the problem and his standard, these universal and
catholic ideas of reason, and the highest ideas of the noblest
and regnant part of our nature, must be the chief elements
in our solution. The integrity and reliability of our nature
must be denied, and all reasoning rendered impossible, before
we can repudiate these intuitions of our nature. They are
verities and basis ideas, acting as motive powers, and as
means and guides in our attempts to solve the problem of
the universe, and as tests of our solution.

We call attention to the following postulates and data, fur-
nished us by reason and common sense, as regulative ideas in
solving the problem before us. We have, in consciousness,
the knowledge of our own minds as intelligent causes, pro-
ducing order, arrangement, co-ordination, adjustment, adapta-
tion, design, plan, method, and system.

We intuitively recognize our powers as second causes, used
and controlled by an intelligent cause, our mind, to produce
these effects. We intuitively recognize intelligent causation
whenever we see order, adjustment, co-ordination, adaptation,
design, plan, and system, with prevision of, and provision for,
what follows. Have we these characteristics in the phenom-
ena of nature ? In the regular recurrence of the same phe-
nomena, in the same order and sequence, under the same cir-
cumstances, which the physicist calls law, we see order. In
the harmonious action of the forces of nature, which the
physicist calls acting under law, we see arrangement and co-
ordination. In the uniform action of these forces, invariably
producing the same phenomena, we see the adaptation of the
forces to the production of the phenomena. In the action of
each animal and plant, in accordance with the laws of its

48 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

being and its surroundings, we see that each animal and plant
was designed for this life, and its poAvers were contrived to
meet this life as an end. In the harmonious action of all
forces and all existences of nature, we see that these forces
and existences were adjusted to each other and the whole of
nature. In all this we see plan, system, method, and law.

In the regular development and evolution of all nature,
forward on an ascending scale of progrcvssion, that is claimed
by the physicist, we see plan, forethought, and providence.
A man who denies this bids adieu to all reason, and can not
be reasoned with further. All this we see in nature, as can
be proved by the language of the physicist in describing
nature. All this which we see in each atom, organ, and sys-
tem in nature, and in all nature, has its necessary and only
conceivable ground in mind. A man who denies this can not
be reasoned with, for he denies the fundamental affirmations
of reason. We might as well attempt to reason with a man
who denies that two and two are four.

Man is conscious, and intuitively reasons that order, ar-
rangement, adjustment, adaptation, design, plan, method and
system, in his own actions, have their necessary ground in his
own conscious, personal, willing, rational, free, moral, respon-
sible self He as intuitively reasons that co-ordination, order,
arrangement, adjustment, design, plan, law, method and sys-
tem in nature, with prevision of what follows, and provision
for it, have their necessary and only conceivable ground in a
conscious, personal, willing, free, moral, rational mind, or in
an Intelligent Cause. The physicist must either deny that
there is co-ordination, adjustment, law, method and system in
nature, and that these imply design, prevision of, and provision
for, all that is evolved in the harmonious and orderly scale
of development according to law, for which he contends, or
he must deny that they have their necessary ground in mind.
If he does either, he bids adieu to reason, and contradicts
common sense, and is not worthy one moment's further
thought. We speak confidently and positively, for we are
conscious that we rest on the bed rock of fundamental truth,
on the primordial basis of all reasoning. There has been

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 49

SO iTiuch dogmatism and impudent and arrogant denial of the
plainest affirmations of common sense, and the fundamental
intuitions of our rational nature, by those who profess to be,
'par excellence, men of science, that it is high time that the
right of common sense and reason to be heard and respected
be asserted with at least as great confidence and positiveness,
as has been displayed in the absurd denial of their authority.
It is quite fashionable now, in circles that arrogate to
themselves all the science in the world, to sneer at all appeals
to reason, and especially to intuitions, as metaphysics, on the
principle that if you can not meet an opponent fairly, call
him a bad name, and raise a prejudice against him. Doubt-
less the old metaphysicians, who attempted to evolve a
system of nature out of their internal consciousness, by a pri-
ori principles of reason, committed many absurd blunders;
but they at least used conmion sense in the outset, in rec-
ognizing the truth that intuition, the fundamental principles
and ideas of reason, must be the basis of all reasoning, and
showed some respect for reason and some regard for common
sense. But the physicist philosopher begins by denying the
plainest affirmations of reason and common sense, or by
sneering at them as metaphysics. The metaphysician at-
tempted to determine the theory of the universe, without in-
vestigating the universe itself. The physicist attempts to
investigate by casting to one side the only means of investi-
gating, the intuitions of reason. The blunder of the meta-
physician is that of the person who takes the proper tools,
but does not use them right. The blunder of the physicist
is that of the person who attempts to accomplish a piece of
work by casting to one side the only implements by which
he can possibly accomplish it. And certainly the metaphy-
sician never perpetrated greater blunders than the physicist.
The philosophy that assures us that perhaps there are worlds
where two and two are five, or that design does not imply
intelligence, that religion had its origin in dread of hunger,
and conscience in a fall stomach, and assimilates a parent's
happiness in his child to pleasures of the appetite, or that as-
sures us that there is no causation in the universe, and that our
5

50 THE PKOBLE.M OF FKOBLEMS.

minds are identical with the force that boils a kettle, and that
the brain secretes thought as the stomach secretes chyle, or grows
eloquent over the divine chemistry of the human organism, that
transmutes cabbage into a divine tragedy of Hamlet, never
ouo-ht to lauffh at the Council of Salamanca, or any set of
priests, theologians, or metaphysicians. Inductive philosophy,
which these scientists profess to take as their guide, demands
that we investigate the existence and phenomena of nature,
and learn : What are their attributes, qualities, acts and
characteristics in full? When, how often, in what order, and
during what time do they occur? In what manner do they
occur? In all this investigation, we are to be controlled by
the fundamental principles of thought, furnished by reason,
which the physicist calls metaphysics. From these data we
are to determine who or what produced the phenomena, or
the efficient cause. The ])hysicist denies this by asserting
that there is no such thing as causation in nature. Lastly,
we determine the final cause, or inquire for what purpose did
the phenomena transpire. This the physicist utterly denies,
assuring us that all inquiry into final cause is absurd.

The physicist can not proceed one step in the investiga-
tions, to which he confines the use of the word science, with-
out basing them on, and controlling them by, what he calls
metaphysics. He can not even commence his investigations
without using them as his means of investigation, and they
suggested to him the idea of investigation. His methods of
investigation are based on metaphysics; his comparisons, an-
ticipations, deductions and speculations are all metaphysical.
He can not move one stop in scientific investigation without
the rational ideas of co-ordination, arrangement, adaptation,
adjustment, order, law, system, method, design, prevision and
provision. It is on these he bases his speculations and de-
ductions. It is by moans of these that he prosecutes his in-
vestigations, although he discards them as metaphysics. The
regulative ideas of all science, the controlling principles of all
knowledge, are metaphysical conceptions, above and back of
all objects and phenomena. We can not move or think in
scientific research without Ihoin. No one makes more use

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 51

of them than does the physicist in generalizing his pheno-
mena, and in classifying them in accordance with ideal con-
ceptions, and in speculating on them.

Physical science, as now conducted, asks : What are the
objects and phenomena ? When, how often, in what order, and
during what time do they transpire ? What are their charac-
teristics ? In what form do they exist ? In what manner did they
occur ? All this is based on and controlled by a rational set of
regulative ideas and principles furnished by metaphysics. It
can accomplish this work only by using these ideas and being
controlled by them ; and when it has determined the when,
the how, and the what of phenomena, it has accomplished its
work. It can not accomplish the real purpose and end of all
investigation. It can not tell us what produced the phonem-
ena, nor for purpose or end they were produced. An orderly
arrangement and classification of the phenomena, and then
labeling them in bundles, is not an explanation of the phe-
nomena, or of their cause, efficient or final.

Physicists seem to think that when they have classified the
phenomena of nature into bundles, and ticketed them with
high somiding names, and laid them on the shelves of sys-
tems, they have explained the phenomena. When reason
asks who or what produced the phenomena, and for what end
or purpose they were produced, a claim is set up that the clas-
sification explains all that. When this is exposed, we are
gravely told that it is unscientific to inquire concerning the
efficient cause of phenomena, or to ask who produced all this,
and it is especially unscientific to inquire into the final cause,
or for what purpose was all this done. The physicist well
knows that if these queries are pressed, there is no avoiding
intelligent causation in the universe; hence the attempt to
silence them. But men will ask these questions. They re-
gard them as the real goal of science. The work of the
physicist is but the means and steps to these higher ends, the
real object of all scientific research. Physical science is ut-
terly impotent to settle these queries, the only useful end of
physical investigation. Reason alone can settle them by
means of metaphysics and religion. It takes the phenomena

52 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

and their characteristics, as furnished by physical science, and
from the nature of the phenomena and their characteristics,
determine the cause — the nature and character of the efficient
cause; and the final cause, or the purpose or end designed to
be accomplished by the phenomena. Keason insists that the
phenomena that physical science has reduced to a system, is
the product of mind, or mind could not reduce them to sys-
tem. Unless there is reason in the phenomena, unless the
ideas of reason are realized in the phenomena, they can not be
reduced to an intellectual, intelligent system by reason.
Reason is not troubled about the law of the phenomena, or
how this mind operated in producing the phenomena. Let
physical science reveal all it can concerning the law of the phe-
nomena, and reason will accept it all and insist that it is a
path along which mind must have moved, and along which
mind alone could have moved. If produced independent of
mind, there would not be realized in it any rational idea that
would render it intelligible to mind, and all science and scien-
tific research would be impossible.

Then we re-assert the supremacy of metaphysics over the
bundles of labeled facts arranged on the shelves of the physi-
cist, for without metaphysics their discovery and classification
would have been impossible ; and without metaphysics they
will remain forever valueless. The physicist is especially op-
posed to an attempt to find teleology in nature, or to an
attempt to find the object or purpose of any thing in nature,
for the very idea of purpose or design implies the pre-existeuce
of mind. Hence, in violation of all sense and every princi-
ple of reason, we have a denial of all teleology in nature, even
in such wonderful organs as the eye or the human hand. But
the physicist can not describe the simplest operation or phe-
nomenon of nature, without using teleological language, and
recognizing teleology all through them. Darwin exhausts the
vocabulary of teleological language in describing the processes
of nature. " Wonderful design — admirable contrivance —
beautiful adjustment — skillful adaptation — wise co-ordination."
He speaks of gins, traps, spring guns, machines, contrivances.
He invariably speaks of organs as designed and planned for

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 53

^heir special functions as purposes or ends. Wallace admits
ihh, and apologizes for it, and says the terms are metaphori-
cal, and that the necessity of using such terms, which he ad-
mits is an infirmity of thought. If the terms are metaphori-
cal, the processes of nature must contain teleological charac-
teristics, or there would be no resemblance between man's
works and nature's processess, permitting the use of the met-
aphors, much less necessitating such use. But the use is not
metaphorical, nor an infirmity of thought. The truth is, that
processes of nature are of such a character that there can be
no description of them without such use of teleological terms
and expressions. There is teleology in nature. All nature is
constructed on the principle of teleology, and no man can
construe nature, or describe nature or its processes, except in
teleological language. It is not an infirmity of thought, but a
necessity and power of truth. The infirmity, the worse than
infirmity, the absurd folly or dishonest deception, is in the
madness and fatuity that attempts to deny it, and has to rec-
ognize it in its own language while denying it and attempting
to disprove it.

The physicist dislikes the use of terms that necessarily imply
the existence of mind when describing the processes of nature ;
and yet he can not move one step in describing the processes
or operations of nature, or the constitution of nature without
using them. Does he say fixed laws or processes? The term
implies the pre-existence of mind that fixed the laws and pro-
cesses. Does he say established laws or processes ? The term
implies the pre-existence of mind that established the laws and
processes. Does he say regular uniform or orderly laws or
processes ? The terms imply the pre-existence of mind that
regulated the laws and gave them this uniform and unvarying
order. Does he speak of the order of nature ? The term im-
plies the pre-existence of mind that gave to it this order.
Does he say unalterable, invariable, unchanging laws or pro-
cesses? The terms imply co-ordination and adjustment of
these mutually interacting laws and processes in this unchang-
ing, unalterable operation. This implies the pre-existence of
mind to produce such co-ordination and adjustment. Indeed,

54 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the very term law, so continually on the tongue of the physi
cist, is enough of itself to establish the pre-existence of mind.
This is especially true when we consider what the physicist
attributes to law. Hence, such is the primordial constitution
of things, and such are the characteristics and nature of the
processes and operations of natm-e, that we can not move one
step in describing them without using terms that necessarily
imply the pre-existence of mind. It is not an infirmity of
thought, but a necessity of truth and reason. The physicist
himself, when describing the constitution and processes of
nature, or speaking of them, is compelled to use such terms and
to so describe them, even while attempting to deny and dis-
prove the great truth such use implies. In the course of evo-
lution claimed by the physicist, we see co-ordination, plan, sys-
tem, law, prevision, and provision, and he can not describe it
without using these terms and recognizing these ideas in the
evolution, for they are its fundamental characteristics.-

The princij)al work of the physicist is the classification of
phenomena, and yet he recoils from the inevitable conse-
quences of such classification. He can classify phenomena
only by means of the highest conceptions of pure reason.
The most abstract ideas, the highest conceptions of pure
reason alone will classify nature, and express the system
there is in it. These highest concej^tions of pure reason are
realized in nature, or it is systematized in accordance with
them. Then, if nature can be construed only by the highest
exercise of reason, it must have been constructed in accord-
ance with reason, and by reason. Lewes admits that science
Is compelled to arrange and co-ordinate all facts in nature
by means of id^al conceptions, in a general conception or plan.
Darwin admits that we can not describe the facts and pro-
cesses of nature without asing these rational ideas. All ad-
mit tliat they are thus compelled to use these rational ideas'
in describing the facts and processes of nature. Lewes at-
tempts to evade the consequences, by terming this necessity
an infirmity of thought. If this necessary and inevitable
tendency of our minds be an infirmity, in what can we trust
them? If these necessary ideas, these universal conceptions,

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 55

these intuitions that we are compelled, by the constitution
of our minds and the nature of things to have, when we
view the phenomena of nature, deceive us, what can we
trust? Rather let us use common sense, and accept them,
and reject as a worse than infirmity, a monstrosity, that per-
version of thought, so treasonable to the nature it pretends
to accept, that would reject them. In what sense does the
physicist accept reason as his standard, when he thus arro-
gantly casts to one side the necessary conceptions, the uni-
versal intuitions of reason, and the rational basis of all rea-
soning?

When physical science undertakes to shoAV that the methods
of nature are a path along which mind could not have moved,
and did not move, it can only do so by showing that they
are incoherent, unideal and irrational. When it has done
this, it has destroyed all possibility of science, even in the
limited sense of the physicist, for there can be no classi-
fication except in accordance with a rational or ideal con-
ception. If such conceptions be not realized in nature, if it
be not constructed in accordance with reason and by reason,
it can not be construed by reason, or classified in accordance
with reason, or rational and ideal conceptions; and all sci-
ence is an impossibility, and the efforts of the physicist are
as much a chimera as the child's search for the bag of gold
at the foot of the rainbow. With a preposterous fatuity,
those who claim to be par excellence the ones who are striving
to render the universe intelligible, seem to think that they
can only do so by denying all relation of the universe to in-
telligence. It can be rendered rational only by denying
that reason has had any thing to do with it, or that there
are any evidences that reason ever had any connection with
it. We reaffirm, that if it takes mind to construe the uni-
verse, and it can be done only in accordance with the high-
est conceptions and ideas of reason, and by means of them,
then these ideas are realized in the universe, and it was
constructed in accordance with them, and by reason using
them and governed by them — a reason which realized them
in tlie universe. Let the reader keep ever in mind this

56 THE PROBT.EM OF PROBLEMS.

postulate in examining the various solutions of the problem.
When pressed with this thought, and silenced by it, the
physicist seeks to evade it in another way. He can not
evade the evidence of intelligent causation in the universe,
and ho attempts to cast to one side the conclusion, by urg-
ing that we can not have any knowledge, even an appre-
hension, of the infinite; and of course we can not apprehend
or have any knowledge of Infinite IMind, or God. As we
have already demonstrated, we can rise to an apprehension
of the infinite in space and duration, and to a knowledge
that tliey are infinite; and we can know some of the char-
acteristics of the infinite in space and duration. This the
physicist himself admits. He assumes, also, that matter and
force are eternal, hence he assumes absolute being in matter
and force; or the absolute, uncaused, and unconditioned in
matter and force. Then, why not, we ask, have an appre-
hension of the absolute, uncaused and unconditioned in mind,
as well as in matter and force? Why not have the infi-
nite, absolute and unconditioned in mind force, as well as in
other force? If, as we shall yet show, we have to place
mind back of the primordial constitution of matter and force,
to give them this constitution, then the absolute, the un-
caused, the unconditioned, that all assume, and that all ad-
mit, must be mind. Why not admit mind to be eternal,
as well as matter? Why make an idolatrous fetich of mat-
ter, and insult our rational and spiritual nature by elevating
it above mind? Then we affirm, as another postulate, that
we can apprehend the infinite, have a knowledge that it ex-
ists, and a knowledge of its attributes or characteristics. We
prove this: 1. We have the terms infinite, absolute, etc.,
and as words are signs of ideas, man must have had the
idea, or he never would have had the sign of it. 2. We
have demonstrated that we have an apprehension of the in-
finite in space and duration, and of their characteristics.
We know space and time are infinite, and we know their
characteristics. 3. We show, ])y an examination of the
language of those who deny that we can have an ai)prehen-
sion of the infinite, that they assume that we have an ap-

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 57

prehension of, and a knowledge of, the infinite in space, du-
ration, matter and force. We claim that we can in mind
as well. 4. When the physicist affirms that we can not
apprehend the infinite, he apprehends it in his affirmative
that we can not apprehend it. If we can have no knowledge
of it, how can he affirm that we can not apprehend it? Let
the reader keep in mind this postulate in examining the ob-
jections of the physicist.

There is an order pervading the universe that includes
every atom, every organ, every animal, every plant, every
species, every world, every system, the universe. There is
an order and system in creation, in time, in succession, in
method. It has existed through all epochs. There has been
correlation of growths with surroundings and each other.
There is a universal harmony in all nature and the universe.
There is a co-ordination of forces. All this establishes a unity
in the universe. The physicist also admits that we are com-
pelled by the necessities and tendencies of our minds to co-
ordinate and arrange all the facts of science into one system,
by means of general conceptions of reason. The inevitable
conclusion to be drawn from such a unitizing of the pheno-
mena of the universe, is that such an order and harmony and
unity can be secured only by the action of mind, or intelli-
gence acting on a plan. It sets to one side the objection of
the physicist, that even if we concede that the phenomena of
nature teach intelligent causation, we would have many causes,
and not one cause. Lewes admits this necessity and tendency
of science and thought, to unitize all phenomena and facts of
science into one system ; but he, as usual, to evade its obvious
theistic bearings, calls it an infirmity of thought. In no one
thing does reason so exhibit its strength, as in these grand
generalizations, and in unitizing the universe. In it, reason
reaches one of the central ideas of the universe. " Then this
thought that there is one order, one system, one plan pervad-
ing the universe, is another postulate to be used in our work.

The physicist claims to take reason as his standard. From
the twilight of authentic history to the present, in nine hun-
dred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine

58 THE PROBLE^r OF PROBLEMS.

tliousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of every
hundred million, man's nature, human reason, has given and
accepted these universal ideas, these intuitions : God, crea-
tion by him, government by him, responsibility to him, retri-
bution by him, prayer, providence, religion, and worship.
Pretending to accept reason as his standard, the physicist
rejects these universal ideas of reason, the highest and most
exalted conceptions of the noblest part of our nature. If
there be, as the physicist claims, evolution, and evolution by
law, or controlled by law, these ideas are the result of that
evolution. Man is the highest product of evolution, and his
rational, moral and religious nature the noblest part of his
nature, the apex and crown of evolution. If this evolution
be in accordance with law, and controlled by law, these ideas
must be in accordance with that law, and be the highest
expression of that law. Then, if true to his own standard,
reason, the physicist should not reject these catholic ideas of
reason. Above all, he should accept these ideas as the high-
est expression of the law of evolution, which he recognizes as
the highest authority, and the controlling power in the uni-
verse. Then, accepting the highest expression of the physi-
cist's law of evolution, and the highest result of evolution, and
the highest conceptions of the noblest element of the crown-
ing result of this evolution, and the standard of the physicist,
we postulate these catholic ideas.

The question of absolute creation can not be settled by
science — physical science, as the physicist uses the term.
Using science in broader and truer meaning, and including
metaphysics, mental and moral philosophy, and religion, and
every domain of tliought and truth, absolute creation is a
question of science ; but when used in the sense of mere phys-
ical science, absolute creation is foreign to and above its
sphere. Physical science can only investigate derivative crea-
tion through reproduction. It has neither data nor means of
reaching them, that reach the question of absolute creation.
The religious world has conceded too much to the physicist,
when it allows him to attempt to settle the question of crea-
tion, the creation of species, or the origin of species, by his

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 0^

inethotls. If physical science has in its knowledge or expe-
rience the phenomenon to be accounted for, then it has the
data to settle the question, and can apply its methods. But
the origin of a new species, by the conditions set forth by
Darwin, or by evolution, or any known process of nature, is
utterly beyond the knowledge of science. It can show that
previous to a certain period a species did not exist, and that
after a certain period we meet Avith it ; but it can not give
a scrap of proof to show that any known process or force of
nature ever produced a single species, in any period of the
earth's history, during geological or historic time. Hence, so
far from it being the province of physical science to settle the
question of origin of species, it is utterly beyond its province.
It is presumption and absurdity to attempt to apply the meth-
ods of physical science to the solution of the question, for
there are no data to which its methods apply. It must be
settled by reason alone. Keason and religion must settle the
question of absolute creation, and it can not be done if we
reject the most exalted ideas of reason on this very subject.
Belief in the creative energy, and action of an intelligent
cause, does not rest on the facts and grounds furnished by
physical science, but on primary intuitions, that can no more
be denied or set aside than the reason that evolves them.
Physical science can no more test them or disprove them than
it can the axioms of mathematics, for they do not rest on the
facts of physical science any more than the axiom that the
sum of the parts equals the whole, rests on the physical
nature of the parts and the whole. Belief in the creative
energy of intelligence can no more be tested by the tests of
physical science than the chemist can determine in his cruci-
ble whether an affirmation of our moral nature that an act is
wrong, is correct or not. Physical science can collect the
phenomena and facts of the universe. It can reveal to us the
time, the manner, and the characteristics of the phenomena.
It can reveal the characteristics of the phenomena by the aid
of reason. But the question, who produced the phenomena,
and for what end were they produced, can only be settled by
reason, using all the regulative ideas of our rational, moral

60 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

and reliiiioiis nature, as tested by these catholic intuitions.
Until physical science can meet with a case of absolute crea-
tion, the question is beyond its province, and utterly foreign
to it and its methods. It can only furnish to reason tlie data
it uses in settling the question, and reason alone can decide it.
It is a violation of every principle of inductive philosophy,
that refuses to investigate the unique phenomena of mental
nature, so dissimilar to that of the rest of nature, and to
reason from their characteristics to their cause. The physi-
cist very properly investigates the phenomena of the rest of
nature, and reasons from their characteristics to the cause,
and the character of their cause. But, in violation of every
principle of true philosophy, he either assumes the similarity
of the phenomena of mental nature and the rest of nature;
in contradiction of every sense, or in violation of every prin-
ciple of common sense, he extends the results reached in the
physical world to the radically dissimilar mental world. As
we have said, we must investigate all nature and its phenom-
ena, and especially the highest phenomena in nature — mental
phenomena. ]Man's will is a cause and an element in nature,
and gives us our entire idea of causation. We must take
man's mental nature, his rational, moral, and religious nature,
into account. AVe must include this highest part of nature,
and its phenomena, the most exalted in nature, the regulative
phenomena of all reasoning. In solving our problem, we
have, as our highest idea, our most important element, man's
will, mind, moral and religious nature, and all they suggest-
Again, j)roving that nature is controlled by law, does not ex-
plain the cause of the phenomena of nature. It only estab-
lishes the character of the cause. It does not set to one side
the idea of Creator and Ruler, but, on the contrary, it only
esta])lishes its truth. The question is, what is the character
of the law ? Is it a law of fital, physical necessity, or a law
of a rational being? Back of all ideas of matter lies the idea
of the adaptation of the elements and properties of matter to
each other, and their co-ordination and adjustment. Back of
all ideas of force lies the idea of the adjustment of forces, co-
ordinating them to each other. Invariableness of the law

OUR MEANS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM. 61

does not destroy the idea of adjustment and purpose. On
the contrary, it only renders the law susceptible of being used
by will for a purpose, by changing the conditions. Laws of
nature are rendered subservient to purpose in nature, by ap-
plying other laws by means of mechanical or other contriv-
iuices, just as in art. In the wing of a bird, and in a tubu-
lar column is secured the greatest strength, with the greatest
lightness of material. Then the character and nature of these
laws, if they are laws of rational character, rational laws of
intelligence, establishes the idea of Creator and Ruler !

Now if we have accomplished our purpose in this chapter,
Ave have placed before the reader these postulates and data,
to be used in solving our problem.

I. Our means of investigation, and our standard must be hu-
man reason, man's rational, moral, and religious nature.

II. We must accept all of man's mental nature, his moral
and religious, as well as his rational nature. We can not ])re-
teud to take man's mental nature as our standard, and reject
its highest and regnant element, his moral and religious nature.

III. We must accept the integrity and reliability of our na-
ture in its each and every part, and the validity of its cath-
olic ideas.

IV. The catholic ideas of our nature are our highest au-
thority in solving the problem, and in testing our solution.

V. We must mvestigate all nature, and accej^t the phenom-
ena of all nature, and not reject the phenomena of the most
exalted part of nature — our moral and spiritual nature.

VI. AVe have- given the regulative ideas of reason that
must control our investigation, and test the result we reach.

VII. We have called the attention to the fiict that all the
catholic ideas of reason, and its most exalted ideas, are realized
in the universe.

VIII. We have shown that the physicist rejects the intui-
tion of causation — the intuition of teleology in nature. He
rejects the intuitive recognition of mind in the terms used in
describing the phenomena of nature. He rejects the great end
and purpose of scientific research, the efficient and final causes
of phenomena. He rejects the classification of phenomena by

62 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the ideas of pure reason. We have exhibited the folly of his
rejection of what he calls metaphysics. We have shown that
he rejects the controlling idea of science, unitizing phenomena
by ideas of reason. Wa have exposed his rejection of the
catholic ideas of reason, and of our moral and religious na-
ture.

IX. We have shown that the most abstract and exalted
ideas of piu'e reason are realized in every part of nature. With
tliese postulates and data, after an examination of the various
solutions, we shall be ready to test the solutions, and deter-
mine which meets the demands of the problem, and will stand
the test of these truths, by accepting, using, and agreeing
with them all.

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 63

CHAPTER III.

The Various Solutions of the Problem.

We have nOAV placed before the reader the demands of tlie
problem, and the data we have and must use in its solution.
In this chapter we purpose a brief statement of the various
solutions of the problem offered for our acceptance as prelim-
inary to an examination of each.

I. Chance. — All phenomena and all being is, and ever has been,
tlie result of chance or a blind fortuitous concourse of atoms.
Perhaps no sane person ever did absolutely believe this theory, if
we can call it such ; but some have attempted to take refuge
in it from the idea of divine government and retribution, or
as an escape from the perplexities and mysteries enshrouding
the problem of the universe.

II. Fate or necessity. — All things have been brought into
being by resistless, undeviating fate and necessity, and are now
governed by it. There are various phases of this theory.
1st. The present order of things is eternal, and holds on in
its course under the control of relentless, unchanging neces-
sity. 2d. At first there was a fortuitous concourse of atoms
and phenomena, until the present order of things, by fate or
chance, obtained and became an established and fatal neces-
sity. This is the theory of ancient fatalists. 3d. Theories
of development. Some think that development began in a
fortuitous concourse and action of matter and force that re-
sulted in evolution, or in starting a course of evolution. Others
hold that this course of evolution is eternal, and has eternally
been under the control of law. All atheistic theories of de-
velopment are theories of fate or necessity. They have only
added the term law to ancient theories. This law is a law of
fatal necessity, not controlled by intelligence. The denial of
spontaneity in nature, even in man and in mind, and of free-

G4 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

dom of the ^vill, providence, prayer, forgiveness of sin, and
the talk of iindeviating, unchanging law that abounds in the
speculations of physical science and evolutionists, show that
they are but modernized statements of ancient theories of
fi\te. The ancient system of Lucretius and Epicurus were an-
ticipations of modern speculations. Matter and force are
eternal. Motion is an eternal and inherent property or state
of f(jrce. Force in motion acts on matter, and matter in turn
reacts and modifies force, and by their action, reaction, and
interaction, is evolved inorganic, organic, and vital exist-
ences. So the ancient hylozoic theory was an anticipation of
certain modern speculations. It assumed that the present
order of things is eternal. The two entities or existences
whence all si)rang were matter and phenomena. Matter was
pervaded by plastic life (life susceptible being molded into all
forms) and by intelligence, Tyndall's Belfast speech was
but a modernized statement of this speculation of ancient
thought.

III. Theory of Nescience or Ignorance. — There is a distinc-
tion between the me and the not-me, but we can know noth-
ing of either absolutely or in their essence. AYe can only
know that they exist, and learn and recognize their differen-
tia. There is a distinction between mind and matter, but we
can learn and believe nothing of either in regard to their ab-
solute nature or essence. We can only know that they exist,
and recognize their differences. We can learn and know no-
thing of the ultimate or absolute, and can know nothing of
the infinite and unconditioned. AVe can learn nothing of ul-
timate causes, or of the Ultimate Cause, or of the Absolute
or Infinite Cause. We can have no knowledge, not even an
appreliension or idea of the infinite. It is folly to undertake
to learn any thing concerning the infinite, or to speculate
concerning it. Let us confine ourselves to the what we know
exists, and to what we can learn concerning them ; their dif-
ferentia and their phenomena, although we can not learn
any thing concerning their nature. We need not know any
thing of the ultimate and infinite. It is not practical knowl-
edge, nor is it scientific to attempt such inquiries. The term

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 65

God is merely an expression for a mode of the unknowable,
like the term X in an indeterminate equation. All exist-
ences are the result of a force which is a mode of tlie unknow-
able. This misty conception of a nothing-sometliing, or an
indefinite something-nothing, is the acme, the ne jjIus ultra of
all science. Concerning the force of which this phantasm is a
mode we can know nothing, and can learn nothing. This
theory was furnished to the atheists by illogical attempts of
Christians to establish and defend the necessity of revelation.
Rationalists claimed, by searching, to find out God — to attain
to a complete knowledge of him. Apologists for Christianity
took the position that reason could not know that which is
infinite, and as a necessary consequence the Infinite must re-
veal himself. Spencer accepted the premise that reason can
not know the infinite, and carried it out to a logical conclusion
when he asserted that if reason could not know the Infinite,
could not apprehend him by reason, neither could it by rev-
elation. If reason could not apprehend the Infinite, it was
impossible for the Infinite to reveal himself to what could not
apprehend such a revelation of the Infinite. He thus dec-
orously bowed the Creator out of the universe through the
back door of nescience, opened by Hamilton and Mansel, and
through which they supposed they had driven atheism, and
then shut the door in our faces, and now coolly tells us that
all inquiry concerning what is back of it is folly and unscien-
tific. It is not the first time that misguided zeal has furnished
weapons to an enemy. It is the most popular refuge of athe-
ism at the present time.

IV. Pantheism. — In its extreme form it assumes that there,
is infinite, absolute being in matter and force alone. Neither
is conscious or voluntary. They are subject to development,
of necessity. This development continues from everlasting to
everlasting. Eastern or Indian philosophy is pantheistic.
So are many of the phases of modern evolution. Since a
progression in eternity would have been perfect, and as things
are not perfect, tlie Brahman invented a theory of cycles.
Each existence, and the universe itself, runs endlessly through
a scries of cycles, ever returning to the starting at the close
G

66 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

of each cycle. Modern evolution has resorted to the same
subterfuge to evade the same difficulty. It has each cycle
bejrin in a turbulent chaos, and has it close with a catastro-
phe that reduces all existence to chaos, in ^Yhich it commen-
ces a new cycle. In this dreamy system, which has a iascina-
tion for certain poetical, mystically inclined minds, we are told
that in the finite alone do we know or apprehend the Infinite.
The finite is the infinite in existence or realized. God is the
universe, and the universe is God. There is no conscious
power or intelligence in the universe except as developed in
the finite. God attains his highest consciousness in man.
Intelligence is ever rising from the boundless ocean of exist-
ence like vapor from the sea, and returning back to the infin-
ite and eternal ocean of being like the rain-drop to the sea.
Since this theory makes all phenomena and being a part of
the ever-realizing infinite, the infinite realized, it destroys
all distinction between conduct and acts. Sin and virtue are
alike modes of the infinite, and alike in essence and nature.
And since all being and phenomena are bound up in the In-
finite, all freedom and responsibility are impossible, and mere
chimeras.

There are various phases of pantheism. In some of its
pluises, God is merely a term for an universal force that
exhibits intelligence only when modified by matter in organ-
ization. Certain phases of the evolution theory accord with
this position. Or, God means merely a world soul like vital
force in the tree. Some carry the conception higher, making
the term God mean a world soul like the soul of the animal.
The higher the organization in which it is manifested, the
higher the expression of this vital force or world soul. Some
make God merely latent or nascent life or intelligence per-
vading all matter, and susceptible of development by condi-
tions, lu^ latent heat is developed by conditions. In all these
phases of pantheism, it is assumed that God attains -his
highest consciousness in man. Tliese are really atheistic, and
all these phases of pantheism are atheism. There is often an
attompt to conceal this by taking refuge behind the use of
such phases as God, the infinite, etc.; and often a denial of

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 67

atheism is made with much assumed indignation, when the
grossest atheism is hid under such subterfuges. There are
theories professing to be theistic that are pantheistic in real-
ity. God is recognized as Spirit and as eternally active and
conscious, but he is related to the universe as the human
spirit is to the body. Milton's theory that God and matter
were alike self-existent and eternal is of this character. It
strips God of independence and self-sustenance, and limits
him, and subjects him to the necessary properties and laws of
matter. We can not conceive of the universe as consistiner,
at first, of infinite mind and infinite matter, or of infinite
mind and infinite laws that are self-existent, or of infinite
mind and infinite resources, that are eternal and self-existent,
without limiting and finiting God, by infinite matter, or in-
finite laws, or infinite resources; and entering on the descend-
ing inclined plane that will land us in the abyss of atheism.
We must place mind back of all matter, law, and resources,
creating, constituting, and co-ordinating them. Much of
modern poetry sentimentalism and speculatism is pantheistic.
It has a fascination for dreamy, sentimental minds, inclined to
mysticism. Spiritism is a system of pantheism, and often of
the grossest kind.

V. Tlieories of development or evolution. — Of these there are
three phases: Cosmical development, physiological develop-
ment, and historical development. 1. Cosmical development.
This undertakes to account for the origin, forms and motions
of the plants and systems that constitute the physical uni-
verse, and for their physical constitution, and for the universe
itself. 2. Physiological development. This undertakes to ac-
count for all life and varieties of life, both animal and
vegetable, by what are called laws of nature, or natural law.
3. Histoncal development. This undertakes to account for the
progress of the human race in arts, civilization, science, gov-
ernment, social and domestic life, religion and morality ; and
for all rational, moral, and religious ideas and systems, by
natural law or laws of nature. Let us now examine them in
detail: I. Cosmical development. There are two phases
of this theory. The one first proposed, merely attempted to

68 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

account for the solar system, and then to extend the theory,
]w analogy, to the universe. It began by assuming that all
the matter in the solar system was once united in a vast globe
of highly heated vaporous or gaseous matter, surrounded by
an atmosphere enormously expanded by extreme heat, to far
beyond the present confines of the solar system. By the
radiation of its heat into sidereal space, the fiery mass and
heated atmosphere cooled and became greatly condensed.
The motion imparted to each particle by heat caused a mo-
tion of the mass, which began to revolve around its center.
As it cooled, the rotation on its axis increased, until the centri-
fugal force overcame gravity and cohesion, and revolving rings
of vapor, revolving around their annular center and around
the central mass, were projected into space. These, if uniform
in density, might continue to revolve in an annular form, as
did the rings of Saturn, ])ut on account of unequal density and
cohesion, would be apt to be broken up, and aggregated into
masses as in the j)lanets, revolving around the central mass in
orbits, and on their own centers. These in turn might throw off
rings like those of Saturn, and these might be broken up and
aggregated in satellites, revolving on their axis, and around
the primary, and with it around the central mass. Other
systems in sidereal space were generated in this way, and
perhaps a vast number of these by a still vaster mass, and
so on, continually involving still vaster masses, until the
absolutely infinite universe is included in the hypothesis.

The later phase was suggested, the nehuliv, or cloud-like
masses observed in all parts of the heavens. They Avere
conjectured to be immense masses of stellar matter, or star-
dust, in an exceedingly tenuous or gaseous condition. It was
assumed that here were instances of systems in process of
formation, or in the initial condition of all systems. This
suggested the nebular hypothesis, which attempted to account
for the universe, as the system just stated accounts for the
solar system. It varies from that, in starting with the uni-
verse and reasoning down to the solar system, whereas that
began with the solar system and passed out to the universe.
All space, absolute space, was once pervaded by matter in the

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 69

form of highly heated vapor, or as matter in a gaseous con-
dition, from intense heat, called fire-mist, or star-dust, or
stellar vapor. In consequence of different degrees of density,
arising from different degrees of heat, or other circumstances,
such as differences in velocity or motion, or from some cause
now inexplicable, aggregations of this fire- mist began around
certain points, or in certain nuclei. In consequence of un-
equal centripetal velocities, or unequal densities of the parti-
cles, or some unknown cause, these converging and impinging
particles began a rotary motion around the centers of con-
ver-gency or of these nuclei. Then, by attraction of these
nuclei, other particles were attracted, until vast portions of
sidereal space were occupied by these enormous globes of
highly heated gaseous matter, surrounded by a stdl vaster
atmosphere, enormously expanded by intense heat. Immense
portions of sidereal space, around these vast glol^es, wei'c
thus vacated by matter, and reduced to the condition of
space outside of the atmosphere of our planets. Then began
in each system the genesis of planets and satellites described
in the former phase of the theory.

When a planet was first aggregated into a globular form,
it was in a highly heated condition, a mass of highly heated
gaseous matter, in which were all the elementary substances
of matter, or that out of which they, were formed, in a choatic
mechanically mixed mass of intensely heated vapor or gas.
Chemical action was latent as yet, or overcame by intense
heat. After the lapse of an immense period of time, this
globe cooled b}'^ radiation, so that crusts began to be formed
on its surface. By the tidal influence of moon and sun, and
by the eruption and explosive forces of its own mass, these
were broken up for a long time. After a while, however, it
became sufficiently cooled to form a permanent crust, subject,
however, to great upheavals and fractures by the now con-
fined fiery center. The water in the cooling mass, at first
formed an envelope around it of steam or heated acid vapor,
shrouding the planet that was without light or atmosphere.
Then, this steam, being cooled, began to fiill in dense rain, to
be driven back in steam by the still heated crust, until at

70 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

last^the crust became .sufficiently cooled to retain the water on
its surface in an universal ocean. Chemical action had ere
this began to form substances and compounds, and es})ecially
the first rock of the globe, that which formed the crust of the
globe. By chemical action, water and air had been formed
around the globe. Still the atmosphere was largely impreg-
nated with vapor, acid vapor, and steam, and immense clouds
and constant rain were the condition of the entire surface of
the globe.

In the course of time, by the action of internal heat, por-
tions of the earth's crust were elevated above the hitherto
universal ocean, and subjected to the decomposing influences
of air and water, and formed into earths. In consequence of
original and inherent differences in the particles of fire-mist,
or in consequence of the influence of diflferent conditions on
its particles, arose the different elementary substances, known
as the original elements of matter, or the sixty elementary
substances. In consequence of original and inherent differ-
ences in the particles of fire-mist, and in consequence of the
influence of different conditions on the original particles of fire-
mist, arose the diflferent properties of these different element-
ary substances. In like manner, in consequence of original
differences in the forces, or in consequence of different condi-
tions to which the one force was subjected, arose the different
forces of nature, or the diflferent manifestations of the one
force of the universe. If these diflferences of substances and
properties of substances, and of forces and properties of forces,
were in the original fire-mist, we can only say they were in-
herent, original, and eternal. If they arose from differences
in conditions, these diflferences of conditions and influences are
Inexplicable, except so far as an explanation may be involved
in the declaration that they are original, inherent, and
eternal. By mechanical action of attraction, adhesion, and
cohesion, homogeneous masses were formed out of the mixture
containing all these elements. By chemical action, which is
also inexplicable, except as we say it is inherent in matter,
and original and eternal, arose the vast number of chemical
compounds in nature. Wo liave now the sixty original elo-

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 71

raentary substances, and the different properties of matter,
and the different physical forces. We have homogeneous
masses formed by mechanical action of forces, and chemical
com}X)unds formed by chemical action and crystallization.
But we have no life, and no organic arrangement of matter,
in which life is manifested. Some have cosmical evolution
close before chemical action, and make chemical action the
starting point and basis of physiological evolution, the starting
point and basis of life and organic matter. Others make
chemical action a part of cosmical evolution. It was evi-
dently present and active in cosmical evolution long befoie
life appeared ; hence they make it a part of such evolution.
They recognize the chasm between chemical action and crys-
tallization, no matter how complex and wonderful; and life
and organic matter, no matter how simple, and throw chemi-
cal action back into cosmical evolution, and begin physiologi-
cal evolution on the other side of the chasm between organic
and inorganic matter.

II. Physiological Development. — This theory under-
takes to account for all organic matter, and for all vegetable
and animal life, and for all varieties of animal and vegetable
life. The advocates of this theory have always experienced
great difficulty in getting a starting point for this hypothesis.
The query arises at the very commencement : Whence came
life ? Often an attempt is made to evade it, or to silence in-
quiry, but reason and common sense will not down at their
bidding, or be evaded ; but persistently press the query :
Whence came that wonderful phenomenon called life? Was it
originally, inherently, and eternally in matter? Was it and
is it now latent or nascent in all matter ? If not, why present
now in some matter and not in other matter? If latent or
nascent in some or all matter eternally, how is it developed
and made active? When and how does it pass from its latent
into an active form, or tangible form, and manifestations?
Whtit causes or conditions cause such a change? Whence
came the conditions, and how do they accomplish such r ^^
change? If life is not latent in any or all matter, w^ ''
does it come when it appears ? How can matter.>.p^

72 TFIE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

evolve what is not in them? Or what can evolve out of them
what is not in them? If neither of them be true, then it must
be a creation. It is thought that the new doctrine of correla-
tion of forces solves this difficulty, and hence it is eagerly-
seized by the advocates of physiological developments, as a
means of helping them out of the difficulty. It is stated
thus. There are not several forces in the universe, much less
several distinct and antagonistic forces. What appear to be
such, are merely different manifestations of the one force per-
vading the universe. The different manifestations are but
different modifications of this one force, caused by different
conditions, or by difference in the matter or combinations or
organization of the matter in which the force is manifested, or
the different circumstances or conditions in which it is mani-
fested. But immediately the query arises: ''Is this state-
ment true? Has it been demonstrated? Are vital and ani-
mal force and life, and their wonderful manifestations, the
same force as seen in inorganic nature? Are sensation, life,
instinct, reason, emotion, volition, thought, and mental and
moral action produced by the same force as rustles the leaf
and burns the brand ? " Intuition and reason has ever made
a distinction, have ever recognized an insuperable chasm be-
tween tliem. They can be shown to be antagonistic and
mutually destructive of each other. But even if true, corre-
lation of forces merely shifts the difficulty. It does not re-
move it, for still the query presses : How is this wonderful
modification of tliis one force accomplished? Whence came
these conditions, this organization that accomplishes these
wonderful results?

All agree that there is a point at which and above which
we can and do apprehend that life is present. All agree that
there is a point below which and at which we apprehend that
life is not present. In one case we apprehend that life and its
manifestations are present, and that there is organic coml)ina-
tion of matter, prevaded by life. In the other, life is not
^^'"^sent, or its manifestations; and there is merely inorganic
ana orij^^-j^j^ ^^ matter, destitute of life; or an organic corn-
compounds .^f jjj^g i^g^ ijfg^ rj^j^^gg p^jj^j.g ^^^ j^^^ ^g coinci-

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 73

dent, and there may be a debatable land between them, yet
there is a point, above which we can say there is life present,
and organic combination of matter pervaded by life; and a
point below which we can say there is no life, no organic com-
bination pervaded by life. As to the origin or genesis of life
when it does appear and become tangible, we have the theory
of spontaneous generation in its various forms of archegenesis,
heterogenesis, and abiogenesis. Archegenesis is based on the
idea that life was latent or nascent in matter in its original
and eternal constitution. It is developed or made active by
chemical action or other conditions. Life is either a different
manifestation of the one force pervading the universe, and the
difference is caused by difference of organization of matter in
which it is manifested, or other conditions. Or if it be a
distinct and different force, it was eternally, originally, and
inherently latent in matter, and was rendered active by condi-
tions, chemical action or otherwise. Abiogenesis (or the pro-
duction of life out of that which has no life) is the assumption
that by suitable conditions, such as chemical action, elec-
tricity, or the action of some natural force or agent, life is
evolved out of that which displays no life. Whether there is
a real creation, or merely a radically different display of what
already existed, is a question concerning which there are
differences of opinion ; and often fluctuations of opinion in the
same persons, as they are pressed with different phases of this
crucial difficulty. Heterogenesis (or the production of some-
thing strange, or foreign, or different) is applied to both
archegenesis and abiogenesis, but it properly includes only the
latter. The term heterogenesis has been applied also to the
production by living organisms of something different from
themselves. To avoid confusion, the latter phenomenon is
now called xenogenesis (the production of something strange
or unusual), and heterogenesis is applied only to the produc-
tion or evolution of life out of what has no life.

Having life as a starting point, there are various phases
of physiological development, to account for the origin r^
species and varieties of animal and vegetable hfe.

I. Through a force which is a mode of the unkn^
7

-S.

external

74 THE PIIOBI.EM OF PliOBEEMS.

n. Through external forces. 1. Transmutation of species by
external surroundings. 2. Conflicts of individuals, resulting
in survival of fittest or natural selection. Some extend these
speculations back over the origin of life. Some include in
tlie evolution the entire vital Avorld, Avith mental and moral
nature. Some exclude from the evolution mental and moral
nature. Some say that the evolution was by insensible gra-
dations throughout. Some say generally by insensible grada-
tions, but admit occasional leaps have been made to bridge over
certain chasms, such as exist between inorganic and organic
nature, or between vegetable and animal existence, or between
animal nature and human nature.

III. Through an internal force influenced by external con-
ditions. Some think that there is an inherent power or im-
pulse towards evolution in all manifestations of force, and all
forms of nature.

IV. Through the processes of generation and re-produc-
tion. 1. Prolonged development of the animal in its embry-
onical state has given to it new characteristics. 2. Acceler-
ated development in embryonic condition has given new char-
acteristics. 3. Retarded or imperfect development in embry-
onic condition has changed characteristics. 4. Extraordinary
births of this character, or extraordinary births occasioned by
unusual influences on mother or embryo, have produced new
and unusual characteristics, and these have been perpetuated
and transmitted by law of heredity. 5. Parthenogenesis.
Some have even imagined that new characteristics or new
species came from births where there was no impregnation, a
sort of miraculous eflbrt of nature, a sort of self-impregnation !

One of the above theories, evolution by conflicts of individ-
uals, resulting in survival of Attestor natural selection, first con-
ceived by Mr. Wallace, but shortly after conceived and pub-
lished by Mr. Darwin, independent of any knowledge of Mr.
AVallace's ideas, has obtained great notoriety as Darwinism,
Darwin's hypothesis, or Darwin's theory. As many talk
*"^'ich about it that are ignorant of it, and expose themselves
^ '^--^ule, and injure the cause they would defend, and as
compounu.,.^ arc calle i Darwinism, not included by Darwin in

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 75

his hypothesis, we shall attempt a concise statement of this,
now celebrated hypothesis, as well as we can gatlier it from
Darwin's writings, and the conception that others have formed
of it. Darwin has never made a formal statement of iiis hy-
pothesis. It can only be gathered in detached fragments in
his somewhat voluminous writings. Our statement may 'be
criticised, and certain statements of Darwin quoted against
it, for Darwin is not always consistent with his former state-
ments; but we believe it to be in the main correct. It may
be stated as including, 1. Certain assumptions. 2. Certain
statements that he calls laws. 3. Certain things needed to
render the hypotliesis possible or plausible. 4. The ga^os or
failures in the hypothesis.

I. He assumes the existence of matter. Whether self-ex-
istent and eternal, or created, he does not say. The affini-
ties and tendencies of his system, and the drift of his specu-
lations are towards the self-existence of matter.

II. He assumes the existence and activity of physical forces,
or of the different manifestations of the one physical force.
Whether mind antedated these forces, and created and co-or-
dinated them, and now controls them ; or whether mind co-ex-
isted with these forces, and acts in them and with them ; or
whether they are self-existent and eternal, and mind merely
a different manifestation of physical force ; or whether mind
is evolved by physical force, he does not say. The tendencies
of his system, and the drift of his writings, are towards the
eternity and self-existence of physical forces.

in. He assumes the existence of life as a starting point.
He neither assumes nor denies spontaneous generation. He
neither assumes nor denies the eternal and inherent existence
of plastic life in matter. He neither assumes nor denies the
evolution of life out of matter and physical force, or by means
of them. He does not say whether he regards life merely as
a different manifestation or a modification of physical force.
He does not define life, nor does he, except in a vague ex-
pression, which we will soon examine, tell us whence life comes.
The affinities and drift of his speculations are towards an eternal

76 THE rr.OBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

plastic life-force in all matter, or evolution of life out of
matter and force.

IV. He, on rare occasions, speaks of the creation of life
and organic matter. He does not say whether created by
intelligence, or created by evolution by means of matter and
force. The drift of his speculations is towards creation by
evolution out of matter and physical force, or by means of
them.

V. He speaks once at least of the creation of a few j)ri-
mordial germs, or of one primordial germ. He does not tell
us whether this was an absolute, direct creation by intelli-
gence, or whether it was a creation by intelligence through
second causes, or an evolution by matter and force. He does
not say whether these germs w'ere formed out of pre-existent
matter or not. The affinities of his system are towards an
evolution out of pre-cxistent matter by mere physical force.

VI. He assumes these germs to be susceptible of endless
and almost infinite variations and development by conditions.
Intelligence, or the action of intelligence, is no part of these
conditions. He does not assign to intelligence any part in this
evolution. In fact, he denies and ridicules the idea of intel-
ligence having any connection with this evolution. He at-
tempts to disprove it.

VII. He speaks once of the inbreathing of life into these
germs by the Creator. Whether life was inbreathed by in-
telligence, or by physical forces, or was evolved by physical
forces, or was merely physical force, that became life on ac-
count of the organization into which it entered, he does not
say. The drift of his speculations is towards mere physical
force, modified by organization of matter, and changed into
what we call life. The tendency of his system, as seen in
his followers' and his own writings, is towards evolution of
germs out of pre-existent matter by physical force, and the
evolution of life out of physical force by orgai'iization of mat-
ter.

VIII. From a few primordial germs, or from one primor-
dial germ, have been developed all varieties of animal and
vegetable life by the influence of suitable conditions.

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 77

IX. Organization, growth and reproduction are functions
of all life, vegetable and animal, necessary functions. He
does not say whence these functions came. He merely as-
sumes them as necessary functions of life. They are the nec-
essary functions of the primordial germs. They would, how-
ever, merely produce germs like themselves. Darwin's hy-
pothesiiS really undertakes nothing more than to account for
the production of varieties of life. Such are the assump-
tions necessary as a basis for Darwin's hypothesis. It will be
readily seen that it leaves all the real mysteries of the great
problem of existence untouched. It quietly ignores them by
assuming their existence without one word as to their origin.

As we have said, the real object of Darwin's hypothesis
is to account for the origin of the species and varieties of
vegetable and animal life. It accounts for them thus:

1. Different conditions or circumstances surrounding differ-
ent germs affected or influenced them differently. This Dar-
win calls the law of different conditions. Whence these dif-
ferent conditions came, he does not say. 2. Adaptation to
different conditions, or the power to adapt itself to different
conditions, existed in these germs. Whence came this won-
derful adaptation, or wonderful power of adaptation, he does
not say. 3. Different conditions and these adaptations, or
power of adaptability, produced different characteristics in dif-
ferent germs, producing new forms and new characteristics.
4. The law of heredity, or the tendency of all life to beget
that which is like itself, perpetuated these new characteristics.
He does not tell us whence this law of heredity came, so op*
posed to the fortuity of the operations of blind, irrational phys-
ical f)rce. 5. Law of over-production. All forms of life,
especially the lower, increase in an enormous geometrical ratio
in very short intervals, thus producing incalculable numbers.
6. This over-production produces a struggle for life. 7. In
this struggle for life only those best qualified for the struggle,
or the fittest, could survive and perpetuate themselves.

Such is Darwin's hypothesis, as he propounds it. In order
to render it a workmg hypothesis, one that can be used in
investigating nature, and giving a possible explanation of the

78 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

phenomena for which it professes to account, and this is a)-,
that can be claimed for it, the following assumptions must
also be made. Darwin and his adherents seem to have over-
looked them, or to have built on them unconsciously :

1. And this is a fundamental and most important thought.
All substances must be identical or convertible in order to
render possible the infinite and absolute variations claimed by
Darwin. Chemistry declares they are not ; that there are over
sixty absolutely distinct and radically different elements.
Darwinism is in direct antagonism to this fundamental idea —
this basis of chemistry; and this basis idea of chemistry ren-
ders the variations and changes claimed by Darwin an im-
possibility. 2. These different conditions must give improve-
ments. The changes must be all in one direction. Varia-
tions must give better characteristics. The change must
be from the simple towards the complex, from lower to
hiffher, from useless to the useful. 3. The variation must be
continually and infinitely in that one direction. It must be
limitless and infinite in an upward direction. 4. Improve-
ments must give greater capacity for the struggle for life —
greater power to survive. 5. Or there is something in nature
that conserves and preserves the fittest, the best, the complex,
the higher, the most beautiful, the most useful, that always
preserves improvements. 6. That there be produced out of
what had no sex, an existence possessing sex. 7. That there
be produced thus, at the same time, and in the same place,
two of opposite sexes. 8. That w'henever an improvement be
produced by variation of conditions, there be produced at the
same time and in the same place, tw^o at least of opposite sexes,
possessing this improvement, and that they unite in sexual
union. 9. That their descendants unite thus with each other
alone. 10. Or, that in each case, in the case of the intro-
duction of sex, and in the case of each im])rovement, vast
numbers be produced at the same time, and that they and
their descendants unite with those having these improvements.
One or the other of these alternatives would have to occur
an almost infinite number of times during the course of evo-
lution in the case of each improvement. We can not resist

THE VAUIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 79

asking liow is all this conceivable without the originating en-
ergy, control and direction of mind.

11. That there be given an almost infinite period of time.

12. That there be a co-ordination, adjustment and corre-
lation of tlie whole of this infinite series of variations durinof
this almost infinite time to secure this continual and con-
tinued ascent in one direction. Such are the demands of
Darw in's hypothesis, although he and his adherents ignore or
overlook them. If the Darwinian hypothesis be advanced to
account for the origin of species and varieties, without the
originating, plan, direction and control of mind, it seems to
me that if ever the statement of a position was a sufficient
refutation of it, such is the case in this instance.

Professedly Theistic Theories of Development — There are
those who profess to be theists that are zealous advocates of
evolution and development. Some assume the self-existence
of matter and force. All matter is pervaded by a plastic
force susceptible of being molded by conditions into all the
manifestations we now see, and into inconceivably higher
manifestations in the indefinite future. This force attains to
life, sensation, consciousness, instinct, and reason in organic
nature. It attains to its highest consciousness in man. Man
is a part of God, and God is partly embodied in man, who
is his highest embodiment and expression. Although this
theory denies being atheistic, and uses the term God, and the-
istic terms, it is unadulterated atheism. Others believe in the
self-existence of matter and force, and certain laws and prop-
erties, and also speak of a world-soul. By some, this world-
soul and force are made identical. In all of these theories,
this world-soul is bound up in matter, and controlled by these
eternal laws and properties. Some seem to conceive of this
world-soul as controlled and compelled by these laws and
properties of matter and force bound up in them, as vital
force is in the vegetable. Others seem to concede to the
world-soul the power to modify and control, to some extent,
these principles and laws. At times they seem to regard the
world-soul as distinct from force, and superior to it in some
respocts. At others, they seem to regard them as identical,

80 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

or rather this world-soul is this universal force developed and
displayed in life, sensation and intelligence. Some give to
the universe a constitution similar in organization and a rela-
tion analogous to what popular theology gives to the organ-
ism of man. The world-soul, or God, sustains the same rela-
tion to matter and force that man's spirit does to the matter
and physical forces of his body. God is as much subject to
the laws of self-existent matter and force as the human spirit
is to the matter and forces of the body, and no more inde-
pendent of them. All these theories are pantheistic, and es-
sentially atheistic. If certain elements in them are logically
and consistently developed, the end is atheism. All theories
that assume the eternity and self-existence of matter and
force, aside from mind force, are essentially atheistic. We
can not conceive of matter and God as co-existing without
limiting and finiting God by matter and its properties. We
can ndt conceive of God and matter and force aside from
mind force or God as co- existing, without finiting and limit-
ing God by matter and force, and the properties of matter
and force. We can not conceive of God as co-existing with
eternal resources and laws, without finiting and limiting him
by these resources and laws, although he use and control
these resources, and act in accordance with these laws. We
must place God antecedent to all matter, force, and law,
bringing them into being, giving them existence, and their
first constitution, and thus make mind the uncaused, the un-
conditioned, the absolute, the beginning and summation of
all existence, being, and phenomena.

There are persons who believe that God is the only self-
existence in the universe, and that matter and force, and their
properties, are absolutely created by Him, who also believe in
development and evolution. Some think that the Creator
inii)lantcd in and stamped upon matter and force certain laws
and principles, in accordance with which matter and force and
these laws and principles have evolved all that exists. Ue
implanted in matter and force a self-evolving energy, co-ordi-
nated by certain laws, in accordance with which this energy
haa evolved all tliut exists. Some admit no direct or imnie-

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 81

diate act of the Creator, except in the first constitution of
things. Some admit, in addition to this, direct acts to bridge
over certain chasms in existence, such as exist between inor-
ganic and organic matter, between matter destitute of life,
and matter pervaded by life, between vegetable and animal
life, between animals and man. Some who believe in eternal
and self-existent matter and force, seem to recognize the ne-
cessity of direct acts of Creative Intelligence to bridge over
these chasms, and the necessity of the co-existence of mind to
co-ordinate and control matter and force and their properties
in the first constitution of things. Some concede a full and
direct creation of all things, but seem to think that when the
Creator had completed creation, he left it to be governed by
the laws and constitution he had stamped on it. He has no
further connection with it than the watch-makei' has with the
watch after it leaves his hands. The universe is a perfect,
self-controlling, self-regulating, perpetual motion, with which
the author has no immediate connection. Of course all mira-
cle, providence, and answer to prayer, are an impossibility.
Some Christians admit answer to prayer and providence in
Bible times, when there were miracles, but deny them now as
strenuously as the rationalist. Some admit a sort of mira-
cle, and answer to prayer and providence, but make them a
part of the ordinary course of nature. The tendency of all
such theories is to remove God from all connection with his
works, from all immediate control of them, and from all
communion and connection with man, and to erect a barrier
between God and the human soul, and they are atheistic in
tendency.

There are theists and Christians that believe in evolution
in a modified sense, and in development. They believe in the
creation of matter and force, and in the original constitution
of the universe, and matter and force, by a creator. They
accept the teachings of geology concerning the almost illimit-
able age of the universe and the earth. They believe that at
first the universe was a chaotic mass, and that the Creator re-
duced it to form. Some say by natural forces and law, or
second causes; others by direct creative power. For a long

82 THE PROBLKM OF PROBLEMS.

time it was unfitted for life in any form. After a long inter-
val it became fitted for the lowest forms of life, and these
were j)roduced by direct creation and adapted to surround-
ings. Gradually the earth became unfitted for these lower
forms, and they were removed, and by progression it became
fitted for higher forms, and these were substituted by direct
creation; and thus, by progressive development, has the
world reached its present condition. They believe in devel-
opment, but it is a development by creation ; and in evolu-
tion, but it is an evolution of ideas and plan of a creative
mind. Some think this development has been gradual and
imperceptible, except by comparing vast intervals of time,
and that the extinction of lower and the substitution of
higher forms, has been imperceptible. Others think that
great catastrophes have characterized the world's history, and
have separated the times of these types of life from each
other. Some think that all animals and plants sprang from
on original pair of each species, and that there has been
progress and development, in the forms and types of life cre-
ated, as the earth progressed and conditions were fitted for
them. Some think that in this course of creation, archetypal
forms or ideas have controlled and determined the method
of creation. They believe that these ideas of types and
forms, these archetypal forms and ideas, can be traced
through all nature, as controlling ideas. There is an ideal
conception, and an ideal archetype, in accordance with which
the radiata, the mollusca, the articulata, and the vertebrata
have been created. There have been less general archetypal
ideas that have controlled the creation of genera, and fiimi-
lies, and groups. Species are variations from these arche-
typal ideas, subordinate to and controlled by them. These
ideal archetypes will account, it is thought, for silent mem-
bers, and useless organs, as conformities to the ideal concep-
tion. This theory is perfectly concurrent with a full belief of
a full, direct creation and the Scriptures.

Some think a few simple archetypal forms were created,
and that conditions have varied these and produced species
and varieties by the action of natural law. These generally,

THE VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PHOBLEM. 83

accept Darwin's hypothesis. Some go even so far as to say
hut one primitive gem was created, with all possibilities and
susceptibilities of variation by conditions in accordance with
law, implanted by the Creator. Some think that species are
a direct creation, and that varieties alone are the result of
difference of conditions. Such is the position of most intelli-
gent believers of the Scriptures. Then we should be very
c ireful to make a proper distinction between the terms de-
velopment, evolution, progress in creation, and Darwinism.
Development is a generic term, including all theories that
present, as a fundamental conception, the idea of progress and
improvement of the condition of the miiverse, or of the earth
and the life and existence on it. It may be atheistic, with-
out mind or plan, or theistic and controlled by mind and in
accordance w'ith a plan, gradually unfolded in the progress
of the universe, earth and existences in them. It includes
evolution as one of its methods. Evolution properly refers
to a system of automatic development, and implies that all
that can be developed wTis wa-apped up in things at the be-
ginning, and that they have been automatically created or
self-developed. Evolution may be atheistic, recognizing only
irrational matter and force, or theistic recognizing creation
of matter and force, and in mind co-ordinating matter and
force for this evolution. Development may then be by evolu-
tion and be atheistic or theistic, or it may be by continued
creations ; and it may recognize creative energy and provi-
dence, and control at every step. Evolution may be applied
also to the gradual unfolding of the plan of the creative
mind. There may be evolution in the unfolding of the plan,
and development in its application in creation. Darwinism
is a part of evolution, or evolution applied to account for the
origin of species and varieties of plants and animals. Then a
believer in development may not be a believer in evolution,
and a believer in evolution may not be a believer of Darwin-
ism, and a believer in Darwinism may not be a believer in
cosmical development.

We have been thus careful in giving these theories, and the
many variations, shades, and blendings of them, that no one

84 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

may err in following our argument, and that injustice may be
done to no one. A man may be a believer in development,
and even of evolution in certain senses, and be a firm believer
of the Scriptures. Indeed, a person who reads intelligently
the first chapters of Genesis, must believe in evolution of the
plan, in the Divine Mind, in creation, and in progress and
development in the course of creation described there. If he
uses his senses in observation, he must believe in develop-
ment and progress in nature, and that species of animals and
plants are susceptible of great and wonderful variations.
There may be great differences in opinion concerning the
length of time of this jdevelopment and progress, and concern-
ing the extent of these variations of animals and plants. A
person may accept the full theory of geologic epochs, and the
almost illimitable age of the earth, and its theory of cosmical
progress, and be a firm believer of the Scriptures, and of di-
rect creation. Whether consistently or not, is a question
in the minds of some ; but there can be no denying the fact,
without branding as infidels, some of the leading theologians
of our day. A man may be a believer in development and
evolution by successive steps, and be a believer of direct crea-
tion and of the Scriptures. He may be a believer of creation
by law, and through the influence of conditions, and laws and
forms of matter and force, and be a believer in God and crea-
tion, and in the religion of the Bible, and of the Bible in the
main. He may not be consistent, and his theory of creation
may be atheistic in tendency, but such a combination of views
is possible and real. One may even believe in the eternity
of matter and physical force and their laws and properties,
and believe in the existence of God, and his creative energy
and action in using them, and in the Bible. It is said that
the poet Milton is an instance of this. A man may accept
the hypothesis of Darwin, and be a believer of creation,
God, revelation, and the Scriptures. He may be very incon-
sistent, but such is undeniably the fact.

Then a belief of evolution, Darwinism, and development is
not necessarily atheism, or a denial of the Scriptures. There
may be inconsistency iu holding to these views at the same

THE VAKIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 85

time, but such is the fact in multitudes of cases, and nothing
is gained by denouncing such persons as infidels, or by arro-
gantly and dogmatically denying what we have stated. A
belief in evolution, development, progress in creation, and
in creation by law in certain senses, is very compatible with
a belief of the Scriptures, for they teach these ideas. If, by
development, evolution, and progress, we mean that there
has been an evolution of the Divine plans in creation and
redemption, and that there has been progress and develop-
ment in carrying out the work in both cases, it is an idea
clearly taught in the Scriptures, and, in fact, revelation is
based on it ; and it matters not whether the six days in Gene-
sis be six periods or six literal days. Men accept the geologic
theory of long time, epochs, and progress, and hold fast to
the account in Genesis. Whether consistently or not, may
be a question, but such is the case. If by the term "crea-
tion by law," is meant that the Creator pursued an orderly
process in accordance with reason and the laws of reason and
tliought, and that there was order, system and law in his
acts and processes of creation, we can not deny its truth. Nor
that he employed the laws and forces that he created and
established to accomplish certain results in creation. It is in
this sense that the Duke of Argyll uses the term in his " Keign
of Law," in which he is so strangely misunderstood by his able
critic. Dr. Paine, in his great work, " Physiology of the Soul
and Instinct." A man may believe that the Creator implanted
in matter and force a self-evolving energy of development,
that has produced all that we say has been created, and that
he stamped on matter and force laws that control this energy
and evolution, and that all things came into being in this
way, and believe in God, creation and revelation. I will not
say consistently, but such is the fact. One can believe that
all species and varieties of animals and plants have been pro-
duced, as Darwinism claims, and believe in God, creation and
revelation. Men can believe that the Creator implanted in
matter and force a self-evolving energy, and that he stamped
on them certain laws that controlled the energy in this devel-
opment, and that he has co-ordinated the conditions that

86 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

control and determine tlie result of this development, and that
all existences came into being in this Avay, and believe in crea-
tion, God, and revelation. The author believes as firmly as
any one, that these theories are atheistic, and gravitate toward
atheism as necessarily as license does toward crime, and he
believes that men are not consistent in believing these theories
and retaining revelation ; but he can not deny the fact that they
do thus accept these theories, and retain revelation. Nothing
can be gained by denying that such is the case, and by de-
nouncing all ^vho believe in development, evolution, and Dar-
win as of course atheists. It may gratify bigotry, but it can
only proceed from ignorance or bigotry, and injures the cause
such persons espouse and undertake to defend.

Historical Development. — Based on atheistic theories
of evolution and cosmical and physiological development, is
the theory of Historic Development. When Darwin's hypothe-
sis is applied to man, it includes this theory. It is assumed
and taught in his "Descent of ^lan." It assumes that man
is a development from lower animals, or from lower and ani-
mal-like types of the gemis homo, now extinct; and tliat he
began in a condition of brutal instinctive animalism, or in a
state of brutal idiotic savagery. Men at first herded together
like animals. There was an absolute domination of appetite
and passion as in animals, and a tyranny of the stronger.
There was no family, no society, no government, no law, no
conscience, no morality, no religion, no use of implements, no
civilization. The sexes herded together, and associated to-
gether during the period of desire, like animals, the stronger
monopolizing the favors of the females. After awhile, they
began to retain for themselves their favorites. These favor-
ites began to retain for a longer period their young. Thus
arose the family with polygamy (or the stronger males retain-
ing several females), or in some cases polyandry (one female
monopolizing several males). Then a higher organization of
the family, and at last monogamy, and finally we are to end
in free love. Such is the origin and development of the fam-
ily and marriage relation. Men herded like animals at first,
then separated into families. These grew into tribes, and

THE VAFwIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM. 87

tribes into nations. Or by conquest of weaker tribes or fami-
lies, all Avere consolidated into nations.

There was at first a tyranny of the stronger over the weak,
under the domination of appetite, passion, and selfishness.
Then aflfection modified this tyranny in the family. Then
policy or necessity modified it further in the tribe or nation.
Then came government, despotic at first, and then despotism
modified by custom, law, and constitution. Then greater free-
dom, and at last republicanism and democracy. Man was at
first controlled by passion and selfishness. Then afiection
modified the action of passion and selfishness. Then there
was an animal-like recognition of rights of persons and prop-
erty, because deprivation caused pain. Then rational recog-
nition of rights of persons and property. Then conscience,
morality, duty, and obligation. There was at first use of
bodily organs in appropriating food and slaying for food
animals, and the use of spontaneous productions of the earth,
like animals. Then use of clubs to knock off" fruits, or to kill
animals, or of stones to smash nuts, bones, or shells. Then
shaping of clubs, and wood and stones into implements. Then
the use of softer metals, and the formation of better imple-
ments and machines. Then the use of harder metals, until
our present arts and machinery was reached. Man was at first
Avithout shelter. Then under trees or in forests and hollow
trees, or in caves. Then booths, huts, rude hovels of wood
and stone. Then better dwellings and architecture; At first,
man was unclad, then used leaves and skins of slaughtered
animals. Then prepared skins and rude garments. Then
learned to use wool, silk, linen, cotton, and elaborate garments.
He began in brutality and passed through savagery, barbar-
ism, and civilization into enlightenment. He began in a dread
of all that injured him, or a liking for all tHat benefited him ;
thus deepened into awe, veneration and superstition. He
gave gifts to propitiate what injured, and ofieringis of grati-
tude to what benefited. He gave gifts and sacrifices to pro-
pitiate and secure the aid of these superior beings, as he
regarded them, and thus grew up systems of religion. He at
first had superstitious regard for all that benefited or injured

8S THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

him. He soon made these objects of worship intelligences,
and worshiped many intelligences, or became a polytheist.
Then the unity of the system of the universe suggested the
control of one intelligence, and he passed into monotheism in
Mosaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. He will at last
pass into atheism. A favored few have reached that sublime
goal now. Such is Historical Development.

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 89

CHAPTER IV.
Tendencies of Development, Evolution and Darwinism.

In our last chapter we gave the reader an outline of the
various theories of development. In the present chapter we
propose to inquire concerning the affinities and tendencies of
these theories. When a new theory is presented, we naturally
inquire: 1. What are the facts in the case? 2. Do they
sustain the theory? 3. Is the theory true? 4. What will
be the consequences of the theory ? The last query is called
the practical consideration or argument, and often determines
with most minds the query, " Is the theory true? " Although
a logical development of our argument would require that
we now inquire, "Do the facts sustain these theories we have
described ? " yet tliat we may better understand them, and
be the better prepared to examine them, Ave will pause to
inquire, "What are the tendencies of these speculations?"
Right here there is a warm conflict between the physicist and
religionist. The theologian is continually urging the conse-
quences of the speculations of the physicist, and the physicist,
in turn, objecting that he has no right to do so. Formerly,
when the theologian claimed the right to settle, by his as-
sumptions and dogmas, all questions of science in every
department, and all questions in every department of thought
as well as religion and morals, the physicist was a continual
source of annoyance to the theologian in his theorizings and
speculations, by persistently and continually presenting facts
and truths contradicting them, and also by urging the absurd
consequences of such speculations.

The theologian always tried to silence the physicist and
crush out hi« objection by claiming that his speculations should
bo free from the criticisms of the physicist because they were
above his province, and above all criticism by him. But now

90 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS

the tables are turned. The physicist has established the par-
amount authority of his methods and deductions in the field
of science, and has driven the metaphysical speculations of
the theologian out of the field of science, except as they are
used as instruments of investigation. Elated with his victory,
he now attempts to assume the role played by the theologian
in former days. He assumes that he is sole authority in his
own department, and that his notions there should be un-
questioned, and will not allow the theologian to question or
even criticise his speculations and assumptions. He even
assumes to enter the field of rational thought and morals and
rehgion, and to decide, with the authority of a dictator, the
most important and fundamental questions in them.

As the theologian once demanded that the physicist should
accept his dicta unquestioned, even in his own department,
so now the physicist demands that the theologian accept his
decisions unquestioned, not only in the field of science, ]:>ut
also in the theologian's own field of metaphysics, morals, and
religion. And now the theologian troubles the physicist.
The physicist uses surmises and hypotheses as an approxima-
tion to the truth and as a means of reaching it. Within
proper limits, such a course is legitimate. Some of the
noblest achievements of physical science have been reached
by this method. So long as these hypotheses are presented
as guesses, and we are only asked to treat them as guesses,
no one will complain; but when they are presented as estab-
lished truth, and we are asked to unship the thought of the
human mind, since the first intuition dawned on the first
mind, and to make a mere guess, the basis and controlling
idea of all thought, we have a right to ask, at least, " Is it
possible, or probable," before we do so. And this, to the
great annoyance of the physicist, the theologian insists on
doing.

When the physicist has built up a theory on hypothesis and
speculation, he often becomes infatuated witli it, and demands
that all accept it as established truth, and is amazed at, and
enraged by, the theologian, who with unreasonable obstinacy,
as it seems to him, enamored as he is by the creatuie of his

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DAEWINISM. 91

brain, refuses to cast to one side cherished truth for mere
speculation based on a guess.

Now, as the physicist was in former days justified in re-
fusing to give up well established convictions at the beck of
the theologian, and Avas justified in pointing out absurdities
and contradictions, and fallacies in the speculations of the
theologian; so the theologian is justified in rejecting the
speculations and guesses of the physicist, especially since, as
is often the case, they contradict the clearest declarations of
our highest nature. The theologian is peculiarly qualified for
this work, by his metaphysical and theological studies, espe-
cially when the physicist wanders over into his own field. It
troubles the physicist to see his hobbies treated in this way.
It shocks his bigotry and prejudices, just as the physicist once
shocked the bigotry of the fanatic and religious enthusiast.
It is human nature in its infirmity in each case, and one is as
bigoted and unreasonable as the other. The physicist is the
most excessively credulous and bigoted being on earth when
pressed with the difficiilties of his department.

Huxley can assume that we will yet see life emerge from
dead matter, or be able to prove that it once did. He can
assume this, in the face of all experience and sense, because
the necessities of his theories demand it.

Tyndall can give to matter all the attributes of spirit and
even divinity.

Kolliker can believe in births without impregnation, or in
self-impregnation, and any assumption that the necessities of
the theory may demand can be made with a faith that fiir
exceeds the pious rant of the religious enthusiast, who cried,
"I believe it, because it is impossible." We shall see before
we are done, that the assumptions and absurdities of Hindoo
mythology are eclipsed by the physicist, who calls himself,
par excellence^ a scientific person, and such stuff philosophy
and science.

The physicist particularly objects to the theologians con-
tinually urging the consequences of his theories, and there
may be force in the objection. There is a superstitious
bigotry that is always alarmed lest something r.cw should

92 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

disturb its old notions. Theologians should be certain that
what they urge as the consequences are really the consequen-
ces of the theory. Above all, they should be certain that
theory, or its consequences are opposed to established truth,
rational, moral, or religious truth. It may be possible that
they do not understand the theory, or that they are mistaken
as to its logical consequences ; and, above all, that they may
be mistaken as to what constitutes rational, moral, and relig-
ious truth. They are very apt to mistake their own opinions
and dogmas for. moral and religious truth, when they are
utterly opposed to it. It is in this way that all opposition
to science has arisen in the religious world. Keligious truth,
and religion in its proper meaning, and the Scriptures, and
Christianity, never had one particle of opposition to a single
truth of science, and have not now.

Absurd dogmas of bigots and sectaries have been elevated
to the throne belonging to religious and scriptural truth and
Christianity. Science has stripped the wolf of the shepherd's
clothing, and the usurper has persecuted science. I challenge
skepticism to point to one precept of Christianity that sanc-
tions persecution of any one for opinion's sake. In this way
science has rendered great service to religion, in dethroning
and overturning absurd religious dogmas, that have buried
and obscured divine truth. A theory may be opposed to the-
ological dogmas, and be in accordance with rational, moral,
and religious truth.

On the other hand, the physicist must allow us to inquire
concerning the consequences of his doctrines or theories, and
we shall do so, whether he will or no. We are sometimes
told, " We do not care for the consequences, provided the
theory be true." There must be a limit to such an assertion.
If the inevitable consequences of a theory be absurd or con-
tradict well established trutli, no matter of what kind, it can
not be true. All truth is consistent, and nothing can be true
in science that contradicts well established rational, moral, or
religious truth. When urged, in reply, to a clear showing that
the consequences of a scientific theory contradict some well
established and undeniable religious or moral truth, the

DEVELOPMENT^, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 93

above declaration of the physicist has as bald fanaticism in it
as there ever was in any utterance of a religious bigot. If
the consequences are clearly shown to be absurd or contra-
dictory of well established truth, no mattei- of what kind, the
falsity of the theory is as clearly established as that two
straight lines can not enclose a space.

We are often told, now, that the religious w^orld should at-
tend to its own affairs, and not interfere with matters of
science. Tliere might be some propriety in such a declara-
tion if the ones making it were careful to observe their own
rule, and if the physicist were careful to confine himself to
the scientific field. But now, when the johysicist presumes to
decide the gravest problems of morality and religion, and to
sneer at the clearest intuitions of our moral and religious
nature, and scout them, such a caveat issued against the the-
ologians examining the speculations of the physicist is an in-
sult to sense and justice. Now, when lectures and publica-
tions on scientific topics are continually assaulting every re-
ligious sentiment, and when scientific associations and their
anniversaries are used, on account of the eclat that the occa-
sion will give to the speaker and his declarations by the prin-
cipal officers of such associations, to flaunt in the face of the
religious world the baldest infidelity, and to scout the funda-
mental truths of religion, self-defense will justify the religious
world in repelling such an unprovoked and uncalled-for as-
sault. If it did not, then it would be taunted with coward-
ice, and with knowing that it could not reply, and such silence
would be construed into a confession of the falsity of religion.
Now when the assault is repelled, and the marauder chas-
tized, a cry of persecution is raised. Huxley and Tyndall
have been in the habit of using their scientific lectures and
anniversary addresses as occasions and means of throwing out
innuendos and making attacks on religion, taking refuge be-
hind the protection the world has thrown around science, pre-
venting the theologian from assuming too much authority in
its peculiar domain. They have used this protection as a
means of carrying on an offensive, aggressive war against re-
ligion, and when theologians defend themselves they have

94 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

taken refuge behind tliis rampart, and claimed its protection,
while continuing the Avar and fighting the persons they hav-:<
assailed, even while raising cries that this protection must be
respected and their domain must not be invaded, and in such
cries for respect to their rights. Such a course is as honor-
able as bushwhacking and guerrilla warfare under the protec-
tion of a treaty of peace, or marching into the territory of a
friendly power under a flag of truce, and taking prisoners
those who respected its sacredness. Common sense will jus-
tify the religious world in entering the enclosure used in so
cowardly and perfidious a manner, and spiking its guns, or
turning them on such unprovoked and treacherous assailants.
Tyndall in his prayer test, and in his Belfast speech, ventured
on a marauding excursion into the territory of the religious
world beyond his protection, and the religions world have
taken the marauder in hands and chastized him, and handed
him back to his disciples a sadder, and it is to be hoped a
wiser and better man.

We should respect the premises of another, but when we
know he is erecting works and using his premises as a means
to drive us out of ours, it would be folly to respect his prem-
ises then. The rights are mutual, and the obligation is mu-
tual. Let physicists respect the rights and field of thought
of the theologian, and remember that theologians have some
rights that scientists are bound to respect. It would be folly
to extend to the physicist the exemption he claims, since he
is not only persistently erecting works to drive the theologian
out of his own field, but he is continually and aggressively
making the attempt. It is cowardly for the physicist to keep
up this marauding war, and keep clamoring "Respect my
territory! Don't attack me!" Again, since the physicist
furnishes to the infidel nearly all his weapons in the deadly
conflict waging between irreligion and religion, the theologian
is warranted in treating as an enemy one who furnishes weap-
ons, fighting ground and refuge to his enemy. He is justi-
fied in testing and destroying the weapons wielded against
him, especially when in the conflict. It matters not what
theory, nor from what quarter it came, that is wielded in an

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 95

assault on religion, the theologian is justified in destroying it.
But the theologian has as much at stake in the scientific field
as the physicist, and as much right to work in it. The phys-
icist, if religion be a reality and a truth, is concerned in the
theological field of thought, and his priceless interests are at
stake in the use that the religious world make of religion.
As the physicist is vitally concerned in the religious teachings
and influence of the theologian, so the theologian is vitally
concerned in the results of the speculations of the physicist.
All these departments of truth overlap ea^h other, and are
inseparably and vitally connected. Neither j^arty can erect
a Chinese wall of exclusion of the other, and the enclosure
of itself alone. All truth is but part of one interwoven,
vitally connected, and mutually dependent whole. The the-
ologian has an undoubted right to criticize the physicist, and
the physicist has an undoubted right to criticize the work of
the theologian. The theologian has an undoubteil right to
enter the scientific field and prosecute all inquiry, and make
all investigation and all criticism he can make. So has the
physicist the same right in the religious and theological field.
The physicist can only demand that the theologian, when in
the scientific field, accept and submit to the authority of es-
tablished truths of science, and that he use scientific methods
and conform to the fundamental canons of science. The the-
ologian, on the other hand, should insist that the physicist,
^^hen he enters the field of rational, moral or religious
thought, accept and submit to the established truths of these
fields, and that he use their methods, and conform to their fun-
damental canons and principles. Real science demands such
a course.

We can not establish the truth or falsity of a scientific
theory or statement by an appeal to moral and religious
nature, nor by an appeal to moral and religious truth alone.
The physicist should remember, also, that we can not estab-
lish moral and religious statements, nor decide moral or re-
ligious questions by an appeal to scientific data alone. Each de-
partment of truth has its own data, class of truths, rules of
decision, and tests of truth. But all truth must be harmoni-

96 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ous and consistent. No religious dogma can be true, or should
be held for one moment, that contradicts one well established
truth of science. This the physicist will most readily accept.
But it is just as true that no scientific statement or theory can
be true that contradicts our moral or religious nature, or its
intuitions, or one moral or religious truth. This the physi-
cist is not so willing to admit, but will ignore, contradict, and
sneeringly deny the clearest intuitions of our moral and re-
ligious nature where they run counter to his speculations.
Again, we assert that the rights and obligations of theology
and physical science are mutual, and one as imperative and
binding as the other. We have an undoubted right to inquire
into the consequences and tendencies of the speculations of
the physicist. Nay, it is our imperative duty to do so ; and
we are cowards and traitors to ourselves, to our fellow-men,
and to God, if we do not do so. We can not separate physi-
cal science, literature, and moral and religious thought. Each
has a vital connection with, and a most important bearing on,
each of the other fields of thought. We can and must ask
whether a theory accord with established truths and princi-
ples in other departments of truth. In no other way can we
use all means of testing a statement or theory.

We object to the modern attempt to ignore our moral and
religious nature, when investigating physical nature. We
might as well attempt to give a person a knowledge of math-
ematics, by means of answers to problems, or teaching me-
chanical manipulation of figures and symbols, ignoring all the
time all the tlieoretical part of mathematics. It is mockery to
call a description of mere physical nature, a description of all
nature. We might as well attempt to learn all about a liv-
ing man from a corpse, or call a treatise on anatomy a full de-
scription of man. We object to the arrogant attempt to con-
fine the terms science, hioivledge, 'practical science, practical
knowledge, to a mere classification of the phenomena of phys-
ical nature, a collection of the phenomena of physical nature
into bundles, and labeling them, and laying on the shelves
of these systems of speculation. Our minds, our spiritual
nature, the phenomena of our rational, moral, and religious

DEVELOPME>^T, EVOLUTION, AND DARWINISM. 97

nature, and their intuitions and laws are the highest part of
nature, and are as clearly established as the phenomena of
physical nature, and, indeed, far more so, for they are nearer
to us, and are the means by which the facts of physical science
are established. They are the basis of our investigations in
physical science, our means of investigation, and our regula-
tive guide and test in so doing. They are the highest, the no-
blest j)art of nature, the regnant element of all nature. The
self-styled scientist of to-day is narrow, one-sided, and bigoted.
By what right does he refuse to investigate the highest part
of nature, the regnant element of our nature? On what
ground does he reject its clearest decisions, and sneer at
moral and religious nature and truths ? By what right does
he call his field of investigation real science, practical science
useful instruction, and reject the highest intuitions of our
spiritual nature ? We have a notable instance of this in Hux-
ley's approving quotation of Hume's narrow-minded and big-
oted condemnation of all those works which he calls metaphys-
ical. All works on mental and religious themes, and by im-
plication, poetry, literature, and every thing except what per-
tains to physical science, would, by Hume and his disciple
Huxley, be committed to the flames as useless. We have,
in history, but one parallel case of narrow-minded, igno-
rant bigotry. The Arabian barbarian who burned the Alex-
andrian library reasoned in the same way: "If it contains
any thing that is not in the Koran," said this bigot, "it is
false, and should be burned. If it contains what is in the
Koran, it is useless, and should be burned. Burn it, anyhow."
So says the bigot Huxley, "If these books un religion, mor-
als, mental science, and metaphysics, contain what is not in
physical science, they are useless, and should be burned. If
they contradict our speculations that we call science or phys-
ical science, as we teach, they are false, and should be
burned ! " There is as much ignorance and bigotry in one
case as in the other. Unfortunately for the world the Ara-
bian bigot could gratify his bigotry and plunge the world in
niglit. Fortunately our English bigot can not extinguish the
spiritual sun of the earth, that the rush-light of his specula-
9

98 THE PIIOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tions remain the only source of light and life. Mere physical
investigations are science and practical knowledge, but the in-
vestigation of the phenomena of mind — the sublime reason-
ings of a Plato, a Socrates, a Solomon, an Augustine, and a
Butler — are worthless folly. The speculations and hypotheses
of a Darwin or a Huxley are science. Investigation of the
minutiae of physical nature are science, but investigation of
man's mental and religious nature are not. Investigations of
the tail of a bird, the wing of a bat, the rings of an insect,
or the sexual gyrations of amorously inclined insects, are
"science" and "practical knowledge." Heaven save the
mark! but a consideration of the aspirations, the hopes, the
reasonings, and phenomena of our spirits is worthless, and
should be committed to the flames.

With what claim to consistency can the physicist pretend
to take human nature and reason as his standard, and reject
the universal aspirations of man's highest nature, the universal
affirmations of reason, and the regnant element of man's na-
ture? On what ground can he claim to investigate nature
and refuse to investigate the highest and most important de-
partment of nature. As Avell might a man pretend to de-
scribe a country, and leave out its people and their history and
their achievements, merely describing the soil and geology of
the country. Then the physicist is inconsistent, unphilosoph-
ical, unscientific, and bigoted. He refuses to recognize the
only means of investigation, and to investigate them and learn
their use. There is an arrogance also in the attitude of the
physicist. We must not even venture to inquire whether the
data on which they build their speculations be true, but we
must accept them unquestioned; for are not they scientific
men, and don't they know? No priest was ever more arro-
gant and dictatorial. We must not doubt their speculations,
nor challenge the assumptions on which they base them, or
we are abused as ignorant and bigoted, because we refuse to
ignore the universal intuitions of the highest part of nature,
when they conflict witli these speculations and guesses of these
physicists. No one must speak on these topics but physicists.
Theologians especially must be mute, although the physi-

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION, AND DARWINISM. 99

cist will dogmatically decide the gravest problems in morals
and religion, and wander out of his path to do so. He can use
his field of speculation as a means of driving the 'theologian
out of his own premises, furnish weapons to the enemies of re-
ligion, and wage a ceaseless war on religion himself; but the
theologian must say nothing on science. We must accept the
dictum of these men, their ddta, and their deductions, from
them unquestioned, even when acknowledged to be a mere hy-
pothesis, as is the case with Darwinism.

Now, as a freeman, although I am a priest, I dare to assert
our freedom, and that priests have as good a right to investi-
gate physical phenomena as any one, and are as competent to
do so, and can do it as thoroughly. They can examine the
data and speculations of the physicist. A large portion of
them are educated men. They possess educated and disci-
plined minds, and in college acquired just the same elemen-
tary knowledge of every science that the physicist did. They
begin life with an equal chance with the physicist. They can
investigate physical science as well as men engaged in medi-
cine, law% or teaching, as is the case with many of these men.
Many of the grandest discoveries in all departments of scien-
tific research have been made by these priests. Many of
them are masters of these physicists in their own departments.
Think a chemist discarding a Priestley, or a geologist a
Dawson, a Hitchcock, a Buckland, a Sedgwick or a Smith,
because they were priests!

Even if this were not the case, men of common sense can
decide Avhether a theory be in accordance with established
facts, understood and admitted by all, or not; whether the
data be proved or not; whether facts establish the theory or
not. Especially they can compare the conflicting statements
and data and reasonings of physicists, and decide between
them. They must do so. They do so in medicine, law, and
theology. The physicist does this himself. So can all men,
and so can priests. Again, there is a wide difference between
a scientist giving facts in science, and his speculations concern-
ing tlieir origin, and especially his ideas concerning their ap-
plication in other fields of tb.ought. We can accept Darwin's

-...rwwf

100 THE PROBLEM OF PPwOBLEMS.

facts, and reject his guesses and speculations. He may be
vastly our superior in knowledge of focts, and we his peers in
speculations on them. Again, the theologian can be a much
better judge of the application of the fiicts of physical
science in theology, than the scientific man. Then we will ac-
cept Darwin and Huxley as authority in the facts of their de-
partments and in matters where they are competent authority;
biit reject them as theologians, and criticise their speculations
and metaphysics, for their speculations and metaphysics are
of a very poor class. The very worst and most abstract of
metaphysics are resorted to to construe the facts of physical
science against religion. Metaphysics are used to destroy
religion, and to destroy metaphysics, by the men who con-
demn them, and use the worst of metaphysics in condemning
them. We say, then, to physicists, that we are not machines
or serfs, but "we be freemen, and we were born so," and shall
investigate and criticise and expose all that will not stand
the test of truth. Since theologians recognize the reality and
phenomena of the physical world and its laws, and accept
them and are controlled by them in their investigations of
the phenomena of the physical world, they certainly have an
undoubted right to investigate the physical world. If physi-
cists, who ignore the moral and religious world, and refuse to
investigate it, or to accept or recognize its phenomena or
great truths, or be controlled by its laws and methods of in-
vestigations, or canons of testimony, or testing truth, can
pronoimce on the most sacred and profound questions of
morals and religion ; why can not theologians enter the phys-
ical world, and use its methods, and pronounce on its ques-
tions? If physicists can set to one side all moral and relig-
ious intuitions of (iod, creation, providence, divine govern-
ment, prayer, religion and woi'ship, in a department which
they despise, because they are ignorant of it — of which they
are ignorant because they refuse to investigate it, or recog-
nize its re;\lity — why can not theologians be allowed to enter
the field of the physicist, and, by his own methods and laws,
set to one side his speculation and guesses, and his applica-

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION, AND DARWINISM. 101

tion of them to theology, and his blunders through ignorance
in such applications?

Physicists are continually raising a clamor about persecu-
tion when their marauding into the theological field is chas-
tized. No one persecutes them, but they claim the privilege
of repelling their assaults on themselves, and of criticising
such assaults. Before we will give up cherished truth, for
the guesses of the physicist, we will at least venture to ask,
*'By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave
thee this authority?" Physicists ridicule the narrow-minded-
ness, mistakes, and blunders of theologians. There are two
sides to that question. Tyndall, Darwin, and Huxley are
specialists, and ignorant outside of their departments. They
are minute specialists in their OAvn fields. They can not rise
to general views, even in their own fields. They reject the
great catholic idea that will enable them to do so. The real
ends of all science, the efficient cause and final cause, they
deny. Their method threatens the death of all true science,
and all elevating scientific thought. All they and their dis-
ciples do, is to observe minute phenomena in time-succes-
sion, and collect them into bundles and label them. All
ideas and purposes of broad generalizations and real scientific
ends are ignored. Tyndall took, second-handed, from Draper
what he presented in the historic part of his Belfast speech,
and made gross blunders in every statement. He made
blunders that would have subjected a student in a theological
school to the ridicule of his class-mates. In every speech of
these men, w^hen they enter the theological and metaphysical
field, they make mistakes that would subject a college student
to a reprimand from his teacher. A philosophy that assumes
that possibly two and two might be five, or that an infinite
number of straight lines can constitute a finite surface; a phi-
losophy that makes the sublime devotion that leads a mother
to sacrifice herself for her child, spring from the same source
as the pleasure of drinking wine, that finds the origin of re-
ligion in dread of hunger, and of conscience in a full stomach ;
that denies all causation in nature, all design in nature, or
that design implies intelligence, or that we can learn of the

102 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

character of the author of nature by his acts, and prates of a
M'onderfiil chemistry that transmutes a cabbage into a divine
tragedy of Hamlet, ought to be very careful about ridiculing
any set of preachers or theologians.

If bigotry is spoken of, was there ever greater bigotry than
that of Huxley, that would burn all theological and metaphys-
ical works, or of Fiske, a mere smatterer in science, that
says of Agassiz, the prince of naturalists : " He is no more
qualified than a child for the investigation of evolution. He
uses sonorous phrases, empty phrases, dark metaphysical
phrases, phrases concealing a thoroughly idiotic absence of
thoug-ht and sio-nificance ! " Is such abuse as this the lessons
in charity and courtesy, and scientific mode of discussion that
physicists are to furnish to theologians ? And, finally, we are
told that this greatest of naturalists, who had forgotten more
about natural science than this smatterer knew, although he
had an almost miraculous memory, did not exhibit in all his
writings the slighest acquaintance with the development
theory. Again, he tells us, so absolutely does he believe this
hypothesis, this mere guess, this unproved speculation, that
his mind is utterly unable to form sufficient conception of the
opposite position to be able to frame a proposition expressing
the opposite position. Will not this match the fanaticism of
the bigot who cried, " I believe it, because it is impossible!"

Huxley tells that demolished theologians lie around the
cradle of every science, like strangled snakes around the cradle
of the infant Hercules. We retort, that during the last fifty
years demolished skeptical scientists, with crushed heads, lie
strewn along the path of theology who have experienced the
fate that the man Hercules dealt out to the hydra, whose
hundred heads resembk'id the many phases of modern skepti-
cism. Unless scientists can show a better spirit, let them
cease to lecture theologians on the sins of theologians of for-
mer days. But have not scientists persecuted and assailed
each other ? What shall we say of the attacks of Tycho
Brahe on Copernicus ? or of the scientists of his day on
Galileo ? It is a notorious fact that much of the persecution
he suffered came from scientists and not from priests? Har-

DEVELOPMENT, EVOI.UTION AND DARWINISM. 103

vey was persecuted by scientific men of his day, and not by
priests alone. Indeed, it was from the former that he encoun-
tered greatest opposition. Indeed, the history of science is
full of the jealousies, persecutions, and quarrels of scientific
men. We would advise Dr. Draper to write a supplement to
his history of the " Conflict between Science and Religion,"
in which he details the conflicts between science and science.
We would also advise him to revise his last work, and make
it what it is not, a truthful history. It is based on a false-
hood, and its conclusions are false. Christianity did not op-
pose science, nor do the Scriptures. An ecclesiasticism that
refused the Bible to men opposed science, and this is charged
on Christianity and the Bible. All this is on a par with the
honesty which disparages Christianity, and apologizes for and
lauds Paganism, Alohammedanism, and all antagonistic sys-
tems.

Again, we are very gravely told that theologians should not
speak or write on the religious bearings of these speculations
of physicists, because they will.be biased and interested in their
investigations and decisions. This work must be done by men
who have no bias in favor of theology. According to this
profound philosophy, married men should not write upon or
in defense of marriage, because they are interested and will be
biased ! Only bachelors or monks, opposed to marriage, should
do so ! Loyal men should not try traitors, law-abiding men
should not try criminals ; traitors and criminals should do this.
We can not allow infidels and skeptics to settle these questions
for us ; nor can we allow the indifferent. These are cases
where indiflerence is a crime, and not to have a basis in favor
of certain things is a crime, and utterly disqualifies one for
deciding these questions. It is absurd to say a man must
have no bias on these questions. As well say a man must
have no bias in favor of loyalty, chastity, and honesty in or-
der to be qualified to investigate treason, lewdness, and crime.
Such a lack of bias would itself be a crime, and utterly unfit
him for investigation. We must also consider the consequen-
ces of a system. If a man's theories are, in consequence,
treasonable and criminal, if treason and crime are their legit-

104 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

imate results, we must consider their consequences in investi-
gating and deciding concerning the system. It would be
criminal and madness not to do so. Then the very ignorance
of theology claimed for these physicists utterly unfits them
to render the decisions they have assumed to make. Tlieir
freedom from theological bias and knowledge that they claim,
renders them utterly unfit for deciding questions of religion
and morality. Lack of care or feeling would utterly disqual-
ify them. Such lack of care or such ignorance would be
criminal, and utterly disqualify them for what they have been
assumino- the right to do. But such claims of lack of feel-
ing and bias are dishonest and hypocritical. There is intense
feeling and bias, but it is on the wrong side of the question.
There is a deep-seated hatred of religion and all religious
truths, or else why do they step so entirely out of their way
to sneer at and stab religion ? It would be madness and crim-
inal to trust such investigators — to trust the careless, the ig-
norant, or the hostile in such questions. Again, we can not,
and should not, feel indiflerent in such discussions. As well
talk to a parent not to feel indignant in a matter in which the
chastity of a daughter was at stake, or the virtue and moral-
ity of his children was imperiled. Say to him, " You must
not feel indignant or excited ! Let the indifferent or lewd ex-
periment on your children, and view it with the eye of a
philosopher, as a mere question of science ! ! "

Then the indifference or freedom from bias claimed for
these men is false and hypocritical. It is impossible for us to
have this indifference, and would be criminal were it possi-
ble. So would the refusal to look at the consequences of
these speculations, or a refusal to investigate carefully the
consequences in a moral and religious point of view. We
have a right, the highest right, to inquire into these theories
of Evolution, Development and Darwinism, and to inquire
into the consequences of these speculations, and it is our
highest duty to do so. It would be madness and a crime if
we did not. We can not allow the gravest questions of our
moral and religious nature to be investigated and experi-
mented upon by the indifferent or hostile as mere matters

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 105

of science, any more than we can allow treason and crime to
flourish as experiments, or allow virtue and morality to be
made mere matters of what is called scientific experiment and
speculation. If these speculations contradict the moral and
religious intuitions of our nature, we must reject and oppose
them. We should and must speak in denunciation of them.
The censure of Dr. Hodge by one of his critics, because he
spoke in denunciation of certain tendencies of Darwinism, was
as ill-timed as censure of a loyal, virtuous man for indignation
and denunciation of treason and crime. Let us, then, inquire
what are the tendencies of these theories of development and
Darwinism, and especially what are their tendencies in morals
and religion. AVe can accept the facts of Darwin's writings
and reject their speculations, and we can accept him as au-
thority in matters of fact in science, and reject him and Tyn-
dall and Huxley and all of his class, when they leave their
field and play the role of theologians. We can accept the de-
cision of Philip sober, while we reject Philip drunk. We
can accept the naturalist when he speaks as a naturalist, and
reject the naturalist when he attempts to play the theologian,
for theology can no more be settled by his methods than we
can test moral quality in a crucible. The atheistic theories
of evolution and development, those that are assuredly athe-
istic, we can dismiss at once, for their atheism and hostility to
religion is avowed. So we can dismiss all theories which rec-
ognize only matter and force, and physical causes resident in
them. All theories that attempt to account for all existence
without any recognition of God or an Intelligent Cause are
atheistic. So are all theories that remove out of the mind
all idea of control, providence, and government by a personal
God. Pantheistic theories of development, and certain pro-
lessedly thoistic theories of development, are open to the same
objection.

But perhaps no better subject of such criticism could be
chosen than Darwin's hypothesis. What are the tendencies
of Darwinism? We can learn these:

I. From the writings of Darwin.

106 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBLEMS.

II. From the utterances of its principal adherents. A man
is known by the company he keeps.

III. By the use that is made of the system.

What, then, are the tendencies of Darwinism in regard to
the theistic argument, and religious and moral ideas? Its in-
fluence on morals we will reserve to another place. The vari-
ous theistic arguments are the ontological, cosmological, teleo-
logical, ethical and intuitional. The principal argument is
the teleological. It furnishes the occasions to the intuitional
to evolve its great intuitions, that are the foundation of all
arguments, and makes the ideas of the other arguments ideas
of an intelligence. The teleological argument is based on
the evidences of order, arrangement, adaptation, co-ordination,
adjustment, design, plan, law^, method, system, prevision and
provision, seen in" nature. Some theists have lately rejected
the teleological argument. They have acted hastily and un-
wisely, for they have abandoned the only ground that sug-
gests and gives validity to all arguments; and if this argu-
ment be not valid, then reasoning is an impossibility. The
tendency of Darwinism is especially manifest in its bearings
on the idea of teleology in nature. This is indicated in his
use of the word " natural." In his speculations, it means:

I. Opposed to what is produced by man, or what is artifi-
cial.

II. Opposed to what is produced by intelligence.

III. Opposed to every thing not produced by purely phys-
ical causes. Phenomena produced by purely physical causes
are natural, and they alone are natural.

This utterly excludes from nature all idea of God as cre-
ator, ruler, and providence. Of course all idea of teleology is
excluded. Nature could have in it no teleology. Any thing
teleological would not be natural, but artificial, or at least
foreign to nature.

Darwinism is, in every phase of it, a most determined foe
of the very idea of teleology. It refuses to inquire into, in-
vestigate or account for, the origin of matter, force, or life.
It refuses to inquire into, investigate or account for the co-ordi-
nation, adjustment and adaptation of matter and its proper-

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 107

tie?, force and its properties. It refuses to inquire into, in-
vestigate and account for its primordial germ, or the condi-
tions surrounding such germs, or their adaptation to condi-
tions, or power of adapting themselves to conditions. It
refuses to inquire into and account for the properties of re-
production, growth and organization it ascribes to life. It
assumes that conditions produce all variations, si:>ecies and
orders out of primordial germs, and refuses to inquire into the
origin or account for these wonderful conditions. It assumes
that all these variations will be in one diiection, from simple
to complex, from lower to higher, from useless to useful. It
assumes that conditions produce improvements always. It
assumes that improved characteristics fit for struggle for life,
or that nature preserves the higher, the complex, the useful.
Darwinism assumes all these elements or factors, and gives to
them the efficiency of primordial causes; makes first causes
and efficient causes of them. It makes first causes also of its
laws or assumptions :

I. Different conditions surround different germs.

II. Adaptation to different conditions or power of adapting
itself to different conditions in each germ.

III. Different conditions and adaptation to them produce
new and improved characteristics in primordial germs.

IV. Law of heredity perpetuates these characteristics.

V. Law^ of over-production.

VI. Struggle for life caused by over-production.

VII. Survival of fittest in struggle for life.

All this is accomplished by matter and its properties, and
force and its properties and manifestations. It presents the
above laws, as it calls them, as first causes, and refuses to go
back of them.

Such a system ignores all teleological thought and consider-
ations. It leads the mind away from teleological consider-
ations. It ap}>arently removes all necessity for teleological
considerations, and all possibility of teleology. It assumes to
do away with all teleology in nature. The mind is led up
face to face with these laws, as it calls them, and left with
them as first causes. The mind is led through a long course

108 THE PnOBT.EM OF PROBI^EMS.

of ingenious speculations, and curious facts, seemingly sus-
taining them, and strange variations produced, it is claimed,
by the laws we have given above, and bewildered and amazed
by them, is induced to accept the hypothesis as a solution of
the entire phenomena of nature, and the problem of the uni-
verse. All necessity for creative power, and all evidence of
it, is done away, as a myth, it is claimed, and a fetich, called
natural selection, has produced every thing. As in our illus-
tration in our introduction, we are led through a long series
of intricate operations, in which skillful manipulation is dis-
played, and it is assured that they are all correct, and we
must accept the result as above all doubt. A careful mathe-
matician would ask, as Ave said : Are the postulata possible
and correct? Will the data give the equations? AVill
each equation follow legitimately from Avhat precedes? Are
all the processes and manipulations correct? Do the results
contradict established facts and truths? If one of the ques-
tions were answered so as to invalidate the work, he w'ould
reject it entirely, regardless of the seeming accuracy of cer-
tain steps of the process, or of the skill in manij^ulation dis-
played in it. Darwin assumes all that is vital to his theory,
without proof. Even then his assumed data will not give
the result. The most important parts of the hypothesis, as it
is builded up, have to be assumed. The results contradict
established facts and truths. In all this tliere is not a single
idea of teleology suggested, but every attempt is made to do
away with even a conception of teleology. All necessity for,
all evidence of it, and all possil)ility of it, are carefully ex-
cluded. And notwithstanding these fatal defects, and its tre-
mendous results, we are asked to accept it, on account of the
wonderful skili in minute phenomena, and the amazing
knowledge of detail displaj^ed in the intermediate steps of the
hypothesis.

The hypothesis tends to lead men to ignore the great ques-
tion of first cause, and to ignore God in their thoughts. It
makes primal causes of its laws, which recognize matter and
physical force alone. It goes farther, it denies boldly and
utterly all idea of teleology in nature. It assumes and teaches

DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION AND DARWINISM. 109

that all order, arrangement, and co-ordination in nature, are
the result of mere matter and force, working under a kind
of fatal necessity it calls law. It denies that order, arrange-
ment, and co-ordination imply design or plan. It denies all
adaptation, adjustment, and design, all prevision of, or pro-
vision for, the results. It attempts to account for what men
usually regard as adaptation, adjustment, by the operation of
blind physical forces, without design or intelligence. It ridi-
cules and scouts all idea of design in nature. The writings
of Darwin and his adherents abound in such expressions. It
undertakes to disprove all design in nature. The atheist
declares that it has done so. The advocates of this system
are generally atheists. Atheists are all believers of Darwin-
ism. They hail it as a help out of the difficulties that have
ever beset their position, and use it as such. They never
were able to meet the evidences of order, adjustment, and
design in nature. Darwinism has relieved all this insuper-
able objection by disproving, they claim, all design, and that
order and co-ordination imply design. It is the main reliance
of atheism at the present time, or its main argument in dis-
cussion with theism. Such are the tendencies of Darwinism,
as avowed and taught by Darwin and his adherents. If we
take the hypothesis as a part of the theory of evolution, it is
simply blank atheism. True, Darwin does not avow cosmical
development nor atheistic evolution. Indeed his theory is a
chain without connection at either end. Few of the believers
of his system are satisfied with his fragmentary hypothesis.
They assume the whole theory of cosmical development.
They assume the eternity of matter and force, and spontane-
ous generation of life, and use Darwinism only to complete
the work. Darwin and his adherents deny all causation in
nature, and all idea of causation, and substitute for it what
tliey call time-succession. They deny all spontaneity in the
universe, even in the mind of man. They dislike the classi-
fication of phenomena according to ideal conceptions. They
dislike unitizing the phenomena of nature. They dislike and
reject the catholic ideas of our religious nature. They sneer
at mental and moral ideas and reasonings as metaphysics.

110 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

Tlie reason for all this is that these ideas and considerations
inevitably lead to the idea of God, and establish his exist-
ence. Their especial dislike of the teleological view of na-
ture discloses the inherent and determined atheism of the
system.

The question is often asked, *'Is Darwin an atheist?" As
he has never avowed that he is one, nor denied it, we can
learn only by his expression of sentiment in his writings.
The considerations pro and con are : Con. 1. He uses the term
Creator. 2. He says life was inbreathed into a few forms
by the Creator. 3. He says his system is not necessarily
atheistic. 4. He has never avowed being an atheist.

Pro. 1. He denies, ridicules, and attacks all idea of tele-
ology in nature. 2. He scouts the idea of God's having any
thing to do with the phenomena he investigates. 3. He care-
fully and intentionally ignores all idea of Creator and God
in his speculations. 4. His use of the term God, or Creator,
seems to be merely a use of a popular term that was conven-
ient as a name for what needed an appellation, and without
attaching to it any meaning beyond Spencer's Unknowable.
5. He certainly does not, from his utter ignoring the word in
his subsequent reasonings, attach to it any of the meaning or
characteristic ideas that the term implies. 6. It seems to be
merely a nominal use of a term in popular use, as a name for
something that had, for convenience, to be named in his
speculations, and without attaching any of the meaning popu-
larly attached to the term. 7. There are strong indications
that the term is used as a screen or blind to cover the athe-
istic character of his speculations, and to avoid the odium of
atheism. *

It looks very much as though it were a tub thrown to the
theological whale. Shall we pronounce Darwinism to -be
atheism: Con. 1. Darwin asserts that his system is not nec-
essarily atheistic. 2. Persons believe it who also believe in
God and Creator.

Pro. 1. Atheists claim it as atheistic and as the foundation
of atheism. 2. It is their principal reliance now in advo-
cating atheism. 3. Its tendencies are palpably toward athe-

DEVELOPMENT, EVOEUTION^ AND DARWINISM. Ill

ism. 4. It leads men into atheism almost invariably. 5. All
atheists are believers of the theory, and nearly all believers
of the theory are atheists. 6. It is utterly opposed to all
teleology and all the leading ideas of theism. 7. It utterly
destroys all idea of God as ruler, sustainer, and providence
in the universe. It most palpably denies the teachings of the
Scriptures in Genesis and the sanction given to them by
Christ and his apostles. It most palpably denies all the catholic
ideas of the Scriptures, concerning creation and providence
and divine government. To accommodate the Scriptures to
Darwinism, their declarations must be emptied of all mean-
ing, and a new and foreign, and often opposite, meaning must
be injected into them. Such are the bearings of the system
of Darwinism on theism and religious ideas. We will reserve
our examination of its influence on the morals and character
and life of those who accept it to another place. We do
not say that establishing the tendency of these speculations
necessarily disprove them. It does so only this far, if they
contradict the catholic intuitions of our rational, moral, and
religious nature, they can not be true; and if we take our
nature as our standard, we must reject them.

112 THE PllOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

CHAPTER V.

Failures of Eyolutiox, Darwinism, and Other
Atheistic Theories.

We have now progressed thus far in our work. We have
presented an outline of the demands of the problem, also an
outline of the data we must use in solving the problem. We
then gave an outline of some of the solutions of the problem,
and pointed out their tendencies. We are now ready to com-
pare these solutions with the demands of the problem, and
test them.

I. Chance; or a fortuitious concourse of atoms and of their
existences and phenomena. — This theory is the despair of all
reason and sense. Modern science has established one thing
beyond cavil. All phenomena, existences, and nature is, un-
der law, co-ordinated and uniform law. There is an order
including every atom, every organ, every plant or animal,
each world, each system, and the cosmos. This sufficiently
disproves all theory of chance.

II. Fate. — If this mean that a fortuitious concourse of
atoms and phenomena in the beginning, at last resulted in the
present order of things, which has now become fixed and
eternal, we reply tliat investigation has shown that in the
first constitution of things there was co-ordination, law, and
order, and has driven all idea of chance out of the universe.
If it mean that the present order of things ls eternal, the
reply is that all that we see is finite, dependent, and perish-
al)le. The very idea of an eternal, infinite, indej^endent series
of the finite, dependent, and perishable is absurd. Again,
investigation has shown that the })resent order of things is the
result of a development, a progression. Then the present
order of things can not be eternal in the present order. It
must have had a beginning. In the universe we see too much

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 113

order, system, plan, and law, to permit us to entertain, for
one moment, the idea of chance; and too much disorder,
alternativity and failure, to allow us to entertain the idea of
resistless, undeviating fate. The only possible ground is a
creative mind acting on a plan, in which freedom, to a certain
extent, and alternativity, were a necessary part.

III. Theories of Evolution. —We shall first examine
tliem at some length as one scheme, and when Ave reach phys-
iological development, we shall examine DarAvinism. We
shall accept and use, as a basis for our reasoning, the axiom
of the physicist. Ex nihilo nihil fit — "Out of nothing, nothing
conies" — and give it its full application. The physicist says,
*'If out of nothing, nothing comes, then soiiiething must have
existed forever." This we accept without question, and
affirm, also, that there must be inherently and originally in
this something all that is afterwards evolved out of it; for
if sometliing could evolve out of itself Avhat was not in itself,
it would be a producing of something out of notliing, and
a violation of our axiom. Then we must postulate as the
ground and source of all being, that Avhich inherently and
priniordially includes all being and possibilities of being —
which includes and contains potentially and eternally all be-
ing and possibilities of being. The issue between the atheist
and theist is: Shall we postulate mind as the ground and
source of all being? or shall we postulate matter and force,
blind irrational force, and blind, insensate matter? There
can be no evasion of this alternative. Either we must
assume the eternity of mind, and make mind eternal, self-ex-
isting, independent, self-sustaining, and thus make mind the
beginning, the ground and source of all being ; or we must
make matter and force, blind irrational force, and blind in-
sensate matter, eternal, self-existent, independent, and self-
sustaining. Holding the physicist inflexibly to his own
axiom, "Out of nothing, nothing comes," we lay down as our
basis idea, that we must assume or postulate the eternity,
self-existence, independence, and self-sustenance of mind, and
make mind the beginning and ground of all being. We
mu<t postulate that which contains potentially all that comes
10

114 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

out of it. We must have in it potentially all that after-
wards appears, whether by creation or evolution. If not in
the ground or beginning potentially, it can not be evolved
out of it without violating our axiom, "Out of nothing, noth-
ing comes."

We postulate mind for these reasons :

I. All our ideas of spontaneity, spontaneous, self-acting
power, of force and causation, have their origin in our con-
sciousness of our minds and wills, as spontaneous, self-acting
power, energizing power in action, controlling power and
force, and as causes producing effects. The only spontaneity,
spontaneous, self-acting power or force that we know is mind.
Hence, the only self-acting, spontaneous power, such as must
be the origin of this evolution, the origin of all force, all
activity of force, must have its origin in mind. The only
efficient causation, of which we have any knowledge, is mind.
If w^e trace the displays of force seen in the universe, through
all its activities and channels of display, back to its origin,
we will find that it is an expression of power exerted by
mind, the only spontaneous, self-acting force or cause, the
on\y efficient cause of which we have any knowledge.

II. The superiority of mind over matter. The pliysicLst
admits this, for he regards mind as the highest result of evolu-
tion, and tells us that evolution wiU give us inconceivably
higher developments of mind in the future.

III. The power of mind over matter, controlKng, subordi-
nathig and using it, demonstrates that matter exists for mind,
and is subordinate to it.

IV. We call especial attention to this thought. The pri-
mordial constitution of matter and force is such as to demand
the pre-existence of mind anterior to such first constitution of
matter and force, to give to them this constitution. The sixty
original elements of matter, and the essential properties of
matter, the forces and the properties of these forces, are co-
ordinated, arranged, adjusted, and adapted in order, method,
system, exhibiting design, plan, and law, with prevision of,
and provision for, all that afterwards appears. In this are re-
alized the hiiihest ideas of reason. The hiojhest and most ab-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 115

straet ideas of reason, are realized in the primordial constitu-
tion of things. All this has its only conceivable ground in
mind. Then mind must have existed anterior to the first
constitution of matter and force, to give to them this pri-
moi'dial constitution.

V. Mind is the only adequate beginning and ground for
life, sensation, instinct, reason, and moral nature and char-
acter.

VI. If we postulate mind as the ground and beginning of
all being, Ave have adequate ground for all being, and have
no further difficulty to account for the beginning of life,
sensation, instinct, reason, and moral nature and character.

VII. The rational and moral intuitions of our nature de-
mand such a basis for all being, and are satisfied with no
other.

We refuse to accept the position of the physicist W'hen he
postulates matter and force, blind, irrational force, and blind,
insensate matter, as the beginning and ground of all being,
for these reasons:

I. There must be in this ground self-activity, spontaneity,
spontaneous, self-acting force. Since the primordial constitu-
tion of matter and force, and the course of evolution are in ac-
cordance with order, co-ordination, adjustment, plan, method,
and system, as the physicist admits when he speaks of evolu-
tion by law, the law of evolution and the law^ of nature, this
power must be ]»ower co-ordinated, adjusted, and adapted,
and regulated in a plan, method, and system according to law.
If we admitted a blind, aimless, purposeless, necessary activity
in blind, irrational force and matter, it would not give one of
tliese characteristics we see in the primordial constitution of
matter and force, and in the course of evolution. The very
highest ideas of reason are realized in all this. Then in the
ground of all being we must have spontaneous, self-active
power, regulated, co-ordinated, and adjusted according to the
highest ideas of reason. This has no ground in lolind, irra-
tional matter and force.

II. Matter and physical force are inferior in being attri-
butes and manifestations to mind. This, the physicist admits

116 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

for he makes mind the highest product of evolution. It is
absurd to make the inferior the source or cause of the supe-
rior.

III. INIatter and physical force are subordinate to mind, in-
ferior to mind, the servants of mind, and exist for the uses
of mind.

IV. The })rimordial constitution of matter and force is such
as could have come into being or existed at all, only with
mind existing anterior to such constitutions and causing it.
In the primordial constitution of matter and force — the first
constitution of the sixty original elements of matter and the
essential properties of matter, in the primordial constitution
of force, and the essential powers and properties of force —
there is co-ordination, arrangement, adjustment, into order,
method, system, and plan, exhibiting adaptation, design, and
law, with previ.*ion of, and provision for, all that afterwards
appears. The very highest conce])tions of reason are realized
in this primoi-dial constitution of matter and force. It is in
accordance with the highest and most abstract ideas of reason.
This necessitates the pre-existence of mind anterior to such
primordial constitution of matter and force, to give to matter
and force this first constitution.

V. The primordial constitution of things is such as to prove
matter and force to be subordinate agents in their first consti-
tution, the product of mind and manufactured articles. The
facts mentioned in No. 4 clearly establish this.

VI. Matter and force, blind, irrational, insensate matter
and force, are no adequate basis for spontaneity, self-activity,
spontaneous, self-acting force, life, sensation, instinct, reason,
moral nature, and moral character. They do not contain
them, nor a sufficient ground for them ; hence they can not
be evolved out of them.

VII. If we postulate matter and force as the ground of all
being, we have either to steal clandestinely, grain by grain,
during an almost infinite interval, the whole of spontaneity,
self-acting life, sensation, instinct, reason, moral nature, and cau-
nation, and foist them, illicitly and furtively, into matter and
force during the course of development or evolution claimed by

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 117

the physicist, or are forced to do what Tyiidall attempted in his
Belfast speech with an audacity that would have been sub-
lime had it not been so gross an insult to common sense,
assume or take by force the whole question — not beg it, but
arrogantly assume it — by foisting into matter at the beginning
all that we wish afterwards to evolve out of it. This speech
is especially valuable as a confession, by one of the great
lights of evolution, that their assumption that matter and
force can evolve what is not in them is absurd, and that
their furtive theft of life and causation, even during the in-
finite time asked by Darwin, is also illogical and absurd.

He attempts to cut the gordian knot by audaciously depos-
iting or foisting into matter, at the beginning, all that he wants
afterwards to evolve out of it. In doing this we trample
under foot all common sense and reason, and every principle
of inductive philosophy. We make a god, an infinite fetich,
of matter, and assign to it all that we, if materialists, refuse to
accept in the being or nature of God as infinite mind or ab-
solute cause. We make an infinite fetich of matter, and
trample under foot every principle of reason and common
sense, in assigning to blind, insensate matter and blind, irra-
tional force, what reason and all experience declare belong to
mind alone. We trample under foot every intuition of our
i-ational, moral, and religious nature, which invariably affirm
that these attributes, characteristics, and results can be as-
signed to mind, and to mind alone. We have to assign to
matter the very attributes and characteristics of God that the
physicist finds, or pretends to find, it impossible to conceive,
and in violation of common sense, which says these character-
istics must inhere in mind, and can not belong to matter. As
a matter of fact and experience, we have no knowledge of
matter or experience of it, except as possessing the essential
properties — extension, impenetrability, porosity, density, rarity,
ductility, elasticity, malleability, inertia, form, and situation.
We can not conceive of it as existing without these proper-
ties. We can not conceive of force as existing without its
manifestations, attraction, repulsion, adhesion, cohesion, heat,
motion, electricity, and chemical action. We can not con-

118 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ceive of matter and force as existing without these properties
and characteristics, and manifestations, and their co-ordina-
tion, arrangement and adjustment, in order, method, and sys-
tem, exhibiting phin, design, adaptation, and law, with pur-
pose and prevision of, and provision for, all that afterwards
appears. All this necessitates the pre-existence of mind an-
terior to the primordial constitution of matter and force, to
give to matter and force such first constitution. These char-
acteristics of the primal constitution of matter and force, prove
matter and force to be, in their very primordial constitution,^
subordinate agents, manufactured articles, the products of
ramd. This forever sets to one side the assumption of the
physicist, of the eternity, self-existence, independence, and
self-sustenance of matter and force; and places mind anterior
to them, to give them being. The thoughtful reflection of the
reader is asked on this point.

Suppose, however, we attempt to hold in conception those
nondescript, unthinkable inconceivables, matter and force,
without essential properties or manifestations, and without co-
ordination, adjustment and adaptation of them; whence came
these properties and their co-ordination and adjustment and
adaptation, when they do appear? Were they latent in mat-
ter and force for an eternity before their activity? If so,
what impulse first caused or started their activity? If not
latent, whence came they? If eternally active, did they ex-
ist for an eternity in activity without co-ordination, adjust-
ment and adaptation? If so, how came they ever to be co-or-
dinated, adjusted and adapted? If co-ordinated, adjusted and
adapted, and active eternally, were they active in evolution?
If so, why not this progression be perfected in an eternity?
If co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted, but not active, what
impulse started their first activity? If latent for an eter-
nity, whether co-ordinated or not, there can be no spontaneity
or self-activity in them, and evolution could not have its ori-
gin in them. If we assume spontaneity and self- activity of
force to be inherent and eternal, as the origin and source of
evolution, then this progression would be perfect. This is not
the case, hence the progression can not be eternal, and had a

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 119

beginning, and matter and force have not that spontaneity
and activity that they must have to be the source or basis of
an evolution. How could they be co-ordinated and adjusted
and adapted, and not active? Then reason as we may, Ave
liave to concede the co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation
of the essential properties and manifestations of matter and
force in their primordial constitution. We can not conceive
of matter and force as existing without these essential properties,
and their co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation. We can
not conceive of matter witliout its original elementary sub-
stances, or of force without its manifestations, in what are
called the physical forces, and the co-ordination, adjustment
and adaptation of all these. This adaptation, co-ordination and
adjustment of the original elementary substances of matter,
and of its essential properties, and of force and its original
properties and manifestations, in their primordial constitution,
is in an order, method and system, exhibiting design, purpose
and plan, with prevision of, and provision for, all that afterwards
appears, and is in accordance with law. The highest concep-
tions of reason, the most abstract ideas of reason, are realized
in all these features of the primordial constitution of matter
and force, and make of matter and force subordinate agents,
the product of mind and manufactured articles. It estab-
lishes the pre-existence of mind anterior to matter and force,
to give to them their primordial constitution. There are but
two ways to avoid this conclusion. One is to deny co-ordi-
nation, adjustment and adaptation in the primordial constitu-
tion of matter and force. The one who does this bids adieu
to all reason and common sense, and can not be reasoned with.
He denies all reason, and the only basis for reason, and ren-
ders the very evolution for which he contends an utter impos-
si])ility ; for if there be not this co-ordination, adjustment and
adaptation in the primordial constitution of matter and force,
all evolution, especially evolution in accordance with law and
order, is utterly impossible." Or he must deny that co-ordina-
tion and adaptation into a system, exhibiting plan with pre-
vision and provision, and in accordance with law, necessarily
imply the pre-existence of mind as their only conceivable

3 20 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ground. If he does this, he denies all reason and common
sense, and can be reasoned with no further. Then, accepting
the axiom of the physicist, " Out of nothing, nothing comes,"
we are compelled to postulate mind as the only adequate
ground for existence and being. Unless we do this, we are
compelled to have life, sensation, instinct, reason, moral na-
ture and character come out of what does not contain them,
or have the highest existence of all being come out of nothing.
The first constitution of things, the primordial constitution of
matter and force, is such as to prove them to be subordinate
agents, the products of mind, manufactured articles; and
proves that they can not be self-existent, eternal, independent
and self-sustaining, and proves that mind must have existed
anterior to the first constitution of matter and force, as the
ground of all being, the only eternal, self-existent, independ-
ent and self-sustaining being.

Let us now examine the star-dust assumption, or fire-mist
theory, or nebular hypothesis. This hypothesis assumes that
all space was once pervaded by matter in the form of highly
heated gas or vapor. This assumption contradicts all expe-
rience, for actual experience knows of no solid that is the prod-
uct of highly heated gaseous vapor. On the contrary, gases
are produced fr»m solids. The query arises, Was all absolute
space originally pervaded by this fire-mist? If it was not, how
was this^epellant mass retained as a mass? Why not repul-
sion scatter it in space ? If all s]:)ace was pervaded by this
fiery mass, how.came it to cool? Whither was the heat radi-
ated? It only 4^ portion of absolute space was pervaded by it,
and the heat was radiated off during an eternity, why was not
the mass depri\Jd of all heat during an eternity? How came
the nuclei to be -formed around Mhich the fire-mist began to
revolve? .Whence came the different degrees of density that
caused these nuclei? If it be said unequal degrees of heat,
whence c^me the ^difference? Would not radiation through
the mass preserve equal temperature? Why not these differ-
ences res\i+t in perfect results in an eternity or a perfect pro-
gression? Then were the essential properties of matter pres-
ent in thi^ fiery mass? Were the sixty elementary substances

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 121

present in the mass, in a mixture? Whence came these es-
sential properties of matter? Whence came these sixty ele-
mentary substances and their essential properties? Whence
came force? Was it active in this mass? If so, why not
produce its usual effects? W^ere the essential properties of
force present in this mass? Were the essential manifesta-
tions of force present? Or was heat the only manifestation
of force? Whence came the other modes or manifestations of
force? The essential properties of matter are arranged, co-
ordinated, in exact mathematical law. The elementary sub-
stances are adjusted in exact mathematical proportion and
law. So are their essential properties. The various forces or
manifestations of force are co-ordinated and adjusted in ex-
act mathematical proportion and law. These proportions and
laws realize some of the highest conceptions and most abstract
ideas of reason. Whence came such realization, of these high-
est ideas of reason? Materiahsm says, "Out of matter and
force, without thought or reason." Keason and common sense
say that these highest conceptions of pure reason, that tax
the highest efforts of reason to apprehend them, must have
had their origin in reason, and been realized by the action
of reason.

The forces of matter are co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted
as to when, where, and how long, and how often, in Avhat order,
to what extent, and with what force they will act. Chemical
action is- co-ordinated in like manner. Simple elements will
unite with other simple elements in exact proportion. They
will unite with certain elements and not with others. Differ-
ent proportions give different substances, and in this way we
have all the almost innumerable compounds of nature, from
sixty simple elements. All this is in exact mathemati-
cal proportion and law. It requires the highest exercise of
reason to grasp it. These highest ideas of pure reason are
realized in chemical action. Did they emanate from mere
matter and force or from mind ? In crystallization we have
the most profound, exact, and beautiful forms of geometry,
and its most abstract ar.d ideal conceptions and laws realized.
Is this the result of ui utter and force, or mind? Then in the
11

122 THE PROBLEM OF PKOBr.EMS.

forms of the heavenly bodies and of their orbits, in their dis-
tances, densities, motions, and velocities, we have the most
exact and profound mathematical order, proportion, and law
realized. Did blind, insensate matter and blind, irrational
force realize these most profound and exalted conceptions of
pure reason ; or are they the result of the action of mind ? If
we return to an examination of the earth we observe in the
masses of which it is composed things that are utterly incom-
patible w^ith the idea that they are the result of blind, irra-
tional force of chemical action on the sixty original elements,
and utterly incompatible with the idea that the mass of the
earth resulted from the cooling of heated matter. There are
mixtures of metals and substances that cool at vastly different
temperatures. If we attempt to melt them, the easily melted
substances are expelled long before the others are melted.
How were they mixed as melted substances at first?

Some of these sixty elementary substances we now find in
nature, united in useful compounds, with substances for which
they have comparatively slight affinity, to the exclusion of
others with which they have a far greater affinity, but with
which they would form destructive compounds. Chlorine is
united with sodium in a useful compound (salt), when it has a
far greater affinity for hydrogen or nitrogen, and would form
with them compounds destructive of life and organization.
Nitrogen is found chiefly united in a mixture with oxygen in
the air, when chemically it unites with chlorine so rapidly as
to produce an explosion. Hydrogen is united with oxygen in
water, when it has greater affinity for chlorine. How came
these substances in useful compounds with oxygen, when they
have far greater affinity for chlorine, with which they form
destructive compounds? If these substances were one indis-
criminately mixed in a gaseous, chaotic mixture, as the nebu-
lar hypotheses claims, or as is claimed by all theories that claim
that the earth was once in a molten state ; how came they to
separate from substances for which they had so great affinity,
and unite in useful compounds with substances for which they
had but little affinity ; or to reject substances in the mixture
for which they had great affinity, but with which they would

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 123

make compounds destructive of life and organization? Chemi-
cal affinity never did this, for it h an absolute violation of all
chemical affinity. Mind acting on a plan, with prevision of,
and making provision for, what follows, is the only reasonable
explanation of this. Chemical affinity, uncontroled by mind,
would have produced the opposite result, and is an utter ab-
surdity as an explanation.

Another objection to this theory arises here : Was chemical
affinity active during the molten state of the earth ? Chemi-
cal union of many of these elementary substances, once sup-
posed to be indiscriminately mingled in a chaotic mixture, is
greatly accelerated by heat — the union of chlorine and nitrogen,
for instance. Yet, in violation of all chemical affinity, inten-
sified by heat, these substances, supposed to have been once
mingled in a chaotic mixture, are not now united. Such a
commingling in a heated, gaseous vapor is an utter impossi-
bility.

The chemist, with the substances of the compounds in na-
ture in a pure state, unmixed, with a knowledge of their exact
proportions, can, after thousands of years of study, produce but
few of them. How did the six elements of feldspar, one of the
principal elements of what is called igneous rock, one of the
most common substances of nature, separate from the rest in
an indiscriminate mixture, for some of which they have a
greater affinity than for any in the compound, and unite in
a compound that all the skill and intelligence of man can not
produce? Mica, another ingredient in igneous rock, has ten
elements, the six of feldspar and four others. Horneblende has
nine, the six of feldspar and three others. Now, how come
tliese elements of different degrees of fusibility to unite in these
three rocks? Since they melt at widely different degrees of
heat, it is utterly impossible that the rock was formed in this
manner. These sixty elements are near the surface together.
They must have cooled at the same time, or those that cooled
first and became solid would have gravitated toward the center.
But since they cool at vastly different degrees of temperature,
such cooling at once is impossible, and they never were in a
malted state together, or they would not be placed as they are.

124 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

We find four very rare and volatile substances only in metal-
loids, with platinum, a rare metal, that volitilizes only with
intense heat. Then, where was the water when the earth was
cooling ? Most rock could not crystallize without water, and
yet how could water get into such rock in a melted condition,
when it melts only at a temperature that would expel all water
in superheated steam ? And yet water is in these rocks in
great quantities. The mass- of the crust of the earth is gran-
itic rock. It is made of three unique crystals always symmet-
rically united and arranged. Yet these are of different de-
grees of fusibility. They never united from a heated mass.
If granitic rock be melted it destroys its present character.
Then the rock that is specially called igneous, and forms the
mass of granitic rock, never was in a heated condition.

Then evolution and cosmical development does not account
for matter ; nor for the elementary substances of matter ; nor
for the primordial constitution of matter in these elementary
substances; nor for the essential properties of matter; nor for
force, nor for the essential properties of force ; nor for the
essential manifestations of force. Evolution utterly fails to
account for the co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation of
those substances, properties, forces and manifestations, in an
order, system and method, exhibiting design, plan, and 2:>ur-
pose, with prevision of, and provision for, all that afterwards
appears in the way of evolution, and all in accordance with
law, expressing the highest conceptions of pure reason. Evo-
lution fails to account for chemical action, compounds and
crystallization, in accordance with the highest ideas of reason.
There are useful compounds in opposition to affinity, that
would have produced destructive compounds. These are
intelligent results, above and in controvention of mere physi-
cal f )rces and matter and chemical action. Evolution espe-
cially fails to account for the realization of the highest
conceptions of reason, in numl^ers, proportion, and geometri-
cal form and law, in the primordial constitution of matter and
force, and the elcFuents of matter, and the properties of
matter and force.

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 125

We have now only mechanical mixtures, mineral compounds,
and chemical compounds, and inorganic matter. It is very
common now for evolutionists to deny all separation between
matter destitute of life, and matter endowed with life. They
deny that there is any chasm between inorganic matter or
matter destitute of vegetable organization, structure and life,
and organic matter, or matter endowed with vegetable organi-
zation, structure and life. As this is a vital issue, let us be
very explicit at this point. Observation Iras shown that all
vegetable matter — in fact, all organic matter — is made up of
cells. There is nothing in inorganic matter, matter destitute
of vegetable life, that has the cellular structure of the vegeta-
ble cell. Here we establish an organic and radical difference
an essential difference. Whence came this cellular structure ?
No chemistry or chemical action can produce the simplest
vegetable cells. All cells are produced by structures, them-
selves composed of cells. Whence came the first structure or
the first cell? In vegetable structures,- there are sixteen of
the simple elementary substances. Evolution supposes that
these sixteen separated themselves from a turbulent chaos of
indiscriminately mixed substances, sixty in number, or from
chemical compounds made of them, and united in the vegeta-
ble structure, when most of them have greater affinity for
other elements, not found in the vegetable cell, than for any
in the cells. They separated in violation of chemical affinity,
and united in disregard of chemical affinity, and yet chemical
action is appealed to to account for vegetable structure and
life. But even when these elements are united in a mixture,
with all the skill that man's intelligence can suggest, there is
no vegetable cell, or the slightest symptoms of one. The
intelligent naturalist says that life, a vital principle or force,
is wanted as an architect to build up or unite the elements in a
cell. Eight here we have a palpable case of arguing in a
circle by the evolutionist. Ask him what this life, this vital
force is, and he will tell you it is the one force pervading all
nature, modified by the organization of matter into an organic
structure. Ask him why the chemical union of the elements

126 THE PKOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

of the cell, in a mixture, do not produce the cell, and he
says the architect, the force that builds the cell, is wanting.
That is, the organization is produced by the vital force, and
that vital force is the one force modified by organization.
The force produces the organization, and the organization pro-
duces the force. There can be no cell without the force, and
the force can not exist without the cell. A more complete
instance of logical suicide never was seen.

Again, experience and inductive philosophy know nothing
of vegetable structure except as developed from a seed com-
posed of cells united in such germinal structure. Nor does it
know any thing of a seed, except as produced by a vege-
table structure similar to what is afterwards developed out
of the seed. Whence, then, came the first seed of even the
crudest and simplest vegetable structure? There is an
attempt to bridge the chasm here by phrases, and by sub-
stances assumed to be both inorganic and organic or to con-
tain elements of both; such as proteine, protoplasm, elemen-
tary life stuff. It is both a begging of the question and
a hiding behind an ambiguous name for something that does
not exist, and of which we have not the slighest knowledge.
The crudest cellular structure, usually seen in certain fluids
in vegetable or animal organisms, is called protoplasm or
elementary life stuff. Out of it, it is claimed, is evolved all
life, vegetable and animal. Can protoplasm be evolved by
material forces or chemical action? Man can analyze pro-
toplasm. He can mix the elements he finds in it. But his
compound, which he calls proteine, is separated from proto-
plasm by the whole Avidth of the chasm between death and
life. There is neither cellular structure, nor life in it. It
will destroy life, and decompose cellular structure. It will
destroy protoplasm. Protoplasm of the vegetable can be pro-
duced only by organism of a vegetable. We nowhere find
it in nature, except as the product of a vegetable structure.
Material forces and chemistry never have produced it in
human knowledge. Then protoplasm can lose its vital force
and become dead protoplasm. It is chemically and organi-
cally what it was before, but there is no life, no growth in

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 127

it. Chemistry can not even produce dead protoplasm; but
if it produced protoplasm at all, it would be dead pro-
toplasm. Protoplasms of difterent vegetable structures differ
from each other, and one does not produce or unite with
the others. Vegetable life does not spring from elementary
protoplasm. It comes from cells united into a germ or seed.
Nor does protoplasm ever come from inorganic matter, chem-
ical action, or in any way except through a vegetable or-
ganism by living matter. Cells, with power of organization,
growth, and reproduction, can not be produced out of crude
protoplasm by any method whatever. They can be pro-
duced only by vegetable organizations, living structures.
Then evolution can not account for protoplasm, nor for the
simplest vegetable cell, nor for the simplest organization of
them into a seed, nor for the simplest structure developed
out of a seed.

Then evolution supposes that the sixteen elements found in
vegetables, by chemical action, assume a cellular structure.
This nature denies in toto. It assumes that these cells assume
the organization seen in a seed, and out of the seed comes a
plant. Nature denies all this. It knows of no seed except
as produced by vegetable organization. Or it assumes that
the cells assume the form of vegetable organization as seen in
the plant, and that produces the seed. But nature denies
this, for it knows of no plant except as dcA^eloped out of seed.
Just as evolution could not account for life without organism,
and for organism without life, so it can not account for plant
without a seed, nor for a seed without a plant. But not only
are material forces unable to produce protoplasm cells and or-
ganization, but they are invariably absolutely destructive of
them. Cells, protoplasm, seeds, organization, and life are
possible only when a new^ force, an antagonistic force, con-
quers these forces, co-ordinates them, and renders them tribu-
tary, and resists and overcomes their destructive tendency
continually, and subordinates them to the uses of the organ-
ization and life. When this vital force ceases to act and re-
sist the destructive tendency of these physical forces, they soon
decompose and destroy the organization and structure. Ani-

128 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

mals and plants die on the elements of protoplasm, or on any
imitation of it man can make. Protoplasm alone goes no
I'urther than protoplasm. Animals and plants each appropri-
ate out of nature tlie elements necessary, and manufacture
their own protoplasm. Animal and plant protoplasm comes
only from animal or plant organism. Whence come the
animal or plant? The magic term protoplasm will not con-
jure them into existence, for it is produced only by animal or
plant. No instance can be given of the production of an or-
ganism out of inorganic matter without cells, germ, or seed.
Then protoplasm, cells, or even germs alone, do not produce the
lowest form of animal or vegetable life. We have thus shown
that there is a chasm between inorganic matter and organic
matter, between vegetable organization, and mere mineral
or chemical organization, between matter destitute of vege-
table organization, growth and life and matter with vegetable
organization, growth and life, as wide and as impassable as
that which yawned between the rich man and Lazarus. No
evolution, no convenient phrases, no manufacture of conven-
ient, unknown substances can bridge it over. We can show
that physical forces can not produce the basis of life — that
the basis of life can not evolve life. Not only so, but that
they are destructive of the basis of life and of the organiza-
tion in Avhich life alone can exist, and of life itself. If this
is not establishing a chasm between inorganic and organic
matter, and an impassable one, it can not be done.

Evolutionists claim that there is no chasm between animal
and vegetable life and organization. But, unfortunately for
them, the microscope declares that animal and vegetable cells
and protoplasm are radically different. Bastian's experiments
with the microscope show that the vegetable and animal cell
are radically different in cellular structure. So is the cellular
structure of the animal and vegetable germs. The conditions
necessary to the development and growth of one destroys the
other. Animal life is sustained by the destruction of vege-
table matter and life. Then the cells, germs, and structures
differ in cellular structure, means of sustenance, and growth.
Animal or vegetable protoplasm is not necessary for animal

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 129

growth or sustenance. Nor is vegetable protoplasm necessary
for vegetable life or sustenance. Vegetables attach, disinte-
grate and appropriate inorganic matter. Animals use, in sim-
ilar manner, vegetables. Thus the vegetable prepares the
inorganic matter for the higher, the animal. But animal
protoplasm, or cell, or organism, or life, can not be evolved
out of the vegetable, or out of inorganic matter, by any
vegetable form or process, or chemical or physical force.
Animal protoplasm, cells and germs are produced only by
animal organization, by appropriating and assimilating vege-
table matter. There is a chasm between vegetable and ani-
mal nature. No sophistry and convenient phrases, or as-
sumptions or singular analogies, can bridge it over. ^^

Evolution utterly fails to account for animal life, growth
and reproduction. There are sixteen elements in animal or-
ganizations. Evolution supposes that these sixteen substances
separated themselves from sixty others in a mass, in which
they were indiscriminately mixed, or from chemical com-
pounds, when they had in most cases a greater affinity for
elements not in the animal compound than for any in it, and
that this was performed in such a manner, as to obey exact
mathematical law and proportion, so as to form the cell or
germ. It supposes that mechanical or chemical forces did
this. One series of sixteen separated and united thus in
vegetable compounds — that vegetables were thus evolved
first, and prepared and adapted for the sustenance of animal
life ; and then, that another series of sixteen elements, in
different proportions, separated from other elements and
united in animal organizations. All this was accomplished
by the aimless, purposeless workings of blind, irrational force
and blind, insensate matter; or that animal life, organiza-
tion and growth were evolved by vegetables. This supposi-
tion we have already sufficiently disproved. Then evolution
utterly fails to account for animal life, organization, growth,
sustenance, and reproduction. Indeed, these existences and
phenomena arise and exhibit characteristics in direct contra-
diction to the theory of evolution.

Sensation can not be evolved out of matter destitute of

130 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

gensation. There is an impassable cliasm between organic
matter possessing sensation on the one side, and organic mat-
ter destitute of sensation and inorganic matter on the other.
The evolutionist either denies any such chasm, in the face of
all experience, observation, and sense, or ignores it in his
reasoning, or assumes that matter and force have leaped this
chasm, although he can not give a single instance of such a
leap. Evolution utterly fails to account for the origin of
instinct, so varied and wonderful, with such wonderful dis-
plays of intelligence. There are animals of the lowest grade
of intelligence that perform acts that display a knowledge of
some of the most profound problem in mechanics, the arts,
in chemistry, and other sciences. The bee builds a cell that
displays the most profound architectural and geometrical
knowledge and skill, in securing strength of structure and
economy of space. Do unintelligent physical forces secure so
wonderful an intellectual result? Does the atom of brain of
the bee secure so wonderful an intellectual result? It is
absurd to take either position. There must be an intelligence
above the bee, that has given to the bee the instinct that
blindly secures this result. Whence came the instinct, the
instrument so wonderful in its character, and where is the in-
telligence that solved the problem it so unerringly works out ?
MultijDlied instances might be given, where, in obtaining
food, providing shelter, evading danger, and in other particu-
lars, instinct exhibits a wonderful obedience to the most
profound problems of mathematics, mechanics, chemistry,
natural history, and other sciences. The intelligence is not
in the insect or animal. The instinct does not solve the
problem, or acquire tliis wonderful knowledge, yet there is
an intelligence that solved the problem and had this knowl-
edge, and such intelligence must have given the instinct that
so wonderfully and unerringly acts as the instrument of this
knowledge. It is not in the animal or the instinct. Is it in
the unintelligent forces of nature? Did they accomplish so
wonderful an intellectual result ? Evolution is utterly impo-
tent to account for the intelligence or the instinct, the won-
derful instrument of the intelliiience.

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 131

Evolution can not account for reason and its results as seen
in man — self- consciousness, and rational intuitions of cau-
sation, infinity in space and time and being and causation,
power of reasoning and demonstration, moral conceptions of
conscience, moral desert, right and wrong, and retribution,
religious intuitions of God, creation, government, providence
and retribution. No stretch of the evolution hypothesis can
give a shadow of suggestion of the origin of these phenomena,
the highest phenomena in nature. There is a chasm between
the most highly organized animal and man that no evolution
can leap or bridge over. Man's brain capacity is, taken on
an average of all mankind, over eighty cubic inches. The
most highly organized ape has a brain capacity of only thirty-
two cubic inches, although possessing a larger organization
than man ; or man's brain capacity is over two and a half
times that of the most highly organized ape. If we compare
the frontal brain, or reasoning, moral and religious faculties,
the ratio is ten to one. Indeed, in the moral and religious
faculties there is no comparison, for the animal is destitute of
them. It is destitute of the catholic intuitions of reason, and
of all power to evolve them ; also of all power of abstract
reasoning ; utterly destitute of all moral and religious in-
tuitions and all power to evolve them. No amount of con-
ditions, or change of conditions, or instruction, can impart to
an animal one of the distinctive characteristics of man, or
evolve them out of his nature. The brute is destitute of
all powder of self-development. It is utter nonsense to talk
of self-development of man's rational, moral and religious
nature, or of conditions or influences of physical force and
matter evolving them, out of the animal. No amount of
degradation can strip man of this rational, moral, and relig-
ious nature, and especially this power of self-development and
progress, or reduce him to the bi-ute. Here is a chasm no
evolution can leap or bridge. In its presence evolution is
dumb. Wallace and Huxley admit this, and even ridicule
the idea of man's being a development from loAver orders of
animals.

We have, in our examination of evolution, thus far shown

132 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

that it is utterly impotent to account for matter and force,
for the essential properties of matter and force, for the sixty
original elements of matter, and the different manifestations
offeree, for the distinctive characteristics of each element and
each fjrce, for the co-ordination, adjustment, and adaptation
of all these, in a system exhibiting design, plan, prevision of,
and provision for, all that afterwards appeared, in accordance
with law, all expressing and realizing the highest ideas of
reason. It can not account for chemical action or crystalliza-
tion, nor for the vegetable cell or germ, seed, life, or plant;
nor for the animal, cell, germ, life, or organization. It can
not account fjr the organization, growth, and reproduction of
either. It can not account for sensation, instinct, understand-
ing, reason, volition, moral and religious nature and intuitions.
It can not account for the simplest cell of the crudest proto-
plasm of which it says so much, much less the infinitely higher
developments of nature, immeasurably above it.

We will now call attention to another radical defect in
evolution. Its fundamental axiom is, "Out of nothing, noth-
ing comes." Now, all life, all possibilities of life, all basis of
life, sensation, instinct, reason, and moral and religious nature,
were in the original star-dust or fire-mist, or they were not.
To say that they were present, in any sense, in chaotic fire-
mist, destitute of even the essential properties of matter and
force, or at least destitute of all co-ordination and adaptation,
is simply an insult to all common sense. Take the most won-
derful piece of inorganic matter in the universe, no matter
how wonderful and beautiful its chemical organization and
properties, and ask reason and common sense, if you dare,
if there is in it latent life, sensation, instinct, reason, and
moral and religious nature; if the life, intellect, spiritual
nature, and capacities of a Milton are latent in it. They are
not present in inorganic matter, either latent or potentially.
Then, to say that they are evolved out of what does not
contain them, is a violation of the axiom, for it evolves the
most wonderful being in the universe out of wduit does not
contain it, or the most wonderful being in the universe out
of nothmg. Not only so, but it makes the purposeless, aim-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 133

less workings of blind, insensate flatter and blind, irrational
force evolve what is not in themselves, and what is infinitely
above them. It makes nothing create the infinite. In in-
finite mind alone is life, sensation, and reason, and infinite
mind alone furnishes sufficient ground for them. But in
matter and force there is no ground or rational basis for a
surmise of them.

But suppose we concede, in violation of all common sense,
that there is latent nascent plastic life, sensation, instinct,
reason, and moral and religious nature in fire-mist, in chem-
ical compounds, in inorganic matter, waiting, for evolution,
whence comes this wonderful evolution? What are the
means of this wonderful evolution ? Is it the organization of
matter ? Whence come this wonderful organization of matter ?
How came matter to be so wonderfully organized ? Evolution
can only say it is the result of the action of force ; and when
challenged to account for so wonderful a manifestation of force,
it tells us, in turn, that this wonderful manifestation of force
was caused by its own effect, the wonderful organization of
matter. It is like the clown who believed what the church
believed, and the church believed what he believed, and he
and the church both believed the same thing. There is just as
much explanation of the phenomena of being in evolution as
there was explanation of what the clown believed, and no
more. Wonderful organization of matter caused the wonder-
ful manifestation of force, and the wonderful manifestation of
force caused the wonderful organization of matter, and they
both caused each other. Each cause is the effect of its effect,
and each effect is the cause of its cause. In thus assuming
that all life, reason, and moral and religious nature have been
eternally potentially present in matter, as did Tyndall in his
Belfast sj^eech, the evolutionist makes a god, an infinite fetich,
out of matter, and gives to it all that he refuses to accept in
Infinite Mind ; and does this in violation of all reason, which
declares that matter has not these existences in it, and that
mind is the only possible ground for them. Reason will de-
mand, whence came life, sensation, instinct, reason, moral and
r"1ioi()ii<a iinture? Were thev in star-du!*t? It is an insult tr

134 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

common sense to say so. If not in it, they could not be evol-
ved out of it, for out of nothing, nothing comes. If added to
it, from whence, and by what? If you say conditions, it Ls
but a phrase to cover ignorance, for conditions create or cause
nothing. They may modify, but they can not create. They
permit that to exist which has a being from an adequate cause,
but they cause nothing.

As a sort of review of our reasoning so far, we will call atten-
tion to a fundamental fallacy pervading the entire process of
reasoning of the physicist. When he meets with one of these
objections to his hypothesis, or failures in his explanation, in-
stead of meeting them frankly he invariably evades them. It
is done in various w^ays. A favorite artifice is to direct atten-
tion from the phenomenon that he is challenged to explain, to
another w^iich he claims is just like it. He exj^lains the second,
and then claims, since they are similar, he has explained the
first. A careful examination will show that, by the change, he
has evaded the very point at issue, and his examination of the
second phenomenon never touched the point at issue. An-
other favorite evasion is to substitute something else for the
real issue, and cut down the man of straw of his own con-
struction, and leave the issue untouched. Another is to spend
a great deal of time over minor points that need no explana-
tion, and by a multitude of words over them, obscure the real
issue, and claim that he has explained the difficulty, when he
has only hid it out of sight in his verbiage. Another is to
boldly assume all the real ditficulties in the problem, and then
talk of what needs no explanation. Darwin does this in his
hypothesis. Another is to cover up failures by high-sounding-
phrases, or to offer high-sounding, swelling j^hrases as explana-
tions ; such as conditions, natural selection, survival of fittest,
and heterogeneity and homogeneity. At best they are but
names for the results of a process, and contain not a shadow
of explanation of the process. Another is to re-state the diflS-
culty in such a way as to leave out all that is vital and diflS-
cult, and then disj^lay great skill in answering what was not
presented. Another is to state the objection or diflBculty in
such a way as to caricature it or render it absurd, and thea

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 135

ridicule it, or call it some fearful name, such as anthropomor-
phism. If the one investigating these speculations will reso-
lutely hold before his mind the real demands of the problem,
and strip the efforts of the evolutionist of the above evasions,
there will be no difficulty in seeing at a glance the utter shal-
lowness of all these specidations.

Evolution can not account for the various species of ani-
mals and plants. We need not examine the various theories
of evolutionists to account for the genesis of species. We need
only examine the hypothesis of Darwin ; for it is now the
main, and, in fact, almost the sole reliance of the evolutionist to
account for the origin of species, and in reviewing it we pre-
sent a review of the main features of the others. AVe shall
compare this speculation with the demands of the problem, and
test its sufficiency to solve the problem. We are troubled, not
with scarcity of objections and arguments, but with the mass
of materials to be used. A lawyer was once employed to de-
fend a man w ho was charged with borrowing a kettle and re-
fusing to return it. He announced that he expected to prove:
1. That the plaintiff never had a kettle. 2. That the defend-
ant never borrowed his kettle. 3. That he had already re-
turned the kettle. 4. He had paid for the kettle. 5. The
kettle was worthless, and there was no loss to the plaintiff. As
strong a case can be truthfully made out against Darwin's hy-
pothesis. Our first objection is, that it is at best but an hy-
pothesis, a mere guess. No one, when challenged directly, can
claim more than this for it, although practically evolutionists
use it as fundamental, demonstrated truth. They boldly ask
us to cast overboard the intuitions of our nature and faith,
and cherished views of years, for this mere guess. The best
answer to be made to so arrogant and impudent a claim is to
ask, Is Darwin's hypothesis more than a hypothesis — a mere
guess? But we are told it will account for the phenomena,
and therefore we ought to accept it.

We shall show, before we are done, that it will not account
for a single one. But even if a hypothesis will account for the
phenomena, we are not bound to accept it, much less risk
priceless interests on it. No one has given a satisfactory ex-

136 THE PROBLEir OF PROBLEMS.

planation of the phenomena of the aurora borealis. The In-
dian says that it is the spirits of his ancestors, dancing in the
happy hunting-grounds, and that they are luminous. This
hypothesis will explain all the phenomena, and yet who will
accept it ? It is as plausible and rational as Darwin's hypoth-
esis. Here we might stop. When we have said that it is at
best a guess, we have banished it from the realms of scientific
reasoning. It can be made the basis of not even the simplest
scientific statement. A lawyer once informed the court that
he had twelve reasons why he could not produce a certain wit-
ness: 1. He is dead. ''That will do," said the judge, "you
need not give the other eleven reasons." So when we have
stated that its advocates can only claim that it is a guess, we
might dismiss it without further thought.

Another objection that we urge is the use that is now be-
ing made of it. It is brought forward as the explanation of
the origin of life and species and all varieties of animal and
vegetable life. When assailed and disproved, the evolutionist
coolly tells you it is a mere hypothesis, and he claims no more
for it. Ask him a moment after, how, in his theory of athe-
istic evolution, he accounts for life, species, and varieties, and
he will give you Darwin's theory as coolly as though it were
not disproved, and as though he had not abandoned it. I
know of one prominent infidel champion who lectures on it,
and ofl^ers it as a scientific solution of life and species ; and yet,
when cliallenged to affirm it in discussion, he backs down,
and says no one claims that it is more than mere hypothesis.
The force of this objection is rendered overwhelming when we
consider that the hyp tliesis assuniLS the difficulties of evolu-
tion. It quietly assumes them as a basis of the hypothesis.
It is silent concerning the origin of matter and force ; tlie
original elements of matter; the essential properties of mat-
ter; the origin of physical forces; the essential properties and
manifestations of tliese forces; the co-ordinution ; the primor-
dial constitution of matter and force; chemical compounds and
crystallization. It has not a word on that insoluble enigma
the origin of life, and, strange to say, evolutionists use it for
tiiis very purpose. Darwin make^ no attempt to account for

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 137

the origin of life. He assumes it. He makes no attempt to
account for the primordial germ. He assumes its exist-
ence. He makes no attempt to accouut for its properties
of organization, growth, and reproduction. He assumes all
these. He makes no atempt to account for the different con-
ditions he supposes surround his primordial germ. He as-
sumes them as influencing these germs. He makes no at-
tempt to account for the adaptation to different conditions, or for
the power of adaptation to different conditions in the germs.
He assumes all this wonderful adaptation, or the power of
adaptation. He assumes that conditions produce new charac-
teristics, when they are not causes at all. They may permit
what already exists to continue, but they create nothing. In
all this we have, step by step, an assumption of the whole
problem. He assumes the law of heredity that preserves
these new characteristics. Conditions produce new cliaracter-
istics in violation of the law of heredity, and then the law of
heredity proves too strong for the conditions, and j)reserves
these new characteristics. The law of heredity is like the
Irishman's aim at the calf He aimed so as to hit if it was
a deer, and miss if it was a calf So the law of heredity
misses the old characteristics, but always hits the new ones.

Before we can accept Darwin's hypothesis as even a working
hypothesis, we must assume the following things as fiicts. If
either be disproved, the hypothesis is worthless.

I. All elementary substances must be convertible or identi-
cal, to render possible the almost infinite variations that his
theory claims. Chemistry utterly denies this. A chemist
would laugh at it as an absurdity, the claim that iron can be
transmuted into gold. Darwinism sustains about the same
relation to biology, that alchemy did to chemistry, and it will
take its place with alchemy and astrology.

II. These different conditions must always give improve-
ments. The variations must always be in one direction, from
simple to complex, from lower to higher, from useless to useful.

III. The change must be continually and infinitely in that
direction. The changes must be limitless and infinite, con-
tinually in an upward direction.

12

138 THE PIJOBLFM OF TROBLEMS.

IV. Variations must give greater capacity for struggle for
life, greater power to survive.

V. Or there must be something in nature that conserves
and preserves the fittest, the highest, the complex, the useful,
the beautiful.

VI. That at some time in the development, there must be
produced out of what had no sex that which had sex.

VII. That there be produced at the same time, and in the
same place, two of opposite sexes, out of what liad no sex, and
that they unite only with each other in sexual intercourse.

VIII. That whenever an improvement occurs, there be
produced two of opposite sexes, in the same place, and at the
same time, having the same improvements, and that they and
their posterity unite only with those having this improvement.
In no other w ay could the law of heredity preserve improve-
ments.

IX. Or that in each case in tlie case of the introduction of
sex, and in the case of every new improvement, vast numbers
be produced, and they and their descendants unite with each
other, or those having these improvements.

X. One or the other of these alternatives would have to
occur an almost infinite number of times during the course of
development. It would have to occur in each improvement,
in each species, and variation. How could this happen with-
out the ov'ersiglit and control of intelligence?

XI. Tiiere must be given an almost illimitable time for
this evolution. The time is so long, and the change so im-
perceptible, as to be practically beyond human knowledge or
experience.

XII. Lastly, that there be a co-ordination and adjustment
of conditions, and a correlation of variations, during this al-
most infinite time, to secure the continual and continued as-
cent in one direction. Such are the demands of this hypo-
thesis. As we have repeatedly urged, it assumes all that is
vital, and assumes all the difficulties, and all that especially
needs explanation.

Let us now examine these wonderful germs. All life and
possibilities of life must have been in each germ, or different

FAILURES OF EVOLUTTON. 139

manifestations of life in different germs. If different mani-
festations of life in different germs, whence came the differ-
ence? Then suitable conditions must have surrounded each
germ, or there was j^ower in each germ to adapt itself to con-
ditions. Whence came this adaptation to conditions, or this
power of adaptation to conditions? If the same life, but adapt-
ability to all conditions, existed in each germ, and all possi-
bilities of life, whence came this wonderful adaptability, and
these wonderful possibilities? If the same life and conditions
in each germ, whence came the difference of development?
All life, all possibilities of life, and all conditions, must have
existed in and around each germ, and adaptation to all con-
ditions. Also conditions, adaptations and possibilities, so that
at the same time, and in the same place, may be evolved out
of what has no sex, and yet contains what has sex, two of op-
posite sexes. And as often as conditions evolve an improve-
ment, two of opposite sexes must be evolved possessing the
same improvement, and these must be repeated as often as
there is an improvement evolved. These must associate with
each other, and so must their posterity. Such a number of
such coincidences, as must have occurred in the course of
evolution of all animals and plants during the countless ages
required by evolution, are inconceivable. Again, when it is
said that conditions produce the variations, things are assumed
to be causes that have not one particle of causal efficiency in
them. The thing varied must exist. Conditions do not cre-
ate it. The capacity to vary must exist. Conditions do not
create it. The conditions do not cause the variations. They
merely permit the variations to be made. There is no causal
efficiency in the conditions to which Darwinism appeals, as
tlie cause of all variations. Survival of the fittest is not a
cause. It expresses the result of a cause, and not a cause.
It expresses the result of a process, and is not a factor in tlie
process. It is a result co-ordinated with certain physical con-
ditions. Conditions are not efficient causes. They can, at
most, be but instrumental causes. They permit causes to act,
but are not causes themselves.

Another objection can be made to the use made of physical

140 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

forces iu the theory of evohition. Physical forces are con-
stant, definite quantities. They can produce but one constant
result. Should the same force operate throughout eternity,
it can produce no diflferent result, and no more than at first.
Evolution is a progressively varying, and an increasingly
varying result, and it varies also in the nature of the result.
New and higher nature is supposed to be evolved all the
time. How can a constant and fixed quantity produce an
increasingly and progressively varying result, and one chang-
ing in nature all the time? In the case of man, we can see
how he can produce greater results as he increases in power.
We can see also how he can produce results differing in na-
ture, as he acquires different power. But we can not predi-
cate the same of forces or causes constant in quantity and un-
changing in nature. Here is a fatal defect in the theory of
evolution. It ascribes progressively and increasingly varying
results, that are constantly changing in nature, to constant
fixed quantities, whose nature ever remains the same. Again,
physical causes produce movements in cycles, as the course of
water in the ocean, the vapor, the cloud, the rain, and the
ocean again. They never produce an indefinite ascending
progression, for this would be to violate the physicist's maxim,
for it makes them evolve what was not in them, both in quan-
tity and quality. The attempt to evade this, by assuming
cycles in evolution of the universe, is a preposterous assump-
tion, for which there is not one particle of proof. Again,
the objection would remain valid within that cycle, that it
makes constant quantities produce increasing and different re-
sults.

Darwin's hypothesis will merely account for the survival of
new characteristics when produced. They survived because
conditions favored such survival. This is no explanation of
Avhat caused the new characteristics. The theory shows that
conditions preserved the work of the causes, but does not give
a hint of the causes. Then the results are so varied, so con-
tradictory, and so inexplicable often, that Darwin himself
confesses that but little stress can be laid on conditions of
life to account for variations. When he confesses this he

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 141

yields the whole theory; for the gist of the theory is, that con-
ditions have produced all varieties of animal and vegetable
life. Reason demands what power raised the plant from in-
organic matter, the animal from the jilant, and man from the
animal. Whence came organization, sensation, instinct and
reason? Were they in the fire-mist, or added? If you say
in the fire-mist, you insult common sense. If you say added,
reason asks whence and by whom? If you say conditions
evolved them, you cover up ignorance or evasion, by a conven-
ient phrase. Conditions may modify, but they can not cre-
ate. The evolutionist often covers up his failures by conven-
ient expressions, and endeavors to cheat us by sonorous
phrases. He talks much of the "laws of nature" and "the
nature of things." We are told that the laws of nature pro-
duced certain results, and that they are the result of the na-
ture of things. No doubt things have a nature, and doubt-
less all are in accordance with law. But when the evolutionist
talks about the laws of nature, giving existence to that nature
in which they inhere, and without the existence of which they
could not exist, or of the nature of things giving a nature to
things, he confounds cause and effect. We might as well
talk of a man's conduct giving him an existence.

The same vagueness pervades Darwin's entire use of the
terms — natural selection, sexual selection. They are merely
results and not causes. They are results in a process, and
not factors in the process. If Darwin were to be compelled
to define these terms, and to state definitely what he could
attribute to them, he would be compelled to exclude the
greater part of what he now attributes to them, and certainly
all the important part. Let the evolutionist be compelled
to define clearly what he means by these terms, and state
definitely what he can attribute to them, and nine-tenths of
what he attempts to cover up by them, and a still larger pro-
portion of what he attempts to account for by means of them,
would be removed out of their reach.

Another juggle with words is found in the terms creation
by law, and creative law, now so constantly on the tongue
of the evolutionist. If these expressions merely mean that

142 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

creation was in accordance with law, in accordance witli rea-
son, will, and the attributes of the Divine mind, no one wiL
object. But if it means that the law creates, we ask, "is
law a force, a creative power?" Law is merely the manner
in which the force acts. Creative law merely means the man-
ner in which creative power was exercised. Then we would
ask the evolutionist, who is so continually parading creative
h\^v, and creation by law, as the solution of all things, Is the
law that which creates, or is it merely the manner in which
the creative power acts? If used in the former sense, it is
the veriest jugglery with words. If in the latter, tliere is
no cause of creation — explanation of the cause of ci-eation in
it. A most palpable illustration of this jugglery witli words
is found in Wallace's attempt to account for the fertilization
of certain plants by insects who carry the pollen from one
sex to the other. There are such evidences of design in the
whole process, especially in the gins, traps, and springs in the
plant, to compel the insect to do the work, that design by
creative intelligence is the first thought by every mind. Wal-
lace asks, why not creation by law or creative law produce such
a result without a direct act of creative intelligence? We
reply by asking, How can an order of acting, or an order in
which the forces of nature act, produce any thing? Above all,
how can an order of acting ]3roduce a different order of act-
ing, as he supposes in this case, and especially one so new, so
different, and so opposed to the former order which is sup-
posed to produce it? All talk about creation by law, or of
creative law, in the sense of law being the efficient cause of
creation, is nonsense, for law is merely the manner in which
creative force acts ; and a manner of acting can not produce a
different manner of acting, or that which acts in a different
mannei'.

Then that which creates must be something different from
the law, for that only expresses how that which creates acts.
We must either assume that matter and force have creative
energy, or that it is back of, and above matter and force, and
acts on and through them. We have already repeatedly
shown that the first assumption is absurd ; but even if we con-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 143

cede that matter and force have creative energy controlled by
law, whence came this creative energy, and whence came this
wonderful law that rules it. The highest conceptions of rea-
son are realized in this energy and in the law that controls
its action. Who made this law, for law is but the expression
of the reason and will of mind ? AYhen we speak of the laws
of nature, reason demands who made the laws? The term
law, necessitates the existence of mind, of whose reason and
will the law is an expression. In asserting direct creation by
intelligence, we do not affirm incessant interference, nor set to
one side the regulative influence of law in creation. God
creates, and in a course of development, but is ever present
in the development, and acts in accordance with law, the
liighest law — law of infinite reason. We admit that law in-
cludes the universe in its domain, but the question is, What
kind of law? Is it a law of blind, fatal necessity, such an
application of the term law to the ongoings of mere matter
and force would imply? Or is it a law of rational action, a
law of intelligence? In prayer and providence there is law,"
a law of rational intelligence. Invariableness of law, when
used in a rational sense, does not preclude the idea of purpose
and will. On the contrary, it is necessary to render the
forces controlled by this law susceptible of being used by in-
telligence and will, for it renders certain the result. Laws
of nature are rendered subservient to the purposes of mind
and will by varying the conditions, and using other laws and
mechanical appliances. Man does this, and in this way
renders subservient to his purposes this invariability. The
same thing is done all through nature. The greatest strength
of material, with the greatest lightness is secured in the hol-
low tubular bone of the bird, as in the tubular bridge, or
hollow columns. Intelligence used the laws of nature to
render subservient to purpose other laws of nature.

Another fundamental objection to evolution and Darwinism
is, that they violate all inductive philosophy. They do not
investigate the wonderful and unique domain of rational,
moral, religious and spiritual phenomena, and reason from
the phenomena to the cause. The evolutionist either refuses

144 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

to recognize the existence of such a domain of phenomena, or
refuses to investigate ; or he assumes, in violation of all sense,
that tliey are identical with physical phenomena ; or, in vio-
lation of all reason, he applies to them the results and reason-
ings of the physical world, so radically different. Nature is
used in the narrow^ and low sense of mere physical nature
alone. In investigating nature we liave man's rational, mor-
al, religious and spiritual nature and ideas, and all they sug-
gest, as the highest element of nature and means in investiga-
tion. The evolutionist usually denies will and even spontane-
ity in nature, even man himself. Tyndall did this in one of
his lectures. Thei-e was no spontaneity in the lecturer, in his
choice of subject, in his choice of materials for experiments,
in his choice of words to express his thoughts. Closely allied
to this is the objection that Darwinism and evolution ignore
entirely all religion, morality and reason, all moral, mental
and religious causation. The only conditions they recognize
are physical conditions. Tiiey overlook reason, morality and
religion as factors in evolution, and the highest factors.
Spencer's system of evolution is defective in this particular.
He overlooks entirely all intelligent data and factors of evolu-
tion ; or he overlooks the difference between them and unin-
telligent factors. He tacitly attributes all to unintelligent
factors. His external and internal factors of evolution are
not even forces but the way in which forces act. Homogen-
eity, heterogeneity, integration and differentiation are not
forces or causes, but terms expressing how forces and causes
act. He attempus to cover the nakedness of his system with
these Avords of amazing length and thundering sound, and to
cheat his reader into a belief that he has given an explana-
tion and a cause for the evolution, as Martinus Scribblerus
accounted for the roasting jack roasting meat: '*It roasted
meat in consequence of an inherent meat-roasting property of
the jack"!

Another objection is that physical science can not settle the
question of absolute creation. Physical science can only set-
tle questions concerning phenomena that it observes, and can
investigate. Absolute creation is a phenomenon that has

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 145

never come within the observation of physical science. It
has only observed derivative creation through reproduction.
It can only investigate the phenomena of nature and learn
their characteristics. In doing this it must use the funda-
mental principles of reason, as its basis and guide ; and when
it has placed before reason the phenomena and characteristics
it has accomplished its work. Eeason must, from the nature
and characteristics of the phenomena, settle the question of
absolute creation. The question of absolute creation must be
settled by reason and religion; by the rational and relig-
ious portion of man's nature. It is conceding to physical
science what is utterly out of its province, to concede to it,
the power to settle the question of absolute creation. Phys-
ical science can investigate the stomach of the murdered
man, and detect poison; but the question of wiio placed it
there and the character of the act form no part of the prov-
ince of physical science. Let physical science go on reveal-
ing phenomena and their characteristics, but reason must de-
cide from Avhat is thus furnished to it their cause and the
character of the cause.

Most all the objections that the evolutionist urges to the idea
of creation are the results of derivative creation, and not of
absolute creation. The perversions of animals and forces of
nature by man and the infelicities seen in nature, are a part of
derivative creation, and not of absolute creation. They result
often from the abuse of the freedom given to man, and are nec-
essary to such a state of freedom. Belief in God's creative ener-
gy and action does not rest on physical grounds. It can not be
tested by them, or disproved by them. It rests on primary intu-
itions of the reason. Physical facts can not disprove tliese intui-
tions or the belief resting on them, for they do not rest on phys-
ical facts. Physical facts can not test them . Physical science can
decide the qualities of tlie parts or the whole, but it can not test
or disprove the axiom that the sum of the parts equals the whole.
Belief in God's creative energy and action no more rests on
physical grounds tlian the above axiom rests on the nature of
the parts or the whole. When we call the attention of the
evolutionist to the wonderi'ui chiu-acter of ti.^ course of evolu-
13

146 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tion, he attempts to evade it by calling attention to the won-
derful character of the process of reproduction, — the evolution
or development of man out of a microscopic animalcula that
unites with a mere speck of albuminous matter. But the
cases are not analogous. The evolution of a new species is
a hypothesis of something of which no one has had any ex-
perience, in any age in a single histance. The other is a fact of
daily experience in thousands of cases for thousands of years.
In one case all that is evolved is in the germ, however minute,
and we know the result has been evolved out of it. In the
otlier we have no knowledge that the result was potentially in
the beginning. It can not be proved to be there, and it is an
insult to common sense lo say it is there. AVe have no expe-
rience of its being evolved out of the starting point, and know
nothing of the process, not even its mode of acting.

We now reiterate a thought already suggested. AYe can
not allow the words "science," "practical science," "practical
knowledge," and "verification," to be narrowed and perverted
until destroyed. We can not allow the rational part of our
nature to be discarded, nor permit the fundamental intuitions
and ideas of our nature to be ignored and cast to one side, or
sneered out of existence as metaphysics. The regulative ideas
and principles of all departments of science, thought, and in-
vestigation are metaphysical, are metaphysical conceptions
above and beyond all mere phenomena. We can not think
or reasoi]^ on phenomena, or classify them, or take one step in
science without them. Metaphysical ideas or intuitions impel
us to investigate phenomena. Metaphysical ideas or concep-
tions are our sole means of determining their characteristics.
Metaphysical conceptions enable us to generalize and classify
them. The physicist generalizes his phenomena, and classifies
them in accordance with ideal conceptions. He can not in-
vestigate without basing his investigations on ideal concep-
tions. His examination of phenomena is conducted by meta-
physical analysis. All his comparisons, deductions, anticipa-
tions, speculations, and reasonings are metaphysical. Lewes
admits this, and says that science is compelled to classify,
arrange, and co-ordinate all facts into a general system by

FAILUEES OF EVOLUTION. 147

means of ideal concepts. He calls this necessity an infirmity
of the mind. In so doing he perverts reason to dethrone
reason. The infirmity is in the perversion of reason that re-
jects this catholic tendency of the mind to save a system of
speculation. The same perversion of reason is seen in the
attempt to cast to one side all the regulative ideas of reason
that liave been recognized for thousands of years. Phenomena
are stripped of all connecting links of thought, all correlating
ideas of reason. Science is rendered impossible, and philos-
ophy a chimera. It is impossible for man to move one step
in scientific investigation without the rational ideas of plan,
system, method, law, adaptation, co-ordination, design, pre-
vision and provision. Back of all ideas of force and phenom-
ena, lie the ideas of co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation
of them, for what follows. When a man goes so far as to
relegate all ideas of force, and every thing connected with it,
except numerical relations, and finally even numbers them-
selves, to metaphysics, and then claim that they are no part
of real science or practical knowledge, he has abdicated all
use of reason, and stripped reason of the only means it pos-
sesses of working. We can not allow a vast atrocious system
of the most abstruse and abstract metaphysical reasoning to
tear down all metaphysical conceptions, and then commit
suicide by destroying metaphysics, to cap the climax of ab-
surdity. No reasoning is so metaphysical as that of these
physicists, who so denounce metaphysics. It is the worst kind
of metaphysics, and the most perverted.

Another objection to the speculations of the evolutionist is
his absurd denial of all teleology in the processes of nature.
From the time the first mind observed the phenomena of
nature, until the present, every rational mind, except a few
like the evolutionist, who abdicate all reason, has recognized
order, co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation in the con-
stitution, processes and phenomena of nature, exhibiting pur-
pose, design and plan, with system and method, showing pre-
vision of, and provision for, all that occurs, all governed by
law expressing the highest conceptions of reason. To evade
the inevitable conclusion that all these have their necessary

148 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

and only conceivable ground in mind, and the only legiti-
mate conclusion that there is an intelligent Creator, the evo-
lutionist denies all teleology in nature. There is but one
parallel case of as mad negation of reason in history. Pyrrho
of Elssa denied that there was any thing real in existence,
and carried his madness so far that his friends had to keep
guard over him to save his life. He Avould have walked
over a precipice, saying it was merely imaginary. Just as
his imaginary precipice would have broken his real neck, so
the denial of teleology, by the physicist, breaks his mental
neck, and renders him incapable of reasoning, or being rea-
soned with. Theism and common sense says an organ exists
in certain conditions, because it was made for the conditions,
and adapted to them. Darwinism says that somehow an or-
gan exists in certain conditions, because out of many it was
somehow able to persist in the conditions, in which it somehow
happened to be. Teleology and common sense says every or-
gan and function is a rifle bullet, fired by intelligence at a
mark, the end designed, or purpose for which the organ or
functions Avas planned. Experience sa^^s that it hit the
mark every time, as infinite intelligence would certainly do.
Darwinism says each organ and function is a grapeshot, and
one of an infinite series of volleys of grapeshot, fired some-
how, no one knows how, at no object whatever, for there is
no design or purj)Ose in nature, and one after another in the
infinite series happened, somehow, one don't know how, to hit
something, and somehow, we don't know how, results were
produced, and somehow, we don't know how, these results
were connected in ascending series, that somehow, we don't
know, ascends from lower to higher, from simple to complex,
and from useless to- useful. Darwinism may deny the above
statement, but it is perfectly correct, unless it recognizes
teleology or design in nature. Common sense will inquire:
AVhy was there any thing to be fired? Why was it fired?
How came any of them to hit something? Why was there
something for it to hit? What was tiiat somothir.g hit?
AVhy does hitting that something produce an effect, especi-
ally in the direction of improvement? Why does any, in

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 149

the infinite series, hit the same something? Why produce
the same effect? Above all, why produce an increasingly
varying effect? Why are the effects so related in kind and
order and succession, as to produce an ascending series, from
lower to higher, from simple to complex, from useless to use-
ful? Why are the results perpetuated and co-ordinated?
Darwinism says that the most wonderful, intricate and com-
plex apparatus was thoroughly adapted to the most wonder-
ful ends by trial and failure, by unintelligent forces. Or,
rather, the most wonderful apparatus, thoroughly adapted,
was produced Avithout trial or purpose, by the aimless and
purposeless fortuitous workings, defective workings of blind,
insensate matter and blind, irrational force ? Common sense
asks : Do blind forces ever try? Can any thing result where
there is no trial to do any thing? Do bhnd forces correct
defects, errors, or failures? Could they improve? Could
they retain improvements ?

The utter absurdity and fatuity of attempting to deny tele-
ology in nature, is seen in the continual use that Darwin and
other evolutionists are compelled to make of teleological
terms, in describing nature and the processes of nature. The
evolutionist can not describe a single organ, function or pro-
cess of nature without using teleological terms. In Darwin's
descriptions of animals and plants, he continually speaks of
*' admirable contrivances," "wonderful design," ''admirable
machines," of "gins," "traps," "spring guns," and "ma-
chines," and exhausts the teleological vocabulary, and then
assures us that he fails to express all that he observes. Take
the case of certain flowers, the orchids of Madagascar. They
are fertilized only by certain moths, that carry on their bod-
ies the pollen from one sex to the other. There are most ad-
mirable contrivances for luring the moth into the nectary of
the plant. Then there are admirably contrived spring guns
that project the pollen on the moth. Then the nectaries of
these orchids are remarkably long, and the moths have a cor-
respondingly long proboscis. Reason asks, how came these
orchids with these remarkably long nectaries? Above all, how
came the moths to have proboscises corresponding with the

150 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

nectary? How came the orchids to be dependent on such an
ahnost unimaginable contrivance for fertilization? Evolution
says certain flowers happened to have unusually long necta-
ries ; and moths, in striving to reach into the nectaries, elonga-
ted their proboscises, and flowers and moths continued this
process in one direction until we have these results. It has no
answer for the query, How came the flowers to be dependent
on such a contrivance for fertilization ? Except Wallace's sub-
terfuge, it is the result of creation by law. But reason asks,
How came the orchids with unusually hmger nectary? Here
we have conditions doing what they never did before. Why
did not the moths leave them for other flowers? Why not
the moths perpetuate smallef flowers adapted to them ? Why
should nectaries keep growing longer? Why any feature, and
what feature, persist in existence? Why not stop? Why not
be lost? Evolution has not an answer to all this. Again, the
worthlessness of the theory can be seen in the fact, that it
accounts just as well for opposite results from the same con-
ditions had they come up for explanation. It applies equally
well to the most contradictory cases, and from the same condi-
tions. It is like a slop-shop coat. It fits every body, one as
well as another, and fits nobody. Such speculations fit one
case as well as another, and are utterly worthless to explain
any.

Wallace admits that Darwin has to use teleological lan-
guage in describing nature, and that he does himself; but
attempts to evade the only logical conclusion that there is tel-
eology in nature, by saying it is metaphorical and an infirmity
of thought. Grant that the language is metaphorical for a
moment ; it does not remove the idea of teleology in nature.
There must be teleology in nature, as there is in man's oper-
ations— there must be similar features in them, teleological
features, or the metaphorical language could not be used ;
and would not be demanded by the nature of the case. But it
is not metaplwrical, nor is it an infirmity of thought. I won-
der what the evolutionist will leave to us of our rational ideas
and conceptions when he has disposed of all infirmities of
thought. In describing the processes of nature, the evolution-

FAILUKES OF EVOLUTION. 151

ist invariably uses teleological language and in speaking of
the operations of what he calls the laws of nature, he invari-
ably anthropornorpliizcs them ; or he api^lies to these opera-
tions the terms he uses in describing man's operations. This
is not an infirmity of tliought but a necessity of truth. The
processes of nature, and the operation of its laws and forces,
contain as tlieir fundamental characteristics the same feat-
ures, that in man's operations we call co-ordination, adjust-
ment, design, plan, system, with prevision and provision. The
evolutionist can not describe nature without recoo-nizino; these
characteristics, and using these terms. Man in so doing, does
not, by an infirmity of thought, project himself into nature.
He merely recognizes, of necessity, the fundamental charac-
teristics of intelligent operations in man's works and the pro-
cesses of nature. Then, by the language of the evolutionist,
when describing nature, and in his attempts to disprove tele-
ology, do we establish teleology in nature. Reason says tlie
design must have had a designer. So palpably is this the
case, that evolutionists intuitively ascribe the rudest imple-
ment in a cave to intelligence. They do not ascribe for one
moment, the rudest splinter of flint to natural forces. But
that wonderful instrument — the eye — w^as the result of blind,
irrational forces, working without plan or purpose.

(yommon sense says evolution nmst have had an evolver.
Self-evolution, spontaneous evolution by blind, insensate mat-
ter and blind, irrational force, in their aimless and purpose-
less ongoings, is a caricature on common sense. Evolution
witliout plan, aim or purpose is equally absurd. K the evo-
lutionist demands why we ascribe purpose and design to organs
and functions, we reply, because intuition and common sense
does so, and always has done so. The evolutionist himself
can not describe them without doing so, or speak of them
without doing so, even in his attempt to disprove design.
When we have traced matter and force back to the crudest
conception we can have of them, we have to place mind
back of them to co-ordinate and adjust them, and adapt them
to this course of evolution. We have to look on them as co-
ordinated and regulated bv mind and will, or to illicitly en-

152 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

dow them with thought and will, hy attributing to them what
can be evolved by mind and will alone. INIan learns to adjust
and use the forces of nature. He learns the thought or idea
by which they can be adjusted. The Infinite Mind adjusted
them by infinite idea or thought. If it had not been so man
could not adjust and use them, for he could not learn or ap-
prehend the idea by which they are adjusted, and can be ad-
justed. The evolutionist can not show that this course of
nature is a path along which mind did not travel, and v could
not have traveled, except by showing that it is unideal and
irrational. When he has done this, he has destroyed all sci-
ence, and rendered science an impossibility. When the evo-
lutionist has cast out of nature all idea of teleology, he has
destro^'^ed all science, and rendered all science impossible, and
lendered all use of nature by human reason an impossibility.
It is certainly a strange fatuity that those who claim to be
par excdleiice scientific* men, and who arrogate to themselves
the work of explaining nature, should think that they can do
so only by emptying the processes of nature of all reason and
thought, all teleology. The processes of nature can be ap^
preheoded by reason only by showing that reason had nothing
to do with them, and that they are irrational and unideal!
Nor do we anthropomorphize God, in recognizing teleology in
nature. Nor do we evade teleology, or explain it away, by
shouting "anthropomorphism," or that we make God in our
own image and likeness. The evolutionist anthropomorphizes
the laws of nature, and anthropomorphizes God. He speaks
of the processes of nature just as he does of man's operations,
because they exhibit the same characteristics and evidences
of mind. He anthropomorphizes God when he objects to the
idea of God's doing certain things he finds in nature. He
anthropomorphizes the Creator, and makes him like himself.
He means, I would not have done so, hence God could not have
done so — the very worst kind of anthropomorphism. Let us
learn and accept what Is in nature, and not anthropomorphize
God, by assuming what is not, in opposition to what is, as
does the evolutionist. The evolutionist in anthropomor-
phizing the processes of nature, proves that such a proces?

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 153

is legitimate and indeed unavoidable. The Absolute Mind
is not necessarily radically and essentially different from finite
mind, any more than absolute space must necessarily be rad-
ically and essentially different from finite space.

We have already called attention to the fact that, in the
primordial constitution of matter and force, in the first con-
stitution of the original elements of matter and its properties,
the first constitution of force and its manifestations and prop-
erties— in their numbers, proportions and relations, as to when,
where, how long, how often, with what power, and in what
order of succession, they shall act, in the figure of the planets
and their orbits, and of systems in their relative densities,
distances and masses and motions — in chemical action and
crystallization — in the processes of nature in vegetable and
animal life, there are realized the highest ideas of reason.
After the research of thousands of years, man has scarcely
entered the vestibule of this arcana of pure reason and
thought! Evolution denies this, or refuses to recognize it,
and attributes these infinite intellectual realizations, and the
working out of these infinite rational ideas, to the aimless,
purposeless workings of blind, irrational force, working with-
out reason, idea or thought. Here is a radical error in the
reasoning of the evolutionist. He attempts to strip what re-
quires the highest efforts of reason, and taxes the highest ef-
forts of thought even to apprehend it, of all connection with
reason and thought. He can not even describe the processes
of nature without exhausting the vocabulary of purely rational
ideas, and yet he attempts to account for and explain the
processes of nature without connecting them with reason and
thought, and even denies all such connection. This suggests
another palpable fallacy of the evolutionist. He denies all
connection of mind with the processes of nature, yet such is
the primordial constitution of things, and such the processes
of nature in their characteristics and nature, that he can not
speak of them without using terms recognizng their connec-
tion with mind, and having their necessary and only conceiv-
able ground in mind. Does he say fixed laws or processes?
Who fixed the laws or processes? Does he say regular oi

154 THE PROBLKM OF PROBLEMS.

orderly laws or processes? Who regulated the laws or pro-
cesses in this order? Does he say order of nature, plan of
nature, system of nature, method of nature, or constitution of
nature? Who gave to nature this order, plan, system, method
or constitution? Who planned, ordered, systematized, meth-
odized, or constituted nature? Does he say unchangeable,
unalterable or invariable laws of nature? The expression im-
plies co-ordination, adjustment and adaptatian in this unalter-
able, unchanging and invariable mode of acting. Then when
he speaks of the anticipations of nature for results to fol-
low, of its previsions of, and provisions for, coming existences
and phenomena, he speaks of what can be done only by mind,
and has its only conceivable ground in mind. In all his
speculations, he uses terms and ideas having their only con-
ceivable ground in mind, because he can not describe nature
without using them, and while doing so, senselessly denies the
great truth necessarily im2:)lied in them. We have in our
operations the control of force by intelligence and will. We
have our terms expressive of such action. The correspond-
ence there is between our own operations, which we know and
speak of as controlled by mind, and the processes and laws of
nature compells us to use the same terms, implying the oper-
ation of reason and thought, in describing the processes of
nature. Such, then, is the nature of the processes and laws
of nature, and the evolutionist can not describe them with-
out recognizing that they have their only conceivable ground
in mind.

Electricity controls muscles, but that by no means explains
the mystery of life, or does away with spirit, any more than
the electricity that passes along the wire will account for
the message, or dispense with the operator. Huxley says, in
regard to Paley's famous design argument, based on the
watch: "If the watch could be conceived to be the product
of a less perfect structure, improved by natural selection, then
it would appear to be the result of a method of trial and error,
worked by unintelligent forces." In the first place the sup-
position can not be made. Natural selection, or, rather, blind
irrational matter and force, don't ini})r )vo. There would be

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 155

110 trial, for nothing is tried by unintelligent forces. There
would be nothing to make the trial, for unintelligent forces
do not try. There would be no error but a fortuitous work-
ing, for there was no aim. There would be no method, but
an aimless, purposeless outgoing of unintelligent forces. The
constant advance in nature, if a correction of trial and error,
proves design and purpose. The watch being unintelligent,
does not exclude design in the intelligent use of unintelligent
matter and force. Because results are attained, seemingly
by unintelligent matter and force, does not exclude intelli-
gence and design in co-ordinating, adjusting and adapting
matter and force to secure the result. This error appears in
every page of the speculations of the evolutionists on this
topic. Because unintelligent matter and force in nature
produce results, and evolutionists can point out what matter
and force produced them, does not exclude design and intelli-
gence in their adjustment, co-ordination, any more than point-
ing out the form or process producing result in the watch
excludes design in its production. It is no argument for the
evolution of the watch that such forms exist, nor that it is in
harmony with conditions, unless it be shown that conditions
produce the watch, or are the causes of the adjustment of the
watch. Nor should it be claimed that the watch be formed
in an instant perfect and in motion, nor that law and order
of nature w^ere violated in making it, because nature did not
make it ; nor, if made by machinery, that machinery shows
that intelligence had nothing to do with it ; nor that the ma-
chine must be like the watch — that is, that it varied but
slightly from what produced it. All these blunders are made
by the evolutionts in objecting to the theory of creation.

Another most palpable absurdity of the speculations of the
evolutionist, and one that runs through all his speculations,
is this : He seems to think that an accurate description of
the processes of nature is an explanation of Avliat produces
them, and why they operate in that manner. He mistakes
a description of the law of a phenomenon, and its mode of
acting, for an explanation of what causes the phenomenon.
As well might we take a catalogue of the inventions of the

156 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

Patent Office for an explanation of the machinery ; or an ex-
phination of liow each machine operates, for an exphmation of
the force movhig it ; or an explanation of the force for a his-
tory of the inventor. Classifying phenomena and labeling
them, and laying them up on shelves of learned phrases, as
does the pliysicist, is not an explanation of the cause that pro-
duced them. iSo an enumeration of the conditions in wliich
the variations of animals and plants are produced is no ex-
planation of what caused the variations. Even if conditions
produced the variations, which is not the case, it is no ex-
planation. The questions arise, "What caused the condi-
tions ? What gave to them this causal efficiency ? What
arranged them? What gave the life varied? What implant-
ed the adaptation to conditions, or the power of adapting it-
self to conditions?" Survival of the fittest expresses a result
and not a cause of a process. The i^al cause, the efficient
cause, is not hinted in such a phrase, or in such expressions,
except to deny common sense by denying all causation. If
the reader of these speculations will ask, as he proceeds with
his reading. How much of this is mere description of the
manner of the process, and how much is an explanation of
the cause of the process, and of this manner of process, he
will find that there is not a syllable of explanation of the
cause in them.

We have already called attention to the fiiilure of evolu-
tion to account for life, sensation, instinct, reason, volition,
thought, rational, moral and religious nature. The difficulty
is now attempted to be evaded or hidden in a phrase lately in-
vented, called " correlation of forces." It is stated :

I. There are not many separate and distinct and even an-
tagonistic forces as has been supposed. What seems to be
such are but different manifestations of but one force. The
diflTerences in manifestation are caused by the difference of
conditions under which the force is manifested. All these
supposed different forces pass into each other, or into the one
force. They can be changed into each other, and each has
an equivalent in the other. Some include, motion, heat, elec-
tricity, gravity, chemical action, life, sensation, instinct, rea-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 157

son, volifion, thought, and all rational and moral force or
power, in this one force. They are but modifications or dif-
ferent manifestations of this one force, and the difference in
manifestation is occasioned by the difference of conditions un-
der which it is manifested. One of the principal conditions,
or causes of difference of manifestation, is the difference in
organization or constitution of the matter in which or through
which force is manifested.

II. We know nothing of the real or ultimate nature of
this one force. We can only observe its manifestations and
their characteristics, and classify them; and when we have
done this we have readied the utmost that can be achieved
by science.

Such, in brief, is the new speculation of the correlation of
forces. Even if we admit this assumption of science, so called,
it does not remove the difficulty that is pressed on the evolu-
tionist : Whence came life, sensation, reason, thought ? We
can establish, by an appeal to the observations and writings
of the physicists themselves, the following positions :

I. The nearest conception we can have of force, or the ulti-
mate nature of force, is our consciousness of mental power in
action, or of mind force. The next nearest conception is our
consciousness of vital force or animal life, or animal life force
in our bodies.

II. On our consciousness of mind force, or mental power
in action, is based all our conceptions of force, and all our
reasoning on force. This we have shown by appeal to the
phraseology and reasoning of the evolutionist himself.

III. We know by consciousness, that there is a difference
between the mere animal life force of our bodies, regulated
and controlled by our minds, and our minds, wdiich control
and regulate this animal life force.

IV. We know by consciousness that our animal life force
is controlled and regulated by our minds, exhibiting co-ordi-
nation, adjustment and adaptation, design, plan, prevision
and provision in such control and regulation.

V. All of the displays of this one force in nature, all its ac-
tions, reactions, and interactions, all of H>: manifestations ar;\

158 THE PROBLEM OF PKOBLEMS.

iiioclifications, are controlled, regulated, co-ordinated, adjusted,
and adapted, in order, method, and system, exhibiting design,
plan and purpose, with prevision of, and provision for, all that
is produced by it, regulated and controlled by mathematical
and other laws that are purely rational and mental, expressing
and realizing the highest and most abstruse and abstract con-
ceptions of reason.

VI. We intuitively recognize in nature the control and
regulation of force by mental conceptions and rational ideas,
and recognize in the manifestations of force, and in their ac-
tions, reactions and interactions, co-ordination, adjustment,
adaptation, design, plan, prevision and provision, or the reali-
zation of the highest and most abstruse and abstract ideas and
conceptions of reason.

VII. In so doing we do not project ourselves into nature or
anthropomorphize nature, but we recognize in nature what the
evolutionist himself is compelled to recognize in nature, in his
descriptions of nature, even while denying its existence there,
the control and regulation of force, exhibiting co-ordination,
adjustment, adaptation, design, plan, prevision and provision.
The exact correspondence between what we see in nature in
the regulation and control of force, and in ourselves in the ac-
tion of force, controlled and regulated by mind, compels us to
recognize the control and regulation of mind in both cases, and
throw back the control and regulation of forces, which we see in
nature, on to mind as its only conceiveable ground.

But, although it may seem presumption for me to do so, I
question this new speculation, called correlation of forces —
that all phenomena are produced by one force — are but differ-
ent manifestations of one force. It contradicts our conscious-
ness that there is a distinction of individuality, identity, or
being — between force and the mind, which controls force. It
contradicts our intuitions that there is a similar distinction
between life and mere physical force, between reason and the
physical force of wind or steam. The reasoning by which cor-
relation of force is established is in violation of every princi-
ple of inductive philosophy, which demands that we examine
phenomena, and, from their characteristics, reason to their

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 159

cause. The evolutionist very properly examines the phenom-
ena of inorganic nature, and by their characteristics determines
the physical force which is their cause. He does not, however,
examine all the characteristics of the phenomena and recognize
that the causes are themselves phenomena, and from all char-
acteristics reason back to the ultimate cause of all being. But
in the case of vital and mental phenomena, in violation of all
inductive philosophy, which he professes to take as his guide,
he refuses to investigate separately the radically dissimilr.r
and unique phenomena of life, sensation, instinct, reason, and
thought, and reason from theii characteristics to their cause.
He either assumes the similarity of the phenomena of the phys-
ical and mental world, in violation of all sense, or in viola-
tion of every principle of correct reasoning he applies results
reached in the physical world to the radically dissimilar phe-
nomena of the mental world. In its theories of secretion of
thought by the brain — molecular action, chemical action, vi-
bration of medullary particles, etc. — evolution overlooks the
fact that there must be a self-active cause to originate these
processes — that there must be an intelligent principle to take
cognizance of them, and that there is a self-active principle
that, by means of memory, imagination, and spontaneous
thought, can arouse all these processes, independent of the
processes and anterior to them, and also independent of all
exterior causes. As an exterior cause that affects the body,
or reaches the mind through the senses and arouses thought
or emotion is a substantive agent, distinct from the body that
it influences, or any part of it that it uses in reaching the mind,
so must that which, in spontaneous thought uses the brain, be
a substantive agent separate and distinct from the brain which
it uses. As a cause, that from without would cause nausea
of a physical organ is a real and substantive agent, separate
and apart from the organ or the nerves or brain ; so must
that which, in spontaneous thought, causes nausea, be a real
substantive agent, separate and distinct from the nerves and
brain or organ.

K sensation be traced to certain nerves, and mental pro-
cesses to the brain, and different mental processes to different

IGO THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

j5ortions of the brain, the query still arises, Is the brain the
agent or is it the instrument? ^Ye have above proved it to be
the instrument, and that the agent is a real substantive, intel-
ligent existence apart from the brain. Such a tracing back of
sensation and mental processes, merely shows that the mind
acts through the nerves or brain, but it does not explain sen-
sation or thought ; it does not tell what sensation or thought
are, nor what mind is, nor wdiat it is that thinks, or uses the
nerves or brain as its organs or instruments in sensation or
thought. Suppose, to use the gross language of Carl Voigt,
the brain does secrete thought, as the stomach does chyle, still
the question stands unanswered : What is it that operates
through the brain, and uses it as its organ? To say the brain,
is to confound agent with instrument, or the actor with his im-
plements. To assume that it is physical force, is to ascribe to
it w^hat it does not possess and to argue in a circle. When we
ask what causes physical force to accomplish so wonderful and
foreign a result as thought, we are told it is that wonderful
organization of matter know as the brain. If we ask what
produces that wonderful organization of matter, the brain, that
so controls and modifies physical force, we are told that phys-
ical force, its effect, is its cause. Physical force produces the
brain, and the brain produces the physical force, or mode
of force called thought. Reason says that the brain is but the
instrument, and the instrument of a real substantive, intelli-
gent agent, distinct from brain or physical force.

In this speculation, the correlation of forces, we have the
same juggle of words that w^e have so often exposed. Heat
is a mode of motion, and light is a mode of motion, and elec-
tricity is a mode of motion. All forces are modes of motion,
says Tyndall, and it is applauded as a profound scientific dis-
covery or idea. Modes of motion of what ? ^lotion of what
demands common sense. If thought be a mode of somethin;r,
or a mode of motion of something, the reason of every thinker
asks. Modes of what, or motion of what? Then are reason,
thought, and emotion mere modes of motion of the same force
that whirls the dust in the breeze? Are these forces capable
of being resolved into each other? Common sense says they

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 161

are not. They may neutralize each other in their influence
on matter, and not be identical or capable of being resolved
into each other. Are they identical, or does the use of matter
by one merely unfit matter to be used by the other ? Excess-
ive physical toil may unfit one for mental efibrt, and excess-
ive mental efibrt may unfit one for physical labor. But does
this prove that the forces employed are identical? By no
means. It merely proves that one exhausted the organization
and unfitted it to be used by the other. This is clearly shown
by the fact that within reasonable limits, physical labor pro-
pares for mental effort, and after mental eflfort one can enjoy
and perform jDhysical labor better. Excessive amativeness
unfits one for mental eflfort, and excessive mental effort unfits
•one for an exercise of amativeness ; but does this prove that
they are diflferent modes of the same force, Or resolvable into
each other? Who will utter so gross and absurd a thought?
Does it prove more than that each unfits the body to be exer-
cised by the other, and, as for that matter, by itself? Has this
any bearing on the question as to what uses the physical or-
ganization in either case, and controls and directs the displays
of force displayed through it in each case ? Then correlation
of force, is based on a false philosophy — is unproved, is contra-
dicted by conscious, and can be disproved as far as vital force
and mental force are concerned. Vital force and mental force
can not be correlated by physical force. The last evasion is,
that we can not know any thing about vital principle or life or
soul, or of the cause, or the character of the cause of these
phenomena, that perjolex the evolutionist.

In opposition to this, I afifirm that, by consciousness, we
know more of vital principle and life and soul than we cau
possibly know of mere physical force or matter; also that
what we do know of matter and force comes by and through
our knowledge of self, and the analogies of our knowledge
of self and vital force. This we have sufliiciently elaborated.
We can learn the cause of the phenomena, and the charac-
ter of that cause, by the characteristics of the phenomena.
We can know a Milton, a Plato, a Shakespeare, by their
works, and learn more of their character than did their co-
14

162 THE PR()BLf:M OF problp:ms.

temporaries, or than we can of our cotemporaries, for we can
render, concerning them, a moi-e dispa.ssionate judgment.
We know, from tlieir works, that they possessed certajnjiihar-
acteristics. In the same way we can learn the cause of the
phenomena of nature, and the attributes of that cause. We
can learn and know what he has done. From what he has
done, we know he has certain attributes. What would we
tl.ink of a man who would say that Milton or Shakespeare
were unknowable. It is infinitely more absurd to say that
God, the cause of all, is unknowable?

Let us now test the practical results of Darwinism as a
working hypothesis. What does it accomplish in accounting
for the problems of life and the varieties of life? Let us
admit all that can be truthfully urged as a basis for Darwin-
ism. There is indicated in nature an ascending scale of
existence, from mechanical combinations of matter, through
chemical compounds, lower forms of vegetable life up to
higher forms, lower forms of animal life up to highest forms,
lower types of the human race and various gradations up to
its most favored specimens. There are certain facts in em-
bryology that are very curious. Each higher animal, in
various stages of its embryonic life, resembles various lower
types of animals. Man, in his embryonic existence, resem-
bles, in certain respects, in succession, the four lower grand
divisions of animal nature. There are certain general or
archetypal ideas that pervade all varieties of an order or
species. The species of animal and vegetable nature are sus-
ceptible of being wonderfully varied by climate, crossing; and
animals, especially, by climate, food domestication and cross-
breeding, and especially by man's influence intelligently using
these animals and applying these influences. There are cer-
tain common instincts that pervade all animal nature. AVe
concede all of this. Now, shall we concede Darwin's hy-
pothesis, that all varieties of animal and vegetable life have
been produced from one pi-imordial germ, or from a few pri-
mordial germs, by the influence of conditions. Other queries
arise also. What is the character of these conditions? Are
they entirely and solely unintelligent — modifications of matter

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 163

aiifl force? Or has intelligence, and results of intelligence, a
j)lace among them ? Did intelligence devise and co-ordinate
and arrange these conditions ? Does intelligence control and
direct them? Is there order, method, system, and plan in the
operations of these conditions? Are there design, plan, pur-
pose, prevision, i)rovision, and law of intelligence and reason
in their action and operations? Some of these queries we
have already answered. AVe will now ask, as a matter of
fact, do the facts of observation and experience sustain the
assumptions of Darwin's hypothesis, that all varieties of veg-
etable and animal life have been produced by the influence of
conditions on one primordial germ, or a few primordial germs?

We reply that they do not; and give as our first reason,
one that is sufficient of itself. The genesis of a new species
of animal or plant has never come within the knowledge of
man in historic or prehistoric times. Evolutionists may spec-
ulate as much as they please, but they can not point to a
single instance, and say that here is the genesis of a new
species, and we can tell you all about, or even any thing
about it. They can not point to an instance where conditions
produced a single species in historic or geologic times. Dar-
win has confessed that he could not lay his finger on a single
instance, and say, here is an instance where species has been
produced according to my theory. He speculates as to how
he thinks they may have been produced, but never says, "I
knoNV, or can prove, that this species has been thus produced,"
in a single instance.

Dr. Thompson, an eminent scientist of England, and a be-
liever in evolution, says, "During the whole period of recorded
human observation, in thousands of years on land, and lat-
terly in the vast area of the sea, as revealed in deep sea
dredgings, not a single instance of the change of one species
into another has been detected; and, strange to say, in all
the successive geologic formations and epochs, although new
species were constantly appearing, and there is abundance of
evidence of progressive change, no single case has as yet been
found or observed of one species passing through a series of
unappreciable modifications into another." At^ we have re-

164 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

peatedly stated, and so Dr. Thompson also did, geology contra-
dicts and disproves the theory, by showing that the changes
have been by steps, and tluit each species has existed in its
greatest perfection at first, and that a great many species of
the highest perfection have suddenly appeared, without any
pre-existing lower types or prophetic forms. Darwin more
than once confesses the immutability of species as far as
human experience and knowledge extends, during all history
and geologic epochs. Mummies of animals, and remains of
animals in caves and geologic strata, show that s^Decies have
ever remained the same, even during the immense periods
claimed by geologv. And they have remained tlie same
under all influences of climate, food, and domestication. So
persistently do species remain permanent under all conditions,
and vastly different conditions, that Darwin confesses that but
little stress can be laid on the influence of conditions.- When
he made that concession, he might as well have cast to one
side his theory, for that is based on the influence of con-
ditions, and is an assumption that conditions have produced
all species and varieties.

Nature has placed a chasm between species in the law of
hybridization. Cross-breeding between varieties of the same
species is possible, but hybridization between different species
is impossible, except in case of a very few species, and these
are very closely allied species of the same family, and in these
cases the hybrids are sterile, so that the production of a new
species is impossible. Nature thus has j^ositively declared
that there is an impassable chasm between species, that has
never been passed, for it can not be passed. No new species
has been produced by insensible gradation from a lower to a
higher species, for there are no such insensible gradations
but an impassable chasm. The difference between species is
more than a difference in degree, it is one of nature and
kind.

There is an incompatibility of nature in the case of species.
Another fact closely allied to this, that renders it of vital im-
portance : No divergence from any species or stock, ever has
become sterile to the original stock ; hence, no divergence ever

FAILUBES OF EVOLUTION. 165

has become a new species. These two facts, when combined,
settle forever Darwin's hypothesis concerning the origin of.
S])ecies. Evohition confounds variability with mutability,
when they are radically different. Mutability is necessary to
produce species. Variability modifies species within definite
limits. Variability has limits, and never passes into muta-
bility. xVnother important fact connected with this, is that
when the varying influence is removed, the variation returns
to the original stock, or partially so. Variation can not go
beyond certain limits without producing sterility. Man's
improvements, if carried beyond a certain limit, produce ster-
ility. This is often seen in the nursery ar.d seed gardens ; and
breeders and horticultui-alists, and all persons improving
plants or animals, are often under the necessity of returning to
the original stock to restore fertility and vitality. Another
radical defect in Darwin's theory is tliat almost all of its facts
and illustrations, and all its well-established and important
ones, are taken from what man, by means of his intelligence,
has done. By domestication, by change of climate and food,
and change of conditions, man's intelligence and action has
produced strange variations, but they have never produced a
new species. Evolution attempts, by means of what the in-
telligence of man has done, in producing variations, although
it has never produced a new species, to prove that unintelli-
gent matter and force w^ould produce an almost infinitely
greater result, a new species. Man's intelligence was needed
to cause the change of conditions. Animals and plants never
would have produced them. Man's intelligence was needed to
apply and render effectual the conditions, and to perpetuate
the effects, and continue them in one direction. If man's w ill
and intelligence can not produce a new species, using, as he
does, all the conditions in nature, how can unintelligent
matter and force produce thousands, yea hundreds of thou-
sands? Then we repreat our previous fact, that species have
definite limits which they never pass, under man's influence
or any other. Those limits may vary greatly, but they are
never transcended.

There are radical physiological differences between species

166 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

that are never bridged over by trjinsitional forms. There k
absohitely not a transitional form in existence, nor can one be
found in historic or geologic epochs. Species can be found
that partake of the characteristics of two or more species or
orders or genera, but they remain permanent, in precisely that
form, as long as they exist. The bat is a bat, and the duck-
billed animal, that has web feet, lays eggs, and suckles its off
spring, is a platypus as long as the species exist. Since evo-
lution supposes development to be continually working during
all time, it, of necessity, must regard every species now in ex-
istence as transitional, and imdergoing the process of trans-
mutation now. Its conditions that it appeals to, to produce
species, are in existence now, and operating now, and are
producing the effect they did in the past ; if so, every species
in existence is transitional. If conditions produce new species
by imperceptible gradations, there ought to be innumerable
gradations, and such a confusion of varieties as would defy
classification. There would be no chasm between species.
The transition from one species to another would not be
abrupt. We would be puzzled to distinguish between species
in the case of any species. Experience declares that, wuth
rare exceptions, species are easily classified. There are im-
passable chasms between them. There are absolutely no
transitional forms. There is no confusion. Geology gives no
transitional forms. Species appear in their greatest perfec-
tion at first, and remain the same during all geologic epochs
in which they exist, and under all conditions. In case of
the ibis, reindeer and elk, if geology be true, they have re-
mained unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. If
it be said that change of conditions are needed to produce
change in species, Ave reply that there have been colossal
changes. But selection, we are told, can only act when va-
riations appear. Then it is not a cause of variations, and
Darwinism is given up. When variations appear now, tliey
are monstrosities, and are eliminated by the very conditions
that are supposed to preserve them. Nature pronounces
against preservation of variations by making • monstrosities
sterile.

FAILUEES OF EVOLUTION. 167

Darwinism assumes the transmutation of species. It makes
creation a chain of connected links, in wliich every link is
continually being transmuted into tlie link above it, and then
into the next, and so on. This never has occurred in human
experience or knowledge, nor is there the slightest e^^idence
in human experience or knowledge that it ever has occurred
in a single instance. The geologic records in all their
.'trata fail to furnish a hint of such transmutation. Our
attention is often called to such transformations as the egg,
the caterpillar, the grub, and the moth. But, unfortunately
for evolution, the moth never goes higher, but we have from
it the egg, worm, etc. We have this cycle during all ex-
perience. This fact, with former ones, is sufficient to set to
one side all Darwinism forever. When the attention of the
evolutionist is called to these defects in his speculations —
that he can not furnish a single instance of the genesis of
a new species by conditions, by the method he claims pro-
duced them, nor of a single transitional form, nor of the
transmutation of species — he has two evasions. The first is
the imperfection of the geological record. A more pitiful
excuse never was offered. We have, in the geologic strata,
and in our knowledge, millions of varieties and species. In
some geologic periods, the remains of species, to the number
of many thousands, have been catalogued in each epoch.
When we consider the vast number of transitional forms
that evolution must place between them, and the vast num-
ber of transmutations needed to bridge over the chasms be-
tween them, and then the ease with which the vast and
])Owerful forms, that these transitional forms between the
higher species at least must have had, could have been pre-
served; and then reflect that we find absolutely none, we
can only conclude, that we find none, because there never
were any in existence. Countless numbers of species, easily
destroyed, have been preserved through tremendous changes,
when most of the transitional forms, if there had been any,
must have been far more easily preserved.

The other evasion is to demand a period of time practi-
cally infinite, to efiect the changes that are claimed for con-

168 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ditions. We are told that the changes are so gradual and
imperceptible, tliat even during the period of man's existence
on tlie earth, he has not had sufficient time to ob erve any
perceptible change. The reply to this evasion is very easy.
The extraordinary births and monstrosities to which some
evolutionists appeal are the work of one reproduction. The
variations of species, to which Darwin appeals are, at far-
thest, the work of a few generations, and often of a few years.
Changes within the limits of species are always very palpable
in a very short period. In the many thousands of animals
and plants that have existed for thousands of years with
man, there certainly ought to be observed these transitional
forms, and these transmutations, no matter how long it may
take. There ought to be some evidence of transitional forms,
or ti-ansmutations, in so many thousands of years, but there
are none. Tlieu when we take the geologic strata, and con-
cede to them the millions of years that the evolutionist
claims, and examine their millions of species, and find not
a single iota of evidence for transitional forms or transmu-
tation, the evasion becomes simply an insult to reason. Ev-
olution makes the action of heat, earthquake and other phys-
ical causes far more destructive than now', during the geologic
epochs. If there were enormous generations of life during
these periods, when conditions were comparatively so unfav-
orable and even so destructive, why not for greater genera-
tions of new life now, when all is tranquil, and so much
better fitted to evolution, according to the hypothesis? Why
not transitional forms and transmutations now, when condi-
tions are so much better fitted to the work. Finally, this
jittempt to make the change so gradual as to be absolutely
imperceptible by man, in the many thousand years of his
history, and the vast periods of geology, practically removes
the whole hypothesis beyond human knowledge, and renders
it incapable of proof, and makes of it an absurdity, and it is
an insult to all reason and sense to demand that we accept
a theory that the advocates have to remove beyond all possi-
bility of proof, to save it from utter overthrow. Then astron-
omy and geology utterly refuse to concede to evolution the

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 169

vast, the infinite time it demands. If the thousands of years
of man's history, and if the vast periods of geology, have
produced no change on certain well-known species, how long
would it take to develop man from a cloud of star-dust, as
Tyndall asserts?

Another fatal objection is furnished by geology, on which
Darwinism specially relies. Geology teaches that so far from
only lower forms appearing only at first, and then passing
into higher forms and disappearing in this way, as Darwin
demands, the opposite has been the case. According to Dar-
winism only lower forms should appear in the early geologic
epochs. They should pass into higher with change of condi-
tions. All highly organized species have been developed by
imperceptible gradations from lower types, and each should
have countless lower ancestral types. But in the case of
fishes, very highly organized species appeared first, and with-
out any ancestral forms. The same holds true of the batra-
chian or frog family. During the mesozoic period, the dei-
nosauri and other very highly organized animals appeared
without any progenitors, and appear suddenly without any
prophethic types. Reptiles of much lower organization ap-
peared long after these highly organized animals. All this
contradicts the ascending gradual scale demanded by Dar-
winism. Again, geology teaches that species apjDear in their
greatest perfection at first. Geology can point to peiiods
when they did not exist. Then it can point to the remains
in succeeding epochs, but they are in their highest perfection
when they first appear. Highly organized species appeared
early without progenitors, and have persisted throughout en-
tire geologic epochs, and in many cases during several, and
throughout great changes of conditions. If there has been
any change it has been one of degeneracy, and not of
improvement. There has been a progress in creation, but
it has been by successive steps. There has been evolution,
but it has been evolution of the plan of the Creator. Geology
clearly teaches that all species, even the most highly organ-
ized, appear suddenly, and in the highest perfection at first.
Strongly marked specific diffei-ences suddenly appear also, and
15

170 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

not gradually, as demanded by the theory of development.
Geology teaches then that as the earth became mifitted for
lower forms, or any forms, they degenerated and disappeared,
and others were substituted in their greatest perfection at
first. All these facts of geology are in direct contradiction
of Darwinism, and every theory of evolution by mere matter
and force.

Darwinism explains all varieties and species by the influ-
ence of conditions on a few primordial germs. There are a
few well established facts of geology that positively contra-
dicts this assumption. Darwinism demands change of condi-
tions to cause improvements, by means of improvements the
fittest were enabled to survive. These lower forms would be-
come unfitted to survive and would disappear. But the lowest
forms have persisted through all epochs and all changes of
conditions. These conditions do not determine the order of
life ; or if they do, there liave been no changes of conditions
to evolve new forms of life. The evolutionist may take
which alternative he pleases. If conditions determine the
order of life, there has been no change of conditions, for these
simple forms persist through all changes, or if there has been
changes these changes of conditions do not produce the va-
rieties of life, for the forms have not been varied. The very
simplest forms of life appear now, and have persisted during
all ages. Highest and lowest forms have co-existed in nearly
all epochs. Conditions can not- have produced them. Man
carries animals and plants into every condition, and they
flourish, showing their persistence against conditions. Again,
often they improve, thus showing that conditions highly
adapted to them failed to }»roduce them, and showing that
animals are adapted to conditions, and not that conditions pro-
duced animals adapted to themselves. Even the lowest and
simplest forms have persisted through all changes and va-
rieties of circumstances. There is not a subservience of life
to physical conditions, but a superiority of vital force to them,
and it was not produced by them. Physical force is ever
destructive of vital forces, unless conquered and co-ordinated
by it, and vital force is antagonistic to physical forces, and

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 171

conquers and subordinates them, and renders them subservi-
ent to itself. A multitude of orders of animals, with innn-
merable varieties, existing side by side under the same condi-
tions,- vastly different animals under the same conditions, and
the same animals under all varieties of condition, disprove
evolution by conditions.

These conditions do not produce similar results, but pre-
cisely opposite results. In the sea the same conditions oli-
tain certainly, and in them we find the air breathing por-
poise and water breathing sturgeon. These conditions do not
produce what is most fitted. The air breathing porpoise or
whale, is certainly most unfitted to be produced by water or
in water. AVe have no horses on the pampas of the New
World, although they existed as the most adapted to horses
of any portion of the globe for ages, and there were equine
type in the New AVorld for several geologic epochs.. Multi-
tudes of cases might be given where man has carried animals
into places where they did not exist, and they flourished, and
even improved, thus showing that the conditions were espe-
cially fitted for them, yet had not produced them, although
they had existed for vast ages. Hence, conditions have failed
to evolve what was especially fitted to them, and just what
they would produce, did they produce any thing.

Again, we find existences in conditions that are utterly
opposed to their production. We find existences the very
opposite of the conditions. An air-breathing animal in water
would no more be expected, or be produced by conditions,
than a gilled animal, that had to go into the water to get
breath, would be expected to be produced by conditions on
land. The conditions that are appealed to to account for
the development, are opposed to tlie development in most
cases. The change necessary in the lungs and other organs
in passing from water to land, and from land to water, or
other changes equally great, are not susceptible of being pro-
duced by development. No amount of trial or effort could
make a fish breathe air, or an air-breathing animal bi-eathe
water. Change of conditions destroy instead of changing or
adapting. The evolutionist has this dilemma to meet: Either

172 THE PrvOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

animals were adapted to condition?, or they were not. If
adapted at first, then his law of change by conditions is gone,
and the query arises. Who adapted them to conditions? If
not adapted at first, how did they exist until they were
adapted? The action of the change of conditions would de-
stroy, instead of producing adaptation. It is like the man's
calf that he was trying to adapt to live on one straw per day.
Before he got him adapted he killed him in adapting him to
such conditions! The evolutionist evades this by calling at-
tention to the case of divers and fishers who become accus-
tomed to remaining under water a wonderful length of time
comparatively. But it is an evasion. The diver never
breathes water. His power of endurance is increased, but
there is a very narrow limit to it. Then the pain and incon-
venience of adaptation would compel the animal to avoid the
struggle of adaptation. Darwinism supposes that -animals
leave conditions in which they are adapted and enjoy them-
selves, and press into conditions in which they are unadapted
and suffer the pain and destruction of adaptation.

Then conditions produce such opposite results, such contra-
dictory results. They did not affect man as they did other
animals. If man was once an ape-like animal, with hairy
covering, a tail which was as useful as a hand almost, and a
prehensile foot and toe, his modes of life and locomotion
and conditions would be entirely opposed to his loss of these
characteristics, absolutely necessary to his mode of life. We
are asked to believe that a mode of life and conditions fitted
man for these conditions, and furnished him with these char-
acteristics when he was unfitted; and tlien unfitted him for
themselves, and deprived him of these characteristics so essen-
tial to his mode of life and conditions, when he was so well
fitted to them ! Conditions produced results so opposite to
themselves. Conditions gave to man and the ape a pre-
hensile tail, a prehensile foot and toe, and then conditions
stripped man of these necessary and essential characteristics,
and the same conditions perpetuated and intensified these
same characteristics in tiie ape! The law of cou'litions is like
the old woman's rule for testing eggs: *'Put them into water.

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 173

and the good ones will sink or swim, and I don't know
which!" Had the old woman pnt her eggs in water and
reasoned : This sivims, therefore it is good ; this sijiks, and
therefore it is good, and pronounced them all tested and
proved to be good, she would have been a full-fledged philo-
sopher of the Darwinian type. The ape sinks and the man
swims in precisely the same conditions, therefore the same
conditions produce these exactly opposite results.

Then the same conditions produce such different results.
They make of one and the same organ the wing of a bird,
the paddle of a whale, the flipper of a mole, the wing of a bat
and the hand of a man. Again, w^e see the same organ used
in such a variety of ways and conditions, often in conditions
radically opposed to each other. And then the same result
is reached often in such different ways by the use of such dif-
ferent organs. Often the organs and results are so opposed
to each other that it is impossible to concieve that condi-
tions could have caused them. This theory of conditions
does not harmonize with homologous organs and structures
in so widely different and even opposite conditions, or with
such widely different structures and organs in the same
conditions. Conditions could not have produced contradic-
tory and opposite results in the one case, or such opposite and
different conditions produced the same result in the other.
Man's loss of hairy covering, and prehensile foot and toe, and
prehensile tail, if he ever was a simian and possessed them,
was just the opposite of what the conditions could have pro-
duced. Conditions fitted man for themselves when he was
unfitted, and then they unfitted him for themselves when he
was fitted! These absurdities show, as Darwin says, that

little stress can be laid on conditions.

■»

Darwinism requires that each variation, produced by con-
ditions, be an improvement, be a step in an ascending scale,
from lower to higher, from simple to complex, from useless to
useful. Whence came this invariably beneficial tendency of
conditions, this uniform upward action of conditions? Was
it not planned and sustained by mind? Again, Darwinism
requires that improvements be a help in the struggle for life.

174 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

If forms with useful variations struggle ^Yith unimproved,
Avhy should improved prevail? We know that man's im-
provements unfit for the struggle for life. The improved
horse, dog or ox stands no chance in a struggle for life with
unimproved. Then when man's influence is removed, con-
ditions and the influence of nature removes the improvements,
and returns the animal to the original stock, thus showing, if
any thing, that nature and conditions have a tendency to de-
stroy improvements, and not to preserve them. Variations
would not be improvements nor aids in a struggle for life
until perfect. All variations would be a hindrance, and not
a help, until perfected. They are supposed to be developed
by use, when there can be no use for them until developed.
If they are rudimentary and undeveloped and unfit for use,
how could a lack of use do what use is supposed to do ? If
they were a blemish and a hindrance and unfitted, conditions,
if they perform the part ascribed to them by evolution, Avould
remove instead of developing them. Evolution does not ac-
count for incipient structures in nature. They are not pro-
duced by use, for they are not used. They are not developed
by use, for they are not used. Disuse does not remove them.
They remain unchanged. According to evolution, they are
either incipient, rudimental organs, to be developed by use, or
obsolete organs to be discarded and eliminated by disuse. Nei-
ther is done. They remain unchanged for ages under all con-
ditions. These incipient organs in certain animals, that are a
burden and a hindrance to any development that would make
them useful, and that became highly useful when developed in
other animals, are inexplicable in any theory of evolution.
Silent organs that are a burden in certain animals, and be-
come highly useful when developed in others, homologous or-
gans performing widely different functions, widely diflerent
organs performing the same functions, are inexplicable and in-
conceivable in a system of developments by conditions, but are
perfectly rational and conceivable as a part of a general plan
or mental conception by a creating mind. In creation, we have
seen that there are governing conceptions, ideal archetypes,
that control the course of development pursued in the acts of

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 175

creation. As in the wheelbarrow, the cart, the wagon, the
rockaway and landau, there is an idea developed by intelli-
gence, so in the orohippos, the protoliippos, the hipparian and
horse, there is a development of an ideal concept or arche-
typal form, by intelligence, and not a development of one out
of the other by unintelligent conditions. Lest it be said that
we ore guilty of anthropomorphism, we make this additioiml
remark: lliere is not the trial and imperfection in one case
that there is in the others. In the course of creation there was
perfect knowledge of the result from the beginning, and pro-
vision for it, and the result was approached unerringly and
continually.

There are results that evolution by conditions utterly fails to
account for. No amount of conditions can account for the
neck of the giraffe, the proboscis of the elephant, the hand of
man, or the eye of the eagle, or for the wonderful systems of
circulation, digestion, respiration, and reproduction in species,
varying so wonderfully from each other. Let us attempt to
conceive of natural selection forming rude materials in many
varieties of letters, then these letters into words, and the words
into sentences, and the sentences into paragraphs, and the par-
agraphs into chapters, and the chapters into Darwin's *' Origin
of Species," and then printing and binding the book as it
stands on the shelves of our library. Do you say madness?
Then what shall we say of the idea that natural selection took a
cloud of star-dust, and formed the author so infinitely above his
book, replete as it is with learning and research? How incon-
ceivably above the volume is the human form, and how infin-
itely above the speculations of the argument is the human soul?
We do not see nature performing such wonderful acts now.
Nature takes the materials of which the telescope and watch
are formed, and makes what we call slag. Intelligent man
takes the same materials and makes watches and telescopes.
But these do not continue the work of making other tele-
scopes and watches. Man has to do that. The theory of evo-
lution makes matter and force do the Avork of mind. The the-
ory of creation makes mind do what mind alone can do. All
talk of blind, irrational matter and force, by natural selection,

176 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

doing the work of mind, in producing such organs as the eye
or hand, is the despair of reason and sense. It makes unintel-
ligence do wliat requires the highest effort of intelligence to
niiderstand, and what naught hut a high effort of intelligence
could produce. This one objection alone — that evolution
makes matter do what can be done only by mind, and unintel-
ligence do the work of intelligence, and no-will do the work of
will, is sufficient to brand it as the most absurd chimera that
ever insulted human reason.

There are instincts and processes in nature that have refer-
ence to the organisms of other animals, and never could have
been produced by natural selection. Take the electric appa-
ratus of the eel, or the poison of the serpent. These have
reference to the organism of other animals, and exhibit perfect
knowledge of them. In the poison of the serpent and other
animals, there is a knowledge of the structure of other animals
and wonderful chemical skill in the poison. Sometimes it has
reference to the organism of certain other animals, to even a
very few, and is innoxious to others. How could conditions
around one organism produce variations that have intelligent
reference to entirely different organisms? It took men thou-
sands of years of research to attain to a knowledge of electricity
and of the construction of the pile, coil, and battery, and the
medium through which electricity will act. Here, in the eel,
we have a perfect coil pile and battery, a knowledge of the
medium through which electricity will act, and of the organi-
zation of other animals. We are asked to believe that this
highest display of reason in scientific knowledge, and scientific
skill in construction, was the result of blind matter and force,
and conditions acting unintelligently. Take the case of the
cuckoo laying eggs in the nests of (5ther birds, the ant that
makes slaves of other ants, or of the bee that builds a cell that
displays such perfect knowledge of geometrical and architectu-
ral principles of economy of space, and strength and economy
of material. Did conditions of unintelligent matter and force
produce these actions, so expressive of the highest order of in-
telligence and skill, and so utterly foreign to conditions? Then
take the ca^e of the queen bee destroying her fertile daughters,

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 177

and of the working bees destroying the males or droned. Here
we have a destruction of the fittest. In the latter case it is the
unfittest destroying the fittest. Evolution utterly fails to ac-
count for these phenomena.

Evolution fails to account for another fact in nature. A
change in any organ or structure is correlated with other
changes. Symmetry of sides is secured. Other organs in the
{inimal are co-ordinated with the change by necessary changes.
Other animals and plants are co-ordinated in such changes.
Such co-ordination and correlation is not the work of conditions
of unintelligent forces. Another fact seen in nature is utterly
inexplicable by evolution by conditions. There are anticipa-
tions for coming existences and events. The young frog loses
his water-breathing apparatus preparatory to becoming an au--
breathing animal. Coal and minerals were prepared and
placed for man's use ages before he appeared. They are lo-
cated in just such a way as to meet his wants. Unintelligent
forces never did this. As we have often remarked, we have to
make of primordial germs a god or infinite fetich. Or we have
to make of conditions a god. The evolutionist deifies natural
selection. It preserves the good, the useful, the beautiful, and
rejects the weak, ugly, sickly, and worthless. In all this is dis-
played the most wonderful teleology. The very term survival
of the fittest expresses the most remarkable teleology. The
evolution has in tliis preservation of the fittest, the useful, the
beautiful, the good, the most complete teleology.

It is absurd to ascribe all this to a metaphor, natural selec-
tion. If it is not a metaphor then it is an absurdity. The
term natural selection, unconscious selection, is an absurdity.
Selection is the act of an intelligent will. There is no selection
in uninteUigent nature, and it is absurd to talk of it. Hux-
ley's illustration of unconscious selection is an absurdity. He
takes the case of the wind moving sand and leaving pebbles
behind. It selects the sand and rejects the pebbles. The truth
is, that it moves the sand because it can, and leaves the peb-
bles because it can not. Huxley's selection is like Hobsou's
choice. You can take what you choose provided you choose

178 THE PROBLEM OF molJI.KMS.

oue thing alone that I have chosen for you. The whid selects
the sand, because it can move nothing else.

Evolution fails to account for the great difference there is
between the brain of man, the lowest specimen of humanity,
and the highest animal on earth. It is a broad chasm, and
not a slight upward ascent of an inclined plane. The brain
of man is two and a half times larger in proportion than that
of the most highly endowed animal. When we reflect, also,
that if we compare the intellectual portions, the ratio is ten to
one, and in the moral and religious faculties there is no com-
l)arison, for the animal is destitute of these ; there is estab-
lished a chasm no hypothesis of evolution can leap or bridge.
The brain of the savage was not produced by his condition of
life. It is much larger than his condition of life demands.
His condition, then, is a retrogression, a degradation into
which he has dragged down his brain. Conditions never
produced his brain. We have no indication of the develop-
ment of man from lower animals. Man's lineage goes back as
far as that of the simian, hence the simian was not his pro-
genitor. Zoologically, men and apes have no afiinity of spe-
cies, genus, family, or order.

An eminent naturalist has established four hundred physi-
ological differences between man and the simian family, and
such differences too as those on which species are based. They
are differences of species and not of varieties. Likeness of or-
gans, or types, or plan, do not prove derivation any more than
wheelbarrow, cart, wagon, and carriage have descended one
from the other. Animals are provided with means of suste-
nance, existence, protection from elements, and of defense and
offense within themselves. Animals never make mistakes.
They never progress. They use no implements, and can invent
none. Animals began existence perfect. Man has in himself
no means of sustenance, existence, protection from elements, or
of defense and OiTen.se. He makes mistakes. He begins ex-
istence utterly helpless, and remains so for years. Is of slow
growth. Yet man is lord of creation. Renders all subservi-
ent to him. Easily destroys all life. He has reason, and
renders subservient all forcc:s and p.;\vers of nature. He uses

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 179

ind invents implements and machines. He corrects mistakes,
discovers, invents, and improves. Is a progressive being — il-
liniitably so. No animal can conceive of man's means and
mode of life. They do not emulate or imitate. Do not learn
from him. Do not progress. Can not be made to take on
man's nature or mode of existence. Are limited by struct-
ure and instinct. How can a living machine put off con-
trivances necessary to existence, and assume the sphere of in-
telligence ?

Evolutionists tell us man was a carnivorous animal, con-
quering the powerful carnivora of the post-glacial epochs,
and able to ^vithstand a rigorous climate. They do not de-
duce this from a single known fact, or from his physical organ-
ization. The latter declares him to be a frugivorous animal,
suited to a mild climate, for he has no means of obtaining
flesh, and has no protection from a rigorous climate. Again,
apes, from whence he is said to spring, are frugivorous. They
have powerful jaws and teeth as a means of defense. If man
was a carnivorous ape, his teeth, and jaws, and hand-like feet,
would become more marked as he fought for life and food,
and conquered other animals. Then where, in the records of
these epochs, do Ave have any trace of such a powerful animal.
Geology furnishes us thousands of species and millions of their
remains, but not one trace of such an animal as this. Had
there been such an animal in existence, he would not, in op-
position to all conditions, have lost these characteristics suited
to his condition, and developed into an animal wanting them,
and utterly opposed to his conditions. Natural selection, then,
when applied to man, can have no relation to his physical na-
ture, but only to his mental and moral nature. The latter
select and improve. The former does not. The lowest man
subsists by means entirely distinct from the animal in means
of sustenance, existence, protection from elements, and of of-
fence and defense. If stripped of these, he would perish.
Reduce man to animal means of existence, and he would per-
ish. Confine the brute to man's means of life, and he would
perish.

Evolution fails to account for self-consciousness, reason, and

180 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

rational and moral nature in man. All human beings, no
matter bow degraded, bave tbem. Tbe lowest savages are
moral agents, susceptible of education, and progress, and ele-
vation. All men, even tbe lowest savages, bave moral and
religious ideas, God, religion, moral desert, and duty. Brutes
can not bj any amount of training be made to take on sucb
ideas. How, tben, could a brute evolve tbem witbout tbe aid
of a bigber intelligence, or under tbe influence of unintelli-
gent conditions ? Tbe lower forms of buraan life are degrada-
tion, as is proved by man's great brain, and bis moral and re-
ligious ideas tbat never originated in sucb condition. Wbere
man bad bis origin, be never was surrounded by physical
conditions to reduce bim so low, nor was he ever in sucb low
condition, if arcbieology be true. Wbere these low conditions
exist, man could not have had bis origin. Hence, he never
had his origin in these low conditions, and they are degrada-
tions. Because man was ignorant of mechanic arts at first,
does not prove that be was as low as modern savage tribes.
His capacity may bave been infinitely above these savages in
other directions. His moral and rational nature may have
been vastly above tbem. A lady may be unable to cope with
a savage in struggle for life and mechanic arts, and yet be no
nearer an animal than the latter.

No amount of conditions of physical nature can evolve
man's moral and religious nature, or bis rational nature. No
natural selection could produce man's rational conceptions of
infinity in time, space, being and causation, and of causation,
right and wrong. Natural selection never produced the cath-
olic, rational, moral and religious ideas of God, government
by bun, responsil)ility, moral desert, retribution, moral char-
acter, providence, prayer, inspiration, atonement, sacrifice,
religion and worship. How could conditions of irrational
matter or force give rise to artistic feeling and capacity?
Ideas of melody and music, instrumental and vocal, poetry,
sculpture, painting and tbe arts? Tlien poetry and philoso-
phy, and all departments of science, literature and art? Ab-
stract ideas of form, beauty, arithmetic and geometry? Ab-
stract ideas of conscience, law, order, method, justice and

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 181

truth? Evolution cannot account for the human voice, and
for speech and language. Whence came the matchless voice
of Jenny Lind or Parepa ? Whence came language, with all
its principles, laws, and development in eloquence and liter-
ature ? How much training would it take to develop the
most highly organized animal, to enable it to sing, speak and
use human language ? How much development would
change the breathing apparatus of an animal into man's vo-
cal organs, or the cries of brutes into the eloquence of a Dem-
osthenes ? How long would it take animals under unintelligent
conditions to do all this? Evolution assumes that conditions
without intelligence have done this ? How did natural se-
lection evolve the symphonies of a Mozart, a Beethoven, a
Haydn, or a Mendelssohn ?

Again, it does not remove the miracle to cheapen it. It is
as impossible for blind, hisensate matter and blind, irrational
force to leap the chasm between inorganic matter and a cell
of protoplasm, as from a cloud of star- dust to man, for the
very self-evident reason that they do not leap at all. Hence
the attempt to remove the miracle by chopping it up into an
infinite number of infinitely small particles, and distributing
them in an almost infinite series of structures, through an
almost infinite time, only infinitely increases the difficulty ;
for it renders necessary an almost infinite series of leaps, each
as impossible for blind, irrational matter and force as the one
almost infinite leap would be. Suppose we were standing be-
fore the Tip-Top House on Mount Washington, and were to
be told that all the material was once in the valley, nearly a
mile lower than the house, and several miles distant down
the mountain, and were to be convinced that such was the
case, and were to ask how came they here? If we were told
they leaped up here spontaneously at one leap, we would re-
ject it with scorn, as an insult to reason, for matter does
not spontaneously leap. ^' But," persists the one making the
assertion, " it was done in an almost infinite number of leaps."
"No," we reply, "it matters not how many, for matter does
not leap at all. It can leap miles as well as an inch." " But
it just slid up," is urged. "No; matter don't slide," we

182 THE PROBLEM OF PPtOBLEMS.

would say. " Well," says the author of '* Evolution and
Progress," "it would have to do it only onee!" "Well,
there is the rub. Nature does not do it once, even. If she
could do it once, there would be no trouble about a million
such acts." " Well," says Darwin, " it could do it if you will
grant it time enough." No ; no amount of time could impart
to matter one particle of causal efficiency. Time is not a
cause, but merely a period during w'hicli a cause acts.

Then this attempt to get rid of the difficulty by dividing it
into an infinite number of small particles, and distributing
them in an infinite series through an infinite period of time,
only increases it infinitely ; for nature could make the leap at
one bound as easily as it could one of these small leaps. If
it is made an inclined })lane, it will not help ; for nature does
not slide upward spontaneously. Nor will an infinite period
of time help the matter, for time will not add one particle
of causal efficiency, especially one particle of new and differ-
ent causal efficiency.

There are remarkable phenomena in the world that evolu-
tion is utterly unable to solve. Mere struggle for life never
produced beauty and its varieties, especially the almost infin-
ite variety of ideal conceptions in which it is displayed. Nor
will Darwin's last effort, sexual selection, explain it. Greater
strength would enable the male to monopolize the females,
but that throws no light on the origin of beauty. It is the
very despair of all reasoning to talk of sexual selection pro-
ducing the infinite varieties of beauty, especially when they
exhibit such wonderful ideal conceptions. What influence
does a spot on a feather, or a slight difference in an organ, or
in the form or length of the body, have on animals under
the influence of this overpowering passion? There is abso-
lutely no selection influenced by beauty about the action of
this appetite. This all-pervading idea of beauty, seen in all
nature, is without a shadow of explanation under this system.
Especially is this the case with the high ideal conceptions of
beauty realized, and the sublime ideas of reason wrought out
in the beauty of all nature. Then, in human action, whence
came the works and ideas of the artists and sculptors and

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 183

architects of our race ? Did struggle for life, or mere condi-
tions of physical force in matter, produce them ? Then the
wonderful intellects of a Plato, a Demosthenes, a Hume, a
Milton, a Shakespeare, a Newton, a Bacon, and their great
works, what produced them ? Did struggle for life — unin-
telligent conditions — produce them? The achievements of
our race in all departments of mind are the work of blind
irrational force, modified by insensate matter !

Evolution makes no will produce will, unintelligence pro-
duce intelligence, and things destitute of moral character pro-
duce moral character, things destitute of moral nature or
character produce moral character and nature. According to
evolution there was a time when none of these were in exist-
ence. Then things without volition, moral character, nature,
or idea, or hitelligence, evolved all these. Intelligence and
morality are original characteristics or processes.- They exist
and are not evolved, especially by that which does not contain
them, nor out of what does not contain them. Here is a fatal
defect of evolution and Darwinism. Again, struggle for life
never produced the results of the moral and religious world,
any more than it did these ideas. How could brutal, selfish
struggle for life produce generosity, trust in providence, love,
faith, longing for immortality, and belief in it? Selfish,
brutal struggle for life, in a state of brutal instinctive animal-
ism, or brutal, idiotic savagery, never produced moral sense
and conscience, and sense of right and wrong, and accountabil-
ity and obligation, duty, love of truth, justice and duty for
their own sake. Have the patriot's sacrifice, the philanthro-
pist's self-denial, and the martyr's devotion sprang from brutal
struggle for life? Social instincts, such as exist among gre-
garious animals, will not produce them, for unless there was
moral sense to control, direct and elevate them, they would
only become more shrewdly selfish. These moral qualities
and this moral sense of man must exist before what evolution
assumes to be their cause, to control and elevate it, before it
would have any tendency except in an opposite direction.
How can a sense of an utility above and in opposition to selfish
utility arise in selfishness and in a sense and exercise of selfish

184 THE PIJOBI.EM OF PROBLEMS.

utility? Whence came the accumulated growth and experi-
ence? When will an accumulation of experiences of selfish
utility, accumulated under a sense of selfish utility, change to
a moral sense? Perhaps the most pitiable instance to be
found in human speculation of an attempt to dig down a
mountain with a straw, is to be found in some thirty or forty
pages of Darwin's writings, when he attempts to account for
conscience as moral sense and moral ideas. When summed
up, the first conscience was the result of the diflference between
a full stomach and an empty one. Darwinism is especially
repugnant to every noble and elevated feeling on account of
its degraded conceptions of the origin of our affectional,
moral and religious nature. A shivering ape, crossed in love,
or suffering with hunger, acquires a consciousness of coming
evil, and this is the origin of religion. Or he feared what
injured him, and he became attached to what benefited him,
as the dog does toward his master or enemies, and this is the
beginning of religion.

Darwinism assumes that a brutal struggle for life is elevat-
ing, or that elevation came out of it. Our experience and
our moral intuitions declare that it is degrading, producing
ferocity, selfishness and brutality. It is only as existence,
animal or human, is relieved from struggle for life, that there
is elevation. Darwinism assumes that animalism, brutality
and struggle for life are a means of elevation ; or that prog-
ress is possible in them. Our moral intuitions and experi-
ence assure us that they are necessarily polluting and debasing
in their tendency. The same fallacy is seen in its specula-
tions in regard to physical improvement. The fightuig ani-
mal becomes more ferocious, and the cur that has to sti-ugglo
for life is the meanest of his kind. A certain amount of
elevating effort is needed, but Darwinism knows nothing of
this. It is struggle for life which is always debasing and
repressing, to wliieh it appeals. It assumes that evil and sin
are means of progress, or that progress is possible in them.
Experience and our moral intuitions declare that they are in-
herently, necessarily and invariably polluting and debasing.
They are causes of degradation, and can be nothing else. It

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 185

assumes that man has progressed in them, or by means of
them. He has progressed only as he lias rejected or aban-
doned them. It assumes that man could exist for a long time
in a state of brutal, instinctive animalism, or brutal, idiotic
savagery. Common sense says he would have perished in
either condition. It makes man begin in such a condition,
and progress in it, and by means of it, and out of it. Com-
mon sense says if he began in such a condition, he would have
sank lower until he perished.

Darwinism makes a farce of our moral and religious na-
ture. It has been cheating man for thousands of years with
ideas that are the most palpable absurdities. It makes a
cheat of our rational nature, for it denies its most catholic and
fundamental intuitions. It ignores the regnant part of our
nature, or makes a cheat of all nature. It denies the all-per-
vading law, order, system and plan, that pervades every atom,
system and the universe. It fails to account for it, and ren-
ders it an impossibility and absurdity. It insults universal
reason by denying teleology in nature. Operation of physical
causes can not produce teleological results. They are mere
conditions used by intelligence. The results are volition,
thoughts, emotion and conscience. Darwin denies all tele-
ology in nature — all that common sense has ever seen in
nature, and in utter contradiction of his own language. The
conditions assumed by Darwin, the power of adaptation to
conditions, the production of variations in one direction, from
lower to higher, from simple to complex, from useless to use-
ful, the maintenance of these variations in a co-ordinated
series, in an upward direction, and the law of heredity,
which he relies on to preserve these improvements, are the
very highest instances of teleology. He ascribes a teleology
of a divine character to unintelligent conditions. Darwinism
denies all causation, thus rejecting the fundamental concep-
tion of reason, science and philosophy, and a fundamental
intuition of our reason. It protests against the fundamental
regulative idea of science classifying phenomena by means of
ideal conceptions. It denies the essential characteristics of
natural processes, order, co-ordination, adjustment and adapta-
16

186 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tion, in system, method and plan, exhibiting design, pur-
pose, with prevision of, and provision for, all that exists, in
accordance with law of highest reason. It refuses to recog-
nize the realization of tlie highest conceptions of reason in
nature, conceptions which alone can construe nature, and
without which we could have no conception of nature. It
ignores the highest and ruling part of nature. It drags man
down to a level with the brutes. It makes every thing in
the universe the result of mere fovce, physical force. It
makes life the result, of a brutal struggle for existence. It
gives a low, brutal, violent, ferocious origin to every thing in
nature, and to our highest nature. It denies, and would ex-
terminate, the moral and religious element of our nature, for
it deprives man of all spontaneity, will, and moral nature and
character. Its legitimate results are seen in the new-fangled
brutalities of cremation of the dead, and euthanasia or ad-
vocacy of suicide. To be consistent with its philosophy of
the origin of life, society and all that exists — that they be-
gan in a brutal struggle for life, and are the result of the
slaughter of all else by the strong, and the survival of
strength and might, it ought to. advocate the destruction of
the sickly, the weak, and the unfit. The course of certain
savage nations in destroying the aged and helpless, is the
highest of wisdom, and if they are eaten, as some of them do,
we have the most perfect realization of utility and of this
new philosophy.

It makes fear, animalism, ferocity, and brutality the origin
of all progress, and it can only lead to such results. It over-
looks all rational, moral and benevolent factors in its theory
of evolution. It has no place for mercy, pity, forgiveness,
benevolence, love, saving the weak, sickly, deformed, par-
doning the erring, and reforming and forgiving the sinning.
Its theory of brute-force and the survival of the fittest, that
is, the strongest, knows nothing of this. It makes of such
acts a violation of nature and a crime. They are opposed to
the law of nature, and to what produced and produces prog-
ress. The man who relieves the suffering, or the erring, or
unfortunate, or elevates the fallen, or forgives and saves the

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 187

sinning, commits as great a crime as the one ^vho helps a
criminal out of the hands of the officer of the law. It makes
of patriotism, philanthropy, and martyrdom, lunacy and
crimes. They are, in nature, opposed to all conceptions of
this system, to its tendencies, and to its only logical conclu-
sions. Do not say Ave are too severe. What is the origin
and source of all progress, according to Darwinism ? A
brutal struggle for life. What is the source of all progress?
A survival of the fittest, or a triumph of might. What is
the controlling force in the universe ? Irrational force. What
is the end of man? Annihilation. What is the controlling
principle of conduct? Selfish utility. Then what founda-
tion for patriotism, martyrdom, or philanthrophy, self-denial,
self-sacrifice, and self-abnegation ? They are madness, if
Darwin be true. Nay ; they are a crime, for they are a sacri-
fice of the fittest for the unfit, and a violation of every prin-
ciple of prudential or selfish utility — its highest principle. It
would rob human nature of its most exalted features, and of
its noblest ideas and aspirations, and strongest incentives to
progress and elevation, the spring and fountain of all that is
noble in humanity.

What would be the tendency of the reception of a system
so brutalizing in its origin, and so materializing in its teach-
ing, so hopeless in its conclusions ? The leading sentiment of
progress in all ages, the animating princijjle of reform, the
leading themes of poetry, painting, literature, art, and thought
in all ages, have been religious in origin and character. Would
Darwinism give us a Homer, a Guatema, an Abraham, a
Moses, a David, a Paul, a Socrates, a Plato, a Virgil, a
Dante, a Milton, a Shakespeare, a Locke, a Kewton, a Bacon,
or a Washington ? Would Darwinism have given to humanity
an Iliad, a Book of Job, the Psalms of David, the iEneid, a
Paradise Lost, and the immortal productions of poetry, paint-
ing, sculpture, and music? Would it give us the sublime
morality of even systems of Paganism, the religions of China,
Persia, Chaldea, Egypt, and Greece, or the divine morality
of the New Testament ?

Darwinism commits logical suicide, and refuses to accept

188 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

its own standard, and the highest results of its own system
of development. Man is the highest product of develop-
ment, and his rational, moral, and religious nature is the
very highest result of evolution. The rational, moral, and
religious ideas of God, religion, creation, divine government,
and providence, are the loftiest conceptions of man's highest
nature, the crown of the pyramid of evolution. If evolution
be consistent, true, and according to laAV, as the evolutionist
claims, these intuitions are true, for they are its highest prod-
uct or result. If they are not ti'ue, then the evolution that
produced them as its crowning effort, is not reliable or con-
sistent, is false and a cheat. If evolution be according to
law, these ideas are the highest expression of that law. The
evolutionist must accept them, or reject the law that he
contends controls the universe, the only law he recognizes. By
what right does the evolutionist reject these ideas, the highest
expression of the only law he recognizes, and the crowning re-
sult of evolution ? By what right does the evolutionist, taking
human nature — human reason — as his standard, reject the
highest and most universal intuitions of man's reason, and
moral and religious nature, the regnant element in his nature ?
Darwinism, also, is the destruction of all true science. It
is a mere guess or hypothesis, and it substitutes speculation
and queries for inductive reasoning. It rejects all the cath-
olic and regulative ideas of reason, by which scientific labor
is conducted. It rejects causation and all inquiry into causa-
tion, especially efficient and final causes, the real objects of
scientific research. It rejects the great ideas of order, adap-
tation, adjustment, design, plan, and purpose, method, system,
and law, of reason and thought as realized in nature. It
rejects the rational ideas, connecting links of thought, which
alone make the phenomena intelligible. It renders the course
of nature a path along which mind did not travel, and ren-
ders the phenomena incoherent and unintelligible. It strips
them of all connecting links of thought, and renders them
incapable of being construed by mind. It substitutes minute
observations and assumptions and speculations on them, for
scientific generalizations, by means of catholic, regulative

FAILURES OF EVOLUTIOX. 189

ideas of reason. It substitutes, gathering the facts of nature
into bundles, and labeling them, and laying them away on
the shelves of speculation, for broad induction and rational
unitizing them, by the regulative ideas of reason.

Tyndall's Belfast speech admits that evolution does not
answer the question, "What is the origin or the ground of
all that exists?" — admits that it ought to be answered — that
tlie position of the positivist, that we should not concern
ourselves with this question, is untenable, absurd, and one
that it is impossible for the mind to accept — that the old
position of the materialist, attributing every thing to blind,
irrational matter and force, is absurd and indefensible — that
with the materialist's former conception of matter and physi-
cal force, it is absurd to attribute all being to them. He
has either to accept the theist's position, or attribute to matter
more than the materialist has ascribed to it— he has to accept
mind as the source of all being, or get up a new conception
of matter. He attempts to evade theism by audaciously
foisting into matter all that the theist attributes to intelligent
cause, thus admitting that the ground or origin of all being
must have all that the theist demands that it should have.
He tramples under foot every principle of reason, when he
attributes to matter Avliat belongs to mind. He does not tell
us how this wonderful matter came into being. Is this po-
tency he claims for matter inherent or imparted? Is this
potency intelligent or unintelligent ? If intelligent, he has
made a god of matter. If unintelligent, an infinite fetich.
Will he submit his faith to the same test as he demanded in
the prayer test? It certainly is as reasonable in one case as
the other. Will he bring out of matter this potency or dem-
onstrate that it is in it by actual experiment?

Then Darwinism does not rest on a single observed fact iu
nature ; nor on an extension of such changes as are now pro-
duced back into the past ; nor on an extension of such causes
as now act back into the past. Nor can it point to a period
in the past and say, *' We can prove that such causes existed
and operated then, as the theory appeals to," or show that
such changes were then produced. The causes it appeals to

190 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

exist now, but without a particle of its results. It is like the
painter who was employed to paint the passage of the Red
Sea by the children of Israel. AVlien his employer came to
see the picture he found it a waste of water and waves. He
asked, " Where are the Israelites?" " They have gone over,"
said the painter. "Where are the Egyptians ? " " They have
gone under ! " So Darwin's causes, like the Israelites, have
all gone over, and his effects, like the Egyptians, have gone
under. The denial of causation in these speculations has
been often exposed. So also has the denial of intelligent
causation. The utter abnegation of all reason and sense dis-
played in this, it is impossible to express adequately. Mrs.
Stowe's Topsy has always been regarded as one of the ex-
travagantly absurd and comical characters of literature, and
the most absurd and extravagant of Topsy's conceits was, that
"She never had no father nor mother. She just growed."
But this most absurd and ludicrous of all extravagant con-
ceits is now the quintessence of philosophy, and the ultima
tkide of science. Had Topsy just extended her philosophy to
every body, and said, "Nobody never had no father nor
mother. They just growled," she then ought to have been
placed at the head of the evolutionist school of philosophy,
as the Pythagoras of practical science, and her utterance
would be the ipse dixit of the whole fraternity. "Nothing
never had no cause. They just growed. They never had no
author. They just comed!" Darwin seems to feel the
pressure of this absurdity in starting; for he concedes the
creation of a few germs, with an inbreathing of life, by the
Creator. If this Creator be more than a mere metaphor or
figurehead for his system, he concedes the whole question.
He admits creation, the necessity of creation, as a starting
point — the necessity of a creator to create that which is to be
developed, and to inbreathe all that is to be evolved. The
same necessity presses at every step in the process of develop-
ment, and is evaded by covering up the evolution of every
thing out of nothing, under an appeal to things as causes that
have not a jiarticle of causal efficiency in them.

We have already called attention to the jugglery with

FAILUEES OF EVOLUTION. 191

words and phrases played by this system. By means of this
all its assumptions and its continually begging the Avhole ques-
tion is hidden. Take the phrase natural selection. It is used
like the magic phrases of ancient magicians to conjure our
universe into being. Natural selection does the \vork of in-
fniite wisdom and infinite power. Darwin cheats his readers
and himself continually with this mirage of his own brain.
Selection implies intelligence. Selection is the act of intelli-
gence. Hence, when we are told natural selection accom-
])lished certain results, we are cajoled out of an appreciatioji
of the absurdity of the assumption. Natural selection !
What selects? Blind, irrational matter and force? If that
phrase natural selection were cast to one side, and the phrase
blind, irrational matter and force substituted, Darwinism would
vanish like mist. By substituting a phrase implying intelli-
gence, between us and matter and force, our reason is cajoled
and cheated of a sense of the absurdity of the speculation. If
Darwin had been compelled to insert blind, irrational matter
and force in his books, wherever ** natural selection" and
"nature" occurs, they would never have been w^ritten, so
gross would have been the absurdity, and they certainly never
would have been read through, for every mind would have
exclaimed as he read what was attributed to blind, irrational
matter and force (and is now by the convenient personifica-
tion contained in the phrase natural selection): "This man
is mad, or believes all mankind to be mad. Blind, irrational
matter and force do all this!" Let the reader then substitute
blind, irrational matter and force for these convenient personi-
fications of them, "natural selection" and "nature," and
Darwinism will vanish like the fabric of a dream. Another
caution. Let the reader as he proceeds in the investigation
of the system, ask at each step, " Now how much of this is
fact? How much is proved? And how much is assumed?
How much is mere guess or speculation or w^holesale assump-
tion of the question ? " And the system would vanish like
a dream before a waking mind. Take the phrase protoplasm.
In it is an assumption of a substance containing properties
of both organic and inorganic matter. It is an attempt to

192 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

evade and cover up a difficulty, and to bring together the op-
posite sides of the chasm between life and dead matter. But
there is no such substance. Experience declares that or-
ganized matter, and organized matter alone, has some of these
properties. Inorganic matter alone has othei-s. They are
never found tosretlier in the same substance. Thev are mutu-
ally destructive of each other, and antagonistic, and can
not exist in the same substance. They assume the self-exist-
ence of matter and force, with all that exists potentially in
them. Self-existent matter and force, in a state of endless
progression, is something of which we know nothing. All
progress we know or have any experience of, is in cycles.
They assume an infinite susceptibility to variation and infinite
conditions to produce variation. Of this we have no knowl-
edge. It contradicts all experience, and knowledge. Dar-
winism sustains about the same relation to zoology and bi-
ology, that alchemy does to chemistry. The analogies of
the development of the tree out of the seed, or of the man
out of the ovum, furnishes no basis for evolution. Tree was
potentially in the seed. j\Ian was potentially in the ovum.
We have observed such developments in countless cases for
thousands of years. But in evolution things are evolved
out of what does not contain them. Can not be proved to
be it. Are not evolved out of it in experience. The course
of the seed and tree, ovum and man, is revolution in a
cycle, and not evolution in an endless ascending scale. Ev-
olution has never been observed in a single instance. De-
velopment of a germ furnished by an organism into a
similar organism that was germinally present in it, is not
similar to the evolution of any thing into something else not
germinally present in it. They are not the same, but radically
different.

Spencer gives a supposed case of an animal, that by some
happenstance got an unusually heavy head, and then supposes
that natural selection preserves it. He has to assume tliat such
a haj')penstance was possible — that an animal could suddenly
acquire a head unusually heavy. Tlien that conditions would
be co-ordinated so as to preserve it. Experience teaches nature

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 193

would eliminate such a monstrosity. Then he assumes that all
this would be transmitted ; and then quietly assumes that the dif-
ference between the bison and the ox arose in this way. All that
he can apj3eal to as really existing in all his assumptions would
at best but permit such a phenomenon to exist, should it ever
occur. Then he assumes that these conditions that merely
permit existence are the cause of the existence. We have
already often called attention to the fact that evolution makes
causes of its conditions, when they have not one particle of
causal efficiency. This is proved by the fact that they do not
produce the same results at the present. Also, under the same
conditions, precisely opposite results are produced. Common
sense has even said, " Like causes produce like effects." Modern
science says the same causes produces exactly opposite effects.
Inductive philosophy in the hands of Bacon, said, " Like effects
must have been produced by like causes." Modern philosophy
says precisely opposite results must have flowed from the same
causes. Common sense says that the conditions, if causes at all,
could not have produced such effects, and indeed must have
produced precisely opposite effects. When pressed with these
difficulties an appeal is made to unknown causes, and refuge
is taken in ignorance. " We do not claim to know all the
causes, nor all the effects of the causes know^n. Unknown con-
ditions may produce the different results, or there may be un-
known influences in the known conditions." Then when they
present to us these now unknown conditions or influences, we
will be bound to notice them, and not till then. A hiding in
ignorance is an end to argument.

We object that conditions are not causes, but they merely
permit results to persist when produced by causes. The results
are of such a nature, and have such characteristics, that they
could not have been produced by causes of the class to w^hich
they appeal ; and the unknown causes or conditions, bemg
of the same class, could not have produced them. The cause
to which the theist appeals is not unknown or unknowable.
It is adequate to the production of the phenomena. The char-
acteristics of the phenomena demonstrate that the cause is of
such a nature and character. The opposite of all this is the
17

194 THE PROBLEM OF PUOBLIOMS.

case -with the evolutionist and his conditions. It is a favorite
evasion of the evolutionist to represent the theory of creation
as Avithout cause, law, order, or use of means, and as in viola-
tion of all ideas of causation, law, order, and science. It gives
the only cause adequate to the phenomena, and the cause that
common sense investigating the characteristics of the phen-
omena says must have produced the phenomena. It gives an
intelligent cause for the phenomena that must have been pro-
duced by intelligence. Creation is in accordance Avith law,
rational law, and recognizes order, and gives order to the men-
tal and moral phenomena of the universe. It gives a different
cause, law, order and means from those presented b}^ the evo-
lutionist. It gives rational cause, law, order, and rational
mean's, and use of means, as common sense demands. Materi-
alism gives physical cause and law without lawgiver, order
without mind, system without thought, and means that are
not means at all, or that could not produce the phenomena, and
common sense rejects them. The difference between the un-
knowable of Spencer and of the theist is this : The theist ad-
mits that he can not comprehend God, but he claims that
common sense declaies that the cause must have been an in-
telligent cause, and possessed in infinity certain attributes.
He claims that he can, and does, apprehend the cause and his
attributes, by the characteristics of the phenomena. Spencer
denies these cardinal deductions arising from sound inductive
philosophy. He makes the cause unknowal)le when the char-
acteristics of the phenojnena prove it to be an intelligence,
and one possessing certain attributes.

When driven from other refuges the final one of Darwinism
is a vast period of time. The causes are not observed to pro-
duce the phenomena now, and we can have no evidence for
want of opportunity to investigate the phenomena, because the
time required is so vast. Give the conditions sufficient time
and they will produced the results. Kow time is not a cause,
nor a factor in causation. It imparts no causal efficiency, much
less can it change into causes what have not a particle of
causal efficiency. A western Indian once sowed a field with
powder expecting to raise a crop. He reasoned like the evo-

FAJLUEES OF EVOLUTION. 195

lutionist, that conditions, unintelligent conditions, would do
what intelligence alone could do. When the pioneers laughed
at him, had he replied, " Give my powder time enough and it
will grow," he would liave been a philosopher of the modern
scientific school. Time will make powder grow as easily as it
can make un intelligence produce intelligence, or what is des-
titute of life produce life. No amount of time can make mat-
ter evolve Dai-win's primordial germ. The experiments of Dr.
Bastian with the microscope demonstrate that the vegetable
cell has a radically different structure from the animal cell.
He clearlv demonstrates :

I. There is no such primordial germ as Darwin claims.

II. That vegetable and animal cells are radically structur-
ally different.

III. That organic nourishment will destroy vegetable cells
and nourish animal cells, and inorganic nourishment will
nourish vegetable cells, but destroy animal cells.

Hence, one can not be developed into the other, for their
means of sustenance are different. What develops one,
destroys the other.

But to call attention to all the assumptions of Darwinism,
would be to repeat our course of argument already given.
One inconsistency must be noticed. These theorists differ
widely in their speculations and declarations, and yet we must
accept them all unquestioned, although they are all contra-
dictory, and agreed in nothing but the assumptions that their
speculations are the truth and must be accepted.

Scarce one year has elapsed since the greatest of naturalists
of our generation died. Though no bigot or theologian, and,
indeed, rather rationalistic in his view^s, his testimony on this
question as a man of science, was clear and decisive, and the
more valuable because coming from one whose tendencies
might be expected to be in the opposite direction. He de-
clares that "Evolution should be confined to embryology, to
the development of a germ into an animal cr plant. There
is no development of species. It is a closed cycle. The great
archetypal ideas, the great types into wliicli nature can be
divided, never pass into ea.ch other. Each life is developed

196 THE PKOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

according to the law of its own specie.^. There is no such law
in nature as survival of fittest. Variations do not increase
until they amount to specific dilferences. Sexual selection en-
dangers existence as often as it accords with it. Geologic
sequence is by successive steps, following an archetypal idea,
and not by derivation. Tiie most delicate forms have been
preserved in geologic strata, hence we can not infer to dis-
appearance of types to save a speculation. There is no evi-
dence of derivation of higher from lower species. I believe
that these correspondencies between the difi'erent aspects of
animal life, are the manifestations of mind acting consciously
with intention toward an object from beginning to end. This
view is in accordance with the workings of our own mind.
It is an intuitive recognition of mental power, with which we
are ourselves akin, manifesting itself in nature. For this
reason, more than any other, do I hold that this world of
ours is not the result of the action of unconscious organic
forces, but the work of a conscious, intelligent power. Noth-
ing ever comes out of any germ but what was inherited from
the parent, and consequently given to the first germ or first
parent at creation. The universe is the product of conscious
mind, and exhibits an intellectual unity, and not a material
connection. The details falls to pieces if we attempt to test
them by any such connection." Such is the testimony of the
greatest naturalist of our age. It was to the Infinite Creator
that he consecrated his school on Penikese Island.

We will dismiss evolution and Darwinism by applying to
them the tests of inductive science :

T. The causes to which it apjieals are known to exist.

II. They are known to produce such phenomena.

III. They are adequate to account for all the phenomena.
In applying the first test, the utter shallowness of these specu-
lations appears in a glance. The conditions to which it ap-
peals are not causes at all. They are not known to have ex-
isted, or to exist now as causes. Many of its causes never
had, and do not have any existence, except in the specula-
tions of these theorists. The very opposite results have arisen
among these conditions. The second test is equally decisive.

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 197

Darwin. Huxley, and Thompson confess that these conditions
have never been known to produce the results the theory
ascribes to them. They are utterly powerless to produce
such results. The very opposite results have arisen among
them. The third test is equally conclusive. They utterly
fail to account for a single item of the phenomena that re-
ally needs explanation. We have given over one hundred
items, and the vital items of the problem that they utterly
fail to touch. Hence, tried by these tests, these theories are
utter failures. They utterly fail to account for the problem
of being. They fail to meet a single demand of the problem.
One who accepts them does so, not on account of incredulity,
nor as an act of sublime faith, a- sublime act of philosophic
faith, as one tells us ; but with the rant of the enthusiast :
'*I believe it, because it is impossible." If one Avishes to see
credulity and assumption and belief in utter lack of testi-
mony, belief in violation of reason, and in opposition to tes-
timony, let him read these speculations.

"We will now devote a few pages to a review of the theory
of historic development, of which we gave a brief outline
in a former chapter. One of the issues at the present time
between the skeptical and the religious world is, "What was
man's primitive condition?" The Hebrew rabbins taught
that he began a state of almost divine vigor of mind, with
super-angelic intelligence and knowledge, and that none of his
posterity have ever equaled him in knowledge or intelligence.
The religious world have generally adopted more or less of
this theory, and it was a favorite position of the late Alex-
ander Campbell. The evolutionist runs to the opposite ex-
treme, and claims that he began in a state of brutal, instinct-
ive animalism, as a development from lower orders of ani-
mals, or a state of brutal, idiotic savagery as a development
from lower and animal-like types of the geiius homo now ex-
tinct. Neither of these theories are correct. They are as-
sumed because the necessities of the systems of these advo-
cates demand them, and not because of their proof or truthful-
ness. They are not based on a careful examination and in-
duction of the facts of the case, and these facts, properly in-

198 THE PROBLEM OF PROBT^EMS.

terpreted, clearly disprove them. Experience declares that
if man ever were an animal, he would have remained one, for
there is no spontaneous progress of animak. If not an ani-
mal, whence came the difference between him and animals?
Tlie fatal fallacy of this whole theory is that it assumes that
brutality, pollution, and animalism are elevating. If man
ever were in such a condition, and an animal, he would have
remained in that condition forever. If he were in such a
state, and a man, brutality, pollution, and animalism w^ould
have sunk him lower. So teaches reason, experience, and
common sense.

The opposite theory of the rabbins is as untenable. Knowl-
edge is acquired by experience, and comes through an exer-
cise of the senses and faculties of the mind. The first man
had neither of these, and was without knowledge, and the
society and civilization based on such knowledge. The scrip-
tural account clearly teaches that man had not knowledge
sufficient to make garments for himself, and had to be taught
language, agriculture, and the nature and uses of animals.
The theological notion Ls fabricated to sustam the theories of
original sin and Adam's federal headship. Adam is endowed
with super-angelic ability and knowledge, and with great
theological knowledge. He knew he represented the race,
and that he chose for them, and what would be the results
of his conduct. The Scriptures really teach nothing of such
speculations. The entire account of the creation of man, his
history in Eden and the transgression, is simple and child-
like. It teaches nothing of the tremendous effects of the trans-
gression on man's nature immediately after the transgres-
sion, or on nature at large, that we mee^t in theological specu-
lations. All these speculations concerning man's primitive con-
dition, and these tremendous and elaborate theological systems,
are not even hinted in the Scriptures. The scrijjtural ac-
count agrees with the analogies of geology. Man was crea-
ted physically, mentally and morally pure, and more vigorous
and active than he has been since corrupted and depraved by
violation of law. But he be^an in a condition of child-like*
ignorance, innocence and simplicity. The cradle of the race

FAILURKS OF EVOLUTION. 199

was in western Asia. ^lan had one common origin in ances-
try, one common language, one set of historic traditions, that
obtain, or at least traces of them, all over the earth. There
are a number of primitive historic religions. These have
certain historic traditions in common. These common his-
toric traditions and religions are based on a common sub-
stratum of truth, and are various versions of this basis of
truth, more or less corrupted by tradition. Among these his-
toric traditions are creation, primitive innocence, angelic inter-
course, longevity of the race, instruction in language, arts
and knowledge, violation of law, loss of innocence, angelic
intercourse, and of longevity. These are found in all old re-
ligions, all over the earth, and can be traced back to one com-
mon origin — back into the cradle of the race, and are based
on truth.

All languages can be traced back to root languages. Of
these there are but a few, and they can be traced to one com-
mon stock, or proved to have had one common origin, or
central, or basis language. These root languages can be
traced back to tiie cradle of the race, and originated in it.
All races can be traced back to one common stock in the
cradle of the race. These historic traditions can be traced
back to one common origin and starting point in the cradle
of the race. All religions can be traced back to one parent
stem, and to the cradle of the race. These historic traditions
and religions place man before us in a state of purity, vigor
and intellectual power, and with elements of society, knowl-
edge and civilization. They have absolutely no traces of
primitive savagery and brutality, such as is depicted in the
theory of historic development They place man before us in
the enjoyment of a simple, primitive civilization, family, gov-
ernment, society and arts. The primitive nations used metals
at the time of our first historic knowledge of them. It is
assumed that, back of all this, there was a long period of
brutality and savagery, and a stone, a club and animal age
or ages, when men used stone implements, clubs, and lived
like aniuuils. There is not one particle of evidence that such
states pi-ocedcd tlie use of metals, for we find man using met-

200 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

nls in our earliest historic knowledge of him, in the cradle of
the race. No instance of spontaneous elevation from these
lower states of society can be given. We have not one scrap
of evidence that man passed through an animal, a club-using
and a stone-using age. The speculations of Lubbock and his
school are as destitute of any foundation in established fact
as the tales of Gulliver. Their theory demands that man be-
gan in the lower animals, and passed through these lower
stages of society ; and it is assumed that he has done so, and
we have descriptions of man's passage through them, as posi-
tive and circumstantial as though these speculators had lived
through all these ages, and witnessed all that is described on
the pages of their fictions. Neither archaeology, nor compar-
ative philology, nor historic traditions, nor historic religions
will sustain any such fabrications. The best method of meet-
ing them is to ask these romancers to present proof for their
assertions. These states of society have existed cotemporane-
ously in all human history. All the instances of such society,
that come within our knowledge, have been since the civiliza-
tion of the ol ler nations, and their use of metals. They are
degradations of man, and not his original condition, as his
traditions and religious ideas, which he retains after his de-
scent into them, clearly show. Also his brain is far larger
than his condition in such states demands, and proves that
such states are a degradation. His languages and ideas, that
he ascribes to his ancestors, are above his condition. They
have never been brought up out of animalism, but have been
dragged down into savagery from higher conditions. The
traces of man in caves and in the debris of villages on the sea
shore, or in lakes where man built villages on piles over the
water, have been assumed by evolutionists to be anterior to
the historic period, but there is not one particle of evidence
to sustain such a position ; for we have cave dwellei-s and
lacustrine villages, and such states of society now, and have
had during all history. Then the tumuli of Denmark, and the
lacustrine cities of Switzerland, and every instance of, such
remains relied on by the evolutionists, have been brought
within the historic period. The most reliable instance, as

FAILUKES OF EVOLUTION. 201

they claimed, was, by Dr. Andrews, proved to come within
2,500 years. We repeat that the assumptions of the age of
these remains, and the assertions of evokitionists, that man
has passed through such periods, are without any particle of
proof.

The assumption that man has passed through a period of
animalism, without religion, into an animal-like dread of
what injured, or an animal-like liking for what benefited him,
such as the dog feels towards his friends or enemies, into
fetichism, and out of that into polytheism, and from polythe-
ism into monotheism, is not only without proof, but contra-
dicted by all the facts of philology and comparative language,
comparative religion, historic religions, historic traditions and
archaeology. All historic traditions point back to an original
copdition of primitive monotheism. All root or historic re-
ligions point back to a sim])le monotheism, back of them, and
from which they were derived by a corruption of the original
monotheism. All root languages are monotheistic in their
oldest religious terms, and names of God and religious ideas.
The primitive and root ideas of all such words is monotheistic.
The historic traditions of the world point back to a period of
monotheism, and contain traces of it. Monotheism was the
esoteric doctrine of the Indian, Iranian, Chinese, Chaldean,
Arabian, Egyptian, Plicenician and Grecian priests. So also
it was of the Druids and higher i^riests of northern Europe.
All the mtelligent nations of Africa, even the Hottentots and
Caffres, have, back of their idolatry, a Great-Great or Su-
preme. The American Indians, back of their superstitions,
have a Great Spirit. These ideas were not reached by an
ascent through fetichism and polytheism, and by speculation,
not even in the case of Asiatic, African and European phil-
osophies, but were retained from a primitive monotheism,
after the mass of the people had sank into polytheism and
fetichism. The Chinese teachers, Indian priests and philos-
ophers, the Iranian magi, the Chaldean and EgyjDtian priests
and the Grecian philosophers, all say they have these ideas
from their ancestors, the fathers of the race. In the clearest
and best reasonings of Socrates and Plato, they appeal to what

202 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS,

has been handed down from the fathers of the race. The
terms they use are found in the root words of their language,
and their ideas and words corresj^ond witli the root ideas and
words of these root hmguages, the source from whence they
say they obtained them.

Fetichism is not peculiar to lower stages of society, for
some nations have been fetichists, although highly civilized
in other respects. Nor is fetichism peculiar to the earlier pe-
riods of history, or the earlier portion of the life of our race,
for some nations are fetichists now. Again, monotheism ex-
i-^ted, as we have shown, at the earliest historic period of our
race, and was then the common belief of all mankind. Again,
monotheism is not peculiar to higher or civilized states of so-
cietv, for comparatively rude tribes have been monotheistic.
Nor is monotheism the product of late states of society and
advanced states of society, for it was the common belief of the
race at the beginning and of the simple state of society pre-
vailing then. As man progresses in civilization he does not
spontaneously cast to one side fetichism or polytheism, or
spontaneously advance into monotheism. Nations have re-
tained one or the other of these types of religion throughout
great changes in civilization. Again, comparative religion,
or an investigation and comparison of all religions, proves
that all religions, except the Hebrew and Christian, are
purer and simpler the nearer we approach their origin. As
we trace them away from their beginning they become elabo-
rate, corrupt, formal, ceremonial and external. As men have
advanced in civilization they have not emancipated them-
selves from impure idohatry, but have become more profligate
and corrupt, until the corruption and effeminacy of their re-
ligious and moral nature has affected their rational and phys-
ical nature, and they have sunk into ^barbarism. Nothing
can save man from tliis but a pure religion. Such a religion
he can not devise for himself. It must be revealed. Man's
c )rruption of all religions and the corruption of all his at-
t.e:iipts to construct religions, prove this. Nati<ms have sunk
into polytheism and fetlclilsin, as they relapsed and sank in
society, civilization a:^! govern nioiit. Tlicy will ever do so

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. *i03

without the reguUitive control and the lifting and sustainino-
influence of a pure religion, as a dynamic force in national
life, originating this progress for which the evolutionist con-
tends, regulating and directing it, urging man upward, and
sustaining him in his progress. Religion is the regnant ele-
ment in man's nature. It is the origin of his noblest aspir-
ations and enthusiasms. It is the principal source of that
progress for which the evolutionist contends. It is the regu-
hitive force of that progress. It is a lifting power in it, and
the sustaining and cheering influence in it.

Then there is absolutely no proof of this theory of historic
development. On the contrary, all the known facts disprove
it. This theory of historic development is assumed as a neces-
sary part of the theory of evolution, and assumed because it
is necessary as a part of that theory. There is an excess of
credulity and a perfect romance of faith exhibited in building
it up on the small basis there is for it. The whole theory of
myths, and the mythical origin of religious ideas, is as wild
and extravagant as the tales of the Arabian Nights. A few
facts, a few iina-ling analos-ies in words or their meanins:, and
out of this is built a system, like the palaces of the mirage
of the desert, and about as real. While ISIax Milller and his
school are doing a great work, yet their theory of myths, and
their speculations on them, almost render nugatory the good
they are doing. To use an expressive Westernism, "They
have myth on the brain," and have made a most extravagant
myth of their speculations Time will dissipate the mountains
of dreamy speculation under whicli the results of their labors
are buried, and leave us a residuum of truth. The same is
true of Lubbock and his scliool. He has gathered a mass of
curious facts, and his speculations have about as much basis
in them as astrology had in the flicts of astronomy that were
perverted in it. His whole theory is built on assumptions
foreign to his facts, and utterly unsustained by his facts. He
assumes his theory, and then weaves his facts into the elabor-
ation of the theory, and assumes the place they should occupy
in time and sequence, just as ancient speculators built up
a priori their theories of the univei-sc. The facts of his vol-

204 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

umes, when examined apart from his theory, have no proof
of it.

There are certain religious ideas, traditions, rites and cere-
monies that are found in all, or nearly all, religions. It is a
mooted question how they had their origin. Certain theolo-
gians claim that without revelation man would have had no
religion or religious ideas. This is virtually saying that man
has no religious nature. It virtually assumes, also, that reve-
lation creates or implants within man his religious nature. It
destroys all accountability and responsibility. It also renders
revelation impossible, for if there be in man's nature no re-
ligious element on which revelation builds, on which it is
based, and to which it appeals, revelation is absolutely impos-
sible. An attempted revelation would be like singing for a
deaf man, or painting a picture for a blind man. This posi-
tion contradicts reason and the facts of history, geography
and experience, and the express declarations of the Scriptures.
The opposite extreme assumes all religion and all religious
ideas to be entirely of human origin. The common historic
traditions that we have enumerated, the common religious
rites and ceremonies, and the important and essential features
in which the Scriptures differ from other religions, can not be
accounted for in this way. Theologians often claim that all
religions, and religious ideas, are perverted plagiarisms from
the Bible and its religion. This can not be the case with
the religions of nations that never had any acquaintance with
the Scriptures. Nor with nations that can trace the origin of
their religions back to a period antedating the composition of
the Scriptures. Nor can the opposite extreme be sustained,
that the Scriptures, and the religion they inculcate, are the
outgrowths of pre-existent paganism. The pre-existence of
paganism, before the primitive monotheism described in the
Book of Genesis, must be established by the skeptic. This
can not be done. On the contrary, it can be positively and
clearly shown that paganism is a perversion of that original
primitive monotheism. He must also establish the fact of the
plagiarism, and not assume it. Sliowing that they have com-
mon features will not accomplish it. It can be shown that

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 205

the Chinese had elementary notions of nearly every important
invention and discovery of modern European genius, and long
liefore them, but every one knows there was no plagiarism.
The true position is, that man had a common origin, langnnge,
stock of historic traditions, religion, a simple monotheism,
based on a common revelation. This accounts for common
historic traditions, rites and ceremonies. Man's nature is tlie
same essentially the world over. His moral and religious na-
ture works out the same great ideas, with common charac-
teristics in the results.

These two facts will account for the catholic features of all
religions. As revelation and religion must be based on man's
nature, and in accordance with it, revelation would also have
these common features and catholic ideas. Indeed, the work
of revelation is to elevate, purify and perfect these great ideas
of man's religious and moral nature on which it is based and
to which it appeals. Hence, common historic ideas, common
rites and ceremonies have their origin in common primitive
monotheism and common historic traditions, and common
primitive revelation. Common catholic ideas have their
origin in common religions and moral nature, and common
tradition from common primitive monotheism, based on com-
mon primitive revelation. Neither extreme is true, but the
truth lies between them.

Another error often met in the theological world, is that the
true religion must be and is utterly foreign and repugnant to
our nature. Certain theologians seem to think that the truth-
fulness and divine origin of a religion, or of a religious idea or
system, can be measured by its repugnance to our nature, and
the rebellion of our nature against it; just as certain doctors
used to measure the excellence of their drugs by their nau-
soousness. If a doctrine be of divine origin, it must be foreign
and repugnant to our nature. If reason and nature rebels
against a dogma, the reply is easy, it is to be expected, and,
indeed, necessary, and an evidence of its divine origin. The
rationalist accepts the assertion that religion must be foreign
and repugnant to our nature, and argues that this proves all
religion to be inimical and hostile to our nature, and false.

206 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

The truth is that revelation and religion, to regenerate oui
nature, must be based on it and in accord:ince with it, appeal-
ing to it, and allying itself with it, elevating and purifyiiig it,
and restoring it to its legitimate use. On the other hand, it is
and must be ojiposed to and repugnant to the depravity and
perversion of our nature in sin, and the corruption resulting
from such perversion. Another extreme is that religion must
be exclusively and entirely of divine origin and revealed to
benefit man. If at all human, or having a human element,
as far as it had such human element it would corrupt man.
It must have a human element and a human side to reach
man and influence him, or the Christ never would become the
Son of man, God manifest in the flesh. The rationalist, tak-
ing the position that religion must be entirely revealed and
foreign to man, concedes its truth, and then he retorts on the
religionists that such a religion would be enslaving and de-
grading in its influence on man, overpowering in its influence,
and destroying his individuality. Some contend that man
needs and should have no religion. Some concede that he
needs a religion, but contend that it must be entirely of
human origin to be received by man, and benefit him. The
true position is, that religion must have a human and a divine
side or element. It must be based on man's nature and in
accordance with it. It must also be a lifting force, and a
standard; and to be such it must emanate from a source
above man, and then it will aid and elevate him, and be to
him an objective standard of conduct and truth.

Another mooted question is. Did the writers of the Bible
and its religious teachers ever borrow from other religions
and systems? The idea advanced' by some religionists, that
there was no borrowing, and which they think is necessary
to be maintained to maintain the divine origin, sanctity,
superiority and authority of the Bible, can not be sustained;
nor can the skeptical idea that it is all borrowed. The
patriarchs had the common monotheism based on a common
revelation, preserved by tradition until the choosing of Abra-
ham. The Egyptians had truths, and religious ideas and
ordinances, retained from primitive monotheism. So had

FAILURES OF FVOLUTION. 207

Other nations. IMan's religious nature had wrought certain
tilings that were good. Moses took any thing that was good
out of any of these, removed errors, and incorporated them
into Hebraism. A very large element of Hebraism was re-
tained from primitive religion, existing before its day, and
taken from surrounding systems, and corrected and made fit
to be used, and then incorporated into Hebraism. It is not
necessary to the divinity of Hebraism, or Christianity, that
they be entirely new and all revealed. The prophets took
truth from the Persian and other systems. Christ and his
apostles took truths from the Essenes, and Grecian and other
philosophies. God was not under the necessity to work a
miracle to produce a needed idea or truth, when it was
already in existence. Christ accepted and used all the truths
of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and especially of the Essenes,
in his teachings. Overzealous and misguided friends and
bigoted enemies should be willing to have the God of rev-
elations use common sense, like other intelligent beings, in
his work of revelation.

But to return to our question after this digression. The
scriptural account of man's primitive condition is rational,
simple, natural, and is common sense. It agrees with geol-
ogy, which teaches that each species was created perfect in
its kind at first. Man was j)hysically, mentally, and mor-
ally more pure, vigorous and acute than he has been since
he has been corrupted and injured by sin. He was a direct
creation, as geology teaches all species to be, and as the im-
mense chasm between him and lower animals declares. He
was created a fall grown- man and woman, as he must have
been to have existed at all, but was in a state of child-like
ignorance, innocence, and simplicity. He had angelic inter-
course, instruction, as he must have had to preserve his ex-
istence and to take care of him at first. He had teaching
in language, agriculture, and in the use and nature of ani-
mals, and in protecting himself from the elements by cloth-
ing and shelter. He was taken care of in his primitive ig-
norance and simplicity, and taught to take care of himself.
He lived longer than he has since his physical nature was

208 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

corrupted by violation of law. He liad a simple, child-like
government, or control over him, in simple commands, de-
signed to cultivate an obedient and loyal spirit in him, and
disciplinary in character. He transgressed law, sinned, and
fell. He lived a long time, in consequence of pristine vigor
of body, for some generations, but gradually lost this longev-
ity and vigor of body. He lost angelic intercourse. He had
one language, one religion, a simple system of monotheism,
based on a simple, brief revelation, through inspired men,
and one set of historic traditions. There was a rapid civil-
ization, in consequence of man's great longevity and pristine
vigor. There Avas an urban civilization, with early use of
metals, and mechanic arts, and music and refinement, in the
family and descendants of Cain. Pastoral simplicity and
comparative purity in the descendants of Seth. Man had
simple government and family society and arts in the very
infancy of the race. Such was the antediluvian history of
our race, which lasted sixteen hundred years at least, and,
perhaps, several thousand years.

Noah's descendants had all these advantages, and started
even above the condition of men before the flood, for Noah
was evidently a prince among men before the flood. The
descendants of Noah separated into families and tribes and
nations. These families migrated from this common cradle
of the race, in all directions, into all portions of the earth.
They took with them dialects of this common language, and
elements of this common religion, traditions and civilization.
They built up empires, civilizations, religions, science, and
arts, such as the Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Chaldean, Hebrew,
Egyptian, Phojnician, Pelasgic, and Eutrusean, and of the off-
shoots or successors of them, the Grecian and Roman. From
one language sprang the root languages and their dialects —
from one religion, this primitive monotheism, sprang the
earlier historic religions and their off-hoots. There arose
among these people^ leading minds, that constructed national
religions out of this common monotheism, or what remained
of it, and its historic trnditions. All these old religions were
based on the common primitive monotheism, and con tinned

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 209

more or less of its truth, and the. common historic traditions
of the race. Pliysical surroundings and inherent family char-
acteristics influenced and modified these developments. As
these master minds were above the national mind and life, so
were these systems when constructed, and there was growth
and progress until the measure of the religion was filled.
Then tliis religion either petrified and fossilized the national
life, as in China and India, or the national mind cast it off
and launched out into skepticism, as in Greece and Rome.

In early generations, man had and could have only anthro-
pomorphic ideas of God, just as the child can have only such
ideas. Revelation had to be anthropomorphic and symbolic
and of the character of object lessons. It was only by sym-
bols and object lessons that man could be elevated and edu-
cated up to an apprehension of spiritual ideas. Hence, there
was a tendency toward idolatry. Man was conscious of his
sinfulness. He did not like to retain, in his thought, the
idea of a sin-hating and sin-punishing God. He dreaded and
disliked to think of God's purity and holiness and justice.
He stripped God of these attributes, and made him like him-
self, and began his descent from monotheism into idolatry.
The Semitic nations separated God's attributes from Himself,
and pei'sonified and deified them. Aryan nations took the
great forces of nature as representatives of the attributes of
God, or God himself, personified and deified them, and lost
sight of the real object of worship, and worshiped flie sym-
bol. There has been a continued descent and corruption of
religions. They are simpler and purer the nearer we ap-
proach their origin. As we pass down from this, they become
formal, elaborate, ceremonial, and corrupt.

Each nation had to solve the problems of arts of life, use-
ful arts, fine arts, government, ethics, science, philosophy and
religion. Inherent characteristics of the race or family,
climate and physical circumstances, the character of master-
minds, all influenced the solutions, each nation gave to these
problems, and determined which ones they made most promi-
nent. Some gave prominence to some of these problems, and
others gave more prominence to others. Each nation gave a
18

210 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

peculiar solution to each problem. The Chinese were politi-
cal economists; Indians were ideal philosophers, speculators,
and dreamers; Chaldeans were warriors and empire builders;
Phoenicians were navigators, merchants, and mechanics;
Egyptians were agriculturalists, architects, and builders. The
Greeks were almost cosmopolitan in character, in consequence
of the character of the country, which combines nearly all
the features of the world, and their position and mtercourse
with the world, and openness to its influences. The Romans
developed numicipal government and law. The Iranian peo-
ple came nearest to an approximation to pure religion, and
the Arabians retained the old pastoral simplicity and primi-
tive religion longer than any other people. To the Hebrews
was committed, by divine providence, the solution of the re-
ligious problem of the race ; and, among them, was develop-
ing, by divine providence, the religion for humanity. Other
nations were, under divine providence, developing great
truths in science, art^, politics, ethics, and philosophy.

A many-sided development of all of these was thus secured.
The race was advancing and preparing great truths to be
used by the whole race, and by the universal religion designed
for the race. Man had tried, by unaided human reason, to
solve for himself the moral and religious problems of the
race, but had failed. Great truths had been but partially
apprehended. They were corrupted by error and perverted.
Man had failed to reach universal truths and principles in
religion, and especially to reach the great central truth of
all religion. The human heart was driven back on itself
in despair. The great ideas reached in science, arts, and
philosophy, and the various developments of these, and the
failure in religion and morals, were a part of the great
preparation for the universal religion. God had chosen the
Hebrew family, and to them he committed the solution of
the religious problem of the race.

In educating a nation, we should have normal schools for
the education and preparation of teachers. We need a de-
veloped, completed system of instruction to meet and over-
come error. We need educated, disciplined teachers, a per-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 211

feet system, and pupils prepared to receive instruction. God
chose the Hebrew family because they were better suited to
his purpose than any others ; were a simple, pastoral people,
less corrupted than other tribes, and had retained purest the
primitive monotheism which God had given to the whole
race, and which the race had more or less rejected and cor-
rupted, and wandered away from God into idolatry.

He used the Hebrew people as his normal school. He
developed his religion into a perfected system, ready to en-
counter error, and to meet the wants of the race, and by
means of this development, and while developing it he pre-
pared the Hebrew people to be the teachers of the race.
The Hebrew religion alone became purer as it was developed;
it alone was a progressive religion; it alone was always in
advance of the national life, leading it onward, and calling
it up to a higher life; it alone began in rude and element-
ary ideas, and developed into a system of eternal, general
principles, and universally applicable truths. In Christianity
all the great catholic ideas of religion have been developed
and perfected. In it the great ideas of all religions are
stripped of error and pei'fected. It is a 'pleroma, fullness
of all religious truth. It is a religi(m of eternal and uni-
versally applicable truths and principles. God was in the
Hebrew history, developing their religion into a universal
religion for all men, and preparing the Hebrews to be its
teachers, while he was in his providence preparing the world
to receive it when perfected. He did not abandon all man-
kind except the Hebrew people to themselves. He did not
curse all mankind, and inflict evil on them, and evil only.
Ho was in human history in his providence, ruling in and
reigning over it, bringing out beneficial results, and pre-
paring them for the perfect religion, and to be brought back
to himself in the fullness of times. He was the Father in
heaven of the nations, although they knew it not, and had
forgotten him, and knew him not.

The Bible does not teach that all the revelation that God
gave to man, all revealed ideas, are recorded on its pages,
are even mentioned in it histoj'ically. There was revelation

212 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBLEMS.

before Moses — a revelation that God did not embody In the
Pentateuch. There were remains of this revelation in all old
religions. The Vedas contain remnants of revelation, so
does the Zend Avesta. During Hebrew history God did not
confine all inspiration and miracle to the Hebrew people.
No thoughtful, devout mind dare say there were not glim-
merings of divine light, influences of God's Spirit in the soul
struggles after God, in the life of a Guatema, a Plato, and
others in heathen nations.

Then there has been historic development in certain na-
tions; none in others; and degradation in others. There has
been, on the whole, a historic development of the race. Re-
ligion has been the ruling element, the originating, leading,
lifting, and sustaining power in this development. All poetry,
fine arts, literature, ethics, government, and progress have
been based on it, and have sprang out of it. Religion has
not been an obstacle that has fettered progress, but has been
its spring and source. We have an illustration of what a
godless positivism will do in China. An atheistic, godless
system of positivism lias deprived the national mind and life
of the upward, energizing tendency, the lifting and sustain-
ino; influence of religion, and it has fossilized into a mechan-
ical, heartless, automatic system of routine. Development
and progress are not towards atheism, but toward a purer
and better obedience to a perfect system of religion. Prog-
ress does not change man's nature, but develops it, hence it
w^ill not eliminate all religion out of man's life, or eradicate
his religious nature ; but develop it towards perfection.
Man's religious nature will ever be the regnant element in
his nature, and the source and ruling force of all progress.
Christianity is a system of eternal, general principles and
universally applicable truths, that man can not outgrow, lie
may and will learn more of the infinite scope of its eternal,
universal truths, and how to apply them better in regener-
ating his life, but he can never outgrow them, or the religion
in which they are embodied.

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 213

Geology not a Science.

We will close ihis chapter with a few^ observations on the
relation of science to the Scriptures, and especially of the so-
called science of geology, Avhich has been the field of attack
on the Scriptures and religion for over a century. We think
that the following principles should be accepted by all per-
sons, and should control all alike :

I. There is such a thing as truth. There is truth in science
and there is fact in science.

II. There is in the mind of man that which responds to
the truth — that to which the truth appeals, and on which the
truth is based in its action on the mind.

III. To be received by the mind as truth, the idea or state-
ment must be perceived by the mind to be a truth or a fact.

IV. There is a distinction between truth and falsehood,
and this distinction is based on t!ie nature and necessary rela-
tion of things.

V. There is in man that which responds to this distinction
between truth and falsehood.

VI. A revelation from God will not contradict any truth,
on any subject whatever, no matter how made known.

VII. All truth being grounded in the nature and necessary
relation of things, must be accordant and consistent.

VIII. If a system or statement pretending to be a revela-
tion from God should contradict any clearly established truth,
man could not and should not receive it.

IX. A revelation on the same line of subjects as truth al-
ready known, will agree with and not contradict them.

X. If a revelation speak on any subject, no discovery of
science, or fact of science or truth of science subsequently
brought to light will ever contradict it, if it be a revelation.

XI. No pretended revelation can be true which contradicts
any well established fact or truth of science.

XII. While it may not be the object of revelation to re-
veal science, and we should not expect a revelation on relig-
ious topics to do so, and while it may use popular language
and- terms that are not scientifically correct, yet' when it makes

214 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

an explicit statement involving any fact or truth in science,
it should be in accordance with established truths of science.

XIII. Reason must be our ultimate standard in this matter,
for reason has to determine whether God has ever spoken to
man, and which of the pretended revelations are the true one,
and then what has been spoken.

XIV. By reason we do not mean the peculiar notions and
ideas of each individual. Revelation may and must contra-
dict all errors of a mistaken reason.

XV. If the Scriptures are inspu'ed, they are infallible and
sacred, but no interpretation of them is infallible or above
criticism.

XVI. Men have erred in interpreting the Scriptures, and
have generally interpreted them to suit their own views and
l)rejudices. There is no error, no matter how gross, or sin, no
matter how vile, that has not attempted to shield itself be-
hind interpretations of the Scriptures, and claimed that it
was above criticism, because it had taken such a refuge.

XVII. The Scriptures have suffered more from such inter-
pretations, than all other causes combined. Criticism, and
even skeptical criticism, has done scriptural interpretation
great service in pointing out such errors. Having conceded
this much to the demands of reason, we lay down the follow-
ing principles that should be accepted on the other side :

I. Any scientific statement, or any conclusion or deduction
in science, must be clearly proved and established, before
any one can be required to accept it as a fact or truth.

II. If an attempt be made to array any deduction or con-
clusion of science against religion, it must be clearly shown
that the premises on which the conclusion rests, are facts or
truths, and, above all, that the conclusion logically and neces-
sarily follows from the premises.

II r. No one need spend one moment to defend religion or
the Scriptures from attacks based on mere hypothesis.

IV. AVhile science in the true sense of the word might
overturn what claims to be a revelation, mere hypothesis, as a
basis for an attack on such revelation, is not worthy one mo-
ment's notice. Then what are the claims of geology to con-

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 215

sideration when wielded in attacks on the Scriptures ? We
reply that, in its present condition, geology is not worthy one
moment's notice, from the very simple fact that geology is not
a science, and has not a single claim to the appellation
science, and what is wielded against the Scriptures is mere
hypothesis. This may startle some persons, and will doubt-
less provoke the ridicule and sneers of others, but what are the
facts? What is science? Science is truth classified and sys-
tematized by means of certain great truths or principles on
which each truth and the whole truth of the system is based,
and which express the relation of each truth to the system
and to each other. To thus systematize and classify a series
of correlated facts and truths, we must have certain great ra-
tional conceptions that are our basis of classification, and are
our guide in classification. The growtli of each science has
been thus. Men have observed phenomena, and have guessed
at them, at their cause, and have gotten up hypothesis on
which they have arranged the phenomena, as beads strung on
a string. Soon, however, a phenomenon would be observed
that would not string on the hypothesis, and the hypothesis
would be thrown away, and another devised and substituted
in its stead. Tluis slowly and painfully often men toiled to-
wards the great underlying principle — the great central idea
of the phenomena, and wlien at last this was discovered, a
science was possible, and not till then. When truth was
reached, all the phenomena would crystallize around it into
a system or science, because the basis of classification was
reached, and the guide in classification was known.

Before the discovery of this rational conception, this central
idea or underlying principle, the phenomena were merely
placed in juxtaposition or mechanically mixed. Such is pre-
cisely the condition of geology now. An immense mass of
facts has been observed and recorded. The principal fiicts
observed are superposition of rocks and earths — the rocks that
Rrre found in connection and the relative order of position, or
the order of succession, it is claimed — tlie remains of species
of animals and plants now extinct are found in these strata —
certain remains are found in certain strata and not in others —

216 THE PROBLEM OF PROBT.E^fS.

great catastrophes have characterized the former history of
our planet, and tliat it has undergone great clianges, and that
there has been a succession of types of existence, and a pro-
gression in such succession. All attempts that liave been
made to classify these phenomena and reduce them to a sys-
tem, and all theories concerning their origin and age are mere
guesses, mere hypotheses. They are called hypotheses by ge-
ologists themselves, and it is just these hypotheses and deduc-
tions based thereon, and especially tlie latter, that are wielded
against the Scriptures. There is not one fact — one observed
phenomenon of geology— that has the slightest conflict with
any statement of the Scriptures. The conflict is between the
guesses of geologists as to the cause of the phenomena, or
their age, or relative order of succession. There is not one
geologic liyjjothesis now accepted that has stood the test of a
score of years. There is not one geologic theory or hypothesis
that may not be overturned to-morrow by the discovery of
;ome phenomenon or fact now unknown. Over one hundred
years ago the French Association of Science published a list
of over eighty geologic hypotheses that had been accepted for
a time and then exploded and abandoned. Over twenty
years ago Lyell added fifty to the list, and as many liave fol-
lowed since tliat time. We can safely say that within the
i ist one hundred and fifty years over one hundred and fifty
theories or speculations have been suggested as hypotheses in
geology and exploded and abandoned. ]Many of these were
the fundamental ideas of geology in their 'day, and were
urged as established scientific truths, and most of them were
ai-rayed against the Scriptures, and men were arrogantly
called upon to cast to one side the faith of ages because it did
not accord with these guesses that their advocates have since
abandoned, and some of which they would blush to have at-
tributed to them. These conflicting, changing, inconsistent
speculations have each tried to act usurper in its ephemeral
moment of existence, and then given place to some new pre-
tender. Instead of learning moiJesty and sense from such
failures and inconsistencies, the geologists have been capti-

FAILUKES OF EVOJ.UTION. 217

vated by each new chimera and have, if possible, become more
dogmatic, arrogant and presuming.

Prominent among these exploded theories are the nebular
hypothesis, the plutonian hypothesis of the origin of some
rocks, or that th'ey are cooled, melted matter, the neptunian
hypothesis of the origin of others, or that they were deposited
by water, and most notably the theory that the center of the
earth is a melted, fiery mass. We have already stated many
of the objections that can be urged against the nebular hy-
pothesis. \Yhen aj)plied to account for the origin of the
earth, it is open to many more insuperable objections. It is
assumed that the matter of the earth was once a mass of su-
perheated gaseous matter, so highly heated that all the mat-
ter now aggregated in it was once an intensely heated vapor
or gas. All the elementary substances were either mixed in
a chaotic, turbulent mass, or were evolved out of it. Now,
as a matter of fact, we have no experience of knowledge of
such a substance as an intensely heated nebulous vapor or
gas, or of solids formed from such nebulous heated matter or
gaseSi Gases come from solids in combination, or from com-
pounds formed by chemical action, and arise from combustion
or chemical action. There is no instance of gases spontane-
ously condensing into solids, or uniting to form solids. If the
elementary substances were once mechanically mixed, the
present compounds formed out of them are inexplicable.
These elementary substances did not unite into compounds
according to greatest chemical affinity, as they must have
done had they ever been mechanically mixed. Then, why
was not chemical affinity active when matter was in this
heated mixture? Why was it latent? Chemical action is
produced and intensified by heat, in the case of many of these
gases or elementary substances. As these elementary sub-
stances cool at widely different temperatures, why did not
those that cool first arrange themselves in masses? Why not
those that became solid first gravitate toward the center?
Why not all that are heaviest be near the center? How
could substances that cool at widely different temperatures be
mixed, as they are now, all through the crust of the globe?
11)

218 THE PROBLEM OB^ PROBLEMS.

How could water enter into the structure of rocks that cool
at a temperature that would convert it into super-heated
steam? If heating the rock will expel the water in steam,
long before the rock is melted, how could water be incorpo-
rated into the rock when cooling? Water could not have en-
tered into such rock when crystallizing from a heated mass;
and as they are now cyrstallized, water is essential to their
present crystallization. If the earth ever were a heated mass
of liquid, the sun would have caused, twice every twenty-
four hours, tides at least sixteen feet high. The rocks never
could have crystallized when they were thus constantly and
violently disturbed, for crystallization requires profound calm.
What are called metalliferous rocks, rocks that have metals
mixed in their composition, are an enigma. Had the rocks
been once melted, the metals that are heavier than they, and
melt long before they do, would have been in masses by them-
selves, and not mechanically mixed, as they are now. Melt
the rock now, and the metals run off in masses, long before
the rock is melted. Had the rocks been once melted, would
not the metals have remained a liquid, and often a vapor, long
after the rock became a solid in cooling ? How could arsenic
and mercury, very volatile substances, be mixed with metals
that do not melt until long after the mercury and arsenic have
been converted into vapor ? Would not they have remained
a vapor, long after the other metals had become solids ? Plat-
inum i-3 a rare metal. There are four other metals that are
very rare, and are found only in compounds with platinum.
How came these rare metals to be mixed, especially since
platinum melts only with intense heat, and these metals vapor-
ize long before that point is reached? All these facts are in
direct violation of every principle and fact of mixing and
cooling melted matter. Another fundamental position of
geology is that granitic rock is of igneous origin, or is the
result of cooling melted matter. In direct contradiction of
all this is the fact that graphite is found mixed in granitic
rock, when graphite vaporizes long before granite melts. Had
they been melted once, graphite could never have entered in

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 219

mixture into granitic rock, for it would remain a vapor long
after granite became a solid.

Mica-schist is an ingredient in granite, and a granitic rock.
Water-marks have been found in its structure, which never
could have happened had it been a melted mass once. Ani-
mal remains have been found in rocks that geology declares
are of igneous origin. Had the rock ever been melted, these
remains would have been destroyed long before the rock
cooled. Granite is composed of three crystals that are
unique, and melt at different temperatures, and are soluble
under different circumstances. These crystals are always
imbedded into each in the closest union, and yet distinct.
This could not have been the case, had they been a melted
mass once, for they melt at different temperatures. Granite
can not be melted and retain its present structure, different
portions run together at different temperatures. Melting gran-
ite changes its specific gravity and structure, hence it never
has been a melted mass. The specific gravity of granite is
exactly that of quartz resulting from aqueous crystallization.
Gustave Rose has manufactured feldspar, an ingredient of
granite, by mixing lye and clay at 400°, a very low tempera-
ture, and subjecting them to great pressure. Anstead has pro-
duced granite out of stratified rock, which, according to geol-
ogy, is an aqueous rock, and never produced immediately
from melted matter ; thus showing that they are not radically
and structurally different, as geology assumes, and that granite
is the product of stratified rock, both of which contradict
geology. The present indications are that granitic rock is the
result of chemical action at a comparatively low temperature
under great pressure.

A pet position of geologists is that g\'anitic rock is the earlier
formation, and stratified rock of more recent origin. Anstead's
experiment shows that granitic rock is the product of strati-
fied rock, and of the more recent origin. The argument
based on the superposition of stratified rock above granitic
rock is worthless, for inmiense masses of granitic rock are found
above stratified rock. Another pet theory of geology is, that
the center of the cartii is a melted mass of superheated ri«atter

220 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

in a gaseous form. Such is a necessary deduction from the
premise, that all the earth was once a mass of nebulous
vapor, that has since cooled off and solidified at the surface.
We have already called attention to the fact that the sun
would have caused tides, and have prevented a crust being
formed, and also have prevented crystallization. The enor-
mous expansive pressure of such a mass of superheated gase-
ous matter is entirely overlooked. An engineer estimates
that it would require a thickness of eight hundred miles of
the best boiler iron to withstand the pressure of such a mass
of superheated vapor. The crust of the earth would have to
be so thick that there would be no melted center. A geologist
suggested that the volcanoes would relieve the pressure. "So
much the worse for geology," retorted the engineer, " for if
the volcanoes reach this superheated gas or vapor, it would
blow off through them, and leave the earth a hollow shell, as
does a perforated boiler." Another scientist makes a calcula-
tion, based on the increase of density resulting from pressure,
as we pass towards the center, and reaches the conclusion that
the center of the earth must be many times more dense and
solid than the solidest steel. And thus these sciences that
are so definite and certain, and so accordant, and so much
more reliable than the Scriptures, agree. Then mud and fish
are cast out by volcanoes. The matter that they cast out is
not from such a mass as geology places at the center of the
earth.

An eminent geologist, to relieve the difliculty, supposes that
as particles cooled at the surface, gravity would attract them
towards the center, and thus there would be two places where
cooled matter would be aggregated, at the surface and at the
center; and that there is a solid core at the center of the
earth, with a melted mass around this core, and a cooled crust
at the surface. In this he contradicts all experience and com-
mon sense. We never see a melted mass cool anywhere ex-
cept at the surface, and from the surface inward, and it
remains melted at the center long after it is solid at the sur-
face. Even if particles passed toward the center as they
cooled off, ihe heat toward the center would melt them long

FAILURES OF EVOLUTIOX. 221

before they reached it, and a cooled mass at the center would
be melted by the surrounding hot mass. Then we have
numerous and various theories of the cause of the elevation
of mountain chains. One supposes that they are the result
of the heaving of the heated center of the earth. Another
supposes that the materials of the center of the earth once
were loosely aggregated together, and by the settling of these
loose masses intense cold was generated, which heaved up the
surface, as we know^ great cold will. Another supposes that
chemical action of water on metalloids generates heat, and
causes volcanoes, and throws up mountain chains. And so
these speculations go on, and these theorists agree in but one
thing, and that is, that believers ought to abandon their faith,
and accept their speculations that are as changeable and fleet-
ing as the mists of the morning. The theories of geologists
concerning the age and priority of rocks are mere guesses and
speculations. So are their speculations concerning the age of
animal remains and exuviae, vegetable debris, debris in caves,
debris of lacustrine villages, debris and mounds of ashes, and
remains of food, etc., found on shores of seas and rivers,
where there were villages in former ages, and alluvial deposits.
How does the geologist know how long it took to form a cer-
tain stratum, or a succession of strata of rock, or any other
deposit — a deposit of a given thickness — to harden a rock, or
form an alluvial deposit ? How does he know that the re-
mains that he finds in caves, or in alluvial deposits, or even
in rock strata, are cotemporary, or succeed each other in the
order of superposition ? In caves, debris of all ages might
be commingled by flood, or the action of man or animals.
The same holds true of alluvial deposits, where floods tear
away and deposit together debris of several geologic ages. In
the case of rocks, earthquakes and catastrophes mingle re-
mains of various ages together.

What is the rule of the geologist in making his calcula-
tions based on the thicknesses of deposit and time of harden-
ing? What is the rule or data used by the geologist in de-
termining length of time ? It is all guess and hypothesis, and
so many contradictions to his hypotheses and failures of them

222 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

have appeared, that they are worthless in attempting to de-
termine the age of any particular deposit or remains. The
bhinders of geologists have been so many, that no reliance
can be placed in their calculations. Brydoue clearly proved,
so all geologists claimed, that certain remains of man were
covered by deposits of lava at Mt. ^tna, in such a way as to
show that they were at least eleven thousand years old. A
later investigation proved that they were less than seven
hundred years old. French geologists found deposits in
Egypt that were at least thirty thousand years old, with rel-
ics of man's work among them, and the world rang with the
exultations of infidels. The next year Roman coin and pot-
tery were found beneath them. The world has rung with the
case of a skeleton found in an alluvial deposit near New Or-
leans. It was at least fifty thousand years old. No matter
how much river men urged that they had seen acres of de-
posit thirty and forty feet thick, formed in four or five years,
and different strata of timber, earth, and animal and vegeta-
ble remains all formed in a few years — thus proving the utter
unreliability of such data — the skeleton ivas at least fifty thou-
sand years old, and the case is to-day a stock argument in in-
fidel works ; although the gunwale of a Mississippi flat-boat
has since been found in the same deposit lower down. A
skeleton was found in Denise, in France, over which great ado
was made, until an English clergyman clearly showed that it
w^as a quarry man, of probably the Roman period, covered by
a landslide. Skeletons of a man and woman were found in
Guadaloupe, that geologists claimed must be at least one hun-
dred thousand years old. Dana showed that they were skele-
tons of Caribs, and probably not as old as the discovery of
America, A skull was found at Los Angelos, California, by
Prof. Whitney, of which much was said, until it leaked out
that it was a practical joke or sell, practiced on the geologist
by some miners, in revenge for his pronouncing their mine
worthless, and ruining its sale. They wanted, they said, to
show that his science was all guess work and a humbug, and
they (lid.

Great ado has been made over lacustrine villages of the

FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 223

lakes ill Switzerland, and mounds of ashes and food found on
the shores of Denmark and other places. They j^roved the
great antiquity of man, and the truth of the speculations of
the theory of historic development in regard to the stone
age, bronze and iron ages. No attention Avas paid to the fact
that history declared that such cities were there during his-
toric periods, and that they exist now. They were of great
age. Finally, remains of Roman utensils have been found
among wliat they claimed to be the oldest remains, and that
bubble was exploded. Schliermacher's excavations at Troy,
prove that there a stone-using age succeeded an iron and
bronze age, and that these various materials were used cotem-
poraneously. Again and again have alluvium and deposits,
in caves and other deposits, been cited as of great antiquity,
when living men could prove them to be of recent origin.
The writer has known rock formations and tracks of animals
to be pronounced of untold age, when many living Avitnesses
could prove tliat they had been formed within their own
knowledge. Had he space he could give scores of such cases.
A pet hobby of the geologist of the present day has been, that
certain strata are azoic, or without evidence of life, or evi-
dence of life during their formation. But life has been carried
back step by step through these formations to the secondary
formation, and the geologist now dare not say that any for-
mation is azoic. Another hobby was, that simple forms of
life alone appeared at first. This is contradicted by the facts.
High orders of fishes appeared very early. Also orders of
animals but little inferior to our vertebrata appeared long ago,
and without any preceding types. The dying out of certain
types, especially the simpler forms, is another hobby. Deep
sea dredgings prove that enormous quantities of these types
yet exist, just as they did in the earliest geologic ages. Suc-
cession of types, of vegetables and animals, was another
hobby. But in a forest bed in Cromer, in England, were
found, in an alluvial deposit, eleven species of plants now ex-
isting, and remains of several species of animals now existing
were found commingled, and even beneath the remains of
several species of animals that geology declares have long been

224 THE PKOBLEM OF PKOBLEMS.

extinct and existed several geologic ages anterior to this. ^
This utterly disproves the geologic assumption concerning the
antiquity of man, because his remains have been found in
caves and other places, in connection with such remains.
There are several cases like the one at Cromer, Avhich over-
turn the very fundamental theories of geology. That the
earth was, during geologic ages, and for immense periods,
very different from what it now is, is another pet theory of
geology. The discovery of warm-blooded animals essentially
like what we have now, and air-breathing animals essentially
like what we have now, and of high orders of plants essen-
tially like what we have now^, proves that the earth must
have been similar to what it is now throughout these geologic
periods, and that some of the earliest must have been essen-
tially in climate and other characteristics as it is now. These
facts disprove the chronology and chronologic succession
claimed by geology.

Another theory of geology is that chalk must have been
formed at an enormously remote period, and during an enor-
mously long period of time. Recent discoveries prove that it
is being formed in immense masses now, and very rapidly. K
what is forming now, and has been formed during the present
generation, were to be elevated along-side of what geology
says was formed long ago, it would be compelled to give to
them the same age. Such catastrophes as earthquakes,
mingling as they do the remains of various geologic ages, chang-
ing the order of position and succession, and the remains or
strata that are in contact, destroy all possibility of putting abso-
lute reliance on these data. Lyell admitted this when exam-
ining the Natchez skull, and discarded it, because the earth-
quake, 1811, had made such changes in that portion of the
Mississippi Valley, and had mingled remains of the year 1811
with earlier deposits, so that no reliance could be placed on
remains found as it was. Such are the reasons why we say
geology is not a science, and why we claim that at present
we must pay no attention to the hy2X)theses of geology. The
facts of geology do not contradict the statements of the
Scriptures. Suppose the geologist finds any or all remains,

FAILUKES OF EVOLUTION. 225

in any or all strata, what statement of the Bible is contra-
dicted thereby. The conflict of the Scriptures is with the
speculations of geologists on these deposits. All these spec-
ulations are mei'e guesses, and have been contradicted by the
facts of their own field of investigations, so that they are un-
worthy of notice. The greatest living geologist has said that
"Geology is like a man in mid-ocean, in a boat at midnight,
without rudder and compass, and without a star visible."
Until it finds its own moorings, we can safely afford to let it
drift, and not mind the discordant shouts of its bewildered
advocates.

226 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

CHAPTER VI.

The Theistic Solution.

Investigation, research, and thought have led every
thoughtful mind to the axiom, that all human inquiry finally
brings us face to face with ultimate truths, truths that can
be resolved into no simple elements, and for which we can
give no further reason that they exist. On these ultimate
truths rest all reasoning, demonstration and inference. As
we pass out from them in our explorations, we always end in
the mysterious, the unknown, the infinite. All around the
finite area of the known, lies the infinite unknown. The cir-
cumscribed circle of human knowled2:e has all around it an
infinite circumscribing area of the mysterious and unknown.
As a person standing in the midst of a houndless plain finds
that the unknown that lies beyond his horizon limits his view
on all sides, so does man, in all his investigations in every
field of thought, find that his explorations end in the un-
known, and that inseparably connected with what he claims
to know is an infinite border-land of the unknown. As the
explorer, who ascends by toilsome effort the rugged steeps of
a mountain, whose top is hidden and obscured in the clouds,
finds, as he gazes around him, that he has enlarged the cir-
cumscribing area of the unseen as rapidly as he has enlarged
his horizon, so the toiler up the steeps of human thought, only
sees more clearly, as he ascends, how boundless is the mys-
terious and unknown. This mystery arouses and excites our
thought, and at last bafiles and limits it. But the mystery
is not overpowering. It does not hinder our investigating
and learning what is within our horizon. Nor does it forbid
our thinking of and apprehending the infinite that lies be-
yond, though we never can comprehend it. Man can ap-
prehend certain infinite truths concerning the universe, and

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 227

must do so to properly understanfl the finite and known.
The mystery connected with them does not disprove the
nccuracy of such apprehensions.

As the rivers that bounded the ancient Eden could be
traced to one source, so can all truths of a science be traced
back to one general truth; and all sciences can be traced
back to one fountain of truth. In building up a science,
men have first observed phenomena and their characteristics,
and recorded them, and attempted to account for them by
speculation and hypothesis. They arrange phenomena on
the hypothesis as they string beads on a string. Soon a phe-
nomenon is observed that will not accord with the hypothesis,
and it has to be cast to one side, and another hypothesis
substituted in its stead, and thus, by many efforts, and by
laborious research, and through many failures, man toils on-
ward toward the great underlying j^rinciple of the phenomena,
the great central truth, around which every phenomenon will
crystallize into a system, and that will give order, beauty and
harmony to seemingly disconnected, or even discordant phe-
nomena. When this central truth, or underlying principle, is
discovered, we have a science, and not till then. This great
principle is always an universal truth, expressing the relation
of the parts of the system to each other, or of the parts to
the whole system, or of the system to other systems, or all
of these relations. All sciences are systems of phenomena
and truths, classified by fundamental, ideal conceptions, or
great ideas of reason, expressing the relation of the parts of
the system to each other, or of the parts to the w^hole system,
or of the system to other systems, or all of these relations.
This tendency of the mind to classify the phenomena of the
universe by means of ideal conceptions, and to search fi)r the
idea of reason that will classify them, is not, as physicists
claim, an infirmity of tliouulit, but one of the grandest and
highest eflforts of reason , to ascertain the limdamental idea
of reason realized in the phenomena, and which expresses
this fundamental principle and reason. Without this con-
trolling catholic tendency of the mind, man would never
attempt to investigate phenomena, would attemj^t the con-

228 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

struction of no science : and the proper investigation of phe-
nomena, and the construction of science, would be utterly
impossible. So would all rational investigation of phenom-
ena, and all construction of science be an impossibility, if
there be no great ideas of reason, realized in the universe, and
pervading the universe, as controlling and regulative princi-
ples. Xewton, Harvey and Copernicus have been immortal-
ized for the discovery of such great truths in different depart-
ments of thought.

As we pass from our solar system, with the sun for its
center, to other similar systems, we apprehend that these
have a relation to each other, and to a vast central orb, and,
perhaps, this vast system is related to others equally vast,
until we are lost in the immensity of the infinite. As it has
been with each science, so it is with the circle of sciences in
their relation to each other. Men have been trying to dis-
cover the great central science, the great underlying principle
of all science, the great truth that is related to all truth, as
Byron says of virtue: "Stands like the sun, and all which
roll around diink life and light and glory from her aspect."
It is the glory of modern science that it has conceived the
idea that all the seemingly antagonistic displays of physical
force, observed in the phenomena of nature, can be resolved
into one, exhibited under A^arious modifications. Displays of
force, that were once regarded as manifestations of entirely
distinct, and even antagonistic, forces, are now conceived to
be but diflferent manifestations of the one force, and they can
be resolved into each other. So it has been conceived that
all sciences are but diifereut evolutions of one great central
principle or truth. As we pass from planet to planet and to
the central sun, so we can pass from truth to truth and to
the central truth in each science. And as men have passed
from system to system, to a vast central orb, so has human
thought tried to reach the central idea of all science. The
conception is a sublime one, and an evidence of the divine
image stamped on the human intellect, that has thus tried to
think the thoughts of infinite reason. Two answers to this
problem of problems are now striving for ascendancy in the

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 229

great field of researcli and thought. The devotee of physical
science would lead us up to matter and force, blind, insensate
matter and blind, irrational force, as the ultimate of all re-
search, the apx?) of all being. Religion and its cognate de-
partments of thought would lead us up to Infinite Mind,
Infinite Spirit as the cause of all things, the beginning, source
and origin of all being.

The question then is, "Shall theology, in the broadest and
truest sense of that noble word, or shall physical science, be
the science of sciences, the central science, the fountain from
whence all truth and science flows?" Questions concerning
the nature and origin of life, the ground and origin of being,
the nature and origin of force, the problem of substance, of
being, of cause, of the absolute, the infinite, the uncaused,
the unconditioned, are each -and all but difierent ways of pre-
senting this problem of problems: "What is the ultimate
principle, the ground, the apx/}, of all being?" In their
answers to this question men may be divided into :

I. Antitheists. — Those Avho deny the existence of an in-
telligent, absolute, first cause, asserting either: 1st. That
the present order of things is eternal. 2d. Or that all is
merely a fortuituous concourse of atoms and phenomena, or
the result of such concourse., od. That, although all is in
accordance with order and law now, originally all was the re-
sult of a fortuituous concourse of atoms or phenomena. 4th.
All is controlled by blind, resistless fate, or relentless necessity.
5th. Or that the universe is the result of an indefinite course
of atheistic development, in accordance with certain self-exist-
ent and eternal principles inherent and eternal, in self-existent
and eternal matter and force.

II. Atheists. — Those who merely have no god, denying
that man knows or can know any thing of the absolute cause.
These miglit be called theoretic atheists. Then there are prac-
tical atheistSj or those who merely ignore the existence of God
in their lives and their thoughts, those who attempt to ac-
count for all that exists v/ithout recoo-nizino: his existence or
exercise of power, those who divorce God from all connection
with the universe, those who nominally recognize his existence

230 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

or creati\e action, and yet divorce him from all connection
'svith what they pretend to regard a.« his works. Any system
that denies or ignores God's immediate and personal action
and energy, in creation, government and providence, is athe-
istic. Much of modern science and thought is atheistic in
tendency and result. It leads the mind up to the tremendous
forces of nature, up to matter and force, and leaves it face
to face with them, and never leads from nature up to nature's
God.

III. Pantheists. — Those who regard God as an irrational
principle or a combination of irrational principles pervading
the universe. Those who regard God as the World Soul
bound up in, and subject to, the eternal and necessary laws of
the universe, attaining his highest and only intelligent mani-
festation in man. Such a system is really atheistic. Much
of modern poetry and sj^eculation is pantheistic.

IV. TiiEiSTS. — Or those who believe in an intelligent, ab-
solute, first cause of all that exists, who created, sustains and
governs all things, and is self-existent, uncaused, uncondi-
tioned and absolute. Such are the four great classes into
which men may be divided. We might divide thera into but
two — atheists and theists. Atheists make matter and force the
ground and beginning of all being, without the creating, or-
itrinatino; and directive control of intelligence. Theists make
intelligence, mind, reason, the source of all being. Pantheists
are really atheists, for their World Soul is bound up in and
subject to matter, and really nothing more than the force of
the atheist, and intelligence is evolved out of matter and
force, and by matter and force, as much in that system as in
atheism. Sucli is tlie problem, and such are some of the
answers human thought has given to it.

Perhaps, before we enter on the direct discussion of the
question, a good preparation for it would be to clear away
certain rubbish in our Avay, by inquiring how man came by
the idea of God, or an intelligent first cause. Error here
will often pervert or weaken an entire line of argument.
Some claim that without revelation men would never have
had any idea of God or of his attributes. Such was the po-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 231

sition of the late Alexander Campbell. He based his position
on the sensational, materialistic philosophy of Locke. He
claimed that man has, and can have, no knowledge or idea,
except such as comes through one of the five senses. As
neither God nor any of his attributes are objects of sense, man
can obtain such ideas only through direct revelation. Such a
position, while attempting to elevate revelation, is reall) one
of those suicidal arguments that destroy the cause they are
expected to sustain. It concedes that religion and the idea
of God are foreign to reason and human nature, and that
reason can not sustain them. It assumes that man has no
religious nature ; for if he has, it certainly will have its out-
croppings in religious ideas. It makes revelation create or
implant within man his religious and moral nature. It de-
stroys the immortality of the spirit and all proof of God and
immortality. It is opposed to a correct mental philosophy.
It destroys all human responsibility and accountability. It
contradicts the Scriptures. If the reader will read the nine-
teenth Psalm, and the first and second chapters of Romans,
especially the twentieth verse of the first chapter, he will see
that this position is clearly contradicted by David and Paul.
Some claim that man can, by his own unaided eflEbrts, at-
tam to as complete an idea of God as his reason can grasp.
But as the child can be taught what he can not attain by his
unaided efforts, so can the mightiest intellect that the w^orld
has ever known receive and grasp ideas above its capacity to
discover if imparted to it by a higher intelligence. As man
learns by comparison, induction and deduction, and as he is
imperfect and impure himself, he can not attain to a correct
idea of God's moral attributes by his own unaided efforts ; for
he can not evolve the idea of absolute holiness out of his own
nature, or that of his fellow-men. If he could attain to such
a conception, he can not determine in w^hat it consists. Man
has never emancipated himself from idolatry, except by and
through revelation. His intuitions, his aspirations and his
history prove his need of revelation. The true position is
that man is constitutionally a religious and a worshiping be-
ing, and has a religious element in his nature. This religious

232 THE PROBLEM OF PROBEEMS.

nature will have its expresf<ioii in his life, and man ever has
an idea of a God and of his natural attributes, but such an
idea Avould be imperfect. This would be especially the case
with the moral attributes of God. As these are the very at-
tributes of God that man must know, for on a knowledge of
these depends his elevation by worship and religion, God must
reveal his real character in full for man's adoration and imita-
tion. As to how the idea of God originated in tlie human
mind, different opinions have also been entertained. Some
contend that it is innate or connate, meaning that man is born
with it. The notion that man has any such ideas is now
abandoned. Some contend that it is an immediate or unde-
rived intuition. It is not; for men do not appeal to it as such,
but regard it as susceptible of proof, whereas all immediate
underived intuitions are not susceptible of proof, they are self-
evident. We simply knoAV them to be true, and that they
can not be otherwise than as they are, and true. Some regard
it as a tradition from primitive revelation. It is, doubtless,
in many cases, but can not be so in all cases ; for men have
the idea who have no such traditions. Again, it is only such
ideas as man would have had anyhow that have been thus
preserved, or can be thus preserved, through all the vicissi-
tudes through which such an idea would have to pass. Then
such an assumption is assuming the very question at issue. The
proof must be adduced that all men have obtained the idea
from revelation, and this, the very point at issue, must not
be assumed.

Some attempt to answer the question by saying man always
has had the idea. Still the question arises, how did the first
man obtain the idea ? I believe that he obtained it by rev-
elation, or was not left to reach it by the action of his mind.
But that all men that have since lived liave i-eceived the idea
by tradition from this revelation, is a point to be proved and
not assumed. The atheist says by imagination. ]\[en obtain
simple uncjmpounded basis ideas only by consciousness, sen-
sation, intuition and revelation.. Imagination can not originate
a simple uncomponnded basis or primitive idea. Tlie idea of
the being or existence of God. is n simple uncompounded

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 233

primitive or basis idea, just as tlie idea of the existence of
human spirit is such an idea. The idea of each of the attri-
butes of God, is a simple uncompounded primitive or basis
idea, just as the idea of each attribute of the human spirit is
such an idea. Imagination can not originate either of them.
It may play fantastic tricks in its combinations of the attri-
butes of God, but the simple idea of his existence, or the
simple idea of each of his attributes, imagination can not
originate. They must come through one of these four sources :
consciousness, sensation, intuition or revelation. Imagination
can only combine what it receives through these sources ;
hence the simple idea of the existence of God, or of each of
his attributes, must have come through one of these sources.
The true position is, that the idea of God is a catholic affirm-
ation of universal reason based on phenomena furiiisb.ed by
sensation and the characteristics of the phenomena, and also
on intuitions of i-eason concerning the })heiiomena and their
characteristics; or on data furnislied by tlie semer, and intui-
tions of reason concerning these data. If we use the tei m intui-
tion to cover all these catholic or universal ideas that man
every-where and of necessity reaches by a proper exercise of
his reason, it is such an intuition ; but it is not an immediate
or direct intuition, for it is not self-evident. It is a universal
or catholic intuition of all reason; for man every-where has it
and can not divest himself of it. Man is constitutionally a
worshiping being, and can not divest himself of this inlierent
tendency. Even the atheist will, in spite of himself, show
the presence of this tendency and intuition. Comte's deifica-
tion of reason, and French atheistic systems of worship, and
the tendency of atheists to run into Spiritism, of which the
Owens and Prof. Hare are notable examples, seen also in a
multitude of other cases, show^ that this intuition or impulse
can not be eradicated.

With these preliminary remarks, we propose, as a solution
of the problem of being, the following thesis : There is an
Infinite Eternal Self-existent Intelligent First Cause of all that
exists, an Intelligent Absolute Cause, or a God who created
and who governs and sustains all things, and who is infinite
20

234 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

in his perfections and attributes. No question can be so im-
portant as whether this be true, for it is the fundamental
question in all knowledge and truth. Is blind, irrational
matter and force the ground of all being, or is mind ? If we
establish the first position, there can be no divine government,
no accountability, no responsibility to such government, no
reward or punishment, no revelation, no providence, no pray-
er, no atonement, no pardon of sin, no worship, no religion,
no right, no wrong, no moral desert, no responsibility, no mo-
rality ; for these things can not be evolved out of mere mat-
ter and force. If we establish our thesis, these things are a
possibility, a probability, a reality, a necessity. If we estab-
lish the first, we have no law or government, except matter,
force and necessity. If we establish the second, we have a
government of reason and intelligence. Then the entire ques-
tion of law, government, morality, responsibility, duty, right
and wrong, hinges on this question. Our ideas of the dignity
and value of human nature, its origin, its relative value and
importance, its destiny, our aspirations, and our conceptions
of the basis of law, government, duty, and right and wrong
and morality, are determined by our views concerning this
question. So also are our ideas of prayer, providence, wor-
ship and religion.

In our investigation, we shall be guided at every step by the
great principle of inductive philosophy: "Examine carefidly
and fully the existences and phenomena in question, and from
their characteristics determine their cause." The common
sense of all mankind has ever recognized two spheres of ex-
istence and phenomena — the material or physical, and the
spiritual or mental. Before w^e reject either, or make it mere-
ly a different manifestation of the other, or subject it to the
same laws and rules of investigation and interj^retation as the
other, we must, by a carefid investigation of the two supposed
spheres, and a careful induction of phenomena and their
characteristics, prove that we are justified in doing so.

We can not assume the physical sphere to be the only one,
for mind has to investigate it, and determine its existences and
phenomena, and their characteristics. Human reason is

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 235

the agent or actor in all investigation, and its catholic intui-
tions must be our standard. We can not use human reason
as our agent to do a certain Avork, that we have in our pre-
judices decided to be all that it should do, and cast to one
side its catholic intuitions, or use it as a means in its own
destruction. Not only so, but in our investigation of nature,
we must take all nature into our field of investigation. Man's
nature, the highest element in nature, and his moral and re-
ligious nature, the noblest element in his nature, and the
catholic intuitions of his moral and religious nature, the reg-
nant and regulative principles of his nature, must not be
overlooked, ignored, or denied. The physicist begins with the
lowest part of nature, and as he meets with the highei-, he
interprets it by the lower; and drags it down and merges it
into the lower. He does not recognize the differences and
higher characteristics as he meets them, but he ignores them
or explains them away, and tlius reduces all nature to a
level with the lowest part of nature. The true course is to
begin with tlie higher, and make it our means of investigation
and comparison, and our standard and measure. As we find
in our passage downward, that a higher characteristic disap
pears, let us recognize such facts, and keep these differentise
between the higher and lower ever in view. We must, then,
take all the phenomena of nature into our field of investiga-
tion, and especially its higliest and noblest element, man's
mental, moral, and religous nature. Reason is the agent in
the investigation, and its catholic intuitions our standard.
We must have an accurate conception of reason and its cath-
olic intuitions, its fundamental ideas and regulative truths and
principles. If these are rejected, all reasoning is at an end,
and all attempts at reasoning a folly and a mad farce. In-
stead of groping in the mire and clay of matter and force
with the muck-rake of observation, uncontrolled and unillu-
minated by the pure light of the great ideas of reason, let us
rise to what the physicist acknowledges to be the highest
product of evolution, and the noblest expression of the law
of evolution, man's rational nature, and examine the image
of God in our own nature, the human spirit, and let in on

236 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the phenomena of nature the full light of reason. Let us
clear the naicrocosm, man's spirit, of all obscurities that a blind
materialism has heaped upon it, lift it out of the muck of
matter into which he has dragged it, and then we can rise to
an apprehension of the Macrocosm, the Infinite Creator. How
can a man have any conception of the universe, who views
it only through matter, and rejects all the light of the light
of the world, mind ? If we extinguish this light within us,
how great is the darkness! Such, then, shall be our field of
observation, and such our agent and means of observation
and investigation, and such our standard of authority.

The lines of argument that have been pursued in demon-
strating the existence of God are manifold, and often sadly
confused. Pei'haps we can not better begin our work than
by arranging and cla-sifviug them :

I. Ontologic'Al. — This attempts to prove the objective
reality of the existence of God, by the subjective notions of
the human reason. It assumes the validity and reliability of
our reason, and that every intuitive, subjective notion of rea-
son has its counterpart in objective reality. It is presented
in several forms : 1. It is assumed that the idea of God is
so fixed in the human mind, that it can not be eradicated;
and as our nature is veracious and not a cheat, the objective
reality must exist as the counterpart to the subjective no-
tion. Anselmus' proof from the most perfect being comes
under this head. God is a being than whom we conceive
of none greater or more perfect. But real existence is greater
than mere thought, for the cause must be greater than its effect,
hence the existence of God is guaranteed by our conception,
or the contradiction of a being more perfect than the most
perfect being would emerge. Descartes gives another elabora-
tion of the same thought. Necessary existence is essential to
the idea of all-perfect being. We have the idea of all-perfect
being. Hence the all-perfect being must exist. He further
says that the less perfect can not evolve the most perfect, for
an effect can not be. greater than its cause. We have the
idea of an all-perfect being, hence he must exist to give rise
to the idea, as the substance must necessarily exist to give

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 237

rise to the shadow. 2. Space and time are the necessary at-
tributes of substance, and mind is assumed as the necessary
substance in which they inhere.

II. CosMOLOGiCAL. — God's existence is established by the
principle of causality: 1. The necessary is the essential an-
tithesis of the contingent. In the necessary alone do we find
sufficient ground for the existence of the contingent, for the
contingent is not self-existent nor of itself self-sustaining.
2. Something now exists, therefore something must have al-
ways existed, for ^^Ex nihilo nihil fit" — out of nothing, comes
nothing. 3. We exist. We did not cause ourselves.
Some adequate cause for our existence must exist. To make
this a valid theistic argument, it must be established that
mind or intelligence is the necessary antithesis of the existing
contingent, or that the something that must have always ex-
isted, must be an intelligence, or that the cause of what now
exists must have been an intelligence. This can be done only
by tlie next line of argument.

III. Teleological. — This passes from ends accomplished
in creation back to an intelligent cause: 1. We start from
man's work caused, as we know, by intelligence, and pass
back through nature to an intelligent cause. Or we start
from nature's works and pass down to man's works, and find-
ing the same characteristics per-vading them, as we know
man's work had an intelligent cause, we throw natui-e's works
back on an intelligent cause. 2. We find law and order in
the phenomena and types of the existences of the universe —
a law and order pervading the whole universe, and including
every phenomenon and existence in it — we find co-ordination,
adjustment, and adaptation of existences to each other, and
of means to ends in nature, which have their necessary ground
in mind. 3. Animals, such as the bee, act in accordance
with the most profound rational ideas. Such an act must
have its ground in reason. It is not in the bee. It must be
back of the bee, in its Creator, who has given to it an instinct,
impelling it to obey this law. 4. The most profound scien-
tific truths and laws are wrought out in the organization of
animals, such as the electric eel, the poison of certain animals,

238 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

etc. These results have their necessary ground in mind. 5.
The highest and most abstract conceptions of reason are
realized in nature, and nature can be construed only in ac-
cordance with them, and by them. Nature must have been
constructed by reason, and reason must have realized these
ideas in constructing nature.

IV. Ethical. — This proves the existence of God as a
moral lawgiver, ruler, judge, and executive in two ways: 1.
Conscience gives us ideas of good and evil, sin and righteous-
ness, moral desert, and rewards and punishments. All these
have their necessary ground in mind, as lawgiver, ruler,
judge, and executive. 2. The disorder of the moral uni-
verse. This throws us forward into another state of existence,
when this confusion will be righted by a Judge and Execu-
tive.

V. Intuitional. — 1. Man has intuitions of the infinite,
infinite space, infinite duration, infinite power, infinite cause,
infinite intelligence, infinite intelligent being, infinite intelli-
gent absolute cause. 2. Man has an intuition of his depend-
ence, of his need of an independent existence on whicli to
rest. 3. In the poet and all spiritual-minded persons, there
are intuitions of an Infinite World Soul, or an Intelligent Ab-
solute Cause. 4. The intuition of worship. Man is a wor-
shiping being. This can be caused only by an intuition of
an object of worship. Human reason has ever affirmed that
there is a God. All geography and history of all ages, and
all ethnology, demonstrate this. Man has ever searched after,
and claimed revelation from God. All these facts demon-
strate that the existence of God is an intuition of human
reason. The testimony of tradition, history, archseology,
philology, and revelation are all valuable as corroborative
proof.

We regard the intuitional as the basis of all other argu-
ments, and as the fundamental and most valuable proof. It
must furnish the basis of all our reasonings. The other lines
of argument can be established and made valid only by the
intuitional method, by an appeal to its intuitions, and resting
them on them. They are chiefly valuable as furnishing col-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 239

lateral proof, and illustrating the intuitional method. We
can iind a basis for them, and repair defects in them, and
give them validity only by an appeaHo the intuitional method.
Justice, however, to the teleological method demands that
we say that it furnishes to the intuitional metliod the occa-
sion to evolve its intuitions, especially its intuitions of intelli-
gence, in the phenomena, and in the cause of the phenomena.
The intuitional method rests on the teleological for all its
intuitions of intelligence in the first cause. As we have
taken as our standard the catholic ideas of human reas(m, we
will have to define, elaborate and defend these someAvhat care-
fully and fully. As preliminary to, and as a foundation for
our line of argument, we lay down the following truths. No
system, can be based on sensation alone, or on the contents of
sensation entirely. The mind has intuitions above and be-
yond the contents of sensation, on which it builds all systems,
by which it constructs them, and by Avhich it I'cgulates its
reasonings, and tests them. Nor can a system be built en-
tirely on revelation, for man learns by comparison and deduc-
tion, and there must be in the mind a basis for comparison,
on which revelation is based, and to which it appeals. Nor on
imagination alone, for that is a constructive faculty, Avhich
merely uses the materials it obtains from other sources. Nor
on sensation and demonstration combined, for demonstration
builds on and by means of regulative principles and truths,
and sensation reveals only phenomena and not regulative
truths.

There are in the mind at birth certain constitutional powers
or faculties which develop with the growth of the mind, in
accordance with certain innate inherent laAvs of the mind.
When the senses appealing to the mind, and exciting it to
action, and placing before it existences and phenomena, fur-
nish the occasion, the mind, in accordance with the constitu-
tional laws of the mind, and the necessary nature of its
thinking, has conceptions above and beyond the contents of
sensation. These are known as axioms, self-evident truths or
intuitions. They are fundamental or basis ideas. They are
the basis on which all reasoning and demonstration and also

240 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

revelation must rest, and to whicli they must appeal. With-
out them, sensation would produce no more reasoning in man
than in brutes, for they bave all the exercise of the senses
that he has, and even more acutely often. Nor would reve-
lation produce any more eifect on him than on the brutes.
Sensation and these intuitions furnish the materials used by
the constructive faculty — the imagination. The contents of
sensation furnish to the mind the occasion to evolve these
ideas, but the contents of sensation are not the ideas. We
see the parts, we see the whole, but we do not see that the
sum of the parts is equal to the whole. We see two straight
lines, and we see the space between them, but we do not see
that two straight lines can not enclose a space. These truths
are affirmations of reason, above and beyond what is held in
sensation. Sensation furnishes to the mind the occasion to
evolve the ideas, but it does not furnish the ideas.
Fundamental or basis ideas are :

I. Truths revealed in consciousness. I am conscious that
I exist, and of the exercise of my faculties. No one of tlie
senses gives me this knowledge.

II. Phenomena revealed in sensation.

III. Intuitions of reason.

IV. Revealed truths.

On these rest demonstrative truths or ideas, analogical
truths or ideas, and inferential truths or ideas. As this is the
fundamental work of our demonstration, we will elaborate
more fully in another form. There is innate power or capac-
ity, or there are inherent constitutional faculties of tlie mind.
These faculties have regulative laws, inherent properties, and
regulative jjrinciples. The mind has, by means of these con-
stitutional faculties and inherent regulative principles, certain
original conceptions, fundamental ideas or intuitions. In
consequence of these constitutional faculties and inherent
regulative principles, the mind must discover eternal truth,
necessary truths, such as two straight lines can not enclose a
space, every effect must have a cause. Indeed, we can accu-
mulate the data of experience only by means of these con-
stitutional faculties, regulative principles and intuitions. If

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 241

it were not for thes?e, plienomena would chase each other
across the field of sensation, as images aj)pear and disappear
in a mirror. All reasoning is based on original convictions,
and all original convictions are intuitions. Objects, through
sensation, furnish the occasion to the mind, and excite it to
action, revealing to it phenomena and their characteristics,
and then the mind has original convictions, above and beyond
what is held in sensation. We have the contents of sensa-
tion, then original, individual convictions, and then universal
maxims. Sometimes the latter are the result of one observa-
tion, and sometimes the result of a number of observations.
As the mind apprehends a truth expressing a relation of the
parts to each other, or to the whole system, or of the system
to other systems, it recognizes a regulative truth, and accepts
it as such, whether it be an induction from one observation or
from several observations. All intuitions from one observation
are immediate spontaneous intuitions. Those from a number
of observations are generalized convictions or catholic ideas.

The tests of intuitions are: They are self-evident — they are
necessarily true, or can not be otherwise than as they are, and
true — they are catholic idea«, or all men have them from a
proper exercise of their reason — they express a relation of
the parts of a system to each other, or to the whole system,
or of the system to other systems. The term intuition, in
our reasonings, is used to represent :

I. Constitutional, universal, regulative tendencies of the mind.

II. Original convictions in consciousness, arising from im-
mediate i^erception of objects, and they are original and nec-
essary, in consequence of the nature of things and the inher-
ent tendencies of the mind.

III. Catholic ideas, or truths coming from observation and
generalization, that are fundamental in their nature, and exr
press fundamental truths.

In appealing to ideas as intuitions, we have to decide: 1.
Are they intuitions — are they self-evident — are they neces-
sary— are they universal — do they express a relation? 2.
Are they correctly expressed? 3. Wliat is a proper use of
them, a legitimate application of them? If the first two
21

242 THE PROBLEM OF PROBI.EMa.

questions are answered in the affirmative, we must implicitly
accept and follow them, or all reasoning is at an end. To
reason at all, we must accept and act on the veracity and
validity of our reason, in its intuitions, and accept these intui-
tions as the foundation of all reasoning, the guide in all rea-
soning, and the standard by which all reasoning must be
tested. This is true of all men, atheist and theist alike. If
our reason, in its intuitions, be untrue or unreliable, there
can be no foundation for reasoning, no guide in reasoning, no
test of reasoning, and all reasoning is an utter impossibility.
One might as well attempt to erect a temple on the mirage
of the desert, as to reason under such circumstances. We
repudiate the materialism which denies all intuitions of rea-
son, and the idealism which denies the objective reality of
every thing exterior to the mind.

Some of the fundamental primordial intuitions of reason,
which can not be questioned, and back of which we can not
go, are the following: There is a Me, and there is a Not-
Me. There is a perceiving Self, and there is a Perceived-
by-Self. These are distinct and different, and can not be
confounded in our thinking, or the reality of either questioned
in our reasoning. There is body or matter, and there is mind
or spirit. Body or matter has objective and indej)endent being
— that is, it is not dependent on observation for existence —
and it has external and extended reality ; and tliere is in body
or matter potency affecting mind or self, and causing it to be
perceiv^ed by mind or self. We cognize or intuit in body or
matter these essential properties : Extension, size, situation, fig-
ure, density, rarity, impenetrability, mobility and inertia. We
cognize or intuit the existence of force, affecting matter, and
force in bodies, affecting other bodies. We cognize or intuit by
consciousness an existing, independent, abiding, potential self, as
different from matter in which it resides or our bodies, and as
distinct from the organs which it uses, and which reveal matter
and our bodies and themselves to self We intuitively know and
feel that the knowing mind is different and distinct from our
bodies known by it, and in which it resides, and which it uses,
or matter known by it, or the organs or functions of our bodies

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 243

which it uses, and which reveal matter and our bodies and them-
selves to the knowing mind. We intuitively know that mind
has faculties or the characteristics of consciousness, volition,
emotion, thought and reason, or moral, rational, tliinking,
responsible personal attributes. We intuitively know that
matter has not these attributes, l)ut that it has other and
different characteristics, which reveal it to spirit, which alone
has these attributes. We assign personality to mind, but never
to matter. We intuitively know that force belongs to matter
or body, and faculty to mind. We intuitively know% also,
that the force which we see in matter — the force that we con-
trol and use by our minds — the force that we cognize in our
bodies, acting independent of our minds, or in opposition to
our minds, or in obedience to them, is not our mind or the
same force as our mind. We intuitively recognize a differ-
ence between physical force, seen in insensate matter, and
vital force, sensation, and rational or mental force or power.
We can not resolve mind into matter, or matter into mind,
or mind into physical force modified by organization of mat-
ter, no matter what our theories may be. We intuitively
make these distinctions, even while denying them and at-
tempting to disprove them. Had we space we could give
hundreds of such instances from the writings of materialists.
We intuitively know inertia to be a law or property of
matter. The law of motion })roves this. Matter can not
change its state. If in rest, it would never move itself. If
in motion, it would never stop itself. Spontaneity belongs to
mind alone, and inertia to matter. Spontaneity is an inher-
ent property of mind that we recognize in all its acts. Spon-
taneity has no connection with matter. We also intuitively
make a distinction between agent and patient, or between
what possesses spontaneity or what acts, and what is inert, or
is acted upon. We intuitively make mind alone active or
the agent. When we have a clear conception of matter, we
know that it is not active, but passive. It is never primarily
an agent or actor, but the recipient or acted upon, or used as
the instrument of the agent or actor. I know this is most
strenuously denied by materialists, but no one can accept the

244 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBLEMS.

fundamental law of motion, that matter can not set itself in
motion, and when in motion can not stop itself, and deny the
position, that matter is inert and destitute of all spontaneity,
and not agent or actor. Mind and matter, then, are differ-
ent in every particular. Inductive philosophy, then, does not
establish the identity of mind and matter, or. that mind is a
function of matter, for matter never produced mind, has none
of its attributes, and never produced one of its phenomena.
The properties we ascribe to matter, and the phenomena we
assign to it, and the attributes we ascribe to mind, and the
acts we ascribe to it, are totally different, and have not one
feature in common. The materialist himself would, except in
defending his philosophy, scout the idea of ascribing what we
ascribe to one of these, to the other. We can not resolve
mind into matter, or matter into mind, or confound them in
our thinking, no matter what our theories may be. We intu-
itively and necessarily make these distinctions, even while de-
nying them and attempting to disprove them. This can be
proved by taking the argument of. any materialist attempting
to disprove these assertions.

The great effort of materialism, at the present time, is to
eliminate the idea of spirit and God out of the universe, by
means of the new doctrine of correlation or equivalence of
forces. All forces, as they are called, are but different mani-
festations of one force, pervading the universe, and they can
be resolved into each other, and pass into each other. Some
extend this equivalence only to pliysical forces, and except
life, sensation, instinct, reason, mind and spirit from this cor-
relation. But most materialists include all force — vital, sen-
tient, mental, moral and spiritual. I have even read an ex-
pression, in which a popular materialistic declaimer expressed
his admiration of tlie wonderful chemistry which changes a
cabbage into a divine tragedy of Hamlet. Could madness
go further? But we deny that this correlation of physical
forces includes, or can be made to include, vital, mental and
spiritual forces. In our intuitions we recognize a difference
between force, as displayed in inorganic matter, and force as
displayed in organic matter. We recognize spontaneity in

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 245

sentient, rational force, and none in force destitute of sensa-
tion and reason or mind. The materialist can evade this only
by denying all spontaneity in mind or mental force, or in any
force or person or thing. Yet he acts spontaneously in his
arguments, his choice of them, and the words he uses, and he
recognizes spontaneity in those he addresses, or he would not
attempt the argument. He attempts nothing of the kind on
a tree, or even on an animal, but he does on man, recognizing
spontaneity, alternativity, volition, responsibility, and moral
action in himself and others, even while attempting to dis-
prove it. No principle of inductive philosophy has ever de-
clared that physical force and mental force are equivalent, or
can be resolved into each other. On the contrary, it declares
that neither matter, nor any collection of matter, can, by
chemical action or any other means, change physical force
into vital or mental force. Nature declares that they are
different in every characteristic. In its theories of molecular I
action of the brain — brain secretion of thought, chemical ac-
tion, vibration of medullary particles, etc., materialism over- j
looks the fiict that in spontaneous thought and mental action, '
there must be a spontaneous self-acting, intelligent cause,
distinct from all these processes, to originate the processes,
and that there must be an intelligent principle, distinct and ,
separate from them, to take cognizance of them. He con-
founds the agent with his acts, the agent with his tools. He
overlooiis the fact that there is a spontaneous, self-acting prin-
ciple or agent, that, by means of memory, imagination and
thought, can arouse all these processes independent of any
exterior or known material cause, or any action of physical
forces. Just as causes, ah extra, rouse these processes, and are
real substantive agents, so there is a spontaneous, self-acting,
substantive agent, ab intra. As the former is a real sub-
stantive agent, distinct from sense and brain that it impresses,
so must the latter be a real substantive agent, separate and
distinct from brain and senses that it uses. Materialism over-
looks these fundamental distinctions.

This doctrine of correlation of forces violates every princi-
ple of inductive philosophy. Its advocates very properly

246 THE PROBLEM OF PFwOBI.EMS.

take the phenomena of matter, destitute of life, and the phe-
nomena of physical forces, and reason from them to their
causes, but they refuse to take the unique phenomena of life,
sensation, and reason, dissimilar and distinct in every particu-
lar, and to reason from their peculiar characteristics to their
peculiar cause. It either assumes the similarity of the phe-
nomena and their characteristics, in violation of every sense
and all reason; or, in violation of all correct reasoning, it
applies results reached in physical phenomena to radically
dissimilar phenomena. It is a violation of all sense to affirm
that the force that burns in the blaze is the same as that
which produced a Paradise Lost. The argument adduced to
sustain the position does not do so. Are these forces the
same and resolvable into each other, or do they merely neu-
tralize each other in their influence on matter? or does one
unfit matter to be used by the other? Excessive physical
toil unfits one for mental effort, and excessive mental eflTort
unfits one for labor. Are they therefore equivalents, or does
one merely exhaust the physical organism, and render it unfit
to be used by the other ? They are not equivalent, for mod-
erate mental effort is aided by moderate labor, and one en-
joys moderate labor after moderate mental effort. Excessive
mental effort unfits one for the exercise of the sexual passion,
and excessive exercise of the sexual passion unfits one for
mental eflTort. Are they, theref )re, but different manifesta-
tions of the one force? Who will utter so gross a thought?
Does not each merely exhaust the physical organism, and
unfit it to be used by the other. Then the mind is intensely
active in each case. So there is no resolution of mere physi-
cal force into mind, or mind into mere physical force, or any
approximation to it. There is an attempt to cover up, under
a play of words or a phrase, things radically dissimilar, and
to substitute or use a new phrase as an explanation. Has all
this talk of correlation and equivalence of forces a syllable
of explanation in it of what uses the physical organism, and
directs the displays of force in each case? Correlation of
forces and forces are modes of motion. Heat is a mode of
motion. Motion of what? Modes of motion of what?

TIIH THEISTIC SOLUTION. 247

What have we but a phrase to evade the issue, and hide the
difficuhy, and blind the eye of reason, and cheat the judg-
ment, while the idea of mind and spirit is stolen away.

Sensation may be traced to certain nerves, and mental ac-
tion to the brain ; and it may be shown that the mind, while
in the bofly, is always manifested through the brain, and that
certain mental processes can be traced to certain portions of
the brain, but that is no explanation of thought. It does
not tell us what it is that thought, or what thought is, or
what mind is. It merely reveals the tools, and not the w^ork-
man. Suppose the brain secretes thought as the stomach se-
cretes chyle, what uses the brain in such process, and what
takes cognizance of such act ? Then this new phrase, '* corre-
lation of forces," does not drag mind down to a level with the
force that rustles the leaf. It does not bind infinite mind in
its chain of modes of blind forces. It violates every principle
of inductive pliilosophy, and every principle of common
sense, when it attempts such a monstrous absurdity. Then we
repudiate, as a very travesty of all reasoning, the debasing
rhapsody that talks of the wonderful chemistry that changes
a cabbage into a divine tragedy of Hamlet.

Among other primitive beliefs are space, infinite space ;
duration, infinite duration, or eternity ; existence or being, in-
finite existence or being. The materialist will accept all these.
He will accept the infinite in space and time, and the abso-
lute and unconditioned in being, in matter and force ; for he
says they are self-existent, eternal, independent and self-sus-
taining. We affirm on the same ground, as necessary primi-
tive beliefs, mind, infinite mind, good and evil, right and
wrong, moral desert, retribution, divine government, respon-
sibility, accountability, and retribution here and hereafter,
and a future existence. Mathematical axioms and postulates
are necessary beliefs, and so are the fundamental ideas of all
departments of science. All science and knowledge is built
on them — builded up by means of their regulative guidance and
control, and tested by them. The most important primary be-
lief in all reasoning, in every department of thought, and one
that lies at the basis of all reasoning, and that regulates and

248 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

controls all reasoning, is the intuition of causation — that certain
things are causes, and others are effects. All men, from the
lowest intellect up to the wisest sage, from the lowest savage to
the most cultivated intellect on eartli, recognize that certain
tilings are causes, and that others are effects. The intuition
of cause and effect is more than a recognition of invariable as-
sociation and succession, or a generalization of our experiences
of such association and succession. We recognize no relation
of cause and effect in the invariable association and succession
of day and night. We do not think of saying that one causes
the other. AVe recognize causation in the conjunction of moon
and tide. Certain things may be associated for ever, and an
infinite number of times, and we would never think of there
being between them the relations of cause and effect. Mill
asks why it is that such is the case. Why, in some instances,
do we have intuitions from one observation, and, in others, an
infinite number will not give any such idea or assurance to
the mind ? Or if the mind chance to be deluded into such
belief, it may the next moment find it is mistaken. The an-
swer, we think, has been given by Dr. Bledsoe. In the latter
case the mind observes but the accidents or properties of indi-
vidual existences, and it either knows that no generalized
conclusion can be based on things so changeable and fleeting,
or, if it does make such a generalization, it learns its mistake.
In the other case we observe a necessary relation between the
parts and the whole, or the parts of the system, or between
the system and other systems. We know we have a general
truth, a universal idea, a regulative principle, inherent in the
nature of things, and that it can not change. In the intui-
tion of causation, we cognize a necessary relation between the
powers of what we call the cause and that which we call an
effect, that brings the latter out of non-being into being. We
cognize a potency in the properties of the cause, that is a pow-
er bringing the effect out of non-being into being. In the case
of mere invariable association, we see no such relation between
the properties or powers of one and the other, or operating
in the properties of one that would bring the other out of non-
being into being. In every case when we recognize cause

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 249

and effect, we see such relation, such connection. We do not
place a middle between cause and effect, and we need none.
We intuit an immediate relation or connection, a potency in
the cause that brings the effect from non-being into being.
This intuition is not a generalization of experience, for we
have the idea often, from a single observation, and the infant
has it as one of his first intuitions, long before it can generalize.

We have the idea of cause from our consciousness of an
energizing will, which is power in action, controlling second
causes, our faculties and organs, producing effects, the entire
variety of our conduct and acts internal and external. Then
the intuition of causation arises in our consciousness as a
primitive belief, that can no more be eradicated than the
consciousness that reveals it. The infant, as almost the first
act of reason, recognizes causation in himself, and that he
produces certain effects. He sees other effects and he attri-
butes them to causes ; and so clearly does his idea of causa-
tion come from his consciousness of his own will, that he at-
tributes volition and personality to all causes, and makes
intelligences of every thing, and is angered or pleased with
evfery thing as a person.

Experience enlarges, corrects and confirms this intuition,
but does not give it by means of generalization. All reason-
ing, all science, and all progress are based on this intuition.
Men who deny it, rely on and use it in their reasoning to dis-
prove it, for they use and rely on their reasoning as a cause
to produce an effect, a change in the convictions of their
hearers. If they say they merely bring forth the antecedent
of such a consequent, then they afl&rm that they are the cause
that brings forth the antecedent, and they would not do so,
unless they intuited a potency in the antecedent to bring into
being the effect. Mill attempts to evade the issue by saying
that the idea of causation is of such a character, that by gen-
eralized experience, when we see one of them, the antecedent,
we alw\ays expect the other, the consequent, to appear; or
when we see the consequent, we always believe that the ante-
cedent has preceded it. In the first place, we would never
have such an expectation, unless we cognize a relation between

250 THE PROBLF.M OF PROBLEMS.

the properties of the antecedent and the consequent, that
gives to the antecedent a potency to bring the consequent
from non-being into being. Again, it is not a generalization,
for we have it before we can generaHze ; and we have it, from
one observation, often. And we may see things associated
together forever, and not have any idea of such connection
between them, and if one failed to appear in connection with
the other, we would never think of a failure of the law of
cause and effect. Any reasoning that does not recognize this
relation between the properties of the cause as a potency,
and the effect as a product, by means of which the former
brings the latter out of non-being into being, is totally falla-
cious, and all reasoning not based on such idea is false. The
animal sees only time-succession, and he never reasons or
progresses. Man recognizes causation, he reasons and pro-
gresses, by using causes to produce desired effects.

The reasoning of Hume was defective, and did not, as his
admirers claim, prove that our ideas of cause and effect are
merely a generalized conclusion based on invariable succession
and association in our minds, so that when we see the one we
always expect the other, and this generalized conclusion was
the result of accumulated experiences. We repeat, we might
see certain things associated forever, and an infinite number
of times, and never think of connecting them as cause and
effect. Again, in other cases a single observation is sufficient
to produce the conviction, and nothing can eradicate it. We
see a relation between the properties of what we call the cause
as powers, possessing a potency, and the effect that brings the
effect out of non-beino- into beino;. Hume did the cause of
theism a signal service. He showed, in his illustration of the
two billiard balls, that one was not the efficient cause of the
motion of the other, for they might lie on the table.together
forever and there would be no motion. Nor was the cue the
efficient cause. Nor was the arm that held the cue more than
an instrumental cause. Hume stopped too soon. Had he
passed back to the mind, to the energizing will that controlled
the arm and directed the cue, he would have found a sponta-
neous, self-acting energizing power, power in action, causing

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 251

the entire series of phenomena. Hume did a great service to
theism. He showed that there is no real causation, no spon-
taneous, self-acting power or energy in matter. Matter is
never an efficient cause, but only an instrumental or second
cause. Matter is never a spontaneous, self-acting original
cause. Nor is physical force ever a spontaneous, self-acting
original cause. It is never more than an instrumental or
second cause. Let us remove some erroneous conceptions that
cluster around this subject. Matter is essentially and neces-
sarily passive and inert. The first law of motion demon-
strates and declares this. Hence, it can not be an agent or ac-
tor, or an efficient cause, or a cause in the sense of a sponta-
neous, self acting cause, and the original cause. It can never
be more than the instrumental cause, and the original, the
efficient, the spontaneous, self-acting cause must be back of
matter and distinct from it, using it as its instrument. Phys-
ical force is not an original efficient cause, for it is not spon-
taneous and self-acting or self-directing. Motion is not a
force, although it is almost invariably spoken of as one. Mo-
tion is merely a change of situation by matter in which it is
passive and acted on by force. Force is an exercise of power
by an actor, or agent, or efficient cause. Force and matter
may be used by an actor or agent as second or instrumental
causes, but the efficient cause, the agent or actor, or original
cause, is mind or will power in action, acting to produce a
purposed result. AVhen we speak of matter and physical
force as causes, it is only as instrumental or second causes.
We affirm that mind is the only agent or actor or efficient
cause in the universe. It is the only self-acting, spontaneous
original cause in the universe. All else is secondary or in-
strumental causation, either immediately or mediately by
means of implanted power implanted by mind. Mind alone
acts. Matter is acted upon. Mind acts and exercises power.
Such exercise of power is called force, and force causes the
motion of matter, and the effects we see in matter, or the uni-
verse.

Then what we call force in matter and physical force or
forces, is power implanted in matter by mind. The co-or-

252 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

dination, adjustment and adaptation of force, shows that it
was implanted by mind, and is regulated and controlled by
mind in its effects. Then motion and action are not the same.
Motion is a passive change of situation by matter, caused by
force, which is an exercise of j^ower by an agent. Action is a
spontaneous exercise of power by an agent or mind. Power
is mherent in mind alone. We say results in nature are pro-
duced by physical causes or forces, in an accommodated sense
only. These forces are exercises of power. Power is inherent
in mind alone. An agent or mind implanted these powers,
that we call forces or causes, and co-ordinated and controls
them. Force, then, is an exercise of power by an agent, and
never, in the true sense of the term, an agent. It only acts
as an instrumental or second cause, and is a cause only in the
same sense. Causes, in the true sense of the term, original
causes, do not, themselves, have causes, and are not effects.
Causes may have occasions that impel them to act, or condi-
tions under which they can or will act, but the agent or
efficient cause, the real cause, is the actor, the spontaneous,
self-acting agent. INIotion is not a cause, but an effect. Real
cause is never an effect. Motion is not action, nor an exercise
of power or force by a cause. Motion of body and acts of
mind are not the same, although materialists confound them.
Bodies move when influenced by force, which is an act of an
agent, or an exercise of power by an agent. Mind acts, and
does not move. Its acts produce motion in bodies. Then all
effects in the universe are either immediately the results of
the exercise of power by an agent or acts of mind ; or mediately
throuo-h matter and force as second or instrumental causes —
mediately through property or force implanted in matter, or
property implanted in force by mind. Then our idea of
causation is derived from our consciousness of our minds or
wills as energizing power, or power in action, producing
effects. All causation, either mediately or immediately, in-
heres in an agent or actor, or spontaneous, -self-acting agent or
mind. We ascribe spontaneity, self-activity and self-regulation
and control to mind and mind alone. Hence, all sponta-
neity, self-activity and efficient causation has its ground in

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 253

mind. We are not necessitated to run through an endless
chain of causes and effects, for reason declares that there must
be that which was not an effect, that which had no cause,
but is the ground and source of all causation. The atheist
admits this when he assumes the eternity of matter and
force, and assumes that they are uncaused and the source of
all being. Our reasoning has stripped matter and force of all
ciiusation, of all spontaneity, self-activity and self-regulation,
such as must inhere in efficient and original causation. It
has made them effects and the instruments of mind. It has
placed all efficient causation in mind. The uncaused, the
cause of causes, must be absolute mind.

We have, also, these intuitions, co-ordination, arrangement,
adjustment, adaptation, in a system or method, exhibiting
2)lan, design and purpose, with prevision of, and 'provision
for, subsequent phenomena, controlled by law, exhibiting and
realizing the highest conceptions of reason, can not be
evolved by matter and force, can not come from matter and
force, are not in matter and force. They are not the prop-
erties or products of blind, insensate matter and force, can
not be evolved out of them. We intuitively recognize them
as attributes or acts of mind, and mind alone; and throw
them back on mind as their only conceivable ground. We
have intuitions of moral qualities in persons and the acts of
persons, and only in persons and the acts of persons. We
have intuitions of good and evil, righteousness and sin.
There ideas impose obligation. They look to a higher power
than man, to which the obligation is due. The idea is intu-
itive that our actions are rewardable. We have the intuition
that we enjoy blessings as rewards, and suffer evil as pun-
ishment. We feel that these rewards and punishments come
from a higher power. We have intuitions that the world is
controlled according to these principles. These ideas refer to
a mind to which w^e are responsible as lawgiver, ruler, judge
and executive.

Before leaving this preliminary work, we remark, in con-
clusion of it, that we no more affirm that a man is born with
intuitive ideas than we affirm that he is born walking, talk-

254 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ing, or eating, or thinking. We affirm that he is born with
powers that, when developed, will enable him to do the phys-
;' ical part of walking, talking, or eating, but the muscles need
development and training. The power is there and the fac-
ulties and principles that control the power are there, but
they must be aroused, developed and applied. So the mind
has certain constitutional powers and faculties, and inherent
regulative principles, that control these powers and faculties,
and lead them to certain results. The senses furnish the oc-
casions that excite -the faculties of the mind to action. In
accordance with these regulative principles and its own inher-
I ent constitutional nature, the mind has certain original con-
victions. Is compelled to have them by the laws of its own
thinking, and to act in accordance with them. These concep-
tions are intuitions, self-evident, necessary, catholic or uni-
versal, and express the relations and the nature of things.
These original convictions are self, and not self — mind and
matter — mind and its rational, moral attributes, matter and
its physical properties. Mind alone is spontaneous, self-active,
efficient cause. Matter and physical force are not spontane-
ous, self-active, efficient causes. They are merely instru-
mental or secondary causes. For matter is inert and passive,
and force has no spontaneity or self-direction. We have ideas
of space, time, causation and infinity ; and of infinite space,
time and causation, and of dependence and contingency. We
have rational ideas of order, law, co-ordination, adjustment,
design, plan, system, method, prevision and provision. We
have intuitions of right and wrong, and of moral qualities in
persons and acts of persons. We have intuitions of responsi-
bility, obligation and retribution. We do not obtain these
ideas from physical nature, but with them furnished in con-
sciousness, by our reason, we recognize the application of them
in the physical world. We are conscious that our mind is
one conscious thinking, willing, moral, responsible unit or
self. That our mind has attributes or powers and faculties,
and is not an organism with organs or parts. There is har-
mony of attributes and powers, and not order and arrange-
ment of parts or organs.

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 255

Then our knowledge is based on sensation, consciousness,
intuition and revelation. Using all these sources of knowl-
edge, and basing our argument on the above intuitive ideas,
we shall now proceed to our argument, and endeavor to es-
tablish our thesis — "The beginning of all being, the ground
of all causation and condition and being, is an absolute, intel-
ligent cause, or self-existent, eternal mind or spirit." The
causes that impel man to a course of reasoning that would lead
to the idea of God, are: 1st. A sense of dependence. 2d.
The idea of causation and the recognition of causation in na-
ture. 3d. An apprehension of the infinite. These impel men
to begin and prosecute inquiries concerning the cause of all
things. We postulate the following axioms or self-evident
truths :

I. Order, arrangement, co-ordination, adjustment and adap-
tation imply design, purpose, system, method, law and plan.
No rational mind can deny this.

II. Design, purpose, method, law and plan imply a design-
ing, planning mind, that has designed and planned the order,
method and system for some purpose or end. No rational
mind can deny this.

III. A regular and invariable recurrence of the same phe-
nomena, in the same sequence and connection in time, space
and relations, implies order, law, system, method and plan.
No rational mind can deny this.

IV. The idea of causation is a fundamental intuition of all
reason. Reason intuitively pronounces certain things causes
and others effects. Any phenomenon brought out of non-being
into being by something else is an effect. A cause is that
which brings something else out of non- being into being.
Man intuitively sees a relation between the properties and
powers of certain things, and other things, that give to the
first a potency to bring the second out of non-being into being.
He sees more than invariable succession and connection. He
sees a potency in one that brings the other into being. It is
not a generalization of accumulated experiences, for man has
the intuition before he can generalize, and generally after one
observation.

25G THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

V. A regular and invariable connection between a thing or
a system of things in precedence, and a phenomenon or system
of phenomena in sequence, demonstrates cause and effect,
when we see a connection between tlie properties and prin-
ciples of the first to bring tlie second into, being — a potency
in the first to produce the second as a result.

VI. Like causes produce like effects, and like effects must
flow from like causes. Hence, every effect must have had an
adequate cause. An effect implying intelligence must have
had an adequate cause, an intelligent cause.

VII. In all our investigations and reasonings, we pass from
the understood and known to the borders of the inexplicable
and unknown. We can and do apprehend the existence of
things, and know that they exist, when we do not compre-
hend how and why they exist, nor understand how they can
be as they are, nor why they are as they are. We are con-
scious that there is a connection between body and mind;
and yet we do not understand how they are connected as they
are, nor why they are thus connected.

VIII. In all our reasonings, we pass from a knowledge of
the finite to an apprehension of the infinite. From finite
portions of space, through a relative infinity of space, we rise
to an apprehension of absolute infinite space. From a relative
infinity of duration, we rise to an apprehension of absolute
infinite duration or eternity. From a relative infinity of mi-
crocosms, we rise to an apprehetision of the macrocosm or
universe. From a relative infinity of causes, related as a har-
monious system, we rise to an apj)rehension of the Absolute
Cause, and the Uncaused. From a relative infinity of the con-
tingent, connected in a system, we rise to an apprehension of
the Necessary, as their only conceivable ground. From a
relative infinity of the conditioning and the conditioned, re-
lated as a system, Ave rise to an apprehension of the uncon-
ditioned, the condition of all being. From a relative infinity
of finite beings, related in an order pervading the universe,
we rise to an apprehension of the Absolute Being, the ground
and summation of all being. From a relative infinity of
finite displays of force, co-ordinated as a harmonious system,

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 257

we rise to an apprehension of Infinite Force or Omnipotence.
From a relative infinity of finite displays of intelligence,
united into a system realizing the highest conceptions of rea-
son, Ave rise to an apprehension of Absolute Intelligence, or
God. We simply affirm that we have these apprehensions
of the infinite in each field of investigation and thought. The
undeniable fact that every dialect on earth has terms ex«
pressing these apprehensions, and that man has always had
terms expressing them, demonstrates that he has the appre-
hensions. We do not now assume that these apprehensions
are all valid, and that the objective reality corresponds with
the subjective notion, though if our nature be reliable, and a
valid basis for reasoning, and a valid instrument of reasoning,
and if reasoning be at all possible, these apprehensions are
valid and true. 80, also, since the atheist as well as the theist,
and as implicitly as the theist, accepts the verity of our ap-
prehensions of infinite space, infinite time, and infinite being
in matter and force, and that they are necessary and uncon-
ditioned, we might put him to the proof to show why we
shall not accept the equally universal apprehension of infinite
intellio^ence. The reader will observe and be careful to re-
member that we say apprehend, and not comprehend. We
must not confound perception with perfect knowledge, or ap-
prehension with comprehension. We do apprehend the ex-
istence and characteristics of things that we do not compre-
hend. When we assert that we can not apprehend the
infinite, we do apprehend the infinite and some of its charac-
teristics in our affirmation itself.

We see all about us properties, attributes and qualities, the
predicates of subject. We can compare them and classify
them, and generalize and learn the nature of subject. We
see pretension, movement and succession — events transpiring
in time, and having a beginning, succession, order and ar-
rangement, expressive of power, regulated power, which throws
these characteristics back on the power that produced them.
We see things having a relation to each other — co-ordinated
and having a relative unity, which suggests absolute unity.
We see things conditioned in time, space and causation, which
22 '

258 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS,

suggest the ill-conditioned, the ground and summation of all
condition. Man is conscious that he is one conscious, think-
ing, willing, planning, moral, responsible self. He is con-
scious that there is in him an energizing will, which is power
in action controlled by intelligence. That there is in himself
intelligent causation, producing order, co-ordination, adjust-
ment and adaptation, into a system or method, exhibiting de-
sign, purpose and plan, with prevision of future results, and
provision for their production, and for them in accordance
with law of reason, and realizing the conceptions of his rea-
son. He is conscious that there is this intelligent causation
in himself, in addition to and above matter and force, and
controlling and using matter and force for his own purposes
and ends. The following facts are found in nature, are
found pervading the entire universe, which have their neces-
sary ground in mind, and have a necessary relation to reason
and thought as their source: Numerical and geometrical re-
lation and proportion ; the definite relation and proportion
of the elementary substances in chemical action; symmet-
rical and geometrical relation and arrangement of parts in
crystallization and exact geometrical form in crystallization;
the numerical and geometrical relation of the forces, orbits,
forms, motions, masses, distances and densities of the heavenly
bodies and their orbits, all of which have an exact mathe-
matical proportion and expression, realizing some of the most
exalted and profound truths of this most abstract of all de-
partments of pure thought. These realizations of the most
exalted conceptions of reason have a necessary ground in
mind, and a necessary relation to absolute reason and thought,
as their only conceivable ground. The arrangement, co-ordi-
nation, adjustment and adaptation of all forces in the universe
as to when, how long, how often, in what order and succession,
and where and with what power they shall act, imply orderj
system, method, design, plan and law. The uniform succes-
sion of new existences, and the progressive evolution of new
forms out of previous types, implies design, plan, law and
system. The evolution of new species conformable to fixed
and definite ideal archetypes, great ideal archetypes as con-

THE THEISTIC SOI>UTION. 259

trolling ideas, indicates a comprehensive plan, law, order,
method, adjustment and design. All these have their neces-
sary ground in absolute reason and thought. The adaptation
of organs to fulfill special functions necessitates adjustment,
de.-<ign and plan. Diversified homologous organs made to
fulfill analogous functions, widely different organs fulfilling
the same functions, and the same organs fulfilling widely dif-
ferent functions, yet maintaining a general plan, necessitates
foreknowledge, alternativity, choice, plan, purpose, with pre-
vision of, and provision for, certain ends. These have a nec-
essary ground in reason. These highest ideas of reason are
realized in the smallest atom and each and every atom — each
organ, each function, each organization, each species, each
order, each planet, each system, and, in the universe, the In-
finite Cosmos. They have their necessary and only conceiv-
able ground in reason and thought.

We have also these ideas in the universe which have a
necessary relation to moral ends and ideas, and can be ground-
ed only in personality or mind. The universal tendency to
discriminate between acts as voluntary and involuntary, and
to further discriminate between the latter as right and wrong,
indicates a relation to an immutable standard of Right. The
universal sense or consciousness of obligation and dependence
indicates some relation to -supreme power or absolute author-
ity. The universal consciousness of responsibility and ac-
countability for actions, and that we endure the consequences
of our conduct as a reward or punishment, indicates a rela-
tion to a supreme judge. The happiness that we intuitively
recognize as a result of good conduct, and the evil resulting
from evil conduct in this life, and the universal expectation
and conviction that it will be so in a future state, indicates a
relation to a Supreme Executive. The integrity and verity of
our nature must be denied, and all reasoning rendered impos-
sible, if we deny or repudiate these catholic ideas of universal
reason. They are the highest and greatest realities of the uni-
verse, and basis ideas, acting as motive powers, urging us on in
our theistic researches and reasonings, and leading us to reason
and thought as the ground of all being. Our general proposition

260 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

then is, that man intuitively reasons that every effect must
have had an adequate cause. As a catholic affirmation of
universal reason, based on universal intuitions of reason, aris-
ing from the phenomena and the characteristics of phenomena
revealed in sensation, man concludes that the universe is an
effect, and an effect that must have had an intelligent cause.
Or it is an affirmation of universal reason that the Absolute
Cause, the Ground of all Being, must be Absolute Mind.

To. this course of argument the following objections are
urged :

I. It is denied that man would prosecute a course of rea-
soning on cause and effect in Nature.

II. It is urged that it is unscientific and futile for him to
do so.

III. It is denied that he would conclude that the Universe
is an effect, or that he could prove it to be such.

IV. It is denied that he would reach Intelligent Cause. It
is urged that man can reach only matter and phenomena, or
matter and force in nature, hence he would conclude that the
cause of all was a physical cause, and he never would rise to
an apprehension of an Intelligent Cause, or any cause but a
physical cause.

V. It is denied that he ever would rise to an apprehension
of an Absolute Cause. He would run through an endless se-
ries of causes and effects, and never could or would rise to an
apprehension of a First Cause.

VI. It is urged that he might rise to an apprehension of
an Artificer, Ruler and Judge, but not to an idea of a Cre-
ator.

VII. It is urged that man would have an idea of the eter-
nity of matter and force, as Avell as mind, and only have an
idea of a finite Artificer, Ruler and Judge. Such was Mr.
Mill's position.

VIII. It is urged that the argument has more in the con-
clusion than there is in the premises. The premises are fin-
ite, but the conclusion is infinite, hence the argument is not
legitimate.

IX. It is objected that when we expand our conception to

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 261

infinity, it breaks down and becomes worthless, for it passes
beyond our grasp.

X. It is urged that since the First Cause is infinite, and our
greatest effect finite, we can not bridge the chasm between the
greatest effect and our Cause. We can neither lift our great-
est eflTect to our Cause, nor bring down our Cause to our great-
est eflfect.

XI. It is urged that we can not have any knowledge, even
an apprehension of the infinite ; hence when we make the first
Cause infinite we relegate it to the domain of the unknowable
and unthinkable.

XII. Finally it is objected that we anthropomorphize God,
make him in our own image, and finite him, and make him
imperfect. If we attempt to avoid this, and expand our con-
ception, and strip it of errors, it becomes valueless, for it pas-
ses beyond our grasp. It passes into the dominion of the un-
thinkable and unknowable. In either case we destroy the
conception of God, either by finiting Him or by making him
unknowable.

To the first objection we reply that man has an intuition
of causation, which he uses in all his actions. As a matter
of fact he has always prosecuted such researches and reason-
ings. To the second we reply that a more caricatured travesty
on science was never conceived than the positivist concep-
tion of science. — Learn how and when phenomena transpire in
time-succession, and be content therewith ! It ignores the fun-
damental intuition and idea of all science, the intuition of caus-
ation. All science is based on and built up by means of this
idea of causation. The positivist's conception strips phenom-
ena of all connection of rational ideas, and they fall to pieces
in our hands. It serves nature as Medea did her brother Asbyr-
tis; and all attempts to unite the disjecta membra, the isolated
phenomena, are as futile as the attempts of the father to put
together the fragments of his slaughtered child. So far from
inquiry into causes being futile and unscientific, it is the ani-
mating principle of all true science ; and all the glorious results
of science are the results of such inquiry. To the third ob-
jection we reply that man has ever regarded the universe as

262 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

an effect — at least its present constitution. The evolutionist
and atheist regard the present constitution of things as the
effect of development or evolution. It can be demonstrated
to be an effect. A regular and invariable connection between
things or a system of things, and phenomena or a system of
phenomena, implies cause and effect, when there exists a nec-
essary and obvious relation and connection between the prin-
ciples and properties of the things, as powers, and the phe-
nomena— giving to the former a potency to bring the latter
into being. The universe is a regular and invariable connec-
tion and relation between things and systems of things, and
phenomena and systems of phenomena, in which there is a
necessary and obvious connection between the forces and prop-
erties of things and the phenomena, giving a potency to these
forces and powers to bring the phenomena into being as ef-
fects. Therefore the universe is a system of causes and ef-
fects. The macrocosm is a imity of matter and its forces, or
a unity of systems of matter and forces, producing co-ordina-
ted and correlated phenomena, or co-ordinated systems of
phenomena, or a unity of phenomena. A unity or system of
matter and force, producing a unity or system of phenomena,
or one effect, gives us one cause producing one effect. Hence
in the Cosmos we have but one cause, producing but one ef-
fect. There are but two ways of evading this. One is to
deny all causation. This is so palpable an abdication of rea-
son, that we need not notice it further. The other is to de-
ny the unity of the forces and the phenomena. The general-
izations of the physicist himself shall be our answer to this.
He, in his generalizations, makes the forces a co-ordinated
system or unity, and of the phenomena a co-ordinated system
or unity.

Here the materialist stops. He assumes the eternity of
matter and force, and that they are the ground of all being
and phenomena. He contends that when we have reached
matter and force, we have reached the ground and origin of
all being. There are two queries to be answered before we
accept his position. Is the materialist justified in excluding
Intelligence or Mind from the ground and origin of all being?

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 263

Are Ave not justified, nay, compelled to rise from matter and
force to Mind or Intelligence, anterior to matter and force, and
make it the ground of all being ?

The materialist overlooks the highest and most important
cause in the domain of nature, in fact the only efficient cause
in nature, man's mind or energizing will and volition in action.
We are conscious that we have in ourselves reason, intelli-
gence, thought, design, contrivance, adaptation, adjustment,
order, system, law, and plan, or that our mind is an intelligent
cause, producing these results in our action, and that they
can be produced by us only on account of our intelligence,
free will, and volition. These ideas of law, order, and plan
are borrowed by the materialist from the domain of mind.
They arise from man's consciousness of moral order and obliga-
tion and law. We have the idea of law, to start with, in our
physical and scientific researches and classifications, from our
consciousness of duty and law. It arises not from an external
observation of what is, but from an internal conviction of
what should be. The materialist admits that we aie com-
pelled, by the constitutional tendency of our mind, to classify
phenomena according to ideal conceptions, or rational ideas.
Hence we have this idea from reason, and not from obser-
vation.

We have the idea of causation from our consciousness of
an energizing wull, which is power in action, controlling our
powers and organs, as second causes, to produce effects, our
acts. We have the idea of order, only as we have the idea
that our mind is a unit, producing a totality of personal
phenomena, our conduct ; and that all the varied personal
phenomena constitute a whole. We have from consciousness,
and an intuitive exercise of our reason, this idea of our
mind as an intelligent cause, producing co-ordination, adjust-
ment and adaptation, into an order, method and system, and
exhibiting design, purpose and plan. We regard our powers
as second causes, controlled by an intelligent, spontaneous,
self-acting cause, the efficient cause, our mind. We intuitively
recognize co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation, design,
plan, system and law, with prevision of, and provision for,

264 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

coming existences and events, to be the result of intelligent
cause, and that alone. A man who denies this, is unworthy
of one moment's reasoning. In the regular recurrence of the
same phenomena, under the same circumstances, which the
materialist admits, and which he calls law, we see order. In
the harmonious working of the forces of nature, which he
calls acting under law, Ave see co-ordination and arrangement.
In the operation of these forces, to produce the same phe-
nomena, we see a systematic and methodical adaptation of the
forces to produce the phenomena. In the uniform action of
each animal and plant, in accordance with the laws of its
being, we see that the animal was designed for this life as an
end. In the harmonious operation of all of the forces and
existences of nature, we see adjustment of the forces and
existences to each other and the whole of nature. In the
regular development of nature forward on a scale of progres-
sion, which the materialist calls evolution, we see plan, pro-
vision, and forethought. In tlie preparation for coming phe-
nomena, and in the arrangement of forces to produce them,
and in the correlation of other existences to meet them, seen
all through nature, we see provision for them, forethought
and providence. All these facts or ideas that pervade all
nature, have their necessary and only conceivable ground in
mind. A man who denies either the fact or the deduction
i'rom it, is not worthy of one moment's notice.

As man is conscious that co-ordination, adjustment, and
adaptation into order, system, and method, exhibiting plan,
design, and purpose, according to law, and displaying previ-
sion and provision, in his own operations, have their ground
in his own personal thinking, willing self, as an intelligent
cause; so he reasons, and is compelled to conclude that adap-
tation, design, plan, law, and providence in nature have their
necessary and only conceivable ground in a personal, thinking,
moral being or intelligent cause.

Then man is compelled, by what he sees in nature, to rise
above the forces of nature and matter and its properties, to
an intelligence anterior to them and above them. There are
but two ways to evade this. One is to deny that there is co-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 265

orcUiiatioii, acljustment, adaptation, design, method, system,
plan, law, forethought, and providence in nature. The man
who does this is not worthy of one moment's notice, for the
writings of the most eminent evolutionists abound in descrip-
tions of nature, m which these characteristics are recognized
as the essential characteristics of nature, even while attempt-
ing to disprove them, and in the expressions denying them.
The other is, to deny that they necessarily imply the pre-'
existence of intelligence. This also is the abnegation of all
reason and sense. As this is the crucial question of the whole
discussion, we will elaborate it further. There are sixty sim-
ple original elementary substances in nature. These combine
by cohesion to form homogeneous substances. They combine
by affinity to form compound substances. Some of these
will combine only with certain others, and not with others.
They combine only in definite mathematical proportions.
Parts of compound bodies combine with certain simples, and
with certain parts of other compound bodies, and always in
exact mathematical proportions. Different proportions give
entirely different substances. Thus, out of only sixty elemen-
tary substances, are formed the almost infinite variety of com-
pound substances in existence, and always in accordance with
the most exact mathematical law and proportion. This gives
co-ordination, adjustment, law, and plan, and system, before
the first constitution of matter. It places mind anterior to
the primordial constitution of matter, to originate and realize
these great rational ideas in the primordial constitution of
matter. It does away with all idea of the self-existence of
matter, for it makes of matter a subordinate agent, a manu-
factured article, the product of mind in its primordial consti-
tution, and places mind anterior to matter, to give to it its
first constitution. Then before the very first constitution of
matter, there was in idea co-ordination, adjustment, adapta-
tion, order, system, plan, law, and forethought, and prevision
of, and provision for, what was realized in the first constitution
of matter, and what afterward appeared in its combinations.
There was mind, in which the.-e ideas existed, an originator,
and as this was before the first constitution of matter, or

266 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

before matter existed, a creator of matter, and of all except
himself, an Absolute Cause.

Again, the essential properties of matter existed in it in its
first constitution, or at its first existence. We can not con-
ceive of its existence without these essential properties or
forces, as they are sometimes called, attraction, repulsion,
adhesion, cohesion, afiinity, rejection, electricity, heat and
crystallization. These are co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted,
as to where, and Avhen, and how long, and how often, and in
what order, and with what power they will act. They are
co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted in an order, system and
method according to law and plan. They are co-ordinated
and adjusted in like manner to act, react and interact. This
necessitates forethought, prevision of, and provision for, all
this, and plan, system and law, before the first action or ex-
istence of these essential properties of matter. As we can not
conceive of matter existing without these properties, they ex-
tend into its primordial constitution. Again, we prove matter
to be a manufiictured article, a subordinate agent; and, again,
do we prove that mind was anterior to the first constitution
of matter, originating and realizing the co-ordination, adjust-
ment, plan, system and law realized in the primordial consti-
tution of matter.

There is adjustment, adaptation, system and prescient plan
and provision in the primordial constitution and form of
things. From sixty elementary substances, in consequence
of their properties, we have all the almost infinite variety of
existences and substances differing so widely from each other.
These qualities and properties were designed, planned, ad-
justed and arranged in these elementary substances, before
they existed, before their first constitution. Before the first
constitution of things these ideas existed, for they are real-
ized in the first constitution; number of first elements or
elementary substances ; the amount of each elementary sub-
stance in the Avhole ; the properties and characteristics of
each elementary substance ; the essential properties of matter,
and the forces of matter, and their essential characteristics ;
forms of matter, such as solidity, fluidity and gaseousness.

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 267

These are necessary to existence and motion, llie suscepti-
bility of change of form, from one form to another: the forces
to produce such change of form. These forces have all been
co-ordinated, adjusted and adapted, as to where, and when,
and how long, and how often, and in what order, and with
what power they will act. All force, in all these particulars,
acts in exact mathematical proportion and law. Chemical
action does also. So does crystallization. It is in accordance
with exact geometrical proportion and law, in form and rela-
tions. The very highest conceptions and ideas and laws of
reason are realized in the first constitution of things. This
necessitates co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation into
order, system and method, exhibiting design, purpose and
plan, according to law, expressing and realizing the highest
ideas of reason in the very primordial constitution of things.
This necessitates the existence of mind anterior to such first
constitution, in which these ideas originated. These funda-
mental characteristics of the primordial constitution of things,
prove matter to be a mauufactured article, a subordinate
agent, the product of mind. They place reason anterior to
the first constitution of matter and force, the very primordial
constitution of all things, to give to them this primordial con-
stitution, and as the ground and source of all being. The
thoughtful attention of all materialists is called to this argu-
ment. AVith a grasp as relentless and resistless as the des-
tiny that he assumes controls all things, it places him face to
face with the first constitution of all things, and proves
matter and force to be manufactured articles, subordinate
ag?nts, the products of mind, disproving the self-existence
of matter and force, and places mind anterior to matter and
force, to give to them their very primordial constitution, or
to create them. It compels him to recognize, in the pri-
mordial constitution of things, the realization of the highest
conceptions of reason. It compels him to recognize the fact
that mind existed anterior to matter and force, and gave to
them their first constitution, or created them. It compels
him to rise above matter and force, to their Creator, existing

268 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLE^IS.

anterior to them, and make mind the ground and beginning
of all being.

Let us here notice a fallacy of the materialist. He covers
up the lack of causation in his speculations, the lack of con-
necting links of thought, the lack of any rational explanation
of phenomena, by convenient phrases, such as "laws of
nature," "nature of things." Doubtless, nature has laws in
accordance with which it acts, or a manner of acting, and
doubtless all things have a nature. But when the materialist
talks of laws of nature producing that nature in which they
inhere, and without which they themselves could not exist,
and of the nature of things giving a nature to things, he con-
founds antecedent and consequent, cause and effect. It is an
attempt to cover up the nakedness of a system with the fig-
leaves of a convenient phrase. There is a reason for the use
of such evasive expressions. Such are the characteristics of
the laws of nature, and the nature of things, that we can
not describe them without using terms that imply the pre-
existence of mind, and the operation of mind in them. The
only terms that the materialist can use in his descriptions of
nature, and in his speculations, from the very nature and
constitution of our thinking, imply the pre-existence of mind,
to give to them these characteristics. Does he say fixed
laws? Who fixed the laws? Does he say established laws?
Who established the laws? Does he say order of nature, or
orderly laws of nature? Who gave to nature and its laws
this order? Does he say invariable, unchangeable, unal-
terable laws? Who gave to the laws their co-ordination and
adjustment in this invariable operation? Every expression,
from the nature and constitution of our thinking, implies the
pre-existence of mind, that fixed, established, regulated, set
in order or adjusted the laws of nature or the nature of
things. Then, in the present constitution of things, and all
along the stream of being, until we reach the primordial
constitution of things, and in this primordial constitution
especially, we find characteristics that, by the laws of its
thinking, reason is compelled to throw back on pre-existent

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 269

mind as their necessary and only ground. Then mind is the
ground and beginning of all things.

The attempt of the evolutionist to escape intelligent cause
by his hypothesis of evolution, is as senseless as the course of
the ostrich, that seeks to escape its pursuer by thrusting its
head into the sand. Suppose that we admit that the germs
of all things, and all forces now in operation, existed in the
primordial constitution of things, and also that all conditions
existed there also that brought these forces into play and de-
veloped these germs and forces into what now exists; we are
compelled to step further back and ask : " Whence came these
germs, these forces, and their properties, these conditions and
laws? Whence came the adaptation, co-ordination and ad-
justment of these conditions, forces and laws?" These imply
anterior to that fii*st constitution, with which the evolutionist
starts, co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation, design, pur-
])ose, system, plan and law, for this course of evolution and
for all the order, beauty and harmony that now exists. The
materialist can not stop until he reaches that which has its
only ground in mind. He is compelled, unless he, ostrich-
like, hides his head in some ambiguous phrase, or madly de-
thrones reason, to recognize mind as the ground and beginning
of all things.

But let us examine more carefully the course of progressive
development that is claimed by modern science, and that the
materialist claims obviates the necessity of a God, and dis-
proves his existence. Science teaches that the world's history
has been divided into epochs, characterized by changes in the
order and constitution of things. In each epoch there has
obtained a certain condition of things and existences suited to
such condition. There was a uniform succession of the same
types as long as the world was suited to them. There was
a gradual change of conditions, during which existences be-
came unfitted to surroundings, and the earth became fitted
for higher existences. There was a degeneracy of lower types
and a final extinction, and a substitution of higher types, for
which the earth was fitted. These various successive types
were introduced in their highest perfection at their first ap-

270 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

pearaDce. There was a progressive evolution of new orders,
in successive steps, in conformity to fixed ideal archetypes,
showing a comprehensive plan, a pre-existent design and con-
trol and government.

As the introduction of new species was by successive steps,
and in their highest perfection at first, they were creations.
Our conclusion, then, is that a progression on an ascending
scale must have had a beginning when materials were ad-
justed and proportioned, and forces co-ordinated and adapted
to produce the progression. The created series are developed
by successive steps, and according' to a plan, with a distinct
end in view, hence the end must have been contemplated from
the beginning. The process is characterized by intelligence
and unity, and the results by moral quality, hence the cause
must have been an intelligent, moral Power, adequate to the
production of such phenomena, or God.

This argument can be built up from ajuother series of ob-
sei'vations. There is co-ordination, adjustment and adapta-
tion, into order, system, and method, exhibiting design,
purpose and plan, in accordance with law, expressing and
realizing the highest ideas of reason, in the present order of
things. In the form, quantity, selection and purpose of all
that now exists, and also in the manner of acting, as to where,
when, how often, how long, in what order, and with what
power they shall act, all these cliaracteristics appear in
every step. There was plan, prevision and provision for man
and animals millions of years before they existed, according
to geology. Igneous rock is the basis, and stratified rock that
man uses is easy of access. Metals are prepared for his use,
and placed where they were protected from destruction, and
yet where he has access to them.

Vast vegetable growths, that had no conceivable use when
growing, were buried millions of years ago in coal-beds, pro-
tected from destruction, and yet accessible to man for whom
they were prepared. Rocks, coal and metals are placed where
they will not interfere with man's wants, and yet meet his
wants. Coal and metals are near each other. Coal is in
countries where it is needed. It was not until man appeared

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 271

that the object of all this preparation could be appre-
hended. The drift period prepared and mixed the soils for
cultivation. Domesticable animals appeared with man. In
all this we see law, design, prevision of, and provision for,
coming existences. The adaptation of organs and existences
to ends, and of agencies in nature to definite purposes, imply
design, plan, forethought and intelligence. The theory of
adaptation by unconscious selection of unintelligent forces is
unconscious nonsense. Either existences were adapted to
conditions at first, or they were not. If they were adapted at
first, who adapted them? If they were not adapted, how
did they exist in this unadapted state until adapted ? To
say that unadapted conditions adapted them, or produced
adaptation, is to substitute destructive agency for construct-
ive cause. This bnnging existences together in time and
adaptation, shows intelligence, forethought, plan and adjust-
ment.

Tlie historic development claimed by the evolutionist, and
the progress wrought out in it, establishes design, plan, gov-
ernment and providence. This is especially evident when we
reflect that this development ha.s been produced in each na-
tion by influences from without. There has been no spon-
taneous civilization. Then in the primordial constitution of
things — in the provision made in such first constitution for the
development that followed — in the course of development — in
the present order of things and in the progress of human
history, there has been system, law, intelligence and will —
one cause, one intelligence, one mind. Or mind is the abso-
lute cause or ground of all being. We have thus in every
department of research traced the stream of thought back to
the fountain — to the idea of ideas — the underlying idea of all
thought, and found it to be Mind, Intelligence or God, the
Cause of Causes, Jehovah, the only Self-existent One. We
have, we believe, demonstrated that the Cause of Causes is
Absolute Mind.

We come now to the fifth objection urged against the the-
istic argument. Man could not rise to an apprehension of an
infinite or absolute cause. He would run through an endless

272 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

series of finite causes and effects, and never rise to an appre-
hension of the absolute in causation. We affirm that we do
rise to an apprehension of the infinite in every department
of thought. From a knowledge of the finite, we pass through
the relatively infinite to an apprehension of the absohitely
infinite. We take the materialist himself as our proof of
this. He assumes the absokite infinity of space and time,
and the self-existence of matter and force, the eternity, self-
existence, independence, and self-sustenance of matter and
force. He has the absolute, the infinite, the unconditioned
in space, duration and being, in matter and force. All men,
but a few atheists, affirm as positively the infinite, the abso-
lute, the unconditioned in mind. The mateiialist is evidence
that man does rise to an apprehension of the absolute, the
infinite and unconditioned, and that he can do so. The fact
that nearly all men do affirm that the Absolute, the ground
of all being, is Mind, proves that they do rise to an appre-
hension of Absolute Intelligent Cause. The fact that the
materialist denies that man can do so, is proof that he can,
for he, in his denial, does what he affirms can not be done.

But it is urged that we could only have an idea of an
Artificer, a Ruler, Judge, and Executive, but not of a Cre-
ator. We need only refer to our demonstration that matter
and force are subordinate agents, manufactured articles, to
refute this objection.

Atheists have lately made a desperate attempt to destroy
the design argument. They are conscious that unless it be
destroyed, men will ahvays accept the existence of God as a
demonstrated truth. Even theologians and eminent divines
have conceded that the design argument is untenable. We
propose to show that they have acted hastily, and to vindi-
cate this grandest of all theistic argijments, and to show that
the objections are utterly fallacious. The design argument is
as impregnable as the throne of the Eternal One, whose
existence it so clearly demonstrates.

The most famous attack on it is the application of redudio
ad absurdum. It is said, if order and arrangement imply de^
sign and contrivance, and design and contrivance imply a

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 273

designing mind, then as God has order and arrangement in
his attributes, there is design and contrivance exhibited in his
being; and if design and contrivance be exhibited in his be-
ing, then there must have been a designing mind, that con-
trived and designed this order and arrangement, and so on,
ad infinitum. Again, if adaptation in nature implies intelh-
gence that produced this adaptation, then as God is adapted
to the work of the cieation, government and sustenance of
nature, there must have been an intelligence that adapted
him, and so on, ad infinitum. This attempt to destroy the de-
sign argument is subtle, but it is a fallacy, nevertheless. The
first fallacy is in a confusion of terms — a confusion of things,
not at all similar. We are conscious that we have one indi-
visible, unit mind, one conscious, willing, planning, reason-
ing, free, moral, responsible entity, or self. So we intuitively
conclude that the intelligent cause, the absolute mind, is one
indivisible person or being. We are conscious that our mind
has attributes or faculties, but not organs or parts like a
material organization. We intuitively conclude that the in-
finite mind has attributes, and not organs or parts. We
know that there is harmony of attributes in our mind, and
not order and arrangement of parts or organs, as in a mate-
rial oro-anization. So we conclude there is infinite harmonv
in the infinite attributes of the infinite mind, but not order
and arrangement of parts or organs, as in a material organi-
zation. Then the argument is worthless, for it confounds
parts of a material organism with attributes of mind, and
order and arrangement of parts of a material organism with
harmony in the attributes of mind ; and confounds an indi-
visible mind with an organism made up of parts. Again,
there is adaptation of created organisms to certain ends, but
in mind there is potency or sufficiency to certain acts. There
is in the Divine being, infinite and self-existent potency or
sufficiency to the work of creation, but not adaptation to the
work of creation. Here again we have a confusion of terms.
Adaptation of a material organism to an end is confounded
with potency or power in mind to act. And the fallacy is es-
pecially gross when we remember that imparted adaptation

274 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

of a created organism to the end for which it was created, is
confounded with inherent and self-existent power of a self-
existent mind to perform an act. Then as material organism
is radically and essentially different from mind, the argument
can not bj applied to the infinite mind for want of analogy.
Analogy, if the argument were based on analogy, would not
permit us to carry the argument further than to the infinite
mind, or .rather it would only lead us up to the infinite
mind.

But the argument is not analogical. It is purely and
severely inductive. Analogy between the works of man in
the marks of intelligence they display, and what we see in
nature, in displaying the same characteristics, suggests the
argument. The argument is strictly inductive, and analogy
stops with suggesting the argument, which is based on intui-
tions of reason we can no more deny than we can our own
existence. The premises are, that certain characteristics in
man's works indicate design, contrivance and j)urpose. Co-
ordination, adjustment and adaptation, imply design, purpose,
and plan, system, method and law. No one worthy of one
moment's thought dare deny this. This is an intuition of
reason. The materialist dare not deny it, and can not dis-
prove it. Design, purpose, plan, method and system, imply
"an intelligence that designed and planned the co-ordination,
adjustment and adaptation, for some purpose or end. Meth-
od, system and law iniply mind also. The materialist dare
not attempt to disprove this, and dare not deny it. There is
in nature, in every part, as a fundamental, a basis character-
istic, co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation, into order,
system, method and plan. The writings of materialists them-
selves, are overwhelming proof of this. This co-ordination,
adjustment and adaptation into order, system, method and
plan, imply design, purpose and plan, in accordance with law
and system. If the materialist denies this, I will take any book
written by materialists concerning the phenomena of nature,
even those written to disprove teleology in nature, and I will
show that they can not speak of nature, or describe its pro-
cesses without expressing it> teleology, ascribing to it teleology,

thp: theistic solution. 275

and confessing that it is constructed on the idea of teleology.
An admirable illustration of this is seen in Darwin's writings,
written to disprove teleology. Design, purpose, plan, system,
method and law in nature, imply mind, as the only conceiva-
ble source of this design, plan, system and law. There can
be no escape from this.

The argument, then, is not analogical, but severely and
purely inductive. The materialist must disprove the prem-
ises. This he can not do. Or show that the reasonino- is
defective — that the conclusion does not follow^ from the pre-
mises. This he can not do. The argument is as impregnable
to his assaults, as Gibraltar to a pelting with paper wads.
The attempted i^eductio ad absiirdum, only reduces the one
resorting to it to an absurd position, as one who utterly mis-
apprehends what he attacks.

Again, in reply to this attempt to destroy the design argu-
ment, by reducing it to an absurdity, by extending it infin-
itely, and to the claim that we would be compelled to run
through an endless chain of causation, or an endless series
of causes and effects ; we assert that to do so would be a
most palpable violation of a fundamental law of our thinking,
and a violation of an intuition or inherent tendency of
reason, to pass out to an apprehension of the infinite, to rise
to an apprehension of the absolute ; and we are compelled by
the same law to stop, when we reach it, as the mind stops
when it reaches the absolute, it stops, when it reaches infinite
intelligence or absolute cause. In this infinite intelligence
we have adequate cause — sufficient ground for all that exists,
and we do not inquire what caused the absolute cause. We
have that to which we fasten our chain of causation and
stop, for reason cuts short the ratiocination of the logical un-
derstanding, and rests on the absolute cause as the summa-
tion of all causation and being. The atheist admits the
absui'dity of this endless chain of causation, with which he
attempts to burden the theistic argument and break it down.
One of the favorite devices of the atheist is to restate the
theistic argument, and caricature it, and make an absurdity
of it. We will relieve him of aU such labor of love, and state

276 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

our positions for ourselves. Another is to insist on attaching
to the theistic argument some absurdity that bears some
jingling analogy to it. We shall reject all such extra bur-
dens, and reject all such old men of the sea.

The atheist, in pursuing the same line of argument in
other departments of thouglit, repudiates, with scorn, such
absurdity ; and we will not allow him to load us down with
what he rejects. All atheists assume the eternal, the self-
existent, the independent, the uncaused, and the uncondi-
tioned in matter and force, or in a system of matter and
force. He insists on rising out of a chain of derived or
dependent being to the absolute and unconditioned. He
says, "Out of nothing, nothing comes," hence something
must have existed forever, or there must be a self-existent,
unconditioned, uncaused ground for all being. In so doing
he admits the absurdity of what he attempts to fasten on to
the theistic argument, and refutes himself, and establishes
the law of our tliinking, tlie tendency of reason, to which we
refer.

All materialists pass out into the absolute in space, dura-
tion, matter, force, and being. All othei's do the same, and
stop with the absolute in these, as does the materialist. In
obedience to the same law of mind, all but the materialist
pass out to the absolute in mind, and as he stops with the
absolute in space, duration, force, matter and being, so they
stop with the absolute in mind. As we do not ask what
bounds absolute space, or when eternity began, knowing that
being absolute they have neither boundary nor beginning,
so we do not ask what caused the absolute cause, knowing
that being absolute he has neither cause nor condition.
In all our reasonings we invariably pass from the known to
the unknown, and from a comprehension of the finite to an
apprehension of the infinite. Men have ever done so, in
space, duration, power, being, and mind. All men accept
the absolute in space, duration, power, and being. Only a
few reject the absolute in mind, and they do so in violation
of our nature and all consistency. If our nature be valid as
a basis of reasoning, or iis an instrument of reasoning, then

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 277

apprehensions are verities. If we go beyond experience, to
an apprehension of the absolute and unconditioned in mind,
so does the materialist in space, time, and being, and power
of independence and self-sustenance in matter and force. He
has either to assume the eternity of matter and force and their
properties, or the eternity of systems as we now see them, for
he says, " ' Out of nothing, nothing comes,' hence something
must have ever existed." If so, it had infinite being, in in-
finite duration and infinite space, with infinite power of self-
existence, independence, and self-sustenance, or is uncon-
ditioned and absolute. The materialist has to rise to the
absolute and unconditioned himself.

In infinite space we have the macrocosm or universe. From
a relative infinity of microcosms, we rise to an apprehension
of the macrocosm or universe, pervaded by order throughout,
uniting all into a cosmos, or infinite order or system. From
finite design in each microcosm, and from a relative infinity
of these microcosms, arranged into an infinite macrocosm or
cosmos or universe, displaying correlated and co-ordinated
design throughout, we rise to an apprehension of infinite
design in an infinite universe. We have thus infinite co-
ordination, adjustment, and adaptation into infinite order, sys-
tem, and method, exhibiting infinite plan, design, and purpose,
according to law, expressing infinite ideas of infinite reason
and thought. These have a necessary ground in infinite rea-
son. The primordial constitution of things, as we have abun-
dantly established, compells us to place infinite mind back of
and above the very first constitution of things, as the beginning
and ground of all being except his own, and thus we have
absolute mind as the ground and beginning of all being.
Here reason rests satisfied, having found the absolute and
unconditioned. It sees no reason to even think of the absolute
cause as an eflTect. It stops in the chain of causation, having
fastened it to absolute cause, the ground and summation of
all causation and condition. As reason declares that eternity
had no beginning, and infinite space no boundary, so it affirms
that the absolute cause, absolute mind, can have no antecedent
c.'use, but must be the basis, ground, and summation of al]

278 THE PROBLKM OF PROBLEMS.

causation and condition, just as absolute space and time in-
clude all space and time. Keason sees nothing in the abso-
lute cause, absolute mind, that compells it to continue the
chain of reasoning, the chain of causation, further; but, on
the contrary, the very constitution and law of its thinking
cuts short all such attempts, and forbids it. There is but one
way to evade this, and that is to deny all reasoning, all rules
of reasoning, and all basis for reasoning. This the atheist
does in every case, when, by inexorable reason, he is brought
f ice to face with absolute mind or intelligent cause,

o

It may be asked, why does not reason stop with infinite effect
or with an infinite universe, if it rests satisfied in the infinite,
and will go no fiirther ? Because it is an eflfect, and reason
affirms that every effect must have had an adequate cause,
an infinite effect must have had an infinite cause, and an
effect implying intelligence must have had an intelligent
cause. Here reason rests, having found the absolute intelli-
gent cause adequate to all that exists, which satisfies reason,
and which reason affirms, being the ground of all causation
and condition, must be uncaused and unconditioned. Infinite
order, adaptation, and adjustment, in the infinite effect, imply
infinite design, plan, and system, and infinite design, plan,
and system imply an infinite designing mind, or absolute mind,
or absolute intelligent cause. But infinite harmony in the
infinite attributes of the infinite mind do not imply design
and contrivance in the being of the infinite mind, f )r the
infinite mind has one personality, and has no parts or organs,
but infinite self-existent attributes in infinite and self-existent
harmony and unity. It implies merely eternal, self-existent
:;nd infinite harmony in self-existent, infinite attributes of the
absolute mind in whom tliey inhere. Infinite and self-existent
harmony, in the infinite and self-existent attributes of the
absolute mind, do not condition them in space, time, sequence,
causation or being, for these infinite and self-existent attri-
butes can not themselves be thus conditioned, nor can the
absolute mind in whom they inhere. Then we have reached
the absolute mind, the absolute being, that can not be condi-
tioned in space, time, causation, sequence, or being, and is the

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 279

grouud, the beginning, the summation of all causation, con-
dition, and being.

If it be objected that we have more in our conclusion than
in our premises, we deny that such is the case. Finite de-
sign, adaptation, cause and mind, are not our premises. They
are merely the occasion of our rising to an apj^rehension of
infinite design, plan, and prescience. AVe have these as in-
tuitions, and they are valid if our nature be valid, and we
have a valid basis for reasoning at all. Then from infinite or-
der, adjustment, and adaptation in the universe, which no one
can deny, as our premise, we have infinite design, plan and
prescience, which are equally undeniable as our second prem-
ise ; and from these premises of infinite design, plan and pre-
science we have Infinite Mind, Absolute Cause. Our prem-
ises are infinite, our conclusion is infinite, and the objection is
not valid. If it be objected that we might have a cause for
each eflfect, and thus have an infinity of first causes for an in-
finity of finite effects, we reply that the unity of the effects
into one system, and the unity of the causes into a system in
the order that pervades the Cosmos, shows a common absolute
ground in which they inhere. The generalization of all
things into a Cosmos, or Universe, by the athiest, proves this.
But he stops with effect. As we have seen, this effect mu,st
have had a cause, and it demands an intelligent cause, hence
reason never rests until it has reached this Absolute Intelligent
Cause, this idea of ideas, this ultimate ground, the summation
of ail causation and condition. If it be objected that we rise
to the absolute by an empiricism of the finite, we reply that
such is a necessary tendency and law of our thinking ; and
such is the course and result in all thought. From an experi-
ence, in consciousness, sensation, and reason, of the finite, va-
riable, contingent and conditioned, we rise to an apprehension
of the infinite. We pass through a relative infinity of such
existences to the self-existent, necessary, absolute and uncon-
ditioned. Our experiences always necessarily lead us to an
apprehension of the infinite. This is true in space, duration,
causation, being and power. Materialists, as well as all
others, rise out of experience to an apprehension of the in-

280 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

finite in space, duration, causation, being and power. All
but the materialist, also, rise to an apprehension of the infin-
ite in intelligence, or Infinite Intelligent Cause. If the valid-
ity of this regress from the finite to the infinite in causation
and intelligence, or in intelligent causation, be questioned;
Ave reply that the fact that all men do so is undeniable, and
if our reason be valid as a basis of reasoning, or as a means
of reasoning, it must be accepted. All men accept the valid-
ity of such regress in space, duration, being and power in
matter and force, and so we affirm they must accept the va-
lidity of a precisely similar regress in intelligent causation,
especially since, as we have shown, intelligent causation must
be anterior to matter and force, wdiich the athiest accepts as
absolute and unconditioned in being, duration and powder of
self-existence, self-sustenance and independence. To the
transcendentalist, who attempts to be ontological before he is
empirical, or without being empirical, we say we must be
empirical before we can rise to the ontological standpoint.
We observe particulars, then generalize, and then rise to an
apprehension of the absolute. Even then we must continu-
ally return to facts and experiences as revealed to us in con-
sciousness and sensation, and verify our ojitological affirma-
tions by the sure test of experience and common sense. In
all science, by a careful observation, collocation and study of
phenomena, and comparison of characteristics, as revealed to
us in experience, aided by intuitions of reason, and guided
by them, we reach the great underlying principles, the great
central truths on which phenomena rest, and with which we
can construct a science. But we have to appeal continually
to experience, and verify our elaboration and application of
these principles, and their ramifications, and their accuracy.
I liave somewliere read of a conjurer that boasted that he
could set a ladder upright in an open field, and climb to the
top of it, and balance himself. Another retorted that he
could do the same thing. He could do more. He could
climb to the top of the ladder and then draw up the ladder after
him! The efforts of trans-cendentalists are precisely like this
idle boast. They attempt to climb the ladder of experience to

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 281

the ontological standpoint, and then draw up the ladder after
them.

If it be objected that our course of reasoning would give us
only an Artificer, Lawgiver, Ruler, Judge and Executive, and
not a Creator, we reply that our argument applies to the pri-
mordial constitution of things, as well as to the present order.
As we have shown, the argument places mind anterior to mat-
ter and force, to give to them their very first constitution, and
proves them to have been created, to have been subordinate
agents, manufactured articles, the products of mind. Of late
much attention has been paid to the molecular structure or
constitution of matter; Loschmidt, Stoney, Thomson and
Maxwell have reached ultimate molecules that are unaltera-
ble in mass, weight and properties, and that are indestructible.

The essential quantities of these molecules, and their rela-
tion to each other, prove them to be manufactured articles, and
preclude the idea of their being eternal and self-existent.
These properties and relations are a collocation of things
which we have no trouble to conceive of as being diflerent ;
hence, it is not self-existent and eternal, for it is not necessary.
It is not of such a character that we can not conceive of its
being otherwise than as it is and true, as is the case with all
that is self-existent. Says Maxwell, in the ablest paper
ever written on this subject: ''They continue this day as they
were created, perfect in number, and measure, and weight ;
and from the ineffaceable character impressed on them, we
may learn that those aspirations, after accuracy in measure-
ment, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we
reckon our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they
are the essential constituents of the nature of Him who in
the beginning created not only the heavens and the earth,
but the materials of the heavens and the earth." Then ths
iirst constitution of things prove a Creator of all things as
clearly as a man's works establish his existence and agency.
The line of reasoning does not end with giving us an Artifi-
cer, it as clearly gives us a Creator, and by the same
reasoning. The argument applies far more forcibly to the
primordial constitution of things than it does to the present
24

282 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

constitution of things after this constitution has been given,
for it is inconceivably easier to believe that the present or-
der of matter and force produces all existences and phenom-
ena than to conceive that blind, irrational force and matter
assumed the properties and relations of the first constitution
of things spontaneously.

If it be objected that the data are not the same, and that
in one case we have intelligence shaping materials already
existing, a common event, and in the other a creating of
something out of nothing, a unique act, utterly unknown to
experience, we reply that similarity of action in this respect
is no part of the argument. The argument is not analogical,
and hence analogy or similarity of acts is no part of the argu-
ment. The argument is strictly inductive, and based on intu-
itions of reason that can no more be denied than we can deny
our own existence. Dissimilarity in an essential particular
is freely conceded. Man shapes materials already existing.
The other is a creation out of nothing previously existing.
But the questions pertinent to the issue are: Are there in-
dubitable evidences of intelligence in man's works? Are there
equally indubitable evidences of intelligence m creation? Do
not the same characteristics that indubitably establish an in-
telligent artificer in man's works, as clearly prove an intelli-
gent creator in the first constitution of things? If the same
characteristics are seen in the first constitution of things that
are seen in man's Avork in shaping nuiterials, do they not as
clearly establish an intelligent cause for the first constitution
of things, or an intelligent Creator, as they establish an intel-
ligent artificer for man's work in shaping materials? Do cer-
tain characteristics in man's work in shaping materials prove
thit his works had an intelligent cause, or prove him to he
an intelligent artificer or cause? Do men, when they see
these characteristics in man's work, conclude that there must
have been an intelligent artificer or cause of these works?
Do they reason correctly? Must not they so reason? Are
the same characteristics, the essential, the pervading charac-
teristics of the first constitution of things in creation? If
they prove an intelligent artificer or cause in shaping materi-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 283

als, do not they as clearly prove an intelligent cause for the first
constitution of things, or an intelligent Creator? Then the
fact that one is a shaping of material already existing, and
the other a creation of material, makes no figure in the case.
The issue is, Are the same characteristics seen pervading the
first constitution of materials or creating materials, as in
shaping materials? If they prove intelligence in shaping
materials, do not they as clearly prove intelligence in cre-
ating materials? The argument is strictly inductive, and
can not be evaded without discarding all reason and sense.

To Mill's statement that the present order of things is
such as renders it probable that they have been produced by
a being possessing great but limited power, and one that could
not prevent certain infelicities, and could not arrange a per-
fect state of affairs, but merely arranged the best possible
state of affldrs, or who had other ideas than man's happiness
that he cared more for; we reply that, as Ave have said, we
place the Creator anterior to and above every thing as the
Absolute and Unconditioned, and we have to either believe that
such a being acts always for the greatest good of all and each
being, and that what seems dark to us is for the good of each
and all, and that the failure is in our inability, finite as we
are, to grasp and understand it. Or we have to assume with
Mill that such a being is unable to secure the good of each
and all, or that he does not care to do so. When a man
clearly grasps the idea of an Infinite Creator, Ruler and
Judge, he will accept without doubt the former position, and
reject the latter as blasphemy. To the objection that there
is a chasm between our greatest effect and the absolute cause
that we can not bridge or leap, and that we can not bring
our absolute cause down to our greatest effect, or lift our
greatest effect up to our absolute cause, we reply that we
have passed out to an apprehension of an infinite effect, and
hence there is no chasm, no lifting up or bringing down
needed. There is no chasm between absolute space and rela-
tively infinite space that needs bridging. We know that ab-
solute space includes all space. So we know that absolute
cause includes all cause, and is adequate to all effect. So

284 THE PROBLEM OF PfiOBLEMS.

long as the effect is not greater than the cause there is no
difficulty. There is no difficulty in the cause being greater
than the effect. We need make no attempt to lift the effect
up to the cause in magnitude, nor to drag the cause down to
the effect.

A very popular evasion of the idea of Absolute Intelligent
Cause is the theory of nescience or ignorance. When the
materialist is ov^erwhelmed with the theistic argument, with
a marvelous modesty and humility — a humility that would
extremely edify were it not utter hypocrisy and a cowardly
evasion of an argument he can not meet — he replies meekly
that he can not comprehend the infinite. It is unknowable
and even unthinkable. Hamilton and Mansell, in their mis-
taken zeal for religion, did just what all such exhibitions ever
have done — furnished weapons to the enemy. The transcen-
dental skeptic claimed that he could, by his own unaided rea-
son, attain to as complete and correct an idea of God as man
can grasp, hence revelation was needless. Instead of showing
that man could not attain to a correct idea of God without
revelation, and that he could be aided by revelation, and
needed revelation as an objective standard and source of
teaching, they contended that man could have no idea of God
without revelation, because God was infinite, and man could
have no knowledge of the infinite, not even a conception of
it. The rationalist also undertook to determine a jjriori what
God could do, and what he could not do, and to condemn
the Scriptures for conti-adicting reason. The reply of Hamil-
ton and Mansell was, that as man could not have any knowl-
edge of the infinite, he could pass no such judgments on the
Sciiptures. The infinite was unknowable and even unthink-
able. The skeptic stepped forward and accepted the position,
and decorously bowed God out of the universe, through the
back door of nescience, which these theists had opened for
him, and through which they intended to drive skepticism;
and then coolly shut the door in our fiices, and now assures us
gravely that it is unwise and unscientific to inquire what is
beyond it, for, to quote Hamilton and Mansell, it is unknow-
able and unthinkable. Since man could have no knowledge

THE THEISTIO SOLUTION^. 285

of the infinite, for it was unknowable and even unthinkable,
revelation was impossible, for that which was unknowable and
unthinkable could not be revealed; hence man could not
have any conception of God, even through revelation. He is,
as Conite said, barred out of human thought as a needless,
unknowable, unthinkable hypothesis.

In opposition to all this learned mist, and profound fog, let
us pass in review before us a few plain facts of common sense.
Man has a knowledge of space, and passes out to a relatively
infinite s})ace, and through it to a conception, an apprehen-
sion, a knowledge of absolute space, and a knowledge that
space is absolutely infinite. He has a knowledge of duration,
and passes out to a relatively infinite duration, and from it to
an apprehension of absolutely infinite duration, and a knowl-
edge that duration must be absolutely infinite. Man has a
knowledge of force, and, from relatively infinite display, ho
rises to an apprehension of infinite force. Man has a knowl-
edge of matter. The materialist affirms that matter and force
must be, and are, eternal. He has the absolute and the un-
conditioned in space, duration, being and power in matter and
force, for he declares they are eternal, self-existent, indepen-
dent and self-sustaining. Spencer himself has the infinite, the
absolute, the unconditioned in matter and force, in space,
time, being and power, for he affirms that they are eternal,
self-existent, independent and self-sustaining. He accepts
these infinities. He assents to them. He reasons on them,
and affirms their reality, and man's knowledge of them, and
the reliability of that knowdedge. He bases all his reasoning
on these infinities, and thus makes man's knowledge of them the
most reliable of all knowledge, and the basis of all knowledge.
We affirm also that man has a knowledge of intelligence,
and that he rises to an apprehension of Infinite Intelligence.
As man can apprehend the infinite in space, time, being and
power in matter and force, as Spencer himself affirms, so he
can and does apprehend the Infinite Intelligent Cause. As
he knows that there is infinity in space, time, being and pow-
er, so he knows there is infinity in mind or Infinite Absolute
Intelligence, or God. As man's apprehensions of infinity in

286 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

space, time, being and power are valid, and a valid basis for
reasoning, so is his apprehension of Infinite Intelligence a
valid basis for reasoning. Thus out of Spencer's own mouth
do we establish the validity of the universal affirmation of all
reason, that there is Absolute Mind. Finally, Spencer as-
sumes the reality of what he denies, in his attempts to disprove
it, and proves what he attempts to disprove. He assumes to
know, and even to comprehend the infinite, the Infinite God,
when he asserts that he is unknowable. How dare he assert
that He is unknowable, if he does not comprehend Him ? He
must have an apprehension, a knowledge of the infinite, and
of the Infinite God, or he could not affirm that they are un-
knowable and untliinkable. He assumes to know all about
them, when he affirms that they are unknowable ; and he
thinks of them when he thinks that they are unthinkable.
I once heard a pouting urchin, who was called upon to recite
the alphabet, say, when the first letter was pointed out and
he was asked to name it, " I don't know A, and I can not say
A." "But," said the teacher, "you do know it, for you have
named it, and you can say it, for you said it, while denying
that you knew or could say it." But he persisted in his as-
sertion that he did not know A, and could not say A, until
the rod, that the wise man says is for the back of a fool, cured
him of his stupidity. In like manner Spencer can not know
the infinite, and can not think of the infinite, when he shows
that he knows and thinks of it, while denying that he can.
As we can not use the rod we can not cure him, as was the
boy. If the teacher had not spoiled the boy's obstinacy,
Spencer's followers could have have placed him alongside of
"our philosopher," as Tyndall fondly calls him, and they
could say " our huo philosophers ! "

Closely allied to this is the assertion that when we expand
our conception of Cause and Intelligence to infinity it breaks
down, passes beyond our grasp, and becomes valueless as a
basis for reasoning, and in our reasoning. We reply that
when we expand our conceptions of space and time to infin-
ity they do not break down and elude our grasp, or become
valueless. Thev do not become valueless in reasoniuir or as a

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 287

basis of reasoning, tlie rationalist himself being witness. Again
it is urged that we can not grasp the attributes of an infinite
cause, hence a knowledge of its mere existence is valueless
in our reasoning, and as a basis of reasoning. We reply thnt
when we expand our conception of space and time to infinity,
w^e do not change or lose our knowledge of their properties.
The materialist does not in his reasonings entertain for one mo-
ment the idea that when he has expanded his conceptions of
space, time, matter and force to infinity, they pass beyond his
grasp and become valueless as a basis of reasoning. On tlie
contrary, he does not use them as a basis of reasoning until
he has thus expanded them. In like manner when we ex-
pand our conception of Intelligence and its attributes to infin-
ity, we do not change their essential nature, nor lose knowl-
edge of them. As infinite space, time, matter and force are a
valid basis for our reasoning, and a valid element in it, so is
God and his attributes a valid basis for, and a valid element
in, all reasoning. When this idea is applied to« prove that we
can not join our greatest effect with our Absolute Cause, or
bring down our Absolute Cause to our greatest effect, as the
chasm is so wide between them, and our Absolute cause is
beyond our grasp, Ave reply that if it is based on the theory
of nescience, we have already replied to it. If it be based on
a want of nexus of thought, we reply that the relation of cau-
sation between the cause and the effects is the connection of
thought needed, and the only one needed. So also is the ac-
tivity of the Creator, his agency in producing the effects, his
acts, his omnipotence and his omniscience resulting from
his infinity, sufficient nexus. Reasoning by means of the intu-
itions of causation, personal activity, omnipotence, govern-
ment and providence, connects every effect with its cause.

Finally, when driven from every other refuge, the atheist
tuvns at bay and exclaims: "In your argument based on
reason and intuition, and especially in the design argument,
you anthropomorphize God." And with a sanctimonious
horror he rolls up his eyes at the thought. He is so jealous
of the dignity, sanctity of the divine attributes, that he
would blot them out of being before he would impair them

288 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

by anthroporaorphiym. It is as genuine and profound as the
reverence of the pirates, who captured a king's ship, and
then, with their faces prostrate on the deck, made him walk
the phmk into the sea, because they had too profound a rev-
erence for his majesty to dare to look on him, as they Avould
have to do if he remained on board. So with faces prostrate
in the dust of nescience, these awe-stricken atheists would
make the Creator walk the plank of silence concerning his
existence into the sea of oblivion, lest they anthropomor-
phize his attributes, by speaking of his acts, existence and
presence, and by recognizing his agency in creation. It is an
attempt to evade the argument by that strange spell a
name, and especially a very long one. It must be a terrible
thing; that lias such a fearful name. But let us not be
frightened. Let us dare to look the bugbear in the face.

Now, we assert that anthropomorphism of a certain kind is
legitimate, for there can be no conception of nature without
it, and that it. is correct, for the nature of things clearly es-
tablishes it. Anthropomorphism in mental attributes, moral
attributes and actions is an absolute truth. AnthropomfU'-
phism, in limitations and imperfections, is incorrect, and should
be most carefully avoided. Let us, then, get the argument
clearly before us, and see if we anthropomorphize God in
limitations and imperfections. The issue in the argument is,
"Do co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation, into order,
method and system, imply design, plan and purpose? Do
design, plan, purpose, method and system imply intelligence?"
They do, and a man bids adieu to reason, and is not worthy
of one moment's further notice, who denies it. Do co-ordina-
tion, adjustment and adaptation, into order, method and sys-
tem, in shaping materials, imply design, purpose and plan,
in such shaping materials, and does such design, purpose and
plan, prove that intelligence shaped them? A man m^^st
stultify his reason to deny it. Is there co-ordination, adjust-
ment and adaptation, into an order, method and system, in
the first constitution of things, and in things as they now
exist? Do this order, method and system, this co-ordination,
adaptation and adjustment, imply design, plan, purpose and

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 289

prevision and provision in the first constitution of things, and
in the present order of things? Do such design, plan, pur-
pose, prevision and provision, in accordance with law, ex-
pressing the highest conceptions of reason, imply the action
of intelligence in the first constitution of* things, and the
present order of things? A man offers an insult to all
reason who attempts to deny one of these.

We do not anthropomorphize God in this argument, for we
do not assume or imply that he adjusts, designs and plans as
man does. The argument does not imply similarity of
method, but similarity of acts. It does not imply that there
are any of the limitations or imperfections in the acts of the
Creator, or any of the study, trial, failure or mistake, in his
acts, that there are in man's acts. On the contrary, the very
fact that the Creator is infinite, and His acts are infinite,
.excludes all such imperfection. All theists deny such imper-
fections, and are always very careful to exclude all such
erroneous ideas from their argument. There is dishonesty
in the persistent effort of the atheist to fasten on the theistic
argument an absurdity utterly foreign to it, and that all
theists repudiate.

When we affirm that infinite space and time have the same
essential attributes as finite space and time, we do not limit
them as finite space and time are limited. When we expand
space and time to infinity, w^e do not change the essential
attributes of space and time. We only strip them of limita-
tion and imperfection. When we assert the same attributes
of absolute space and time that are possessed by finite space
and time, we do not subject them to the limitations of finite
space and time. So when we affirm design, purpose and
plan of the Infinite Cause, we do not, by such an act, sub-
ject the acts of the Infinite Cause to the same limitations and
imperfections as are seen in similar acts of man, nor sub-
ject the Infinite Cause to the limitations and imperfections
of man. We do not anthropomorphize Him in a sense that
would be objectionable, or in the sense in which the objec-
tion of the atheist asserts we anthropomorphize Him. We
give to Him certain attributes, and ascribe to Him certain
25

290 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBLEMS.

acts, that nature positively ascribes to Him. As the very
fact that we make space and time absolute, strips them of all
the imperfections of finite space and time, so does the fact
that we make the First Cause absolute, strip Him of all the
imperfections that the atheist objects to, and renders the an-
thropomorphism that he objects to impossible. It leaves the
attributes he has in common with man, and the identical
acts of these attributes, on which the design argument is
based, free from all imperfections, and all such anthropomor-
phizing as that on which the objection of the atheist is based.
The argument is based on a similarity in kind, and not on
similarity of degree. On the contrary, it asserts that there
is no similarity of degree. Similarity of degree is utterly
foreign to the argument. Then let the reader remember that
the teleological argument does not anthropomorphize God in
the sense to which the atheist objects, but, on the contrary,
it denies all such anthropomorphism, and renders it impos-
sible, except in the dishonest perversion of the argument,
made by the atheist himself. The argument is not based
on an assumption that the First Cause is, in imperfections
and limitations, like man, but on the truth that he is an
intelligence as man l«! an intelligence. It is based on the
truth that there are evidences of the operation of intelligence
in creation, as there are in man's works.

To avoid objectionable anthropomorphism, it is not neces-
sary that we empty the First Cause of all attributes of in-
telligence, or of all acts of intelligence, and make him an
infinite characterless unthinkable Nothing-Something, like
the nirvana of Buddhism. Such a course is like that of the
man who pulled up every thing there was in his field to get
rid of the Aveeds, instead of pulling out the weeds and cul-
tivating and perfecting his grain. Let us, then, recognize
the attributes and acts of the Absolute Cause in his works,
and divest them of all imperfections, and in so doing rele-
gate the bugbear of the atheist, anthropomorphism, to his own
misty domain of tlie unthinkable.

We repudiate also the assertion of Spencer and his disci-
ples that the term God is but a hypothetical phrase repre-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 291

senting an unknown quantity, or force, or factor, like the
term X in an indeterminate equation. When the materialist
passes back to matter and force, he leaves the problem stated
as an indeterminate equation, and his matter and force are
like the letter X in such an equation, unknown, and treating
the problem, as he does, unknowable. But if we examine
all the data we have in the phenomena, examine all the
phenomena, and learn carefully the characteristics, we are
compelled, by every principle of inductive philosophy, to
ascribe the phenomena to an intelligence, an intelligent
cause. We must either refuse to accept the fundamental
data of the problem, or violate every principle of induction,
or declare the term X to be an intelligence. Then we have
to violate every principle of inductive philosophy, or from his
works we must ascribe to him certain attributes of intelli-
gence. It is an insult to common sense to say that we can
not determine, from the fundamental characteristics of the
phenomena that they had an intelligent cause. If I pick
up a book I can tell that it had an intelligent cause, but
I can not determine whether an eye or a hand had an in-
telligent cause. I can learn the character of Socrates, or
Bacon, or Voltaire, from their works, but I can not deter-
mine the character of the cause of the universe from his
works. What would we think of a philosophy that Avould
assure us that Shakespeare or Milton were unknowable, and
their works the productions of a mode of the unknowable.
But infinitely worse stuff than this is now science and phi-
losophy.

Spencer attempts to set to one side the design argument, and
to illustrate its anthropomor^ohism, and the absurdity of its
anthropomorphism by a com})arison. He supposes Paley's
watch to be endowed with intelligence, and to reason concerning
man, its maker, as man reasons concerning his Creator, in
the design argument. The watch would be totally in error
to conclude that man, its maker, was a watch like itself, and
man is as completely in error when he reasons, in the design
argument, that his Creator is like himself. Man is no
nearer the truth than the watch would be. He as errone-

292 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ously aiithropomorphises his Creator as the watch watchizes
ks maker. It is a rather shrewd piece of sophistry, and there
is a pert smartness of ridicule in it, but it is a most transpar-
ent fallacy.

I. His supposition is not even supposable. The act he at-
tempts to set to one side is real and universal. The act by
which he attempts to set it to one side is an absurd impossi-
bility. Men every-where do reason about their Creator.
AVatches do not and can not reason al)Out their maker. Such
a conceit is madness. To use his own expression it is unthink-
able, except in violation of all common sense.

II. There is no analogy in the cases. A watch, an irra-
tional machine, is, in one case, sup})osed to reason about its
maker. In the other, man, an intelligence, does reason about
his Creator. It does not follow^ that because a watch, a ma-
chine incapable of reasoning concerning its maker, is not like
its cause; that man, an intelligence, capable of reasoning con-
cerning his Creator, is not like his cause.

in. *' Our philosopher," as Tyndall calls him, displays a
most amazing ignorance of the issue in the design argument.
The issue is not similarity between the cause and the effect in
any particular, but similarity between two causes, in the one
essential particular of intelligence. The point in the design
argument is this: Do certain characteristics of man's works
prove they had an intelligent cause? Are there the same
characteristics in the processes of nature ? If there are, do
not they establish an intelligent cause in one case just as
they do in the other, and as clearly in- one case as in the
other? Spencer seems to think that he sets the design ar-
gument to one side when he shows that an unintelligent effect
had an intelligent cause, and that there is not necessarily
similarity between an effect and its cause in all particu-
lars. But the argument is not based on an axiom, "Effects
must be like their causes," but '* Like effects must flow from
similar causes." Again, because an unintelligent effect had
an intelligent cause, it does not follow that an intelligent
effect can have an unintelligent cause. An effect may be less
than its cause, but never greater. An intelligent cause can

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 293

produce an unintelligent effect, but an unintelligent cause can
not produce an intelligent effect, for it can not produce what
is not potentially in it.

IV. But our philosopher commits a most egregious blunder
in his reasoning. He wishes to prove dissimilarity between
effect and cause, and thus set to one side the design argument.
We have shown that establishing dissimilarity between cause
and effect does not affect the argument, for it is based not on
similarity of cause and effect, but on similarity of two effects,
which proves that they had similar causes. But if establish-
ing dissimilarity between cause and effect would set to one side
the design argument, Spencer has destroyed his own argu-
ment. He makes the cause and effect he uses similar in the
very particular necessary to the design argument, and then
bases his argument on the dissimilarity that he has himself de-
stroyed.

V. But our philosopher most blindly yields the very point
at issue. He himself removes the very dissimilarity he
wishes to establish. To get np the illustration, he has to as-
cribe to the watch intelligence, and make it like its maker in
the very particular in which he wishes to establish dissimilar-
ity between man and his Creator. As he has to make the
watch an intelligence, like its maker, to enable it to reason
concerning its maker, so man, who reasons concerning his
Creator, is like his Creator in this particular, intelligence.

VI. As the watch would reason correctly concerning its
maker, that he was an intelligence like itself, as Spencer
makes him, so man reasons correctly concerning his Creator,
that he is like himself, an intelligence.

VII. All that the watch could legitimately conclude would
be that its maker was an intelligence, and like himself an in-
telligence, or like it in this one particular intelligence, and in
the essential attributes of intelligence. That it was a watch,
and in organization, and in parts, and in manner of working
like itself, would be no legitimate part of the conclusion. So
man legitimately reasons that his Creator is an intelligence,
and like himself in this particular, intelligence, and in the
essential attributes of intelligence. That the First Ca\ise is

294 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

like man in his imperfections and limitations, and that his
acts are imperfect and limited as man's, is no part of the ar-
gument.

VIII. The intelligent watch would see in himself co-ordi-
nation, adjustment, adaptation, order, method, plan and sys-
tem. He would, if intelligent, conclude that they imply
design, purpose and plan, and that design, purpose and plan
imply an intelligent cause of such design, purpose and plan.
In all this he would reason correctly. So man would reason
correctly when he sees co-ordination, adjustment, adaptation,
order, system and plan, and design, plan and purpose in na-
ture, and concludes that the cause of all this must be an
intelligent cause. The only point at issue is, Must the cause
be an intelhgent cause? Spencer's illustration most clearly
proves this.

IX. But we will now go a step further. In the watch —
in its construction — in the ends it fulfills, there are indicated
certain mental and moral characteristics of man, its maker.
If intelligent, as Spencer supposes him to be, the watch would
see in himself certain attributes of mind, and in his acts evi-
dences of these attributes of mind. He could recognize in
the construction of himself the same evidences of the acts
and operations of mind and evidences of the same attributes
of mind. He would be justified in concluding that his maker
possessed the same intelligence, and attributes of intelligence,
that Ke possessed. That his maker was a watch, or in con-
struction like himself, or in manner of operation like himself,
or limited and imperfect as himself, would be no part of the
argument. The logical conclusion would include only that
he was an intelligence like himself, and possessed the essen-
tial characteristics of intelligence that the watch possessed ;
and that his maker was a watch or limited and imperfect like
the watch, would be no part of it. So man can see certain
mental attributes in himself. He sees evidences of certain
mental attributes in his own actions. He sees evidences of
the same attributes in nature, and evidences of the attributes
of the cause of nature. He is justified in concluding that
the First Cause has certain attributes in an infinite degree

THE THEISTJC SOLUTION. 295

that he possesses in a finite degree. Similarity in limitation
and imperfection is no part of the argument.

The anthropomorphic absurdities that Spencer attaches to
the argument form no part of it. He attaches to the argu-
ment foreign absurdities of his own creation to break it down.
The vital part of the argument, that the palpable evidences
of design, of mind in the universe, prove the Cause to be an
Intelligent Cause, and that there are seen palpable evidences
that he possesses certain attributes of intelligence, such as
wisdom, volition, love, plan, method and purpose, can not be
denied, and these anthropomorphic absurdities form no part
of the argument.

We have now followed the atheist through every evasion
and objection, reviewed them, cleared the theistic argument
of the absurdities that the atheist has attempted to heap
upon it. We have verified and justified it, by an appeal to
our intuitions, to the facts of the universe, and finally to the
actions and reasonings of the atheists themselves. In our
reasoning on substance, cause and being, we have reached
Infinite Mind as the Absolute Cause, Absolute Substance,
Absolute Being. We have verified our reasonings by an ap-
peal to consciousness, reason and experience, as accepted by
common consent of all men, and in the declarations of the
atheist himself. We run to neither extreme, the extreme of
nescience, with the materialist, or of transcendentalism, with
the idealists in rejecting all experience. To the pantheist,
we say we have more than a world soul. We intuitively
characterize all acts as voluntary or involuntary. We char-
acterize the former as good or evil, sinful or righteous, and
men as sinful or righteous from their conduct. We have
intuitive ideas of dependence, obligation, responsibility, ac-
countability, and of rewards and punishments. We intui-
tively look on events as affecting us in accordance with these
ideas. We regard the evil that we suffer from a violation of
law as a punishment, and the good we enjoy from obedience
as a reward. This throws them back on Absolute Lawgiver,
Ruler, Judge, and Executive as Supreme Authority. Design
and moral desert in us imply free will. Without free will

296 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

we could not design or purpose in our acts, or have moral
desert in our acts or character. The same is true of the
Absolute Cause. But in thinking of God as a free moral
agent, a free designer and planner, possessing moral attributes,
we conceive of Him as a person, and sustaining a verv dif-
ferent relation to us from what he sustains to matter or
material things.

To talk about a World Soul, an Absolute Eeason, that
attains to consciousness in man alone, is a monstrous absurdity
and blank atheism. So also all idea of the Absolute Intelli-
gence Ox' Absolute Intelligent Cause, as a mere principle or
bundle of principles, bound up in and subject to the eternal
and necessary laws of matter, is atheism. Through all evo-
lution, and all existence, we have, in every held of thought,
passed back to our most rudimental conception of the primor-
dial constitution of things, and shown, from the first constitu-
tion of things, that above and anterior to all matter and force,
and separate and distinct from them, in essence and being,
we have Mind, Absolute Mind, as the ground of all being.

We now propose to show that the atheist repudiates the
clearest decisions of his own standard of authority, and com-
mits logical suicide by rejecting his own theory. The funda-
mental principle of all atheistic philosophy is that we should
observe and study nature in its ongoings in time-succession,
as revealed in our own nature and nature at large, as appre-
hended by our nature, and adapt ourselves to the results of
such observation and study, and accept and follow nature
implicity. Then the highest authority is our nature, and the
whole system is based on the reliability of our nature, and
the adaptation of nature at large to our nature. Our intui-
tions and generalized convictiong are ultimate truths, and the
foundation of all reasoning. Then every part of our nature
has its counterpart in nature at large.

The evolutionist teaches that every thing existing is the
result of evolution under a system of all-pervading law.
This la\v is his highest authority. The duty of man, and the
highest Avisdom on the part of man, is to learn the ongoings
of that law, and accept them, and accommodate himself to

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 297

them. Man is the highest result of that evokition and that
system of law. His rational, moral and religious nature are
the highest and crowning product of that system of law, and
the intuitions of man's moral and religious nature are the
very highest and noblest expression of this law, the atheist's
own highest standard. Then by his own system, the atheist
is bound to accept as the very highest standard of authority,
and the ultimate test of truth, the intuitions of our moral
and religious nature.

Ethnology, history, geography, observation, phrenology,
and every system of mental philosophy, declare that man,
all men, have veneration and spirituality. God and spiritual
existences and things are the proper objects of these faculties,
so emphatically declare all the above sources. God, spiritual
existences and things are revealed to us by these highest ele-
ments of our nature. This intuition of God, religious wor-
ship, and spiritual life and existences, and morality is, then, a
fundamental truth, the basis truth of our highest nature and
all nature. This intuition has an answering counterpart in
nature. There is a God : so declares the highest standard of
the atheist. The atheist is the last one who should deny this
universal affirmation of all reason, for it is his ultimate stand-
ard. He should accept, as the very highest authority, this
intuition, this catholic affirmation of universal reason.

Man is a worshiping being. Veneration and spirituality
declare him to be such, and make him such. Man, in all
ages, lands, nations, conditions, races and tribes, has had, and
has the idea of God and systems of worship. IMan is as
essentially a worshiping being, a religious being, as he is a
rational or a social being. It is as natural for man to
worship as it is for him to reason or associate with his fellow-
men.

Late research has demonstrated that no race or tribe of
men exist, or ever has existed, that has been so degraded as
to have no system of religion. The Australian, the Bushman,
and the Digger Indian, who have been cited as tribes destitute
of all religious* ideas, have been shoAvn, by later and more
careful examinations, to have systems of superstitions and

298 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ideas of future life. Indeed, such can be proved in most
cases by the writers who testify that they are destitute of re-
ligious ideas. They have superstitions, the imperfect display
of a relio-ious nature. Even deaf mutes have the idea of
God, caused by intuitions of Sependence, infinity and causa-
tion. A most noted instance of this is the case of Steenrood,
given by Alexander Campbell, in his fimous debate with
Owen, to prove the opposite position. He believed that the
sun created all things and governed them, or he made him
an intelligent cause, ruler, and God.

In times of danger and trial, when man acts instinctively
and true to his nature and its intuitions, he acts as though
there is a God. No man is an atheist at such times. He
feels his need of God, his nature declares there is one, and
he prays. Then, if the position of the atheist be true, man's
desires, aspirations and intuitions have an answering counter-
part in nature, and there is a God. Man's reason and his
intuitions, the highest expression of the atheist's highest stand-
ard, declare there is a God. Man desires the existence of a
God, and intuitively acts as though there is one. Man needs
God as an object of worship, to accomplish the object of his
being. He is a worshiping being. He becomes like the
being he woi-ships. His religion — his object of worship —
decides for him, a])ove all else combined, morality and duty.
His reason and conscience are controlled by his religion.
Religion is the regnant element in man's nature, the regula-
tive and fundamental formative principle in life, character
and conduct. Man needs religion and the worship of God
as a dynamic lifting force and power in life and conduct,
originating progress, starting man upward in development, sus-
taining and controlling him in it, and continually directing
his aspirations higher. Man needs God as an object of adora-
tion, as an object of aspiration, as a model. Man's faculties,
desires, needs, intuitions, instincts and conduct, alike declare
there is a God. Atheists contradict and repudiate their own
ultimate standard of authority — human reason, for that has
ever declared that there is a God.

Man is capable of indefinite cultivation and progress. He

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 299

is elevated by faith and devotion to an exalted object of such
feelings, above all other influences, and especially by religious
faith and devotion to a pure object of worship. Religious en-
thusiasm has ever been the originating and animating princi-
ple, and the controlling power in all great revolutions and
reformations, and all human progress. Man needs a standard
of absolute authority and perfect wisdom, love, and right, to
give him perfect religious faith and devotion. All this can
be done only by the worship of an absolutely perfect and holy
God. If our nature be reliable, there is such a being to meet
this intuition and need of our nature, and holding atheists to
their own standard, there is a God to meet this intuition and
want of our nature. Tlie evolutionist holds, that all that
now exists is the result of a course of evolution, controlled
by law, and deifies this law that has produced so consistent,
exact and systematic results; and teaches that to learn this
law, and implicitly accept its results as our highest standard,
is the final result of all thought and science. Man is the
highest product of this evolution and law of evolution.
His rational, moral and religious nature, are the crowning re-
sult. The intuitions of his religious, moral and rational
nature, are the highest expression of this law of evolution.
All else should be interpreted by them, and in accordance
with them. They, according to the atheist himself, are the
very highest standard in the world. These have invaria-
bly given God, religion, worship and the catholic ideas of
religion.

Quatrefages, the greatest living ethnologist, and himself a
rationalist, declares that these ideas of religion and morality
and future life, are man's distinctive characteristics, and that
men are not atheists naturally, but in violation of nature,
just as men are not suicides naturally, but in violation of
nature. These great religious ideas are the crown, the ulti-
mate of this course of evolution, and the highest declaration
of that law of evolution that the atheist deifies. Then, when
he rejects these ideas, he rejects his own standard, reason, for
they are its highest result and regnant principle; and the
hiirhest result of the course of evolution for which he con

300 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tends, and the highest expression of *the all-pervading law of
evolution. If they are not true, man's nature is a cheat, evo-
lution a monstrous fraud, and not under law at all, and this
pretended law of evolution is as fake as the myths of the
most absurd theology. If our nature be a valid basis for
reasoning, and a reliable means of reasoning, and if evolution
be consistent and according to law, then these ideas are ac-
cording to the law of the universe, and are its highest expres-
sion, and should be accepted as the highest standard in the
universe. Tjien the atheist commits high treason against his
own highest authority, and dethrones his own highest law.

The idea of God is in the human mind. It came by one
of these sources :

I. By an immediate intuition.

II. An universal affirmation of reason, after a course of
reasoning.

III. By revelation. If it came from either source, we are
bound to accept its truth. If either of the first two sources
gave it, the atheist is bound to accept it, or reject his own
standard, human reason. Even if we admit tliat imagination
has constructed the character of God, or man's conception of
his attributes, intuition must have given the basis idea, the
idea of his existence or being. From what the mind cog-
nized in his works, from what it apprehended as the charac-
teristics of his works, it must have also intuited the idea of
each attribute, the basis or germ idea. These are simple,
uncompounded, original ideas of reason. Imagination can not
originate such an idea. The germ or root idea, the basis,
must be furnished to imagination by consciousness, intuition,
sensation or revelation. Then intuition must have given the
germ, the original idea, the basis idea of God's existence,
and of each attribute. Imagination, which is merely a con-
structive faculty, combining the materials furnished by con-
sciousness, intuition, sensation or revelation, has played fan-
tastic tricks with the character of God, with his attributes ;
but the basis idea of his being, and the basis idea of each at-
tribute, it never gave. The absolute necessity for intelligent
causation to account for the universe and its phenomena, is

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 301

seen in the speculations of the atheist himself, even while at-
tempting to destroy all such ideas, and in which he supposes
he does away witli such ideas. The existence of the religious
element in his nature, is demonstrated by his conduct. The
atheist makes a God of matter, or of matter and force. He
ascribes to matter self-existence, self-sustenance, independence
and eternity of being, and makes it the necessary being, and
uncaused, unconditioned, and absolute in being. In so doing
he ascribes to it the very attributes of God that are most
difficult of conception, and the very attributes that he pro-
tests that he can not accept in the idea of God. He gives to
laws of nature, or the nature of things, every attribute of the
Divine being.

It is utterly impossible for the atheist to reason on the pri-
mordial constitution of things without giving to matter and
force all the attributes of God, and the very ones that he
objects to, and refuses to accept, and protests that he can not
comprehend, or believe, in the idea of God. Not only so,
but he must interpolate at every step of the path of evolu-
tion, from beginning to end, what can be attributed to mind
alone. He deifies matter and force at the beginning, and
continues his apotheosis until he reaches the last step in evo-
lution, and then a^^sumes for matter and force eternal divinity
and deity, in oncoming eternity. He invariably and even
unwillingly makes an intelligent cause out of matter and
force. The inexorable necessity and emergencies of his rea-
soning compel him to do so. This is sufficient to demonstrate
that we are compelled, by the very nature and constitution of
our thinking, to make the ground and beginning of all being
an intelligent cause, or to violate such nature and constitution
by ascribing to matter and force what inhere in mind alone,
and then repeat the absurdity at every step, in our course of
reasoning, by interpolating intelligence until we have made a
God of matter and force and of the course of evolution.
Comte, and all French atheists, have exhibited the religious
intuition in their lives. Comte fabricated quite an elaborate
system of atheistic religious ceremonies. He emptied the
sicramental cup of the wine of the real presence, and then

302 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

worshiped the cup. French atheism, in both revolutions,
showed clearly the outcroppings of this ineradicable intuition.
Spiritualism takes like a contagion among atheists. The
Owens, Prof. Hare, and many eminent atheists, are notable
examples of this. All this demonstrates that man is a relig-
ious being, has a religious element in his nature, and that he
will have a religion and a God.

Two classes of persons have denied that man is constitu-
tionally and intuitively a worshiping being, and for exactly
opposite purposes. The atheist denies it to disprove the idea
and the existence of God. Man, he claims, is naturally and
intuitively an atheistic being, hence reason declares that there
is no God. Certain theists assert that without revelation man
would have no idea of God. The idea is in the world, hence
God exists, and has revealed himself, and thus given rise to the
idea. While intending to demonstrate the existence of God,
and the necessity of revelation, and the reality of revelation, it
is one of those suicidal arguments that destroys only the cause
it is intended to aid. No man can take such a position and
avoid being hoisted by his own petard. Had the late Alex-
ander Campbell met in Owen a shrewd reasoner, his fundamen-
tal position would have been retorted with fatal force against
the existence of spirit, the immortality of spirit, the existence
of God, and against human freedom and responsibility, and all
religion, worship and morality. If his position be true, all
these things are myths, and utterly foreign to man's nature
and reason. His brethren have accepted, and now retain, this
position, because it was wielded with such effect against Owen.
But some of them have learned since that when presented to
other skeptics it is but a club that is wrested out of their
hands, and used to beat out their own brains. The true po-
sition is, that man is constitutionally a religious, a worshiping
being, and that the religious element of man's nature will
necessarily exhibit itself in systems of religion and acts of
worshi}). The Scriptures clearly so teach in Psalm xix. and
Romans i. and ii., especially the twentieth verse of the first
chapter. Man needs revelation to give him a correct idea of
God, of his moral attributes, and of his own duty to God,

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 303

to his fellow-men, and to himself. Such a position agrees
with human experience, reason and revelation.

Atheists, and the class of theists just mentioned, have
claimed that certain tribes were atheists, and that deaf mutes
are also. The cases they bring forward are not fair tests of
the capabilities of human nature. One class is the lowest
and most degraded of our race, and by the same course of
reasoning I can prove that the whole race is incapable of
civilization. The other class is deprived of one of the prin-
cipal avenues of knowledge, and of all means of acquiring
moral and religious ideas from their fellow-men. But the
assumption in both cases is utterly untenable. The author
pledges himself to give the form of religion of every supposed
atheistic tribe. Several reasons have led to such a mistake.
Travelers have presented to the savages, in their queries, theo-
logical speculations, and have mistaken ignorance of their
metaphysics for ignorance of all religious ideas. They have
been ignorant of the language of the savages, and neither
party understood the other. Lack of ceremonial forms of
worship, or of prayer, or temples, or of an order of priesthood,
have all led travelers to such a conclusion. In this way it
has been asserted by Lubbock and others that the Digger Li-
dians, the Australians, the Bushmen or Bechuanas of South
Africa, the Arafuros of the Pacific Ocean, and certain tribes
in the deserts of Arabia, are without any religious ideas or
idea of God. Other and better informed writers clearly
prove the contrary. The Digger Lidians have idols and sac-
rifices, and quite an elaborate system of superstition and ideas
of a future life. The Bechuanas, and every tribe of them, have
ideas of a Supreme Being, and of creation, and quite extensive
relio-ious ideas. So have the Arafuros and the Bedouins of
the desert of Arabia. A more unfounded assertion was never
made than that man has ever been found an atheist, except
a few persons in civilized countries, who reached such a con-
clusion by a perversion or strangulation of their nature, just
as the hermit and suicide pervert or destroy their nature.
Even deaf mutes liave ideas of Intelligent Causation, origi-
nating in their intuitions of infinity, dependence and caus*

304 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ation, us was clearly established by the testimony of Steenrood,
used by Mr. Campbell in his debate with Owen to establish
the contrary.

All intuitions are riidimental in savages and children, and
they act on them before they can express them, or formulate
them. Millions of men, in civilized nations, act on intuitions
when they can not formulate them, but it is certainly an ab-
surdity to deny that they have their intuitions on which they
act all their lives, because they can not express them in the
dialect of the schools. Among savages society is rude and
tribal, or in isolated families. It is selfish, jealous and cast-
like. Marriage is lust and polygamy. Self-defense is war-
fare,, rapine and blood-shed. Love of property is robbery
and violence. Religion is supeistition and idolatry. Spirit-
uality is fear, dread and superstition. But in all this error
and perversion there is a substratum or truth. The basis
idea, the intuition is there, and is correct and the basis of
correct development. All these intuitions have proper ob-
jects, and are intuitions perverted. It is in this sense that
we say that man is a social being — that he loves society,
wealth, power, wife, children, country and his fellows. We
say these feelings are natural to man. It is in precisely the
same sense that we say that man is a religious being. Men
have said that certain tribes had no idea of God, meaning
that they had not a correct idea of God — had not a knowledge
of the God of revelation, or of as perfect a being as He. In
precisely the same way it has been said that certain tribes
have no families or wives or love of children, no idea of prop-
erty, no society or form of govei-nment. Yet we find in all of
them, men and women associating together, fathers and moth-
ers and children, and these living together, and personal prop-
ertv in dress and implements, and also leaders and associa-
tion. The basis idea is there, but rude and undeveloped, and
perhaps perverted, but it exists and can not be eradicated.
In the same sense we say man is a religious being. He al-
ways has religious ideas, worship and superstition. The basis
idea is there. If this were not the case,, a revelation of re-
ligion would be utterly impossible. If there be in the human

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 305

mi)i(l no sentiment or intuition to which revelation appeals,
no foundation on which revelation is based, religion and reve-
lation would be as impossible in man's case as in that of the
brute. One of the essential and chief differences between man
and the brute is that man is a worshiping, a religious being,
intuitively and necessarily so. Atheism strives to remove
this difference, and reduce man so much nearer the brute,
from which it claims he had his origin, but the sentiment can
not be eradicated. The brute is absolutely without this ele-
ment in his nature, and it can not be implanted within or
engrafted upon his nature, nor can he be made to display
the slightest manifestation of its presence. As the atheist
proves man to be an irreligious being, we can prove him to
be an irrational being. Men pervert or deny the plainest de-
cisions of reason as well as their religious nature. Then
taking human nature as our standard, we must accept the idea
of God as a fundamental idea of all thought.

We now propose to show that the atheist, in his reasoning
on the course of development, is compelled to violate all rea-
son and thought, and his own ultimate standard of investiga-
tion and authority ; and that we are driven to the conclusion
that the universe had an intelligent cause, from the infinitely
greater difficulty of conceiving how the universe came into
beino; without such a cause. The atheist has to assume the
eternity of matter. In so doing he ascribes to it self- existence,
independence, self-sustenance and eternity, the very attributes
of Deity that are most difficult of conception, and the very at-
tributes of Deity that the atheist protests that he can not ac-
cept or understand — of which he can not have even a concep-
tion. When we have accepted these attributes of Deity, all
the rest is comparatively easy. It is infinitely the easier, and
infinitely the more rational, to accept the eternity, self-exist-
I3nce, independence and self-sustenance of mind, that we are
conscious is superior to matter, and that we see controlling mat-
ter, and using it for its own purpose, proving that matter was
made for mind, and not mind for matter. If we accept the
latter, an infinitely easier and more rational alternative, we

26

306 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

liave sufficient ground for all subsequent being, and all diffi«
culty vanishes.

But when the atheist has made this assumption, he has
only chaos, without law, order, property, or principle. He
has to assume the eternity, independence, and self-existence
and self-sustenance of the essential properties or forces of
matter, attraction, adhesion, cohesion, rejoulsion, chemical
action, affinity, and crystallization. This only gives a fortui-
tous concourse of atoms, a turbulent chaos. Then he has to
assume that these forces were eternally spontaneously active,
and assume the self-existence, eternity, independence and self-
sustenance of laws for the proportion of elementary sub-
stances, their number for chemical action and affinity, the
selection of some and rejection of others, laws of proportion
as to how they shall unite to form the almost infinite variety
of compounds in existence, laws for change of form by heat
and chemical action, laws for exact and most beautiful and
wonderful geometrical forms and proportions in crystallization.
In so doing, he violates every principle of reason, for reason
declares that these results, in which are realized the highest
conceptions of reason, can be accomplished only by the action
of thinking, planning, selecting, reason or mind. Then he
has to assume the eternity, self-existence, independence and
self-sustenance, and the spontaneous activity of these forces,
essential properties and laws, and their co-ordination and or-
derly arrangement and adaptation and adjustment to each
other and subsequent results, in exact mathematical order
and proportion, as to how, when, where, how long, how often,
in what order of succession, and with what power they shall
act. Again, he violates every principle of reason, for reason
declares that all these results, in which are realized the very
highest conceptions of reason, can only be produced by a pre-
exLstent mind, acting on a plan, with prevision of, and provi-
sion for, coming existences and results. As we have several
times shown, all these phenomena, facts, and principles, that
must have entered into the very first constitution of things,
the primordial constitution of matter and force, prove matter
and f )rce to be manufactured articles, subordinate agents, the

THE THEISTIC SOLUTIOTiT. 307

products of mind. This disproves tlie self-existence of matter
and force, and establishes the pre-existence of mind, anterior
to the primordial constitution of matter and force, to give to
them this first constitution.

Then he has to assume the eternity, self-existence, inde-
pendence, self-sustenance and spontaneous activity of laws for
the harmonious adjustment of forms, distances,' and orbits of
the heavenly bodies and systems, and also for the orderly
arrangement of their densities, distances, motions, velocities,
and relative masses, in exact mathematical proportion and
law, and geometrical form, proportion and law. Either this
is eternal, self-existent, independent, self-sustaining and spon-
taneous, or blind, irrational matter and force evolved all this.
In either case, he violates every law of our thinking, for rea-
son declares that all this, in which the highest conceptions
of pure reason are realized, must be the act of reason, acting
on a plan, with method, system and forethought. Notwith-
standing all the infinite assumptions that we have already
pointed out, we have only mineral compounds and chemical
combinations. Next we have to assume the eternity, self-
existence, independence, self-sustenance, and spontaneous ac
tivity of vital force, as seen in vegetable life, growth, and
reproduction. It is eternal, or whence came it? No chem-
istry can produce it, or evolve it out of matter and force, or
lay hold of it and analyze it. Also, whence came vegetable
forms, types, and varieties, and their adjustments and adapta-
tions to each other and surroundings? Reason declares that
all this came from the action of a mind acting on an all-per-
vading, all-controlling plan, and that had prepared these
forces and influences, and adjusted them and adapted them
to these ends. In all these, the very highest conceptions of
order, system, beauty and beneficence, the very highest con-
ceptions of reason, are realized; and common sense utterly
refuses to believe that irrational matter and force evolved all
this, which has its only conceivable ground in mind. Next
we have to assume the eternity, self-existence, independence,
self-sustenance and spontaneity of animal life, sensation and
instinct, as seen in animal life, growth, and reproduction. It

308 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

is eternal, or whence came it? No chemistry, or combination
or modification of matter and force can produce it, or evolve
it out of inorganic matter, or vegetable matter and life. We
have to assume, also, the eternity and spontaneous activity of
the laws of forms, types, organisations and species of animal
life, and the adjustment of all nature and vegetable life to
animals, and the adaptation and adjustment of all physical
forces to them, and their adaptation and adjustment to con-
ditions. The laws for all this are eternal, self-existent, inde-
pendent, self-sustaining and spontaneously active, or whence
came they?

The theory of the evolution of animal life, sensation and
instinct, by insensate, irrational matter and force, or by chem-
ical action, or vegetable life or organization, is utter non-
sense ; for if they are not inherently and eternally in mat-
ter and force, they can not be evolved out of it. The theory
of the production of all varieties of animal and vegetable life,
by unconscious selection is unconscious nonsense, for the term
itself is a palpable contradiction, for selection can be per-
formed only by conscious intelligence. So is the theory that
animals adapted themselves to conditions. Either conditions
were adapted to animal at first, or they were not. If adapted
at first, then the theory of adaptation by unconscious selection
is a myth, and the question arises in a moment, Who adapted
them? and theism is unav^oidable. If not adapted, how did
they exist in inadapted conditions until adapted ? This theory
makes destructive agencies perform the work of constructive
agencies. Common sense says all this, in which we see real-
ized the highest conceptions of reason in co-ordination, adjust-
ment and adaptation, into order, system, and method, exhib-
iting plan, design, purpose, and prevision of, and provision
for, subsequent existences, in accordance with the ideas and
laws of highest reason, is the work of thought, reason, mind.

Notwithstanding all the infinite assumptions we have passed
through, we have no rational life, mind, or spirit. The crown-
ing existence of the universe is wanting. The atheist has
either to have mind, reason, and spirit, evolved by blind, ir-
rational matter and force destitute of them, which violates

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 309

his fundamental principle, '' Out of nothing, nothing comes,"
or he has finally to admit the eternity, self-existence, inde-
pendence and self-sustenance of life principle capable of rea-
son, thought, and moral action; in other words, the eternity,
self-existence, independence, and self-sustenance of mind or
spirit in some form, the very thing he especially wishes to
avoid. There is no evading the question. It is eternal, or
whence came it? It is an insult to common sense to assure
us that it is the blind, irrational force seen in insensate mat-
ter, modified by organization of insensate matter. Even if
this were the case, whence came this wonderful organization
of matter that can, as an infidel rhapsodist declares, change a
cabbage into a divine tragedy of Hamlet? Nauglit but in-
telh'gence, infinite intelligence, can produce such a wonderful
organization of insensate' matter as that capable of producing
such an infinite result, as such a modification of blind, irra-
tional force would be. The atheist, in attempting to account for
reason and thought, tells us that they are but different manifes-
tations of the same force seen in inorganic matter, changed
into reason and thought by that wonderful organization of
matter, our body, or its organs. When we ask, whence came
so wonderful an organization of insensate, inorganic matter? he
tells us that this very irrational force, that is so wonderfully
modified by matter, produces the very organization that pro-
duces the wonderful modification of force. A more absurd
confusion of cause and effect, and a more absurd case of argu-
ing in a circle, was never seen. Such an utter abnegation of
all sense was never before dubbed with the high sounding ap-
pellation, practical knowledge or practical science.

Let us strip the question of every evasion and subterfuge,
and face the naked issue. Which is rational, to believe that
this wonderful existence, human reason, mind, spirit, and the
ascending scale of being beneath, which exhibits in its very
primordial constitution, and at every step of the ascent realized
the most exalted conceptions of reason, is the product of
mind or reason, or to believe that there is mind or reason in
minerals and earths, waiting for organization of insensate
matter to develop it ? or to believe that insensate matter and

310 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

irrational force evolve what is absolutely not in them? One of
the three positions we must accept. Can we believe that reason,
emotion, thought, and volition are modes of the same force as
that which whirls the dust before it, or burns in the brand,
or flashes in the cloud ? If reason or mind was not eternally
present in matter, whence came it when it does appear ?
Whence came the organization that develops it, or modifies
the one force of nature, if it has been eternally present, and
waiting for means of development, or is merely this one force
modified by organization of matter? Reason declares that
this development, these means of development, this organiza-
tion, can only have resulted from origination, direction, and
control of a pre-existing mind, acting on a plan with this re-
sult before it as an end. Hence, after all this monstrous and
contradictory assuming, to avoid accepting the existence of
mind, we have to accept at last the eternity, self-existence,
independence, and self-sustenance of mind, the very thing we
have been trying to evade. Not only so, but we have to
place mind anterior to, and above matter and force, and this
course of development, by which the materialist strives to ac-
coimt for mind, to originate, control, and direct it, to co-or-
dinate, adapt, and adjust blind, irrational matter and force,
and so control them as to secure this result. The materialist
violates every principle of reason unless he does this, and
after doing this, he commits logical suicide, by accepting at
last the very thing he' set out to evade — the self-existence
and eternity of mind. Then, though there are mysteries con-
nected with the thought, the only rational course is to believe
the eternity and self-existence of mind, and mind alone. If
we take this position, we have sufficient ground for all being,
and all that exists has a rational explanation. But when we
make irrational matter and force eternal, self-existent, inde-
pendent, self-sustaining, and spontaneously active, and the only
ground of all being and development, we begin wdth an as-
sumption in violation of all reason, and we have to make as-
sumptions of like character all along the course of develop-
ment. In one case we have the inexplicable it may be, but
still it it is perfectly rational. In the other, we have incon-

THE THEISTIO SOLUTION. 311

ceivably more that is inexplicable, and the absurd contradic-
tory and impossible.

Even when the atheist has done all this monstrous assum-
ing he has not the present order of things, unless he assigns
to mind control over matter and force, to originate, direct and
regulate this almost infinite course and series of development,
during the almost infinite period he claims for it. Then tlie
provisions, ages before their existence, for coming existences,
the removal of lower types and the substitution of higher, as
the earth became unfitted for the lower and fitted for the
higher, and the continual and connected providence demand-
ed by the orderly development, in accordance with law, de-
monstrates the pre-existence of mind. So does the declaration
of geology, that each species existed in its greatest perfection
at the commencement of its existence, from direct creation.
There is not a particle of evidence of transitional forms, or
of transmutation of species, or of bridging over the chasms
between species. All talk of it is bald assumption, unsus-
tained by a single fact. Every species produces after its kind,
and has ever done so during all geologic epochs, as well as
during human history. Varieties may be produced, but nev-
er a new species by mere conditions. Darwin admits that the
genesis of a new species by mere matter and force, or the op"
eration of conditions of matter and force, is unknown in hu-
man experience or knowledge ; and not one particle of evi-
dence, that such a thing has actually transpired, can be found
in historic or geologic testimony. Species never hybridize ;
and there is not an instance can be cited of a single species
that ever passed up into a higher species, in the ascending
chain of being. Not a single fact adequate to a single assump-
tion, in the atheistic theory of development, has ever been
found. It is all assumption, in the face of reason, experience
and possibility.

Either all life and spirit was eternally buried in matter,
and existed either really or potentially in matter eternally, or
it existed eternally above and distinct from matter. The latter
position is theism, the former atheism. If all life was originally
in a cell or germ, then all possibilities of life must have been

312 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

there also, or whence come differentiation, selection, and dif-
ference in development ? If difference of conditions occa-
sioned the difference of development, then there must have
been in each germ power of adaptation to all conditions nec-
essary to produce all that has been developed. This makes a
God out of each germ ; for it places in each germ all possibil-
ities of all life, and power of adaptability to all conditions.
If difference of life existed in each germ, or different condi-
ti(ms surrounded different germs in the primordial constitution
of things, whence came these differences ? If the same life,
with all possibilities of life, existed in each germ, whence
come this omnipotent life, and whence came these different
condition-, and whence came this omnipotent adaptability to
all conditions ? If different possibilities of life, and different
conditions existed in and around different germs, whence come
tliese differences, and, above all, the adai)tations of these dif-
ferent conditions to these differences of life? Then all possi-
bilities of life and adaptation to all conditions must have been
in each germ. Not only so, but possibilities and adaj^tations ;
so that two beings of different sexes must be produced at the
same time and in the same place — at least once in the course
of development — out of that which has no sex, but contains
tiiat which has sex. If there be a great many lines of descent,
this must have transpired as many times as there are lines of
descent. There must be produced, whenever a variation oc-
curs in the course of development, at least two possessing the
same variation and of different sex, at the same time and in
the same place, and they must associate with each other, and
tlieir descendants with each other. If this does not transpire,
the law of heredity would remove, instead of perpetuating, the
variation. This makes each germ omnipotent and a god, to
begin with ; and the course of development requires plan, co-
ordination, adjustment, adaptation and prescience, before the
first constitution of things, and intelligent control and direc-
tion during the entire course.

Intelligence can not be evolved out of matter and force, des-
titute of intelligence, if the atheistic maxim, " Out of nothing
nothing comes," be true. Tyndall's late speech at Belfast was

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 313

an open confession of this. But even if it could be thus evol-
ved, the previous course of development, before its evolution,
would require the pre-existence of mind before the commence-
ment of the development, to originate, plan, control and di-
rect it. Then if intelligence can not be evolved out of mat-
ter and force destitute of intelligence, we have to take
the absurd position that all matter is endued, potentially at
least, with intelligence. If each particle of matter is endued
with plastic life, (life capable of being molded by conditions
into all possibilities of existence,) and with all the conditions
necessary to produce the infinite varieties of life we now
see, although we have made a god of each particle of mat-
ter, there still remains the query of queries, " Who origina-
ted, adjusted, controlled and directed the development?"
The long, harmonious and orderly course of development, in
accordance with the law expressing the highest ideas of rea-
son, requires co-ordination, adjustment, 2:)lan, control and
providence, with foreknowledge of results. These can have
their only conceivable ground in Pre-existent Mind. Hence,
take what hypothesis of atheism we will, we are driven at
once to self-existence of mind, and to Intelligent Absolute
Cause, unless we deny and stultify every principle of reason.
The atheist begins by assuming the eternity, self-existence,
independence, self-sustenance and spontaneous activity of mat-
ter and force, and, in so doing, gives to them all the attri-
butes of God that are difficult of apprehension, and then
keeps on adding to their properties and powers, until he has
ascribed to them every attribute of God, and then he has to
stultify all reason, unless he places Self-existent Mind anter-
ior to the first constitution of matter and force, to give to
them this constitution.

If consistent and logical the atheist must not only deny the
existence of God, intelligent causation, indeed, all causation
and immortality; but he must also deny all freedom, volition,
good and evil, responsibility, obligation, reward and punish-
ment, accountability, moral desert, righteousness and justice.
He has no place for such ideas or qualities, or the evolution
of such ideas or qualities in his system of blind, insensate
27

314 THE PROBLE-M OF PHOBLEMS.

matter, and blind, irrational force. They are not in irrational
matter and force ; and change matter and force as much as
you can, you can not evolve out of them what was not in
tliem, hence by evolution they can not be made to have these
qualities. If all things were once potentially in irrational
matter and force, there is no such thing as these qualities in
t!ie imiverse, for these qualities could not be there either actu-
ally or potentially. Then whence do they come, whence do
tliey appear ? There is but one alternative, and that is to deny
the reality and existence, as all consistent atheists do. As
these are primitive ideas of our nature, and as all primitive
ideas are the basis of all reasoning and life, if these ideas are
not real, our nature is false, and all search after knowledge,
even the knowledge accepted by the atheist, is a chimera, and
all reasoning is folly, and its conclusions the delusive phan-
tasms of a lying, cheating nature. The atheist accepts the
intuitions of absolute space and duration, and absolute being
and power of independence and sustenance in matter and
force, and bases all his reasoning on these intuitions. Intui-
tion as clearly and positively gives us absolute mind, immor-
tality and retribution, here and hereaftei', and infinite, moral
government. Why does the atheist reject these intuitions
when he implicitly accejDts the others, and basis all reasoning
on them ? Why accept half of what his ultimate standard,
human reason, gives him, and rejects the other half? Is it
not because in the former there is no lawgiver, ruler, judge,
responsibility, retribution or government, and there is in the
latter? Why will the atheist accept every thing absolute and
infinite in the universe, and every thing in nature except God
and what is inseparably connected with that idea? Why
does he stultify reason and commit logical suicide, whenever
he even suspects any connection with that idea ? Is it not
because there is law, government and -restraint in the idea?
Is not the wish father to the thought, and the desire parent
of the conclusion ? The Psalmist uttered a profound truth
when he said, "The fool has said in his heart, There is no
Gol." Atheism is a sin of the heart and not an error of the
he.ul.

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 315

If the atheist accepts or chums the ideas of character and
morality, good and evil, he must admit the eternal existence
of mind or free personality, Avitli freedom' of volition and ac-
tion. Character, morality, good and evil, can inhere only in
free personality or mind, with freedom of volition and action.
Then, if mind or free personality, with freedom of volition
and action, is not eternal, there was a time when it did not
exist, and every thing then was without moral quality or
character. Matter and force, or that which has no quality or
character or moral nature, alone existed. Matter and force
without moral nature, quality or character, can not evolve
what is not in them. Hence, if mind has not existed forever,
good and evil and moral nature, quality and character, are a
chimera. Atheism gives us no morality or possible basis for
morality, and renders morality and character an impossibilitv.
Such terms, if used by it, are a fraud and a cheat. If it
really accepts such terms, it must accept the eternal exist-
ence of mind. We are aware that in the belief in the exist-
ence of absolute mind or personality, as the absolute cause
and beginning of all being, there is the incomprehensible and
the inexj)licable ; but there is not the absurd, contradictory
and impossible. We can apprehend the existence of these
things, and know that they exist, and that they do not con-
tradict reason, that they accord with it, although we can not
comprehend how they exist as they do, and why they exist
as they do.

But in rushing to the opposite extreme of atheism, we
have not only infinitely more of the incomprehensible and
inexplicable, but we have also the absurd, the contradictory
and the impossible, and at last have to repudiate reason, the
only standard the atheist professes to accept. If we take as
our standard our nature, our rational, moral and religious
nature, with its intuitions, we must accept absolute mind as
the beginning of all being, the absolute, tlie uncaused and
unconditioned, and the ground and summation of all causa-
tion, condition and being.

We dismiss our examination of atheism with tliis alterna-
tive: we must either believe that matter and force, blind, in-

316 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

sensate matter, and blind, irrational force, are eternal, self-
existent, independent, self-sustaining and spontaneously active,
and thus give to them all the attributes of God that are
difficult of apprehension, and the very attributes that the
atheist refuse to accept in the being of God, and pretends he
can not even apprehend, or we must believe that mind is
eternal, self-existent, independent, self-sustaining and sponta-
neously active. Now, we submit it to the reason and common
sense of every person of sense, which is the more rational
and the easier to believe : That blind, insensate matter, and
blind, irrational force are eternal, self-existent, independent,
self-sustaining and spontaneously active, and act in accordance
with the highest ideas of reason, while utterly destitute of
reason, and that all the wonderful and infinitely varied forms
of existence in the universe, with all their wonderful and in-
finitely varied adaptations and adjustments and evidences of
infinitely wise plan, law, and design, in which are realized the
mo;t exalted conceptions of reason, spring into existence with-
out reason or intelligence, that originated and controlled this
wonderful development for their infinitely wise and beneficent
ends, and, above all, that mind was evolved out of matter and
force, utterly devoid of all mind, reason or intelligence, and
without an originator and controller of such infinitely won-
derful evolution ; or to believe that mind, which controls
and uses matter for its own purposes, and for which matter
was made and exists, and is so superior to matter, is eternal,
self-existent, independent, self-sustaining and spontaneously
active, and acts in accordance with law and the highest ideas
of reason, and that mind originated, controlled and sustained
this development, adjustment, adaptation and plan, in which
are realized the most exalted conceptions of reason for these
infinitely wise, beautiful and beneficent ends? If our fliith be
weak, why take the infinitely harder side ? Why attempt to
believe in utter stultification of all reason, not only the in-
explicable, but the absurd, the contradictory, and the im-
possible ?

AYe can not believe that matter and force are eternal, self-
existent, independent, self-sustaining and spontaneously ac-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 317

live; that they existed before mind and evolved it, or that
they eternally co-existed Avith mind for these reasons:

I. Matter and physical force are inferior in being, charac-
teristics and manifestations to mind. The evolutionist admits
these when he makes mind the highest result or product of
evolution and places it at the apex and above all being but
itself.

II. There must be spontaneity, spontaneous activity and
action in the cause of the development claimed by the evolu-
tionist. Matter is inert and passive, and not a cause, but an
instrument in the action of a cause. There is no spontaneity,
no spontaneous activity in matter or mere physical force.
Above all, these is no regulating or controlling po\Yer over
their action in matter and force. Then neither matter nor
physical force are agents or spontaneous, self-active, efficient
causes. Above all, they are not self-regulating, self-control-
ling causes, such as must have produced this evolution.

III. Neither matter nor physical force ever act in the
proper sense of the word. Matter moves when acted upon.
Force is an exercise of power by an agent, and is itself an
act. The only real and proper action in the universe is that
of mind ; and all accommodated applications of the terms ac-
tion and cause, when applied to matter and physical force,
can be traced back to mind as their only source, a spontane-
ous, self-active, efficient cause.

IV. Matter and physical force are the servants of mind.
So the evolutionist admits when he makes mind the highest
product of evolution and places all else below mind.

V. The primordial constitution of matter and force is such
that it could not have come into being or existed at all un-
less mind existed anterior to such first constitution, to origin-
ate it, plan it, and give existence to it.

VI. The co-ordination, adaptation and adjustment of matter
and force, of the original elements and atoms of matter, of
its essential properties of force, and its various manifestations,
and their essential properties into a system, method and i)lan,
exhibiting design and purpose with law, expressing the higli-
est conceptions of reason with prevision of, and provision

318 THE PROBLE]\r OF PROBLEMS.

for, all that followed, in which are realized the most exalted
ideas of reason, prove matter and force to be subordinate
agents, manufactured articles, the products of mind. Hence,
they are not self-existent and eternal, but must have existed
after the existence of mind have come into being by the
action of mind.

VII. There must be spontaneous activity and self-regu-
lated and self-controlled action in the first constitution of
matter and force in the beginning of the course of develop-
ment, and at every moment of the coui^e of development.
This is not possible in mere matter and physical force.

VI [I. Matter and physical force are not sufficient ground
for life, sensation, instinct, reason and moral character.

IX. If we postulate matter and force as the ground of
all being, we have to foist into it all the attributes of mind,
to begin with, then interpolate, at every step, additional
acts of mind, and thus steal the whole of infinite, intelligent
causation ; and our entire progress in tracing the course of
evolution is a tissue of absurdities, contradictions and impos-
sibiHties.

X. The rational, moral, and religious intuitions of our
nature utterly refuse to accept matter and force as an ade-
quate ground for all being.

We b&lieve mind to be the only eternal and self-existent
being, and that it existed anterior to matter and force, and
gave existence to them for these reasons:

I. ]\Iind is superior to matter and force. The evolutionist
makes mind the highest of all existence when he makes it
the highest result of evolution.

II. The power of^miwd over matter and force, using and
controlling them and subordinating them to its uses, demon-
strates that they are subordinate to mind and exist for it.

HI. Mind alone is a spontaneous, self-active, self-control-
ling, self-regulating cause.

IV. Mind alone acts in the true sense of the word. All
action in the universe can be traced to mind.

V. The primordial constitution of matter and force is such
as to demand the existence of mind anterior to such first

THE TIIEISTIC SOLUTION. 319

constitution to give to them this constitution and to give to
them existence.

VI. The primordial constitution of matter and force is
such that it demonstrates that they are subordinate agents,
manufactured ai-ticles, and the products of mind, and that
their first constitution was given to them by mind. Hence,
mind existed anterior to matter and force and brought them
into being.

VII. The first constitution of matter and force, the oris-
ination, commencement, phm and control of the cause of
evolution, require spontaneous, self-active, self-regulated and
self-controlled power. Mind is the only power of this kind
in the universe.

VIII. In the first constitution of things, in every step of
development, and in the present order of things, the most ex-
alted ideas of reason are realized. Mind must have realized
these ideas by its action in each case.

IX. Mind is the only cause, can be the only cause, of life,
sensation, instinct, reason and moral character. Hence, mind
has brought them into existence.

X. If we postulate mind as the Self-existent Being and
the ground of all being, we have no further difficulty to
account for all being.

XI. If we attempt to make matter and force the ground
of being, we have to give them the attributes of mind, and
at last place mind before them to give them being and to
control them.

XII. Our rational, moral and religious nature demand
such a ground of all being, and are satisfied with no other.

We will now bring forward the various theistic arguments,
or lines of argument, and show that they are inter-depend-
ent and mutually sustain and strengthen each other; and
also establish, justify and perfect each one, by what we have
advanced in our theistic reasonings. The defects of one can
be remedied by another, and, in fact, they must be taken
together to make a complete and perfect whole. Tliey are
strands of an interwoven cord, that should never be used
separately, or separated in argument.

320 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

One great difficulty in theistic reasonings has been, that
the various reasoners have permitted their inental biases to
prejudice them in favor of one particular line of argument,
and against the rest. They have vainly attempted to make
of this one argument, the one and only argument. They have
relied on it alone, and refused aid, absolutely necessary to
success, from other lines of argument. Not only so, but
they have attacked other lines of argument, and have thus
furnished to the atheist weapons that he has not only ^viel(led
in the interest of atheism against theism, but "sveapons that
he has turned against themselves.

There is no such antagonism between these lines of argu-
ment, and no line of argument is complete without the others,
or even possible without them. Tlie special advocates of
each line of argument generally borrow largely from the ar-
guments they assail, and even the arguments in them that
they most violently assail, and often do so in their attacks.
Such a course is suicidal. All truth is harmonious and con-
sistent, and in concord a unit. No one department of truth
can say to all other departments, "I have no need of thee."
Let us, then, review all these lines of argument, rounding
out and perfecting each, by what can be supplied by others,
and then let us weave them into a five-fold cord that can
not be broken. It will give us an adequate resume of our
course of argument.

I. The Ontological Argument. — In this argument, as in
all others, we have to begin by accepting the veracity and re-
liability of our nature, and base our arguments on its valid-
ity in consciousness, sensation and intuition. If we can not
do this, all reasoning i^ destroyed, and all processes and acts
of reasoning an utter impossibility. We have to assume,
also, the correspondence between our subjective notions in
consciousness, sensation and intuition, and the objective re-
ality in ourselves and nature. If the subjective starting
point be false, and our knowledge given in consciousness,
sensation and intuition be not reliable, all objective knowl-
edge is impossible. If the objective reality does not corres-
pond with our subjective ideas in consciousness, sensation and

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 321

intuition, all knowledge of the objective is equally impossi-
ble. We need no middle, no connecting links, between the
subjective basis — ideas given in consciousness, sensation and
intuition — and the objective reality.

It is time that that delusion of the mediaeval schools was
given to the bats and moles of the monasteries in which it
had its origin. The correspondence and connection between
the objective reality and the subjective ideas in conscious-
ness, sensation and intuition is immediate and real, or all
reasoning and knowledge is an impossibility and a cheat.
Then the intuitions on which the ontological argument is
based, can not be denied without destroying all possibility
of knowledge and reasoning. They are self-evident and nec-
essary, and they express a necessary relation between the
mind and the universe.

The conclusions reached in the reasonings in the argument
can not be denied by one who accepts human reason as a
means of attaining truth, and as a standard and test of truth;
for these conclusions are catholic and universal. We are not
assuming that we must accept every vagary of the construc-
tive faculty, the imagination, nor does our argument involve
us in any such absurdity. Because reason and conscience have
ever urged on the soul the idea that there is a power that
punishes crime, and we urge that we should accept this intui-
tion, it does not follow that we must accept the Furies of
Grecian fancy.

This attempt to set to one side these catholic ideas, or over-
throw their authority, is generally based on a confusion of the
catholic ideas of reason with the vagaries of imagination.
These fancies vary, and each man's images vary from every
other man's, and there is no catholicity in them, and no
authority or sanction can be based on them. But, in the idea
of God, as presented in the ontological argument, there is a
catholic idea of universal reason, and we must accept it or
dethrone reason. In this way we always pass from necessary
notion to reality — from necessary subjective notion to objec-
tive reality. All reasoners do so in all departments of
thought, for in this way alone can we reason at all.

322 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

The idea of God exists as a catholic ide;^., an universal
affirmation of rciison. If the mind be a valid basis of reason-
ing and a reliable means of 'reasoning, He must exist to ac-
count for the existence of the idea as an universal affij-mation
of reason. The mind can not, without doing radical violence
to itself and the constitution of its thinking, divest itself of
the idea. It can not exist without betraying, even involun-
tarily, the presence and influence of the intuition. Unless we
repudiate entirely our nature, we must accept it. We have
the idea of an absolutely perfect being, and as reality is ever
greater than mere thought. He must exist. Just as abso-
lute space, duration and force are greater than mere thought
of them, and must exist to cause the thought of them, so Abso-
lute Perfect Being is greater than all mere thought of Him, and
He exists and caases this cathoh'c thought in universal human
reason. This idea is an effect. jNIore must exist in the cause
than fti the effect. The idea of the Absolute Perfect Being
can not be produced in the mind by the imperfect, the finite
and contingent. They may lead the mind to an apprehension
of the Absolute Perfect Being, but they are not its cause. The
cause must be greater than the effect. The idea of Absolute
Perfect Being exists in the mind as an effect. God, then, ex-
ists as necessary to the idea as the substance to the shadow.
In the generalizations by which catholic ideas are reached,
there is always more in the conclusion than in the premises or
the aggregate of the premises. The generalizations of the ma-
terialist, in every department of science and thought, are pal-
pable illustrations of this. In every induction, especially in
inductive generalizations, we rise above our fiicts and prem-
ises to the more general and complete. We combine ideas ob-
tained from various sources into a harmonious whole, by a
perception of the general thought that expresses their relation.
In our generalized thoughts and conlusions we rise above our
data on which they are based. If our nature be valid and re-
liable, these catholic ideas and intuitions must be accepted as
verities, or all reasoning is impossible and a folly. Then the
reasoning of Do Cartes and Anselmus must be accepted as
valid. Thus taking intuition as our basis, and using experi-

THE THEISTIO SOLUTION. 328

.'lice as an aid, the ontological argument can be justified and
proved valid. The argument from space and time as the
necessary attributes of substance, estabhshing that substance
must exist, of which they are the attributes, is a valid the-
istic argument, when we prove that mind is the necessary
substance of which they are necessary attributes. This we
can do by an appeal to other lines of argument, especially to
the teleological. Thus the ontological argument is justified
and established.

II. CosMOLOGicAL ARGUMENT. — All things are changing,
contingent and dependent, hence there must exist an unchang-
ing, unconditioned, independent being, in which they have
their ground. Things now exist, and as nothing produces
nothing, something must have always existed. We now ex-
ist, and a universe of phenomena and existence surrounds us,
hence an adequate cause for us and all things must exist. God
alone is the unchanging, the necessary, the unconditioned, the
independent, cr absolute ground of the changing, the contin-
gent and the dependent. He alone is the sufficient reason of
all existence, the adequate cause of all being. The principle
of causation compells us to rise to a cause uncaused, or else
all existences are eflfects, and we have at least one effect with-
out a cause, a most palpable absurdity. There are two ob-
jections to the cosmological line of argument. It is objected
that we pass from the concrete and caused to the absolute and
uncaused. Such is the case, but it does not invalidate our
reasoning or the conclusion reached. Our regress is through
results progressively vast until they become relatively infinite,
and in such cases reason always passes back to the al)soluto.
All thinkers and reasoners do this in space, time, force and
])eing. Why not also in cause and intelligence ? The un-
deniable fact that the mind invariably and necessarily does
this, is sufficient proof of its legitimacy, unless we deny the
validity and reliability of our nature, and all reason. Again,
it is objected that the unconditioned, the necessary, the cause
reached by this line of argument, is characterless, and desti-
tute of intelligence. The teleological argument rounds out the
cosmological, and proves it, or rather Him, to be an intelli-

324 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

gence. It ^vill connect the cmisa causmis with the first Ihik of
our chain of causes and effects. It supplies the intelligence,
volition and personality needed to complete the cosmological
argument, and gives us Intelligent Absolute Cause. That
something must have always existed both atheist and theist
agree. The design argument completes the cosmological, and
proves mmd to be the necessary antithesis of the existing con-
tingent. It must be the cause of the effects and existences
now in being. It is the only sufficient ground for all th;it
exists.

In reasoning thus, we merely accept, as we must, intuitions
of reason, and do not, as is sometimes objected, fall back on
faith. The objection that, while claiming to establish the
existence of God, this argument completes its work by rely-
ing on mere faith, which is based on the existence of God,
the very thing to be proved, to do the vital part of the work,
is based on a confusion of the logical understanding with rea-
son, and a mistaking of intuition for faith. The regress to
the absolute, and the affirmation that the absolute must be
absolute mind, are not acts of faith, but intuitions of reason.
Even if it were an act of fiiith, it would be valid if all men
were by theii' nature compelled to exercise this faith. Reason
ever leads us tlirough results progressively vast, and through
the relatively infinite to the absolute. It does this in space,
time, force, and being — in the reasonings of the atheist as
palpably as in those of the theist. The design argument
proves the absolute being, the creating, ruling force, to be
intelligent being or force. It completes the cosmological argu-
ment, by proving that the universe is not a ceaseless evolution
of unknown forces, but that in its first constitution it was an
effect of an intelligent, absolute cause. Combining these lines
of argument, we have intelligent, absolute cause, if our nature
be valid and reliable, if we can reason at all, or are war-
ranted in accepting any universal affirmation of reason. It is
only by the old suicidal denial of any correspondence between
subjective notions in consciousness, sensation, and intuition,
and objective reality, or by Hamilton's theory of nescience,

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 325

pressed by the atheist to its logical result, nihilism, that these
conclusions can be evaded.

III. The Teleological Aegument. — 1. We begin Avith
man's works, and observe their characteristics. We see in
them co-ordination, adjustment, adaptation, order, method,
system, law, plan, design, alternativity, choice, prevision of,
and provision for, ends, or purposes to be accomplished. We
examine nature and the universe, and we observe in eacli
existence and phenomenon, in each class and system, and in
the universe, these characteristics ; in :

a. The present order and constitution of things in each
and all departments of nature and the universe.

b. We observe these characteristics in the course of evolu-
tion, as we trace it back to its beginning, in each and every
step, and pervading, regulating and controlling the course of
evolution as a whole.

c. In the primordial constitution of matter and force, and
of the universe, and of the course of evolution, and in the
absolute beginning of existence or being, we find these charac-
teristics.

We know that in man's works they had their origin in
intelligence. We know that they can have their origin only
in intelligence, that intelligence alone can cause them, and
their existence is impossible and unthinkable without intelli-
gence as their only conceivable, their necessary cause. We
reason that in nature and the universe, in the present order
of things, in the course of evolution, and in the absolute be-
ginning and first constitution of things, they had their origin
in mind, must have had mind as their only conceivable cause.
They are inconceivable and unthinkable, unless we place mind
back of them as their cause, to originate them, cause them,
give them being. From finite displays of reason, we pa^^s
back and out, in nature and the universe, to relatively infi-
nite displays of reason, to absolute displays of reason, and
absolute reason. A most admirable instance of this is Paley's
argument on the watch, the hand, the eye, and then the hu-
man body, the world, the universe.

2. Or wo commence and examine tho Drimordial constitu-

326 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tion of nature and the universe, then the course of evolution,
then the present order of things; and we find certain charac-
teristics in the absolute beginning, the primordial constitution
of things, and in the course of evolution, in each and every
step, and pervading and controlling the entire course of evo-
lution, and in each and every existence and phenomenon in
the present order of things, and in the entire universe in its
present order. We find these characteristics in man's works.
They are caused by intelligence in man's works. Intelligence
li their only conceivable ground. They could not have been
brought into being except by intelligence. Then we throw
back these characteristics in the present order of things, in
the course of evolution, and in the absolute begrnning of
things, on to intelligence as their only conceivable cause.

3. The most exalted and abstract ideas of reason, in order,
law, method, plan, system, mathematics, beauty, prevision,
provision, alternativity and choice, are realized:

a. In the absolute beginning and primordial constitution of
things.

b. In the course of evolution, in each and every step, and
pervading and controlling the whole course.

c. In the present constitution and order of things.

They are basic, originating, controlling and regulative ideas,
in each case. Reason must have realized them in each case,
and stood back of such realization as its source or cause.
Nature can be studied, understood and construed, in each of
these three cases, only in accordance with, and by means of,
these ideas of reason.

Hence, in each case nature had its origin in reason, that con-
structed it in accordance with these ideas, and by means of
them. If this were not the case we could not study, under-
stand and construe nature, and science w^ould be impossible.
If nature have not its origin in reason there can be no sci-
ence.

4. There is co-ordination, adjustment, adaptation, order,
method, system, law, plan, design, prevision, provision, alter-
nativity and choice in each existence and phenomenon, each
class of existence and phenomena, in the universe, and per-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 327

meating the whole universe. This is true in themselves, in
their relation to each and the whole universe. This was true
in the absolute beginning and primordial constitution of
things, in each step of the course of evolution, and the entire
course, and in the present order and constitution of things.
If such were not the case, matter, force, and their essential
properties, and original elements, could not exist for one mo-
ment, or have came into being. They are unthinkable with-
out them. These characteristics could not have their ground
in blind, insensate matter and force. Blind, insensate irra-
tional matter and force are unthinkable as their ground.
The course. of evolution is unthinkable without these ideas as
originating and controlling ideas. The present order of things
is also unthinkable witliout these ideas as controlling ideas.
Tliey have their only thinkable ground in reason or mind as
their cause or source.

5. Matter, in its molecular constitution, in its primordial
constitution, in regard to essential properties and original ele-
mentary substances, and force in its primordial constitution,
and in its essential properties, have realized in them the ideas
of reason and mind, the most exalted and abstract ideas of
reason and mind, such as co-ordination, adjustment, adapta-
tion, order, method, system, law, plan, design, prevision, pro-
vision, alternativity and choice. They could not have existed
without the realization of these ideas in their existence, and
the absolute beginning of their existence. They are unthink-
able without such realization in their very existence, and the
absolute beginning of their existence. This proves them to
be subordinate agents, subordinate to mind, created articles,
the creation of mind. Then mind existed anterior to matter
and force, to the primordial constitution and absohite begin-
ning, to originate them and realize in their absolute begin-
ning, and their existence, these ideas. We can not conceive
of or think of matter and force without these ideas. Tliis
places mind back of matter and force as the cause of all
being.

6. Animals, such as the bee, act in accordance with the
niost profound rational laws, and realize in their acts the

328 THE mOBLF-M OF PROBLEMS.

most exalted, abstract and profound rational ideas, and work
out the most profound rational problems. Such an act has
not its cause in the atom of brain of the bee. It is back of
the bee. It is not in blind, irrational, insensate matter and
force. It must be in reason, back of the brain of the bee,
and of matter and force, that imj^lauted the instinct that ac-
complishes such wonderful acts of reason.

7. The most profound, exalted and abstract ideas of chemis-
try, and other departments of science, are realized and wrought
out, and problems solved, results reached, in the actions of
the most insignificant animals. The cause is not in the atom
of brain of the animal. It is not in blind, irrational, insen-
sate matter and force. It must be back of the atom of brain
of the animal or insect, and of blind, insensate, irrational
matter and force, in reason, that implanted the instinct that
accomplishes such wonderful acts of reason.

8. The most j^rofound scientific problems are solved, the
most profound scientific ideas and laws are realized, and the
most profound scientific results are accomplished, in the con-
stitution, organization, organs and structure of animals. Take
the wonderful electric apparatus of the electric eel ; the
chemical constitution of the poison or medicine in certain ani-
mals and plants ; the adaptation of organs of birds to flight,
and millions of such instances. Blind, irrational matter and
force did not solve such problems of reason and accomplish
and realize these profound ideas of reason. These results
liave tlieir only thinkable ground in reason. Reason must
have been back of matter and force realizing these ideas in
such organizations of matter and force.

9. Organs of plants and animals are adapted to the organs
and constitution of other animals and plants, as in poison of
the serpent and plants, in the medicine of plants, the fertili-
zation of plants by animals. Blind matter and irrational
force never did this. They are unthinkable as a cause for
this. Reason, with a knowledge of the organization and
constitution of each, alone could have produced such a
result.

10. We find similar oraans used for difierent ends as in

THE THETSTIC SOLUTION. 329

the hand of man, the paddle of the whale, the wing of the
bird, the fliiDper of a mole, etc. We find different organs
nsed for similar ends. We see similar causes producing dif-
ferent effects, effects differing in certain respects, and different
causes producing similar eiiects, and yet all maintaining a
consistent, rational order, unity, harmony and system. This
implies alternativity and choice, which have their only think-
able ground in mind.

11. We see prevision of, and provision for, ends yet future,
and for future existences and purposes and uses, in the pri-
mordial constitution of nature, in the course of evolution, and
all through nature now. This has its only thinkable ground
in mind.

12. Science assures us that each new species of animals or
plants suddenly appears, and in its greatest perfection at fii-st.
It reveals to us absolutely no approximating or transmuta-
tional forms. It reveals to us also certain highly organized
species that appear suddenly, in their greatest perfection,
without any prophetic or typical forms. This is not the re-
sult of the indefinite action of blind matter and force. They
are direct creations of reason.

This argument has been attacked by the atheist, who de-
nies all God and revelation; by the theist who wishes to
make revelation the sole source of all theistic ideas and all
morality; and by the advocates of the intuitional argument,
who wish to make the idea of God an immediate or original
conviction or intuition. With exactly opposite ends in view,
these extremes meet in their attacks on the teleological argu-
ment.

The atheist, knowing well that this is the argument, bends
all his energies to its. destruction. The advocates of other
lines of argument aid him, and furnish him his arguments
and weapons of assault; and when he has overturned the
design argument, as viewed from their standpoint, and by
means of concessions and cavils that they furnish to him, he
turns on them and hoists them with their own petard. Ninc-
tenths of all attacks on theistic proofs are directed against
the design argument. "It is right to learn from the enemy,"
28

33G THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

says au old maxim. The course pursued by the atheist
proves that this argument is Ihe argument and the funda-
mental line of proof. Hence, the concessions of theists, now
so often made, that this argument is not valid, and their at-
tacks on it, are a betrayal of the citadel of truth into the
hands of its enemies by those ^vho should be its garrison.

The atheist knows very well that but comparatively few
persons are reached by the ontological or cosmological lines
of argument. He knows that pei-sonality and character, the
things he dislikes and dreads in the idea of God, can be im-
parted to the being demonstrated by them by the design
arffument alone. He knows that the advocates of the intui-
tioual argument obtain the intuitions they use from the design
argument, and that they would not have the idea of intelli-
gence and personality in the being they claim to reach by
intuition, without the ideas of intelligence furnished by the
design arg-ument. Indeed, reason would never reach the
intuitions of intelligence and personality in the absolute be-
ing without the design argument.

The atheist well knows that he can make a characterless
abstraction of the being of all other lines of argument, unless
the design argument gives to him intelligence, character and
personality. As these attributes alone make Him a lawgiver,
ruler and judge, the very characteristics that the atheist
dreads and dislikes, he bends his entire energies to the de-
struction of this argument. He uses the positions and con-
cessions of theists in their attacks on the design argument,
and then brains them with their own club.

It is objected that the argument is analogical merely, and
not demonstrative. It is not analogical, but strictly induc-
tive. Analogy suggested the argument, it is true, but the
argument itself is strictly inductive, and based on observa-
tions and intuitions we can no more deny than we can our
own existence. The objector must either disprove the phe-
nomena, or show that they have not the characteristics that
the argument ascribes to them, or show that the intuitions on
which the argument is based are not intuitions and valid, oi
show that the process of reasoning is fallacious. Bestownig a

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 331

weakening epithet on tlie argument does not set it to one
side.

It is objected that we have more in our conclusion than we
liad in our premises. We reply that all men pass through the
relatively infinite to the absolute in space, duration, force and
being. So we can and must in causation and intelligence.
Fiom finite co-ordination, adaptation, adjustment, order, plan
and forethought in man's works, we pass through the same
characteristics in nature, through characteristics progressively
vast, until they become relatively infinite, until we rise to
infinite co-ordination, adjustment, adaptation, order, plan,
and forethought in the infinite universe. Intuition compells
us to throw these back on Absolute Mind, as the only con-
ceivable ground. Our premises are infinite co-ordination,
adjustment, adaptation, order, system and method, then in-
finite design, plan, law and forethought, and our conclusion
is Infinite Mind. The argument is as severely inductive as
it can be made, and as any argument can be.

It is objected that in man's works we have intelligence
and volition, using forces already existing, but in the design
arg-ument we have a creation of forces and materials, hence
the argument is worthless for want of analogy or similarity.
But it is not in the slightest degree essential that the acts
be similar in this particular. Similarity in this particular
has nothing to do with the argument, for it is not based on,
nor is it in the least affected by it.

AVe recognize design, plan and forethought in man's works,
in using the forces and materials of nature. This is based
on certain characteristics of the works, that are not affected
by the fact whether it is using materials or creating them. In
the primordial constitution of things, we see design, plan and
forethought. In the very first constitution of nature, in the
original co-ordination, adjustment and adaptation of things
into order, system, method and law, intuition compels us to
recognize plan, design and forethought, and ascribe them to
intelligence. As we are compelled by intuition to ascribe one
to intelligence, so we are compelled to ascribe the other ; and
the act itself has nothing to do with the argument. The

332 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

question is, AVhat are the characteristics of the acts ? If they
are the same, the characteristics of the causes or agents must
have been the same. It is objected that man would run
through an endless chain of causes and effects, and never rise
to an Absolute Cause. The objection forgets man's work in
generalizing and jiassing back to the beginning of things.
Geology proves nature to be a development, a progression.
If so, it must have had a beginning. This leads man back to
the beginning of things. He finds design, plan and fore-
thought in the primordial constitution, or very conception of
things. Intuition compels him to ascribe this to Absolute
Mind. There is only one escape. — Either deny that man can
and must intuit design, plan and forethought in nature, and
in the primordial constitution of things. If one does this,
he bids adieu to common sense, and, if a scientist, contra-
dicts his own description of nature. Or denies that design,
plan and forethought imply intelligence. If one does this he
is worthy of no further notice.

The present order of things can not be eternal, for it is a
progression and must have had a beginning. The things of
which it is composed are finite, changing and perishable, and
can not be eternal, self- existent, independent, self-sustaining
and self- controlling and self-regulating. The contrasts between
using nature and the creation of nature, do not prevent our
recognizing design, plan and forethDught in the first constitu-
tion of nature, and the present order of nature and the uni-
verse. On the undeniable fact, that reason recognizes design,
plan and forethought in the original constitution of the uni-
verse and nature, and in the present order of the universe
and nature, the whole argument depends. Nor is it necessary
to the argument that we comprehend nature. We admit that
we merely apprehend much on which the argument is based.
To object to the argument, however, because we do not com-
prehend all on which it is based, is to apply the fatal policy
of nescience, which completely destroys all possibility of
knowledge. We merely apprehend infinite space, duration,
force and being, and yet all use them as a valid basis for rea-
soning, and we are compelled to use them as such. We rise

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 333

above a phenomenal cause, either physical or spiritual. When
reason recognizes plan, forethought and design, it intuitively
concludes that a personal intelligent cause must have been
their source. Reason intuitively recognizes these characteris-
tics in the first constitution of things. This proves that the
first constitution of things, the first phenomenon, had a Per-
sonal Intelligent Cause, above and back of all phenomena.
We complete the work of the logical understanding, by an
intuition of reason, in causation and intelligence, as we do in
every thing else. The Absolute Personal Cause can not be
proved to be an effect, by an extension of the design argu-
ment. We have already shown that we have no analogy to
lead the argument farther, and that we violate all analogy
and the fundamental principle of reasoning when we do so.
Reason always stops and rests in the absolute. It rests in the
Absolute Mind, as the Absolute Uncaused and Unconditioned,
and the summation of all causation and condition.

The objection that, because there is evil in the universe,
we must give to the Deity a mixed character, applies to all
theistic arguments, — to one as much as the other. Notwith-
standing the mystery of evil, reason must believe that the
good of being, considered in relation to the entire universe, is
the end of existences and phenomena, and is secured in the
infinite plan. We have either to take this alternative, which
leaves the mystery inexplicable, or to take the other alterna-
tive, which leaves the mystery of evil as inexplicable ; and, by
plunging into atheism, launches out on a boundless sea of the
absurd, the contradictory and the impossible. Our conception
of design does not break down when we expand it to infinity,
any more than our conceptions of space, duration, force or be-
ing break down when we expand them to infinity. It is as
valid in the infinite universe as in the limited area of human
experience. Law, plan, design and forethought can be aj)-
prehended as infinite, as well as space, time, force or being.
Reason throws them back on Infinite Reason, as the Absolute
Cause. We can know the characteristics or attributes of this
Absolute Cause by HLs acts, just as we know the characteris-
tics of men by their acts. Absolute knowledge is not neces-

334 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

sary, for we do not have that concerning our fellow-man, or
even ourselves. From the finite we can rise to an appre-
heiLsion of the infinite in character, as well as in space, dura-
tion, force and being. The objections urged by the advocates
of the intuitional argument against the teleological, destroy
their own argument. Man would never have the intui-
tions that they use in their argument without the teleological
argument, or the catholic ideas it evolves and uses. To set
to one side the teleological argument, they have to deny the
reliability of our nature in its intuitions, which destroys their
own method of proof.

When we reach the Absolute Mind, reason places Him
above and back of nature and all being but Himself. We
have shown that matter and force are subordinate agents,
manufactured articles, the products of mind ; hence reason
places Mind anterior to the primordial constitution of matter
and force, to give to them this constitution, or to create them;
and thus makes Mind the beginning of all being, the Absolute
Cause. The operations of the Life Principle that we see in
nature, prove it to be an intelligent life principle. This is
the province of the design argument. Reason places it above
nature, controlling it, and anterior to nature, giving to nature
its first constitution, or creating it. We know that design,
plan and forethought, in our own works, are the product of
our own intelligent volitional constructive personality, — we
trace them to it as a cause. So we trace the plan, design and
forethought that we intuitively and necessarily recognize in
the first constitution of things, to the intelligent, rational,
constructive personality of an Intelligent Cause. Geology
proves the universe to be a progression, and that it had a be-
ginning ; and reason places Mind anterior to that beginning,
as a Beginner or Cause. We have already shown that we
can not press the design argument farther. We can not refuse
to accept our interpretation of nature, for it is catholic and
universal. It is an affirmation of universal reason ; and to
deny it would be to destroy our intuition and all reasoning.
If we can not accept the design argument, or the intuitions on
which it is based, or the afiSrmation of universal reason used

THE TIIETSTIC SOLUTION. 335

in it, we can not accept the intuitional argument, nor, indeed,
can we accept any reasoning whatever, on this or any other
topic. The advocate of the intuitional argument claims that
he has the idea of God as an original conviction of the mind,
an immediate intuition. It is not, for it admits of proof, and
the advocates of it do not use it as an immediate intuition.
But even if it were, if we can not trust our nature in the in-
tuitions on which the teleological article is based, how can we
trust it in this intuition? In precisely the same way we can
deny all catholic ideas, and destroy all knowledge and possi-
bility of knowledge.

The teleological argument alone will make the First Cause
an intelligence. The teleological argument, using intuition,
recognizes indices of mind in nature and the universe, and
the intuitional argument completes the work, by throwing
them back on mind as their only conceivable ground. We
do not, however, intuit the Deity as an immediate intuition.

If we did, it would need no more proof than an axiom,
but the advocates of the intuitional method of proof admit
that it can be sustained by proof, and resort to argument to
establish it, thus showing that it needs proof, and is not an
immediate intuition. Nor do we intuit the Deity independ-
ent of the occasions furnished by the senses, which are used
in the teleological argument. It is only by means of the phe-
nomena and series of phenomena, that we use in the teleo-
logical argument, that we rise to the apprehension of God as
a catholic idea, or universal affirmation of reason. The sav-
age does not intuit the Deity independent of the phenomena
of nature, or as an immediate intuition. His sense of de-
pendence and his intuitions of infinity and causations, and
the traces of mind that he sees in the phenomena around
him, united with his religious sentiment, lead him to attrib-
ute these phenomena to a deity. Because man ever does
this, we must accept it as a valid intuition, or reject reason.
The poet does not intuit deity as an immediate intuition, but
from other intuitions, by means of precisely the reasoning
pursued in the teleological arguments, he reaches the idea
as an intuition by generalization, or as a catholic idea. He

336 THE PROBI.EM OF PROBLEMS.

always presents his thought teleologically. To sustain the
intuitional argument, we have to assume the validity and re-
liability of our nature in its intuitions, and the reliability of
a regressive leap from our finite mind to the infinite, and the
reliability of our nature in the intuition thus reached. The
same necessary and fundamental assumption renders valid the
teleological argument, and removes every objection against it.
The soul does not rise to God in one intuition, or one act in
intuition. It reaches the idea by the teleological course. The
intuitional argument has to commence with our volitional en-
ergy as a starting point, as its first conception of intelligence
and cause, and it reaches the idea of God as a generalized
conclusion.

It is objected that in the teleological argument, man pro-
jects himself into nature, and worships his own image. He
makes God in his own image. Man projects himself into na-
ture as much in the intuitional argument as in the teleologi-
cal, for his own intelligence gives him the idea of infinite
intelligence, and his own attributes give the basis for every
attribute of infinite intelligence. But we do not project our-
selves into natui-e in either argument. If I recognize in an-
other man's works traces of the same characteristics that I
possess, and reason that their author must have the same at-
tributes that I have, I do not project myself into the other
man's works. In like manner, when I recognize in my works
certain characteristics and evidences of intelligence, and re-
cognize in nature the same characteristics and traces of intelli-
gence, I do not project myself into nature, when I conclude
that it had an intelligent cause, and one possessing infinite
perfection, what I possess imperfectly, and in a finite degree.
Thus we justify the teleological argument, and place it on a
basis that can not be denied without denying reason.

IV. The Ethical ARGUivrENT. — There are in the world
ideas of good and evil, sin and righteousness in conduct,
moral desert, character, responsibility and retribution. These
things exist and are realities, or our nature and reason are
cheats, and all knowledge a delusion. These ideas attach to
mind, spirit, personality alone. Blind, irrational matter and

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 337

force can not have these characteristics. They can not give
rise to them. They can not be conceived of, as having them
or giving rise to them. If there ever was a time when only
blind, irrational matter and force existed, these characteris-
tics, and what alone can possess them, did not exist. Noth-
ing existed that could by any means give rise or existence to
them, or what can alone possess them. These characteristics
and that which possesses them do exist. Hence, there never
was a time when mere matter and force alone existed. Mind,
spirit, personality, which possess these characteristics, must
have existed forever, or be self-existent, indej^endent and
self-sustaining. Again, man has the idea of right and wrong,
good and evil, moral desert, responsibility., obligation and
retribution. These all point to a Lawgiver, Ruler, Judge and
Executive to which these ideas refer, and in whom they have
their ground and counterpart. Unless our nature be a cheat,
and the universe a delusive fraud, there is a Lawgiver, Ruler
and Judge to which they refer. The careful study of human
conduct and its results in individuals and nations, in the
philosophy of history, establishes the correctness of this catho-
lic idea of reason. The alternativity and suspense of results
that there is in the moral world, shows that there is freedom,
choice, voluntary action, responsibility and probation. It
also throws us forward into the future world where all this
will be adjusted by a Supreme Ruler, Judge and Executive.
V. Intuitional Argument. — Man has veneration and
spirituality or a religious element in his nature. It will have
its expression or outcroppings. Man intuitively has aspira-
tions toward, and desire for, a superior being. Has an intui-
tive tendency to worship, to recognize the existence of a being
above himself. So declares all mental science. No man or
set of men in geography or history have ever existed that
did not have superstition or manifestations of this religious
element, and recognitions of superior beings. The lowest
savages, the Veddas of Ceylon, and the deaf mute, have this
intuition. There may be error and imperfection, but the idea
in embryo is there. Then man is as essentially a religious
bemg as he is a social being. The atheist pervertii and vio-
29

338 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

lates his own being, and is as abnormal as a hermit or a sui-
cide. If man's mental nature be our guide, and be not a
cheat and a delusion, if reason be at all reliable, and reason-
ing possible in any sense, there is a God. This is the vital
issue to-day between theism and atheism. The spiritually
minded, the poet, the moral philosopher, the moral, the relig-
ious, the truest and best of our race, have intuitions of a
God. Man has intuitions that he is finite and dependent,
and of his need of the infinite and independent. He has
intuitions of causation and mfinity. He rises to an intuition
of the infinite in space, time and being. The atheist himself
does, in infinite space, infinite duration, and of infinite being
in matter and force, Avhen he makes them self-existent and
eternal, and pervading all space. All men rise to intuitions
of infinite cause, infinite intelligence, infinite intelligent cause.
If consistent and true to his standard, human reason, man,
all men, must accept the latter intuitions as implicitly as the
former.

VI. The historic consensus of all religions and moralities,
all human speculations, experience and history, is a powerful
auxiliary argument. The consensus of the course of historic
development, claimed by the atheist, should be accepted by
him. It does not end in atheism, as he asserts, but in
theism.

VII. Archaic researches into early history and religion, and
professed revelation in the Scriptures, are a strong argument
when elaborated.

VHL And we call particular attention of the atheist to this.
All things are the product of an orderly system of evolution,
in accordance with law, and a consistent system of evolution.
Our highest achievement is to study this evolution, and learn
and accept its results. This is practical, true science. So
says the atheist. Man is the highest product of evolution.
His mental nature, including the moral and religious, is the
apex of evolution. The idea of God, and these catholic relig-
ious ideas, are the crowning product of evolution. If true
to his own standard, the atheist must accept them. If this
course of evolution be not a cheat and a mockery, this crown-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 339

ing product must be true. All this evolution is controlled by
law. The idea of God is the highest expression of this law
of evolution, the supreme law of the atheist. If loyal to
this law, he must accept it. Why does not the atheist accept
the universal voice of human reason, that he pretends to take
as his standard ? Why does he reject the highest product of
that evolution he professes to accept as real science? Why
does he reject the highest expression of that law of evolution
he professes to accept as his supreme law and standard ?

Then, as a summary of these lines of argument, we con-
clude that the ontological argument gives us the idea af abso-
lute and necessary and all-perfect being. The cosmological
argument gives us the absolute cause, the necessary being,
the unconditioned, the self-existent being. The teleological
argument makes the absolute being, the all-perfect being, the
necessary being, the unconditioned, the self-existent being, the
absolute cause, of the ontological and cosmological arguments,
an intelligence. The ethical argument proves that he is
Supreme Lawgiver, Kuler, Judge, and Executive. The teleo-
logical argument gives to him moral attributes also. The
intuitional argument furnishes to the ontological and cosmo-
logical arguments the intuitions of the absolute, the necessary,
and the unconditioned, and the intuition of causation. It
furnishes to the teleological argument the intuitions on which
it is based. It makes the intelligent, moral being or person
of the teleological and ethical arguments an absolute being
or person. Thus all the lines of argument are interwoven
and interdependent. Taken together, they fasten the uni-
verse to the throne of the Eternal One, who inhabiteth eter-
nity, by a five-fold chain that can no more be broken than
the omnipotence of him whose existence they demonstrate.
We will now close by applying to atheism and theism the
test of all inductive reasoning.

I. That which is appealed to as the cause of the phenomena
or existences is known to exist.

II. It is known to produce phenomena similar to those
ascribed to it in the explanation or theory.

340 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

II r. It is adequate to cause all the pheuomena ascribed to
it ill the explanation or theory.

IV. There is an obvious relation or connection between the
powers of the cause and the phenomena that are claimed to
be its effects.

1. Most of what the atheist, in his speculations, presents as
causes of the phenomena of nature, do not exist, have never
existed in human experience, and we have absolutely no evi-
dence that they ever did exist.

2. Those things he appeals to as causes of the phenomena
of nature, that now exist, have never in human knowledge
been known, in a single instance, to produce any such phe-
nomena. Indeed, in most cases, they would prevent the pro-
duction of such phenomena, or destroy the phenomena, if
brought in contact with them after they had been produced
by an adequate cause.

3. Not only do they now fail to produce such phenomena,
but they have not a single element of causal efficiency in
them, adequate to the production of such phenomena. There
is absolutely no relation or connection between the powers of
what atheism claims to be the cause of the phenomena of
nature, and the phenomena of nature which it claims to be
their effects. Not only so, but there is an absolute incom-
patibility and repugnance often, that would render what it
appeals to as a cause a destructive agency, instead of a con-
structive power or cause.

Let us now test theism :

1. The cause to which it ascribes the phenomena of nature,
intelligent, rational, personal energy, is known to exist. In-
deed, it is the only spontaneous, self-active cause, the only
agent, the only power that really acts, of which we have any
knowledge. The phenomena demand such a cause, and abso-
lutely can be produced by no other.

2. It produces precisely such phenomena as we ascribe to
it in the theistic solution. Indeed, all the phenomena of
that character, of which we have any knowledge, are pro-
duced by such a cause.

3. The cause is adequate to the production of the pheuom-

THE THEISTIC SOLUTION. 341

ena, and it is the only existence that is adequate to the pro-
duction of the phenomena. It is the only cause that our
rational nature will accept, and when applied to the universe
it is the only cause our rational, moral and religious nature
will accept.

4. There is an obvious and necessary relation between the
phenomena of nature, that are regarded as effects, and the
powers of that which is regarded as cause, that is as palpable
as intuition, that is self-evident, and constitutes it the only
possible cause. With this, we leave the discussion of the
theistic solution with the reader. If he will not obliterate the
image of God in the soul, or shut the eye of reason to this
light that lighteth the w^orld, but with his jftith illuminated
by it ; if he will go forth in the prosecution of this line of
argument, all the universe wiU be filled with the resplendent
glory of the Presence, before whom all intelligences should
bow, exclaiming " My Lord, and my God." But, if he ex-
tinguish this light, or shut the eye of reason to it, as the
bird of night can fly toward the sun and hoot "No light,"
or the blind man can stand with the rays of the sun pouring
into his sightless eyeballs, and cry "There is no sun," so the
atheist can gaze on the dazzling throne of Jehovah, and verify
the words of the psalmist : " The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God."

342 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

CHAPTER VII.

Scientific Progress and the Cardinal Ideas of

Religion.

We liave now accomplished the work we proposed when
■we commenced this book, but there are two questions so
closely connected Avith what we have written, that, at the
urgent request of many persons, and especially those who
urged the pubhcation of the book, we will devote a brief
space to their consideration. "Does the theory of evolution,
or any theory or speculation of science, afford a sufficient
ground to warrant the abandonment of the cardinal ideas
of Christianity?" The second is, "Is the permanence of
Christianity, as a universal religion, incompatible with the
idea and course of evolution, development and progress, es-
tablished by modern science?" We shall devote a chapter
to each, although it would require a volume to do justice to
either.

The tendency of scientific research has been to trace all
phenomena to natural causes, and to bring all causes and
phenomena under the control of established laws, always act-
ing uniformly. Man did not do so at first. He began in
a state of child-like ignorance and simplicity. The race has
had a growth analogous to the growth of the individual.
The child begins by noticing the occurrence of phenomena
around him. He is conscious of intelligent causation in him-
self. Almost the first things he notices are the results of
intelligent causation m others. One of the first intuitions
of the child is that of intelligent causation in himself and
those around him. His first intuition of causation has its
origin in consciousness of his own volitional energy, as a
cause in action producing his acts. The first occurrences he
observes are the acts of others. He soon, and, indeed, im-
mediately and intuitively, attributes these acts to them as
causes, as he knows he is a cause of his own acts. He sees
occurrences produced by other objects than persons. He
traces them to these objects as their cause. He attributes
intelligence to the causes. There are characteristics in the
occurrences that ally them to his own acts. Hence, the child,

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 343

at first, attributes every occurrence to the immediate action
and energy of intelligence, and he attributes intelligence to
every thing. He soon learns, however, to operate "through
second causes. He soon learns that these second or iiistm-
mental causes are not personal, efficient causes. He learns
to recognize second causes in nature, and learns that these
second causes in nature are not personal^ intelligent causes.

The same thing has happened in the progress of the race.
At first man attributed all plienomena of nature, at least all
that he could not understand, to the immediate action and
energy of intelligences, God or gods, or subordinate spirits —
supernatural agencies. He learned to recognize second
causes in nature. He continued to observe and generalize
until he has risen to the conception of universal matter and
universal force, and the unity of matter and force, and the
unity of the phenomena of matter and fo-rce, into a system
in the universe. Here the materialist stops. He claims
that investigation has removed one class of phenomena ai'ter
another from under the supposed control and agency of mind,
and has substituted the universal and uniform agency of
matter and force, and has led us up to matter and force, act-
ing uniformly, until we are warranted in assuming that all
phenomena are the results of universal matter jind physical
force. He assumes that science has demonstrated that mind
or spirit has no existence, or that there are no such entities
entirely separate and distinct from matter and physical force.

Mind is either a function of matter, or it is essentially the
one foi'ce pervading all nature, modified by the organization
of matter, through which it is displayed; or, in other words,
mind is merely a different manifestation of the one i^hysical
force, modified by that organization of matter, known as our
body. He denies intelligent causation in the phenomena of
nature and the universe. Indeed, he denies all causation.
But he especially denies that mind force, or intelligent causa-
tion, existed above and anterior to all matter and })hysical
force, and before all phenomena, and created matter and
force, and gave to them their essential properties, and co-or-
dinated and adjusted them to produce phenomena, and regu-
lated, controlled them in producing phenomena. He denies
that the only efficient cause in the universe is mind, and that
the source of all force and cause is mind. He denies that mind
force was above and anterior to all other existence, and that
it is potentially and efficiently present in all plienomena, as
the efficient cause, and the originating, ruling and con ti-ol ling
power and energy. Of course he denies all the cardinal ideas
of all religion and of Christianity.

344 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

These cardinal ideas are:

I. God or the Self-existent, Absolute Mind or Spirit.

II. The creation of all things by Him.

III. Personal, efficient and active control of all His works
and all things by Him.

IV. Spiritual existences, or spirit in man, and also higher
spirits or intelligences.

V. Responsibility and accountability of man and all intelli-
gences to God as ruler and judge.

VI. If consistent, he denies such a distinction between
things as good and evil, and between acts as voluntary and
involuntary, and between the latter class of acts as right and
Avrong, and the existence of such attributes of character as
righteous and wicked, and of such categories as vice and vir-
tue. He denies all moral distinction between existences, acts
and characters.

VH. He must also deny all moral desert in act or char-
acter.

VIII. He denies all retribution or punishment and reward
for conduct or character, by God as ruler and judge.

IX. Providence or care and protection exercised by God
over His creatures and works.

X. Prayer to God by intelligences, and answer to such
prayer by Hi:n in His providence.

XI. Revelation, or an impartation on the part of God of
truth, as a standard of truth, conduct and objective teaching.

XII. Inspiration of chosen men as a means of revelation.

XIII. Miracle as an evidence of mspiration and revelation,
and as a sanction to them, and as a means of cultivating re-
ligious nature and sentiment.

XIV. Prophecy as a means of preparation for future
events, and as a species of miracle.

XV. Sacrifice as an expiation for sin, as a means of pro-
pitiation, as a confession of sin and guilt, and as an expression
of thankfulness.

XVI. Expiation and atonement by a superior being.

XVII. Mediation between God and man, usually by one
superior to the worshiper.

XVIII. A personal object of faith, gratitude, love and
devotion in religion.

XIX. A personal embodiment of doctrine and life in re-
ligion.

XX. A personal leader and guide and ruler in religion.

XXI. Incarnation, or a manifestation of divinity in human
form, as leader, personal embodiment of doctrine and life,

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 345

and as object of devotion, faith and love, and as atonement
and mediator.

XXII. Forgiveness of sin, by and through atonement and
mediation, on reformation of life.

XXIII. A system of religion, embodying the ab^ve cardi-
nal ideas, and based on them, with dogma, worship and disci-
pline.

XIV. A suitable organization, with officers and ordinances.

The materialist claims that the results of modern science
warrant our rejecting all these cardinal ideas of religion.

Before we yield these universal affirmations of man's ra-
tional, moral, and religious nature, at the demand of the
atheist, he will have to settle in such a way that there can be
no doubt about it several fundamental queries:

I. Is the distinction intuitively made by all men between
mind and matter, and physical force, valid? Or does science
give us sufficient grounds for rejecting it ? As this distinc-
tion is a necessary intuition of every mind, capable of the sim-
plest thinking, we must have proof that does not admit of a
possibility of a doubt before we can be asked to reject it.

II. Is it true that all force is identical, and th^t all that
have heretofore been regarded as distinct and even antagonis-
tic forces, are only different manifestations of one all-pervad-
ing force, and the difference in the displays of force is oc-
casioned by the difference in the organization of the matter
through which it is manifested? Is there not a radical and
essential diffeience between mind, or mind force, and phys-
ical force ? We must have more than the jingling analogies
of the new assumption called the correlation of forces. Their
characteristics are radically different. Inductive reasoning
would trace the phenomena to radically different causes.
Physical force and mind force are not convertible, but antago-
nistic and destructive of each other.

III. -Are there not two domains of being and phenomena
that are radically and essentially different and distinct — mat-
ter and physical force and mind; or material and physical
existence and phenomena on the one side, and mental, or
spiritual existence and phenomena, on the other?

IV. Is the theory of atheistic evolution, on which the re-
jection of these cardinal ideas of religion is based, true? It
must be demonstrated beyond a doubt, before we can bo asked
to abandon these fundamental intuitions of ouj- nature on its
account. To ask us to do so now, while it is a mere specula-
tion or guess, is an insult to common sense.

V. If it be demonstrated that the present order of things
be the result of a course of evolution, development, and prog-

346 THE PROBLEM OF PROBTiEMS.

res?; is the course of evolution, development, and progress
such as to demand or Avarrant our abandoning these cardinal
ideas? Is it not in strict accordance with them? Nay! does
it not teach them, and demand them to account for it ?

VI. ]^ust not mind have existed anterior to the primordial
constitution of matter and force, and all things except itself,
tj give to them their very first constitution, or to have cre-
ated them ?

\"II. Must not mind have been the spontaneous, eiScient,
and controlling cause and energy of the course of evolution,
development, and progress claimed by the atheist?

VIII. Must not mind be the spontaneous, efficient, con-
trolling cause and energy in the present order of things?

IX. The initial question is ; Is the intuitive division of
plienomena into two classes — physical or material, and mental
or spiritual, that is instinctively and necessarily made by
every mind capable of the simplest thought, valid ? Does a
careful examination of their characteristics and nature war-
rant such a distinction ? Are they radically and essentially
different and distinct? If*" we settle this in the affirmative, as
we must, •then we must trace them to radically different and
distinct causes. We must admit that they have radically
different and distinct causes.

X. The next fundamental question is : Is there in man a con-
scious, rational, spontaneous, self-active entity, or substan-
tive agent, called mind or spirit, separate and distinct from
matter and physical force?

XI. Another important question is : Is there any sponta-
neous, self-acting, causal efficiency or energy in matter or
physical force? Are either matter or physical force ever
agents, spontaneous, self-acting agents? Js not matter inert
and passive? Is not physical force merely an exhibition or
act of mind ? Is there any sjDontaneous, self-acting, self-reg-
ulating, self-controlling, causal efficiency, or energy in blind,
irrational, physical force ?

XII. Then arises the question of questions ; Must not all
existence and phenomena in the universe be attributed to
mind or God ?

XIII. If there be a God, are not the ideas of creation, gov-
ernment, retribution, revelation, atonement, tyid religion a ne-
cessity?

XIV. If there be a spirit in man and a God, are not the
ideas of good and evil, right and wrong, freedom of volition,
vice and virtue, righteousness and wickedness, moral desert,
reward and punishment, responsibility, accountability, inspira-
tion, providence, prayer, miracle, sacrifice, fi^-giveness, incar-

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 347

jiation, and religion a necessity? Suppose it be proved that
a,ll of the present order of things is the result of development,
evolution, and progression, would it demand that we abandon
these cardinal ideas of religion, or does it not merely demand
that we modify and correct them, and leave them intact, and
even exalt and enlarge them, and our conceptions of them?

In brief, the materialist must show that the distinction in-
tuitively and invariably made between mind, mind force or
spirit, and matter and physical force, and between phenomena
as attributable to mind or intelligent causaticm, and as attrib-
utable to matter and physical force, is untenable and ground-
less. He must show that mind, mental action, mind force,
is but a different manifestation of physical force, and that
the difference is occasioned by the difference in the organi-
zation of the matter, through which it is displayed. He
must prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, his position, so
diametrically opposed to all intuition of every mind capable
of the sim})lest thought, all root ideas of all languages, all
fundamental ideas of law, society, morality, human action,
and all reasoning, and not assume it, or ask us to accept it as
a mere guess or speculation, and act on it in opj:)()sition to all
intuition. Nor will certain plausible analogies be sufficient.
It must be demonstrated beyond a doubt. He must show
beyond a possibility of doubt that human thought, from its
first act of thinking, for thousands of years, in every mind
capable of the simplest thought, and that all law, language and
reasonino; has been mistaken in makimi: this distinction, and
in making it the basis idea of human life and thought. He
nmst show that the present order of things can exist witlunit the
controlling, originating and regulating energy of mind. He
raust not only show this, but show that it does exist without the
originating, controlling, and regulating energy of mind. He
must show that the course of evolution is a path along which
mind need not, could not and did not travel. He must show
that the course of evolution was possible without mind, and
that it did trans})ire without mind. He must show that the
primordial constitution of matter and force was possi])le, and
that it did transpire without mind existing anterior to it, to
give to matter and force this primordial constitution, or, in
other words, create them. We say he must prove that his
position is an undoubted fict, before he can ask us to aban-
don these religious ideas. These cardinal religious ideas have
the field of human thought, and have had full p()ss(>ssion of
it from the veryxlawn of thought, and this new claimant must
disprove their title, and establish its own, before it can obtiiin
possession. Before the atheist dare demand that we ca^t to

348 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

one side these cardinal religious ideas, these fundamental in-
tuitions of man's rational, moral and religious nature, in every
mind capable of the simplest thoughts, from the dawn of hu-
man thought, he must demonstrate beyond possibility of a
doubt, that mind had nothing to do with the primordial con-
stitution of things, that it had nothing to do with the course
of development, and that it has nothing to do with the present
order of things. Until he demonstrates this beyond a doubt,
we will retain these fundamental intuitions of man's religious,
moral and rational nature, for they are universal and the inva-
riable and necessary intuitions of the mind.

The pivotal question on which all turns is the existence of
God, or an Intelligent First Cause and Ruler and Judge. If
this be conceded, or established, all the other ideas are neces-
sary corollaries of this idea of ideas. If the existence of
God as creator, ruler and judge of the universe be established,
then revelation, providence, prayer and religion are not only
possible and probable, but actual and absolutely necessary in
the nature of things. Then we should affirm continually,
and lay down as the only basis of all reasoning with the ma-
terialist, the absolute truth and fundamental character of the
distinction between mind and matter and physical force, and
between the phenomena produced by mind and that produced
by matter and physical force. This regulative thought must
not be forgotten or laid to one side for one moment. It
should be predicated, as the basis of all reasoning, that there
are two domains of existence and phenomena, the mental or
spiritual, and the material or physical. It should be held as
a fundamental idea that there are two forces in the universe,
the mental or spiritual, and the material or physical, and that
the two are radically and essentially separate and different,
and that one can not be resolved into the other or evolved
out of it. Also, that the phenomena produced by mind can
not be produced by physical force, and that there are phe-
nomena in the universe that can not be produced by phys-
ical force, and can be produced by mind alone. And above
it should be held forth as a regulative thought, not to be
lost sight of for one moment, that the only spontaneous, self-
acting, self- regulating, self-controlling force in the universe,
the only spontaneous, self-acting, self- regulating, self-controll-
ing, efficient cause in the universe, is mind.

It must be insisted on as a truth that can not be denied,
and that must be a fundamental idea in all reasoning on this
topic, tliat the primordial constitution of matter and force de-
manded the pre-existence of mind anterior to any existence
of matter and force, to give to them this constitution, or to

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 349

create them. That the primordial constitution of matter and
force is absolutely unthinkable without such a ground and
basis. That the course of evolution is a path along -which
mind must necessarily have traveled, and that it is absolutely
inconceivable without the pre-existence and the originating,
planning, regulating and controlling energy of mind. That
the present order of things is unthinkable and absolutely im-
possible without the originating, controlling and regulating
energy of mind. The primordial constitution of matter and
force is radiant with the light of intelligence, for in it are re-
alized some of the most exalted conceptions of reason. The
course of evolution is a path illuminated by the light of rea-
son, for it can l:>e construed only by the most exalted ideas of
reason, and it must have been constructed by reason, realizing
in its actions these highest and most abstract ideas of reason.
The present order of things is dazzlingly luminous with reason
and thought, for the highest conception of reason concerning
every department of science, and concerning order, system
harmony, beauty, wisdom and beneficence, are displayed in it.
The primordial constitution of matter and force did not ori-
ginate, as is claimed by the materialist, in a chaos of blind,
insensate matter and blind, irrational force — in an unconceiv-
able, unthinkable, nondescript state of things in which even
the existence of matter and force is inconceivable and un-
thinkable. Nor was the course of evolution an aimless, pur-
poseless, unintelligent onward sweeping of blind, irrational
matter and force. It can only be proved to be such by show-
ing that it was incoherent, disorderly and incapable of being
construed or understood by intelligence. Nor is the present
order of things an aimless happening of the fatal necessities
of blind, irrational matter and force. If mind did not con-
struct the primordial constitution of things, and the course
of evolution, and the present order of things, they can not be
construed by mind; and if the ideas of reason are n(^t real-
ized in them, they can not be understood or studied or sys-
tematized by reason, and all science and knowledge is a chi-
mera. Science is a classifying the facts and phenomena of
nature by ideal conceptions, by ideas of reason, and if tlie
facts and phenomena of nature have not been constructed
on and by such ideas, and if they are not realized in tjiem by
mind, then all such study and understanding and classification
of nature is impossible, and science is a delusion.

These cardinal religious ideas are susceptible of two lines of
proof, the a priori, or the necessities arisinif out of the idea of
God as Creator, Ruler and Judge of the universe ; and the
a posteriori, or the proof based on man's wants and nature.

350 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

The existence of God as a self -existent, absolute First Cause
of all that exists guarantees the truth of the creation of all
thino:s by Him, and the control and ofovernment of all things
by Him* as Ruler and Judge. The idea of a God renders all
these ideas a necessity. His government must be an immedi-
ate, ever-present and constantly active control. His omni-
presence, omniscience and omnipotence render the rational-
istic idea of divine government, that divorces God from all
connection with, and control of His works, an impossibility
and an absurdity. The existence of God as Absolute Spirit,
guarantees the existence of lower and finite intelligences.
When the materialist, either atheistic or Christian, asks
what is spirit ? Avhat is the human spirit ? \ve answer that the
human spirit is in kind and nature like God, who is Infinite
Spirit, but lower in rank or order. The existence of God as
Ruler of all things guarantees providential care over all His
works, and especially over His intelligent creatures. God sus-
tains to lower intelligences the relation of Ruler and Judge
and Father in Heaven, and this relation renders providential
care over them by Him a necessity. The exercise of this
providential care is not a violation of, or a suspension of, or
an interference with the perfect order of nature, but a neces-
sary part of the perfect order of nature. God sustains a re-
lation to intelligences He does not sustain to unintelligent na-
ture. He sustains a higher relation to them than he does to
the material world, or a relation that makes His relation to
the material world subordinate to, and an instrument of His
relation to intelligences. Providence is a necessary part of
this relation rendered absolutely necessary by His relation to
intelligences as their Father in Heaven.

The existence of God as the Creator, Ruler and Judge of
all intelligences, and as a being possessing infinite wisdom,
holiness, justice and power, guarantees the reality of the moral
ideas of good and evil, and freedom of volition of lower in-
telligences, right and wrong, righteousness and wickedness, and
moral desert in actions and character, and guarantees the ideas
of accountability and responsibility to Him as Supreme Ruler
and Judge, and retribution here and hereafter by Him as Su-
preme Executive. The idea of God is the basis of all idea of
good and evil, vice and virtue, righteousness and wickedness
in conduct and character. If all things originated in matter
and force, destitute of moral quality and character, and there
is nothing but infinite matter and force, tlien all idea of good
or evil, vice or virtue, moral desert in conduct or character,
or responsibility or accountability is a chim-era. The consist-
ent atheist denies all freedom of volition and distinction in

EELIGION AND SCIENCE. 351

character between acts. In his system of atheistic evolution
of blind matter and force he has no basis for moral quality or
desert in action. All that man needs to do is to study the
ongoings of nature hi time-succession, and cheat blind niatter
and force out of all -the enjoyment he can get, and if he does
what religion would pronounce to be wroug there is no In-
telligent Ruler, Judge and Executive. Then this idea of God
is not only the basis, but the oidy possible basis for any idea
of moral desert or quality in character and conduct, and it
alone renders morality, hiAV and government a right and a
necessity.

The idea of God guarantees the ideas of prayer, praise
and worship and answer to prayer. The relation of God to
all created intelligences, as an Infinitely Powerful, Wise,
Good and Holy Being, the Creator, Ruler, and Judge of all
intelligences, and their Father in heaven, renders prayer and
praise a duty on their part. They owe to him awe, venera-
tion, gratitude, obedience, devotion and love, and these emo-
tions should be expressed in prayer, praise and worship. He
is the source of all good, and it is the duty of all intelligences
to praise and thank him for all blessings, and ask from him
those blessings that he alone can bestow. God can justly
bestow blessings on those who discharge these duties, that he
can not justly give to those who do not. He can and must
make blessings contingent on the discharge of these duties,
or on prayer. Answer to prayer is not a violation of the
perfect order of nature, nor an interference with the perfect
order of nature, but is a necessary part of that perfect order,
and essential to the perfection of an order of intelligent na-
ture, in which a moral relation exists between a Creatoi-,
Ruler and Father of intelligences and his creatures.

The idea of God as an Infinite Father in heaven, infinite
in Avisdom, power and goodness, guarantees the idea of prov-
idence or a protecting care over his creatures. His wisdom
and power render such care possible, his goodness would
prompt it, and his relation to them as their Father in heaven,
renders the exercise of such ])r()vidential care a necessity.
Such providence is not a violation of the perfect order of
nature, or an interference with it, but it is an essential part
of such perfect order of nature, and necessary to the perfec-
tion of the highest part of nature, moral and spiritual nature.

When the atheist objects to prayer, answer to prayer, and
providence, as a violation of the perfect order of nature, he
begs the whole question. He must prove that nature can
be, or is perfect without these ideas. On the contrary, the
idea of God as Creator, Ruler, and Judge and Father in

352 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

heaven, renders these ideas absolutely necessary to the per-
fection of nature. They can be invalidated only by destroy-
ing that fundamental idea. The intention of Tyndall's famous
prayer test was to undermine this basis idea of religion, the
existence of God. If the branches of the tree were cut off,
the worthless trunk would soon be cut down.

The idea of God as the Creator, Kuler, Judge and Father
in heaven of all intelligences, guarantees the validity of the
idea of revelation, and renders revelation not only probable
and possible, but an absolute necessity. Revelation is a
necessity as man is constituted. Man is a worshiping, as
essentially a worshiping being, as he is a rational or social
being. He becomes like the Being he worships. Religion
is the regnant element in morals and conduct. Tlien man
must have a pure object of worship and a pure religion. He
can not discover or devise such an object of worship or
such a system of religion. God's existence and natural at-
tributes are discoverable by human reason, but the perfec-
tion of his moral attributes is not discoverable by reason.
Man is imperfect and impure. He has never been able to
emancipate himself from the thralldom of impure systems
of religion.

Not a language on earth contains words that express the
scriptural ideas of holiness and abhorrence of sin, except those
in which the Scriptures were given, or into which they have
been translated. And in the case of translation, it takes
generations to elevate a word so as to express these ideas.
These attributes of God are the ones that man must know
to be saved from sin. Hence God must reveal himself, and
reveal a pure reUgion. Man needs this revelation of God as
an object of aspiration and devotion, a model, a lifting and
expanding power in life and soul. He needs a revelation of
truth in religion as a standard of right and wrong, and guide
in duty, and rule of life, and the idea that it is a revelation
from God, as a sanction to it, to give to it authority. He
needs this as an objective standard of teaching in morals and
religion.

Said one of the wisest of ancients, "The utmost that man
can do is to attribute to the Being he worships his own im-
perfections and impurities, magnified to infinity it may be,
and then became worse by their reflex action on his nature,
as he worships them." Then, the idea of God and man's
constitution guarantees the validity of the idea of revelation.
Revelation is not a violation of tiie perfect order of nature,
nor an interference with the })erfect order of nature, nor a
suspension of the perfect order of nature, but it is a part.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 353

a necessary part, of this perfect order of nature, a part
necessary to its perfection, rendered necessary to its perfec-
tion by the relation God sustains to man as his Creator,
Ruler, Judge and Father in heaven.

It has been objected, sometimes, that a revelation from
such a being as God would be overpowering in its influence
on man and would destroy his individuality, and be enslav-
ing in its influence, overpowering his reason and will. If
given by inspii-ation of chosen men, it would have its hu-
man, as well as its divine element, and would not. have this
overpowering influence. If what is revealed be the truth,
as it must be, if given by inspiration of God, it would hv.
elevating and purifying, as the truth in its very nature
must be. Imparting trnth, above the power of discovery
of the person taught, is elevating and purifying, and does
not interfere with the individuality or freedom of the per-
son taught, nor is it overpow^ering in its influence, if he can
grasp it. If he can grasp it, it is elevating and educating
in tendency. If he can not, it does not aflTect him at all, ex-
cept to stimulate him to endeavor to understand it. Revealed
truth, then, is an educating influence of the highest possible
character, a dynamic lifting force, starting the mind in its
upward course, lifting and leading it upward, and sustaining
and controlling and directing it in its upward course.

The idea of God guarantees the validitv of the idea of
miracles, as an evidence of the superhuman origin of religion
and revelation, and as the credentials of inspiration, and
revelation. But before we enter into the discussion of this
topic, let me define what Ave mean by "natural," ''super-
natural" and a "miracle," for no subject has been more
befogged and bemuddled, than this question of miracles. The
term "nature" has general meanings, and also restricted or
technical meanings. In its general or broadest sense, it in-
cludes all being, and there is nothing supernatui-al.

I. It includes Deity himself, " Partakers of the Divine
nature." — Paul. Then there is Divine nature.

II, It includes angelic nature. " He took not the nature
of angels." — Hebrew letter. There is an angelic nature.

IH. It includes human nature. "He took on him the seed
of Abraham." — Hebrew letter. There is a human nature.

IV. It includes animal nature.

V. It includes physical nature.

Then w^e make other divisions, animate nature and inani-
mate nature. Organic nature and inoi'ganic nature. jNTental
or rational nature and irrational nature. These divisions are
sometimes difficult to make. Taking the distinction between
30

354 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

matter and force, ^\e have dynamic nature and material na-
ture. Then the question arises, How sliall we divide dynamic
nature ? Shall we have vital force and physical force ? Where
shall we place vegetable life or force ? Shall we have spirit-
ual or mental force or nature, psychical or animal force or
nature, vegetable force and physical force ? Where shall we
pkice animal life? Is it distinct from mind or mental force?
Shall we have two kinds of mental force, spiritual or rational,
and psychical or mere animal understanding? Shall we place
vegetable life in physical force? Or shall we distinguish be-
tween physical force and vitiil Ibrce, and then divide vital
force into vegetable, animal or psychical, and rational or
spiritual? Then in its broadest sense the term 'Miature" in-
cludes all being. Spiritual nature includes all spirit. Dy-
namic nature includes all force. Material nature includes
all matter.

Sometimes the term nature is used as the correlative of
man, especially of his rational or spiritual nature, as wlien
we say man is lord of miture or he studies nature. Again
it includes man, animal and physical nature, or man, animals
and physical force and matter; and then man is a part of
nature. There is a mental or a spiritual nature, and a phys-
ical nature ; and in this use of nature, man's entire nature
is a part of nature. Nature is used in this latter sense, 1
api^rehend, when we say a miracle is supernatural, or a phe-
nomenon produced by supernatural power. We mean that
it is produced by an intelligence above man. It is not pro-
duced by matter and piiysical force oi- man ; which is all we
include in nature, in this use of the term nature. The natural
includes mutter, physical force and man, and all they produce.
The supernatural includes all that is above them, or all in-
telligence above man and physical nature, and all that is
produced by such inteliigence. I confess I do not like the
lerm "supernatural," for it is liable to be misunderstood.
In one sense, an event may be supernatural. It may be su-
pernatural in the above technical or restricted sense. In tlie
general or broad use of the term, nature, it is not super-
natural and no event can be.

We can very often get a better insight into the meaning of
words, by tracing their history ; we learn what they mean in
certain uses of them, by learning how they come to be so
used. Let us endeavor to trace, in this way, the application
and use of the terms ''natural" and "supernatural," in con-
nection witli religion, especially in connection with miracles
and revelation. The Scriptures teach that God created the
matter of the earth and the forces manifested in it. He ere-

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 355

ated matter, physical force, vegetable and animal existences,
and man; and placed man over his works, as lord of creation.
Creation was then complete, and matter, physical force, vege-
table and animal existences and man constituted the system of
nature. It is in this sense that the term nature is used, and
all this is called natural. After man siimed he needed revela-
tion, a revealed religion. This was given by direct revelation
through angels, or through inspired men. All such revela-
tion and inspiration, and the phenomena in attestation of it,
were called supernatural. Then in this application of the
term natural, it included all that mere physical nature, or
man, or man using physical nature, could do, or did. The
supernatural included all that was done by other intelligences
than man. Natural existences are matter, ])hysical force,
vegetable and animal existences and man. Natural phe-
nomena include all that matter, physical force or man can do.
Suj^ernatural existences include all other intelligences than
man. Supernatural phenomena include all phenomena pro-
duced by any other intelligence than man. The spirits of
dead men and the phenomena produced by them, angels and
the phenomena produced by them, and Divinity and the
phenomena produced by Divinity (aside from what is produced
through the operation of nature as defined above), are all in-
cluded in the supernatural.

Then the term miracle includes all phenomena produced by
other intelligences than man, as he lives here in this world,
or as he exists before death; such as revelation, ins{)iration
and the phenomena produced by such intelligences in connec-
tion with revelation and inspiration, and in attestation of them.
The Greek term translated miracle, literally means a sign,
and when used as it is in the pa.ssages where it is translated
miracle, it means a sign of the presence and activity of another
intelligence than man. The intelligences were generally
above man, but not necessarily so, for the spirits of dead men
were included among them. The phenomena were generally
above what man could do, but not nece.s-arily so. If uncon-
nected with man's agency or instrumentality, it need only bo
above what physical nature could do — the work of intelligence,
and need not be above what man could do. If connected
with man's agency or instrumentality, it nuist be above what
he could do. It was usually wonderful and strange, but
gratifying mere wonder and love of the mai'velous and strange
was no part of the object of miracles. Paul condemned mere
wonder-working and a mere gratification of the love of the
marvelous. The miracle was generally of a grand, exalted
and divine character, but not necessarily or always so, as the

856 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

miracle of Balaam's ass, and the drowning of the swine, clear-
ly show. It was generally beneficial, but not always so. The
cursing of the barren fig tree was not. The miracle was
gerieraily useful, and intended to be always so, but men
could pervert the power and abuse it, as did the men speak-
ins: with tong-ues in the Corinthian church. The one essen-
tial characteristic was that it be a sign of the presence and
activity of another intelligence than man. All such phe-
nomena, and the intelligence producing them, were included
in the terra supernatural.

The query still stands unanswered, however. If we accept
the above technical use of the terms, natural and super-
niitural in defining a miracle, how can we distinguish between
the natural and the supernatural? How can we tell when an
event is above matter, physical force, and man, and produced
by an intelligence above these departments of nature ? Per^
haps we can not better accomplish this, than by an examina-
tion of the meaning and nature of miracles. A miracle is not
a violation of the order or laws of nature, nor a interference
with them, nor a suspension of them. Nor is an event a
miracle because human experience has never met with it be-
fore. Nor is a thing a miracle because it never occurred
before. Nor because it is wonderful. Nor is a thing a mir-
acle because we do not understand its cause. Nor must an
event be without a cause in order to be a miracle. Nor nuist
it be without second cause or means to be a miracle. Nor
would a knowledge of the cause of an event strip it of its
miraculous character. Nor is it. necessary that an event be
above human power to be a miracle. We may know how a
thing may be done and yet it be a miracle. It may be per-
formed through second causes and be a miracle. It may be
within the power of man and be a miracle. It might be a
common or ordinary occurrence and be a miracle. What,
then, are the characteristics of a miracle?

L It must be above the power of mere physical nature.
This alone does not constitute a miracle. Man's works are
above mere physical nature, but they are not miraculous.

II. It is generally out of the usual course of things. This
does not make an event a miracle, for an event might be cus-
tomary and usual, and yet be a miracle.

III. It must, in some way, be evidently the work of intelli-
gence and volition, either by its being declared to be such by
the higher power producing it, or by its being wrought in
accordance with the prophecy or command of some one.

IV. If performed by man, or if he be the agent or instru-

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 357

meiit in performing it, it must be above ^vhat man himself
can do, or what he can accompHsh, using the forces of nature.

V. Then a miracle is an act performed by some other in-
telligence than man, and generally superior to man.

VI. It may be a direct act, without the use of second
causes or means, but it is not necessarily such an act. Be-
cause we can not see the second causes we can not deny their
use. Nor should we assume that there are no second causes.
Above all, we should not assume that a miracle is an event
without a cause. Nor allow opponents of miracles to attach
such an absurd characteristic to them. Huxley is guilty of
gross ignorance, or gross unfairness, in attaching to miracles
such a characteristic. If the event be above physical nature,
as a cause, and unconnected with man's instrumentality, and
evidently the work of intelligence; or if connected witli man's
instrumentality, if it be above the power of man, or his power
using physical nature, it is a miracle. It must obviously be
the work of intelligence, and Inis a cause, an intelligent
cause.

VII. We have said that it is not necessary that an event
be unusual or strange to be a miracle, altliough mii-acles were
of that character. The scriptural meaning of a miracle is a
sign — a sign of the presence or activity of an intelligence dis-
tinct from and usually superior to man. Hence, if angels or
God were to perform acts or produce phenomena, such as are
called miracles or signs in the Scriptures, every hour, it would
not destroy their miraculous character, because they were cus-
tomary. They would still be signs of the presence and activ-
ity of an intelligence distinct from man and superior to him.

Vin. Then an intelligence, separate and distinct from
man," may intervene in the operations of nature, just as man
does, to accomplish what mere physical nature alone can not
do. Then an event unconnected with human agency and
obviously above the power of mere physical nature, because
the work of intelligence is a miracle. The essential charac-
teristic proving that it is above mere physical nature, is that
it is obviously the work of intelligence. It is a miracle be-
cause the work of intelligence, and some other intelligence
than man.

IX. An intelligence distinct from man may, in connection
with man, intervene in the operations of nature, and by using
the powers of nature as man does, accom])lish what mere
physical nature can not do, or what man can not do, or what
man, using physical nature, can not do. The essential char-
acteristic in this case is, that it must obviously be the work
of intelligence, and above what physical nature can do, or

358 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

man can do, or man using phyBical nature can do. It is the
work of some other intelHgence than man.

X. Then the necessary distinction hetween a miracle on the
one hand, and what physi.cal nature can accompHsh, or man
can accompHsh, or man using physical nature can accomplish,
is this: If transpiring unconnected with man's agency, it
must be above the power of physical nature, the work of an
intelligence above physical nature. It may or it may not be
above what man could do. If it be the work of an intelli-
gence, and man had nothing to do with it, it would be a mir-
acle, whether it be above what man could do or not. If per-
formed in connection with man's instrumentality, it must be
above the power of physical nature, and above man's power,
and above the power of man using physical nature. It is the
work of an intelligence distinct from man and alwve man.

XI. It is not a violation of the perfect order of nature, nor
an interference with the perfect order of nature, nor a suspen-
sion of the perfect order of nature, but the appearance of a
higher part of nature, and a higher and more perfect use of
nature than appears in the phenomena of physical nature or
in man's use of nature. It is in accordance with a liigher
law of nature, a higher order of nature, than man's use of
nature.

XII. Nature is physical, human and superhuman, and hi
the superhuman we have the divine. If Ave include all na-
ture, a miracle is not supernatural ; it is super-physical and
superhuman, but not super-angelic or super-divine.

XIII. Then a miracle is an occurrence that is a sign of the
activity and presence of an intelligence distinct from man.
It may be immediate or without human agency, or mediate,
or through human agency. When it occurs at the word or
prophecy or through the agency of man, it is an evidence that
he has superhuman aid. ISliracles are the credentials of
inspiration and revelation. Men never have accepted any
thing as inspiration and revelation, or regarded a man as
inspired without miracles, as credentials. If superhuman
origin or aid is claimed, miracles are demanded as the evi-
dence or credentials.

The old theologians thought .a miracle must not only be out
of power of man and physical nature to be unique and evi- *
dently of superhuman origin, but it must be a suspension of
the order of nature, or a violation of the order of nature, and
without a cause, or at least unconnected with known causes or
the order of nature. The skeptic accepts these characteristics,
and often exaggerates them, and then api:>eals to the uniibrm-
ity of nature to prove that no such events can occur. He

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 359

also appeals to the fact that the laws and order of nature are
the work of a perfect being, and nnist be perfect. Hence, a
miracle is a violation of this perfect order, and an interference
with its perfection, or a confession that the order was not per-
fect at first. He appeals to the perfection of the order of
nature to show that a miracle, as defined by old theologians,
is an impossibility.

I have attempted to remove the objections of the skeptic,
by removing the objectionable characteristics that he and tlie
old theologians have attached to them. I have attempted to
make them a part of the perfect system of nature — the ap-
pearance of a higher part of nature. The only question now
is, Have I accomplished this and avoided stripping miracles
of characteristics that they actually possess, and that are es-
sential to the accomplishment of their purpose — a sign of the
presence and activity of another intelligence than man?
Have I stripped miracles of essential characteristics, and low-
ered them to the level of ordinary events? Have I included
all that is essential to them, and to their purpose, while
attempting to strip them of excrescences that theologians and
skeptics have attached to them?

I have reached these conclusions: When used in defining
a miracle, the word natural includes physical force, matter
and man, and what they can produce. The term supernatu-
ral includes intelligences above man and phenomena produced
by them. It would be well to drop this technical U;^e of these
words, for it most invariably leads to confusion. We can dis-
tinguish between a miraculous event and one that is not by
these characteristics. If unconnected with man's agency or
instrumentality, it must be above mere physical force or mat-
ter. The characteristic determining this is, it is undeniably
the work of an intelligence — some other intelligence than man.
If performed in connection with man, through his agency or
instrumentality, it must be undeniably above the power^ of
physical nature, and above the power of man using physical
nature. It must be the work of an intelligence other than
man. One diflSculty, then, will be to show that the event
was not performed through man's instrumentality. Dece})tion'
and trickery must be guarded against. ]\Iany of the miracles
of spiritualism are evidently the work of intelligence, and
above mere physical nature ; but they are performed by the
medium unconsciously, especially when the medium is in an
abnormal condition. When performed through the agency
or instrumentality of man, we have to determine again that
the event is above the power of physical nature. Its being
undeniably the work of intelligence will do this. Then comes

360 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tlie most difficult task. We have to determine whether it be
above the power of man or his power using physical nature.
First we have to guard against fraud and deception, and know
that the event transpired, and just what transpired. Delu-
sion and exaggeration must be guarded against. Having
learned the exact proportions of the event, and that it is the
work of intelligence, then the questioji arises, What can man
do, and what can he do using tiie powers of physical nature?
Here is another problem : Do we know the limit of man's
power in both normal and abnormal states? Here is one
source of error in spiritualism. Some of its phenomena actu-
ally transpire. They are the work of an intelligence, and
they are strange and wonderfid, hence they conclude they are
above man's power, and the work of an intelligence other than
man ; when they are the work of man, the medium in an ab-
normal state. They have not learned and defined the limit
of man's power in an abnormal condition.

Then an event unconnected with man's agency or instru-
mentality, and evidently the work of intelligence, is a miracle
or the sign of the presence and activity of some other intelli-
gence than man. An event performed in connection with
man's agency or instrumentality is a miracle if undeniably
the work of an intelligence, and undeniably above the power
of physical nature, and above the power of man using phys-
ical nature. It is a sign of the presence and activity of some
other intelligence than man.

We have shown that the existence of God guaranteed the
validity of revelation and inspiration. The existence of the
cause of miracles is guaranteed by the existence of God ; and
as a necessary consequence the possibility of miracles, for it
gives the higher intelligence needed as tlie cause of miracles.
It guarantees, also, the validity of this idea of miracles, for
revehition being a necessity, if God exists as our Father in
heaven, then miracles are necessary as the evidence and cre-
dentials of revelation and inspiration.

Tlie fundamental error of the materialist, and the source of
all other errors, is, that he overlooks entirely the mental and
spiritual world and its phenomena. He entirely ignores and
refuses to investigate or accept the phenomena of tiie mental
and spiritual world, and thus violates all inductive philoso-
phy, which he claims to take as his guide. He confounds
these entirely distinct and radically dissimilar phenomena, and
persists in dragging down the mental and spiritual world to a
level witli the material world, and merges it into, or buries it
up in the material world. He lays down as the object of all
study, and the sum of all wisdom,, that we study the ongoings

RELIGION AND SCIENCP:. 361

of pli3^sical iialure in tinie-siiccessioii, and then accommodate
our lives to what we thns learn. But such a philosophy is
most false and pernicious. Man does not progress by abject
submission to the ongoing of physical nature. Man progresses
as he learns the operations of nature, and intervenes in them,
and controls them, and renders them submissive to himself;
and not as he obeys them. Man's progress is not measured
by his obedience to physical nature, but by his subjecting
physical nature, and making it obey him. Tiie less he inter-
feres wdth, and controvenes the ongoings of physical nature,
the more degraded he is. What the atheist presents as the
highest end of man's nature and effort, would degrade liim to
the level of the brute, that is , absolutely submissive to the
ongoings of physical nature. It is a fatal error of the atheist
that he makes the laws and ongoings of physical nature so
sacred, that they can not be modified for the higher world —
the mental and spiritual world. They make mind the slave
of matter, instead of making matter the servant of mind.
The material world was made for man, and not man for the
material w^orld. Man can intervene in the operations of na-
ture, and modify the processes of matter and physical force,
and render them subservient to his uses and needs. Higher
intelligences can to a higher degree than man, and God can
to an absolute degree, limited only by the moral necessities
and perfections of his being. All the objections and analo-
gies of the materialist are taken from the physical world, en-
tirely dissimilar to the spiritual world, and entirely below it.
If the advocates of these great religious ideas expose, as they
always should, this fallacy of the materialist, and set to one
side the sophistries based on it, there will not be an objection
to these ideas left.

Then in the investigation of these great religious ideas, we
have man's moral and religious nature as the data, and the
only data, by means of which they can be investigated.
Man has a moral, rational, and religious nature, and fi-om the
earliest dawn of human ex})crience, in nine hundred and
ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out
of every million, man's rational, moral, and religious nature
has given him as its catholic ideas, its universal affirmations,
its most invariable intuitions, these cardinal, religious ideas.
In settling the validity of these catholic, religious ideas, we use
the analogies of the parental relation, and government, of the
ruler and subject, and man's social relati(ms and educational
agencies and their appliances. As man has ever entered into
these relations as the highest use and achiuvenunt of iiis
highest nature, these analogies are infinitely abjve those of
31

oG2 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tlie material world. God, as an intelligence, sustains to us a
relation that he does not to the material world, and analo-
gous to the relations of the parental, governmental, social, and
educational life of man. These relations and their analog^ies
are germain to the investigation before us, and the facts and
la^vs of the physical world are utterly foreign to it. Then the
facts, laws, and analogies of these human relations are the
data, and the only data, that are relevant to an investigation
whether these catholic, religious ideas be valid or not. We
propose now to examine man's needs, as determined by his
rational, moral, and religious relations, and determine, a pos-
teriori, the validity of these catholic, religious ideas. In hu-
man society and life, we have the parental relation, govern-
ment and authority. This relation is chosen by the Scrip-
tures to express the perfect idea of the relation that God sus-
tains to us. This relation, government, and authority does
not interfere with human freedom or individuality, nor is it
enslaving. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to the
highest good of the individual, and true freedom can only be
secured and maintained through this relation, government, and
authority. In all relations and intercourse of men, there must
be system, order, regulation, and government. Human gov-
ernment does not interfere with human individuality or free-
dom, nor does it enslave. On the contrary, true freedom and
the greatest good of the individual can be secured and main-
tained only through human governments, properly constituted
and administered. Then this intuition of divine government
by God as our Father in heaven, is entirely in accordance
with man's rational, moral, and religious nature, and is de-
manded by it, and is its highest idea, and is necessary to
man's highest good. The basis idea of all conceptions of right
and wrong, all morality, all law, order, government, and so-
ciety is the idea of God as ruler and judge of men as their
Father in heaven.

Men intuitively divide all events into two classes, voluntary
and involuntary. They as intuitively divide all voluntary
actions into two classes, good and evil, and they apply these
characteristics to voluntary acts alone. They intuitively
divide voluntary acts and their results into the categories of
good and evil, right and wrong. To voluntary acts and their
results they intuitively attach the ideas and characteristics of
responsibility and accountability. Parents deal thus with their
ch'ldren. ^o do governments with subjects. So do all men
with each other; All language, thought, reasoning, and soci-
ety, law, and government, are based on these ideas. Out of
these ideas flows naturally tlie idea of retribution or reward

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 363

and punishment. Parents invariably deal with their children
on this idea. So do governments with their subjects. So do
all men with each other. These ideas of good and evil, ac-
countability, responsibility, reward and punishment have their
basis in the idea of God as supreme lawgiver, ruler, judge
and executive, as our Father in heaven. Men intuitively
recognize the truth that the universe is conducted and con-
trolled in accordance with these ideas, and that God deals
with men in accordance with them. They are necessary ideas,
intuitions of man's nature. These ideas, and the truth that
they all have their basis, center and perfect realization in
God, as the creator, lawgiver, ruler, judge and executive of
the universe, are necessary to the existence of law, order,
society, government and morality, and are demanded by the
highest interests of each individual, and the race. We repeat
that these ideas of God as lawgiver, ruler, judge and execu-
tive, and of retribution by him, and of his will and authority,
are the basis of all ideas of good and evil, right and wrong,
reward and punishment, responsibility, accountability and
retribution, and the sanction of all law, qrder, government
and authority.

Parents exercise a protecting, guarding, providential care
over their children. Their relation to them as those who have
brought them into being, and as those who have superior wis-
dom, and the power to thus protect and guard and provide
for them, render it their duty to do so. The highest interests
of the child demand it. There is no violation of the laws of
nature, when a parent protects his child from injury by phys-
ical nature. Or when he so controls the laws of nature, as to
make them subservient to the interests of the child. It is
the exercise of a higher nature, and a proper use of physical
nature. Providential care over his creatures is a necessary part
of the relation that God sustains to them as their Fatlier. He
brought them into being, and his wisdom, power and ability
to protect, guard and provide for them, make such providence
a necessiiry part of the relation he sustains to them. He no
more violates the perfect order of nature, when he exercises
such providential care over us, than a parent does wlun lie
exercises similar providential care over a cliild. It is a part
of the perfect order of nature wiien we iuchide, as we siiouUl,
all nature, intelligent nature as well as physical nature, and
necessary to its perfection. It is but just, and a necessary
part of die moral government of God, necessary to its perfec-
tion, that God should exercise a care over tl>e obedient tliat
he does not over the disobedient and ungrateful. P'.v.>-*<,

364 THE PROBLEM OF PKOBLEMS.

governments, and all men so act in their exercise of provi-
dential care for others.

In the family and other relations, the child is expected to
exercise reverence and veneration toward his parents and
superiors. So are all persons, in all relations. The child and
needy persons are expected to ask properly for favors, and
what they need. They are expected to be grateful for them.
Parents and benefactors can justly make fiivors contingent on
the discharge of these duties. They are justified in bestowing
them on the performance of these duties, and in refusing
them, in case of a refusal or neglect to perform them. In
like manner, we owe reverence, awe and worship to God. We
should ask properly for favors, and be grateful to him as our
Father. He can and does make blessings contingent on the
discharge of these duties. He can justly bestow on us bless-
ings only when we discharge such duties, and he will justly
refuse us blessings when we neglect or refuse to discharge
them. We do not expect to induce God to give us what he
did not design for us, or 'what is not ■ right for us to have.
But we can make it right for God to give us these blessings,
because we have placed ourselves in the right relation to him.
We do not obtain wdiat God did not design for us, but he
designs to give us these blessings because we have done our
duty, and made it right for him to give them to us. Then
prayer and answer to prayer are not a violation of the perfect
order of nature, but a necessary part of such perfect order of
nature, and necessary to that perfection that the materialist
supposes is impeached by the idea.

In the case of children and those who ai-e ignorant of what
they should know, teaching or revelation of what they do
not know, and can not attain by their own efforts, is the duty
of parents and all possessing such knowledge. It is demanded
by duty and benevolence. The highest interests of tlie taught
demand it. There is no violation of nature, or their nature
in such teaching, but a meeting of one of the demands of
their nature. It is the highest use of their nature. There is
no violation of the freedom or individuality of the' taught,
but such instruction is necessary to tlie perfection of both.
Then revelation of truth on moral, religious subjects, revela-
tion of such truth as man could not attain by his own efforts,
is a nece.-sary part of the relation God, as our Father in
heaven, sustains to us, his creatures. It is demanded by our
nature. It is iiecessary to a proper use of our nature, and
the highest use of our nature. Warning children of coming
dangers and duties, and such warning of the ignorant or
those exposed to danger, is a duty of all who can Liive such

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 365

warning. It is demanded by the highest interests of the
benefited. Then prophecy is a necessary part of God's reve-
lation to us. It warns ns of coming events and duties, pre-
pares us for them, and cheers and sustains us in duty and
triah

It is often objected that such revelation would be overpow-
ering in its influence, and enslaving in its tendency, if it
came from an infinite being. It must have its human as well
as its divine side, to be adapted to man. It must be given
by inspiration of God, through inspired men. This brings it
within man's reach, gives to it a human side, and saves it from
becoming overpowering in its influence. Its divine element
gives it sanction and authority, and its human element adapts
it to man's capacity and nature. Miracles are a necessary
part of this revelation of religious and moral truth. They
are necessary as the credentials of inspiration and revelation.
A miracle is a sign of the presence of a higher intelligence,
a necessary sign and credential of inspiration by and reve-
lation from such intelligence. Miracles are not a viokition
of the laws of nature, any more than man's use of nature
is a violation of nature. They are a higlier use of nature
than man can make, a use by a higher intelligence, and for
a higher purpose. Then these cardinal religious ideas of
providence, answer to prayer, revelation, inspiration, prophecy
and miracle, are a necessary part of the moral and religious
domain of nature, the higher, moral and spiritual world,
for which the physical world exists. They are a necessary
part of a moral and spiritual world, in which God exists
as the creator, lawgiver and ruler of men as their Father in
heaven. They are not a violation of nature, but a part
of nature, the highest part of nature, and the highest use
of physical nature. Taking the moral and spiritual Avorld
as our bases of reasoning, and man's moral and spiritual
nature as our standard, and we must accept these cardinal
intuitions of our rational, moral and religious nature.

Sacrifice as a confession of sin, and as a means of expia-
tion and propitiation, and as an expression of gratitude, is
universal. It is a part of all religions, and is found in all
nations and tribes of men, and has been thus universally
practiced in all ages. It is either the result of the consti-
tution of man's religious nature, or of tradition from })riniitive
revelation, or both. In either case its jDropriety and efiicacy
is established. In giving man a revealed religion, God would
take this universal instinct of humanity, and by elevating and
developing, would make it a means of religious cultivation
and elevation. Atonement is another catholic religious idea.

366 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

So also is sacrifice as a means of atonement. Infidelity has
ever persistently clamored against this universal idea of all
religions. It overlooks certain facts in nature and in the moral
vrorld.

Vicarious suffering is the order of nature. We came into
being by the suffering of another. We are reared to man-
hood by the vicarious toil and sacrifice of others. INIoral ele-
vation and progress has ever been through the vicarious self-
sacrifice of the good and the noble. The patriot, the
pliilauthropist and the martyr, have ever given themselves
for the enslaved, the unfortunate, the helpless, and even the
ignorant, vicious and degraded. They never receive the
good they confer on others. The patriot and martyr never
receive the result of their sacrifices. It accrues to others and
generally to the ones who destroy them. The missionary and
philanthropist who labor for the vicious and criminal, are
persecuted and slain by the ones for whom they sacrificed
themselves. Then the moral elevation of the race has ever
been through the vicarious suffering and self-sacrifice of the
good and noble, for the ignorant, fallen, degraded and unfor-
tu!iate; and often for the vicious and ungrateful. Such is
the order of moral nature. This the infidel overlooks. Then
the vicarious atonement of the Son of God is in exact accord-
ance with the order of nature.

Expiation, or the suffering of the good for the vicious, is
another universal idea of religion. It is necessary to vindi-
cate the majesty of the government and law, and to express
the guilt and 'enormity of sin. Also to express the regard
God has for the majesty of His government, and the inviola-
bility of His law, and His abhorrence of sin, and to show the
inviolability of his law. Also to produce remorse and sorrow
for sin, and to arouse the moral nature of the sinner, and to
appeal to his gratitude, and secure his love and devotion,
to the one thus suftering for him. Administrative justice,
and not retributive justice, demands expiation. It is de-
manded by man's needs, and not by any necessity of the
divine nature.

Mediation is another intuition of our nature. When we
have injured any one dear to us, and produced alienation, we
invariably and instinctively seek for a person of excellent
character, and of influence with the one we have injured, to
act as mediator, and secure reconciliation. Man is led by de-
votion to an exalted person, by faith in and love for a person,
far more than by mere abstract teaching or doctrine. Man
needs, also, an embodiment of doctrine, and a personal exponent
and example of truth, especially moral and religious truth.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 367

Man needs a personal object of faith, devotion, gratitude and
love in morals and religion. All revolutions and reformations
have had such leaders, such exponents, such objects of faith,
devotion and love. Men must have them, and millions are
led by devotion to them into tlie right, for every one who is
controlled by al.stract truth alone. All religions have had,
also, their incarnations, manifestations of divinity in luiiiian
form. Such incarnation, such taking on of humanity by
divinity, is necessary to divest religion of that "overpowering
influence, that the infidels object to. It is needed to give man
confidence to approach God. If this sacrifice that man needs,
this atonement, this' expiation, this mediator, this personal
leader, this embodiment and exponent of doctrine, this per-
sonal object of faith, devotion and love, be an incarnation or
a manifestation of divinity in human form, these ideas are
then made universal and absolute — they are perfected. The
human side or element gives confidence toapjn-oach God, and
gives devotion and love. The divine side or element gives
confidence in the sufficiency of the sacrifice, atonement and
mediator.

Forgiveness of sin is a cardinal idea of all religions, and
sacrifice and atonement are universal as means of obtaining
forgiveness. The skeptic objects to this idea of forgiveness of
sin. He assures us that it is untaught by nature, and utterly
contradicted by nature, and that it is a violation of the order of
nature, and that it is unjust and a destruction of all justice,
law and morality. His objections and illustrations are all
taken from physical nature. There is physical law and moral
law. If a man violates physical law the penalty always fol-
lows, though there is recuperative power, and remedy in this
case, if there is reformation. If we violate moral law, the
penalty as certainly follows. It is of two kinds. The sub-
jective, or that which inheres in the sin, and follows transgres-
sion as certainly as the shadow^ follows the substance, such as
remorse, guilt, sense of degradation, self-reproach, injury to
moral and spiritual nature, and the cultivation of evil habits
and propensities. Also the objective or that inflicted by the
l)erson sinned against, such as the loss of the love, confidence,
lavors and society of the persons sinned against, and the in-
fliction of positive evil or penalty. In the case of a dis-
obedient child, the parent inflicts the latter class of penalties.
So does society and human governments. So does God also.
The first inheres in the sin itself, and God inflicts this also.
If a father has two children that have both disobeyed him
alike, and one is rebellious and defiant, and the other ])enitent
and wishin<r to reform and be restored to favor, h(^ can not,

368 THE PROBLKM OF PROBLEMS.

and will not, treat both alike. He can and mnst remove tht
objective penalty of sin inflicted by himself, but the subjec-
tive must be removed by the reformed life of the offender.

In like manner society should remove the objective penalty
in case of reformation, but the subjective, the oflender must
remove by the right kind of life. Then, regarding God as our
Father in heaven, he can and will pardon us if we repent and
reform, and remove the objective penalty, but the subjective
we can remove only by living a holy life. In this sense we
work out our salvation from sin. The objections of the skeptic
to these cardinal ideas of religion are based on the laws and
analogies of the physical world that are utterly inapplicable.
He overlooks the laws and analogies of the moral and spiritual
world that are alone applicable. He also perverts and mis-
states these cardinal ideas of religion. He drags the spiritual
world down into the material world, and buries it up in the
material world. If his theory of the universe be true, the man
who helps an unfortunate, a diseased, or degraded person, or
cures a disease, violates law, and is as much a criminal as one
who helps a criminal to escape the she'.i.T. His view and ex-
amination of nature is most defective and distorted.

Then these great ideas are not a violation of the perfect
order of nature, njr patching up of nature, but a necessary
part, and the highest part, of a perfect order of nature. Man
has ever attempted to embody these cardinal ideas in a system
of religion, with dogma or truth to be believed, and worship or
prayer, praise, and acts of adoration and devotion, and discipline,
or rules for conduct and life. He has always given to this religion
ordinances and an organization and officers. Governments and
societies must have organization, ordinances, and officers, they
are necessary to their efficiency, wants, and very existence.
The same holds true of religion. Ordinances accomplish the
same purposes in religion and embody some great truth.
Oro-anization is necessarv to svstematic work, and officers as
leaders. Then following a true inductive philosophy, and taking
the data fui-nished by man's moral and religious nature, as the
subject of investigation, and its great intuitions as our standard,
we can no more reject these cardinal ideas of religion than we
can gravitation or crystallization in the physical world.
Science may elevate these great religious ideas, and strip them
of errors that man has attached to them, but it can not eradi-
cate them. It may develop and amplify them, but it can not
eliminate them. A man w^ould only demonstrate his own folly
who would reject all idea of gravitation or chemical action,
because he can not find them in the moral and religious world.
But his folly would be no greater thaii that of certain would-

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 369

be philosophers of our own day, who reject these cardinal re-
ligious ideas because they are not deposited as a residuum in
their retorts or crucibles, and they can not be weighed in their
scales, or dissected with their scalpels. A true inductive philo-
sophy would give them more certainty than the results of the
physical world, for it is only by means of them that the results
of the physical world can be reached.

If we have accomplished our purpose, we have shown the
fallacy and utter lack of true jDhilosophical method in the
course of the materialist, and shown that by a true philosophic
method, these great cardinal ideas of religion are verified and
justified, and it is only by means of them that a true science of
the universe can be constructed. Physical science without
them, no more gives us a true science of nature, than a treatise
on anatomy would be a description of man. As in one case
the mind, the spirit, that for which the body exists, would be
omitted; so in the other the moral and religious element of
nature, that for which j)h3'sical nature exists, would be omitted.
It is only the lifeless corpse, and not the living organization,
that the materialist examines, and as the corpse decays under
the investigation of the anatomist, so nature decays and rots
under the search of the materialist into irreligion, godlessness,
selfishness, brutality and crime. In science as in religion, "The
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and a knowledge
of His holy will the foundation of all understanding."

370 THE FilOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

CHAPTEK VIII.

Evolution and the Permanence of Eeligion.

In this, our concliidiug chapter, we will inquire Avhether the
pernianeuce of any system of religion be compatible with the
evolution and progress claimed by modern thought. All will
concede that man began in a condition of child-like simplicity,
and ignorance, and tliat he has progressed in arts, science, and
civilization. All will concede that he will continue to progress
so long as he makes a right use of the means of progress around
him. What etiect will this continual progress have on the per-
manence of Christianity or any system of religion ? Some con-
tend that t:ie result of this pi'ogress will be the elimination of
all religion out of human life and thought. Such persons con-
tend that religion is a perversion of man's veneration and mar-
velousness or spirituality. The fallacy of such an assumption
is apparent, when we remember that all other intuitions or
elements of our nature are to be elevated, i^urified and ampli-
fied. But tlie religious element is to be eradicated, and we
can see no reason why, except that the wish is father to the
thouglit. They wish to get rid of the restraint of these great
religious ideas.

In our last chapter we demonstrated that these cardinal re-
ligious ideas are a necessary jjart of our nature, and the high-
est part of our nature. Progress will not change man's nature
except by development. It will not eradicate the regnant
element of man's own nature. It will only elevate, purify,
and enlarge it. As man progresses and acquires greater
knowledge and power, he will have still greater need of tlie
regulative influence of this regnant element of his nature. As
we increase the speed of machiaery we do not dispense with
the need of regulating control. We increase the necessity tor
it.

Religion has ever been the animating principle of all great
reforms, revolutions and movements of the human mind. All
law, government, philanthropy, and exalted enthusiasm has
owed its origin to religion ; has been based on it, and animated
and controlled by it. It has furnished to poetry, painting,
gculpture, and art, their anim.iting principle and their most

l.vOl.UTrOX AND THE PP:RMANENCE OF RELIGIOX. ^11

cxnltoj themes. If man had been divested, in his infancy, of
this life-giving power, would the race have produced a Gaute-
nia, a Zoroaster, an Abraham, a Moses, a Solomon, a David,
a Socrates, a Plato, a Paul, a Luther, a Howard, a Homer, a
Dante, a Virgil, a Milton, a Locke, Newton or Bacon ? Would
mere materialism have given us the Ilkid, JEneid, a Paradise
Lost, a Book of Job, a Book of Psalms, or the morality of Moses,
Soci-ates, Plato, Solomon, Paul, or Christ? The automaton —
the caoutchouc man of Faber — is as much man as the ideal man
of modern materialism, without moral or religious nature. If
the anatomist were to insist on expelling from the body all
mind, life, and spirit, as necessary to a proper study of man,
and then insist that his classified statements concerning the de-
caying skeleton are a complete science of man, he would be
guilty of no greater madness than is attempted by modern
science, so-called. Progress will no more eliminate religion
out of man's nature or life and thought, than anatomy will
eliminate life or the mind out of the body. As a true science
of man gives to the spii'itthe highest and most important place
and regards the body as the servant of the mind, so does a true
science of human progress gives to religion the highest and a
controlling influence in the life of the race.

There remains one more question: "Can any system of
leligion remain the permanent religion of the race if man
continues to progress?" Will not the race outgrow any sys-
tem of religion in its progress? Will not the permanence of
any system be a barrier in the way of progress? Will not
such a system at last check human progress, at a certain
stage, and petrify it at that point? Must not man construct
for himself new systems of religion, or at least enlarge and
improve what he has by adding to it, as he does in science?

Truth is of two kinds, the accidental and partial, and the
universal and eternal. Law and religion are of three kinds:
Negative law, or that which merely forbids what is wrong;
positive statutory law, which undertakes to specify in detail
all duty and how it is to be performed ; universal law, or a
law of general truths, universally applicable principles. The
fiist is suited to children and th« childhood of the race.
The second is disciplinary in character, and is suited to youth
and the youth of the race. The third is suited to manhood
and the nianhood of the race.

Mankind ^an outgrow a system of negative precepts, for
as the child soon needs instruction and discipline, and so does
the race. Man can outgrow a system of positive statutoi-y
law, just as the youth outgrows such a system of disci'i)line
and restraint as he approaclifes manhood. Then systems of

372 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBLEMS.

religion of either of these two characters, man coiihl and
would outgrow, in his progress. INIan has outgrown such
systems of law in religion, wherever he has progressed and
advanced in civilization and knowledge; and he will always
outgrow all such systems.

But a system of general principles, a system of universally
and eternally applicable truths, can not be outgrown by any
course of progi*ession, no matter how^ vast in extent or pro-
tracted in duration. Let us illustrate: In their attempts to
develop the various sciences, men at first observed phenomena
and recorded their observations. They speculated concerning
the reason of phenomena, and suggested hypothesis or guesses
concerning the cause and reason of the phenomena. Soon,
phenomena were observed that did not accord with the
hvpothesis, and it was cast to one side, and another substi-
tuted. Thus men discarded theory after theory, as they out-
grew them, until the great underlying principle, the great
central truth, was discovered. Then all phenomena crystal-
lized around this central truth into a system, and a science
Avas arraup-ed. These fjreat central truths, these universal
ideas, these underlying principles, man never outgrows. He
may learn more of their scope and grasp, and the amplitude
of their application, but he never outgrows them. Man will
never outgrow the Copernican theory of the universe. He
may learn more of its, infinite aj^plication to the boundless
systems of the universe, through systems of systems, to in-
finity, but he will never outgrow it. In like manner man
will never outgrow the law of gravitation. He may learn
more of its scope and infinite application in the boundless
universe, but he will never progress beyond it. All man's
subsequent progress will lead him through wider and wider
ramifications, but it will never lead him beyond them, be his
progress what it may. He can not outgrow universal truths.

The same genei-alization will apply to religion. Man can
and has outgrown systems of negative commands, or positive
statutory laws; but he can not outgrow a system of universal
truth or general principles. A system of religion that makes
absolute and eternal the catholic and cardinal religious ideas,
God and his attributes, creation and government by Him,
spiritual life and existences, good and evil, right and wrong,
responsibility and accountability, reward and punishment,
providence, prayer, and answer to prayer, revelaticm, inspira-
tion, prophecy, miracle, sacrifice, atonement, expiation, me-
diation, personal leader, embodiment and exponent of doc-
trine in religion, object of faith, devotion and love, will be

EVOT>UTIOX AND THE PERMANENCE OF RELIGION. 373

universal and eternal. An incarnation will make these ideas
infinite and eternal.

If this religion contains a perfect system of reformation of
life, or spiritual regeneration, and forgiveness of sin, and a
perfect system of absolute truth to be believed, veneration,
praise and worship, for a perfect object of worship, and a ])er
feet rule for life, and complete organization and ordinances,
susceptible of universal application, it can not be outgrown by
progress. Man may learn more of the scope and grasp of
these universal principles, and learn to apply them better to
his progress and advancement, but he will never outgrow
them, any more than he will the universal and eternal in
science. Then the question concerning Christianitv, or any
system of religion, is: Is it a system of universal and eternal
truths ? Are its principles susceptible of universal and
eternal application? If this be the case, it can not be out-
grown.

Did space permit, the author would apply these general
hints to Christianity, and elaborate them more fully. Should
the present work meet with a reception that encourages him
to believe that good can be accomplished by his efforts, he
will follow this work with another one, in which he will de-
velop what is merely suggested here. In it will be discussed
more fully than was possible in this book: What was man's
primitive condition? Does man need a revealed religion?
What should be its basic ideas? How should it be given and
developed? Is Christianity, in its basic ideas, the religion
man needs? Has it been given to man as his needs and na-
ture demanded? What has Christianity done for man? Can
man outgrow Christianity? etc. These and kindred topics
will be discussed.

There is a line of thought that never has been presented in
a connected view that forms one of the strongest defenses that
can be made for the religion of Christ. With the hope that
he has been instrumental in leading the reader to an a})])rc-
hension of infinite and eternal truth, and a i)rayer that all
may be made free by the truth, he bids all farewell.

APPEISTDIX.

TyndalVs Statement of Evolution Hypothesis.

We can not resist asking Tyndall, since he has avowed his in-
clination t«o recognize in matter all possibilities of being, and his
inclination to accept the stupendous hypothesis expressed in the
quotation from him : How came all these existences to which he
refers, if oiice latent, to be changed into the potential? What
changed what was merely latent into the potential? What
changes what is potential into the actual? Accepting so stu-
pendous an assumption does not relieve, but rather increases the
difficulty that is still to be surmounted.

Anthropomorphism of Scientists.

One of the charges made by evolutionists against the theory
of creation, is that it anthropomorphizes the Infinite Cause, or
Source of all things. The objectionable anthropomorphism is not
in the theory of creation, but in their caricature of it. A favor-
ite subterfuge is to speak of the theory of creation, as though it
necessarily subjected Infinite Keason and its acts to all the lim-
itations, ignoranee and imperfections of finite reason. Man has
to search for truth and ideas, and to compare them, in his reason-
ing, and to study out the end that is most desirable, and the plan
that will best accomplish it, and the best means to be used. He
often blunders and fails, and has to contrive and toil to remedy
it, and is a mere shaper or tinker, and not a maker or creator.
It is tacitly at^sumed, by these objectors to the theory of creation,
that Infinite Reason is subject to the same limita'^tions and im-
perfections. Creation is not in accordance ^ith law, and can not
be made to accord with true scientific ideas. Government and
providence by the Creator are in violation of all hiw and scien-
ti fie order. They are an after thought of an intelligence that failed
in the first efibrt, and an attempt to patch up a mistake. Tele-
ology implies studying and contriving and tinkering of processes,
to meet ends that have to be studied out, and toiled for, by efibrt.
In this way an attempt is made to load down the idea of creation
by reason, government by the Creator, and providence with ab-
(374.)

APPENDIX. 375

surdities that will break it down and destroy it. It is a most
unfjiir and unjust perversion of the idea.

A child who does not know the alphabet, and who wants to
read a book, has to Icarii laboriously the alphabet, what sounds
the letters represent, how to combine the sounds into sylla-
bles, and the syllables into words, and words into sentences.
He has to learn the various meanings and uses of words,
and by comparison determine the particular meaning each
word has in each case of its use, and by uniting these meanings
he reaches the thought, and by combining thoughts he reaches
his end or object. Huxley glances over the page, and nearly all
the processes that the child went through so laboriously he omits
entirely. Oj;hers he performs immediately or intuitively, and
unconsciously to himself. It would be gross folly to say that
because the child reaches the thought so laboriously, Huxley
must. And it is a still more gross absurdity to assume that In-
finite Reason must be subject to the limitations and imperfections
of finite reason. Infinite Reason knows immediately and abso-
lutely, and acts accordingly. In teleology in nature, Infinite
Reason uses perfect means to accomplish, infallibly, the end,
without absolute knowledge, and without any imperfection. It
is in accordance with law, the highest law, law of Infinite Rea-
son. Because ends are accomplished by means in creation, it
does not follow that there is the studying, contriving and labor-
ious thought there is in man's works. It is done infallibly, with
perfect and immediate knowledge, and in accordance with the
highest law, law of absolute reason. So also government and
providence are a necessary part of the highest law, law of govern-
ment by intelligence over intelligences. They are a part of its
perfection, and necessary to its perfection, and not a patching of
a failure.

Objections to Nebular Hypothesis.

As the author has been criticised as almost insolent, and cer-
tainly audacious in venturing to question the nebular hypothe-
sis, he will restate his reasons: I. It is but a hypotiiesis, a
guess. II. AVe have not any knowledge of matter in its primor-
dial constitution, or initial condition, in a nebulous condition. We
have no knowledge of matter charged by heat or any other pro-
cess of nature, or held by any process of nature, in a gaseous
condition, or fire-mist, for any length of time. Indeed, we have
no knowledge of solids produced by any process of nature from
what was primordially a gas. Our experience is just the con-
trary. Gases are produced from solids. III. There is assumed
as known, Avhat is unknown, and can not, from the nature of the
question, be knoAvn. It is not known, and can not be known,
that our solar system was once a nebulous cloud, or cloud of
fiery vapor. IV. The assumption involves the impossible, con-
tradictory and absurd. If all absolute space was pervaded by
this fire-mist, where was the heat radiated to when it was
cooling? If but a portion, what held this repellent mass in that
portion of space? Why was not the heat all radiated and the

376 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

mass absolutely cold and remain so during eternity? When ap-
plied to the formation of our earth, it is, as we have shown, a
mass of absurdities. It contradicts known facts. It is incon-
sistent with tlie idea of the properties of the elementary sub-
stances, and chemical affinity, and the idea of life ever appearing
on our planet. It contradicts clear laws of mechanical pressure,
and repellent force of such repellent mass, and many other ab-
surdities already enumerated elsewhere. For these reasons the
author will at least venture to question this nebular hypothesis,
or cloudy guess.

The Propaganda of Athei-ific Scientists.

While no one will object to freedom of speech and thought, or
to the atheist and other unbelievers advocating and disseminating
their sentiments in a proper manner, yet certain things are prac-
ticed that are, at least, questionable as matters of taste and
propriety, and of doubtful honesty. We have so-called scientific
associations and societies; we have scientific lecturers and lec-
tures; scientific authors and books; scientific series; scientific
papers and journals ; we have also literary journals and writers
and lectures; we have political papers and authors also. No one
doubts that so all-pervading an influence as religion, has its bear-
ings on science, literature and i)olitics, and that each of these
has its relations to religion. These bearings and relations should
be carefully studied and honestly and fearlessly stated. But one
can scarcely see the necessity for officers and lecturers, before
scientific associations, going clear out of their way to make
attacks on religion, or make flings at it. Nor for their pursuing
such a course to such an extent that scientific associations are
almost synonyms in the public minds with infidel propaganda.
One can see no necessity for Tyndall and Huxley and others
availing themselves of the eclat of an annual presidential address
to assail religion. One can see no necessity for a paper, claiming
to be scientific, going clear out of its way to make an attack on
religion, as was done by the only weekly that arrogates to itself
the term "Scientific." Nor for the continued tone of sneers and
insults there are in some of our large dailies, whenever religion
is referred to. A preacher is a "gospel slinger," and a church a
" gospel shop," in the low slang of one of these corrupters of
public morals and ta^te. Then the cardinal ideas of religion are
openly assailed or covertly sneered at in nearly every number.
The worst disseminators of infidelity to-day are some of the leacl-
ing dailies of our leading cities, and a majority of them can be
j^included in the list. The same is true, to some extent, of several
of our literary papers and magazines. The cardinal ideas of
Christianity are assailed, ridiculed and caricatured in story and
editorial and the heavier articles. Several of our literary writers
never speak of religion, but to stab it. One well known writer
never has a villain in his stories, but he is a priest or church
officer, or noted member. His heroes are unbelievers. Religion
always figures as cant and hypocrisy on his pages. He is a type
of a large class.

APPENDIX. 377

We have a large class of lecturers, literary, scientific and non-
descript. Many use the advantage thus given, to openly assail
or covertly ridicule or caricature religion^ and disseminate infi-
delity. We have magazines calling themselves popularly scien-
tific, that are fanatical and bigoted propjigandists of infidelity.
We have international series of books called scientific, that are
atheistic and bigotedly infidel. We are not questioning the
right of these persons to entertain such sentimenis, or to dissem-
inate them, but we do question the taste and propriety, and the
honesty of the way in which it is done. When an association
professes to be scientific, let it be such. If it is an infidel propa-
ganda, let it avow what it is. Infidelity and science are not
synonymous, nor is religion an enemy to science. A mr.n can be
scientific in the truest and broadest sense, and not assail religion,
and indeed be religious, as thousands of the best scientists are
examples. If lecturers and officers of such associations wi^h to
assail religion, let them call their effort by its right name, and
not steal the livery of science to serve infidelity. If Proctor is
to lecture on astronomy, let him do so, and not step away out to
one side and wander oft' to deceive and insult his audience by a
rehash of Paine's stale objections to the xxiv. chapter of Num-
bers. If the editors of a scientific journal or a medical journal
want to assail religion, let them honestly publish an infidel pa-
per, and not do as several of these have done, get patronage
under the garb of medicine or science, and then peddle infidelity
under such license. A\'hen we buy a daily newspaper or a politi-
cal journal, we do not want to be compelled to load our tables
with, and place before our families the baldest infidelity, and
slang and blackguardism, in connection with the news we sup-
posed we were purchasing. Let such men sail under their true
colors, and tell us what they have for us when they offer their
wares. A gentleman once had placed before him a dit^h of pickled
pears. On looking carefully into it, he detected a drowned
mouse. Calling his hostess to him, he said, *' Madam, I know
that pickled pears are good. Pickled mice may be as good, or
far better. They may be according to your taste. I am not
questioning the fact, or the accuracy of your taste. But as a
matter of personal right, I must be allowed to exercise my own
taste, when it comes to my own eating. I prefer to have j)ickled
mice and pickled pears served in separate dishes. Then I am al-
lowed to exercise my undoubted right to choose what I v.ill eat."
So we say to these parties. We know that science, politics, lit-
erature and art are good. We know that books, lectures and pa-
pers that are really scientific or literary or political are good.
Infidelity may be good. It may be the most excellent of all
things, according to their taste. We question neither the taste
nor the excellence of what they love. But as a matter of personal
right on our part, and honesty on theirs, we insist that they serve
them to us in different dishes, and each under its right name.
1'here is impudence in the cool, monopoly of science, and the
terms science, and scientific, by such associations, publications
and men. Some of our best scientists entertain no such views,

32

378 THE PROBI.EM (JF PROBLEMS.

but the opposite. There are at least two sides to the question.
If they must use the terms, let them ])refix the proper adjectives,
and call themselves atheistic scientific associations, papers, lec-
turers, books or series. Thi^: would be honest, modest and true,
and their present course is neither. It is especially arrogant,
when we remember that the favorite hobbies of such men are
theories at best, guesses, hypotheses in reality. Then there is a
narrow-minded bigotry and fanaticism among scientists, as great
a-iever characterized any religious bigot. The fanatical zeal with
vUich Youmans or Fiske will defend any thing connected with
r.iose hobbies, the indignation they display towards one who dare.-
••) question them, the sneers of Huxley and others, in speaking
of religion and religious persons, is the same heat that kindJed
in the opposite party the fires that burned Bruno andServetus.
It is fashionable now to sneer at priests and preaching, and to
sneer at tiie idea of their ever having done any good, and at ser-
mons and the literature of priests. The rostrum and lecture are
to take the place of pulpit and sermon. The intelligence of
priests, and their education and their place in history, will com-
pare with that of any class of men. Their themes, religion,
morality and righteousness, are the highest men have ever inves-
tigated. Their books and sermons, in talent, usefulness and im-
portance, sustain the same relation to literature that their themes do
to thought. Every Sunday, all over Christendom, hundreds of
thousands of men, embracing a large portion of the talented and
educated of this generation, are presenting, for the consideration
of men, the most important and exalted themes of human thought.
This has been the case for many hundred years. The work of the
rostrum now set up as a rival, is now, and ever will be, but as a
drop to the ocean in importance and influence.

When we look at the history of the world we find that strug-
gles for religious freedom were headed by believers and readers
of the Bible, during all modern times. Political and mental
freedom have been the results of such struggles, and not its
cause. The history of Switzerland, Germany, France, Holland,
England and the United States prove this. \Ve owe to the Prot-
estant Reformation, and not to infidelity, our freedom, progress
and civilization. We close this thought by calling attention to
the covert hostility to religion displayed. in what are called pop-
ular science primers. In some, atheism is boldly presented as
science. In others, religion is covertly caricatured or sneered at.
In all there is a careful ignoring of all idea of intelligence in tlie
cause or control of the phenomena presented. Matter and force,
natural forces and laws, are studiously presented as the only
cause, and all-sufficient cause. If there is not an attempt to dis-
prove all connection of intelligence with the phenomena, a care-
ful effort is made to show that matter and force are sufficient, and
no intelligence is needed in the cause. The reader is led up face
to face with the forces of nature and left in intended atheism.
If there is recognition of creation, or intelligence in the origin
or control of phenomena, by the author, contrary to the expecta-
tions of the projectors of the series, as was the case in Quatre-

APPENDIX. 379

f-dgQfi'"Efknolog7/,'' the master-spirit must administer the correc-
tive in an atheistic appendix, as was done in that case. It is
time the world demolished this Trojan horse, and' compelled the
knavish Greeks concealed in it to fight in the open field under
their true colors.

Is the God-Idea an Intuition f

If we use the term God-idea in the sense of a tendency to wor-
ship something, an aspiration and desire for a superior being or
beings, a recognition in worship, aspirations and tendency of such
superior being, it is a primary intuition. If we use the term as
including a formulated theory of creation, government and wor-
ship, it is not a primary intuition, but the result of a course of
reasoning. It is an universal affirmation of reason, and an intui-
tion in only the secondary sense, a catholic or universal idea.

If we use the term intuition in the sense of an universal, cath-
olic idea of reason, the God-idea is an intuition, both in the sense
of an aspiration or tendency to worship, and of a formal theory
of creation, government and worship, as man's superstitions and
religions prove.

If we use the term intuition in the primary sense of a primary
or immediate intuition, then the idea of God is an intuition only
in the sense of a tendency to worship, an aspiration toward a su-
perior being, and the recognition, it may be vague and indefinite,
of the existence of such being.

But if by the term God we mean a perfect and correct idea of
his nature and character, especially of his moral attributes, it
must be the result of revelation. It is in this sense that the re-
ligious world use the term God, when they say the God-idea
must be revealed.

If the persons who dispute so much over this, would define
clearly what they mean by intuition, and the God-idea, there
would be but little controversy. The dispute is the result of
using words in entirely diflTerent senses.

Involution must alwai/s precede Evolution to render Evolution

Possible.

The w^riter has, in various ways, endeavored to arrange before
the reader the fallacies of the evolutionist. He begins by evad-
ing, as much as he can, of the difiiculty to be met. He quietly
ignores much, and generally the essential part. He leads the
mind back over a long course of investigation to a choatic, neb-
ulous beginning, and assumes all that his theory requires, and in
the confusion of the reader or hearer this is unnoticed. He
quietly deposits in these crudities, matter and force, all he \yants
to draw out of them. Or he confuses the mind with a multitude
of strange phenomena, and assumes that they cover all the ele-
ments of the problem, and assumes that his speculations on them,
which are largely assumptions, unwarranted by the phenomena,
explain the entire case. Or he begins and furtively and illicitly

380 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

steals, grain bv grain, during an almost infinite time, the whole
chain of causation, all he needs, and foists it quietly and fur-
tively into the course of nature, as his necessities demand. In
either case there is a contession that mere matter and force and
their essential properties are not a sufficient basis for the evolu-
tion he claims. We have endeavored to show that to these con-
ceptions other things must be added. There must be deposited
in them other elements. The elementary substances and their
characteristics must be there. These, and the essential pro|>erties
of matter and force, must be co-ordinated. Chemical affinity and
its laws and their co-ordination must be there. There must be
wrought out in all this the most exalted ideas of reason. Lil'e
must be deposited, and life must appropriate the matter of the
cell or germ, and co-ordinate and subordinate physical force. All
this is an inv^olution, and not an evolution. The greater portion
of what is called evolution is involution, and must precede evolu-
tion to render evolution possible. From the rudimental concep-
tion of matter and force, until we reacli the vegetable and animal
germs, and until the germ is ready for development, the process is
involution. If we concede the efficiency of the conditions that
the evolutionist claims produce his evolution, these conditions
must be deposited in matter and force, and the arrangement of
matter and force into these conditions is an involution. The ev-
olution is only seen in the development of each individual plar.t
or animal, and in the development of varieties out of species ; or
of species out of the primordial forms, if we concede the latter to
be true. Then nearly the entire protess is an involution, and
this involution must precede the evolution, before the evolution
can be possible; and the involution must be planned, conducted
and controlled by intelligence. Intelligence alone can involve
the factors of the evolution, and conduct and control such a pro-
cess of involution after it has planned it. Then a radical fallacy
of the evolutionist is, calling the entire process an evolution,
when nearly all of it is an involution. Another is to overlook the
fact that this involution must precede the evolution to render it
possible, and the fallacy of falhicies is to overlook the truth that
this involution must be devised by intelligence, controlled by in-
telligence, and conducted up to the point of evolution by intel-
ligence.

Three Ways of getting rid of the Idea of Intelligence in the Cause

of Evolution.

I. Leading the mind back to so chaotic a conception of matter
and force as to confuse it, and then either boldly assume or de-
posit in them all that is to be evolved out of them, or take refuge
in the unknowable, and deposit in this myth all tliat is needed to
produce the evolution. II. Confuse and dazzle the mind with what
nature can do, assuming that nature can do all this without any
relation to intelligence. III. Show what nature does in one par-
ticular, and then spread that over the universe as an explanation
of all existence and phenomena. Tyndall and Spencer pursue

APPENDIX. 381

the first method, Tyndall boldly assumes and deposits in matter
all he wants to draw out of it. Spencer takes refuge in that
phantom, tlie unknowable, and places in it all he wants as ground
for phenomena, but intelligence. That he rejects in violation of
all reason. Darwin pursues the second method. Huxley, in his
late demonstration, pursued the third method.

Eeasons why certain Tribes have been Pronounced Atheists.

I. Persons making inquiry have been so ignorant of the lan-
guage of the tribes, that querist and the one answering did not
understand each other. II. Or they presented theological .specu-
lations concerning God, and because the persons were ignorant of
such ideas, pronounced them atheists. III. Or they confounded
ignorance of the one God, or the God of revelation, with atheism,
or ignorance of all objects of worship. This is the principal cause
of these tribes being called atheists. IV. Or the' savage merely
understood by the God inquired after, the deity of the tribe of
the inquirer. When he said he knew nothing of the .God of the
querist, the latter understood it as ignorance of all object ©f
worship ; when the savage had, perhaps, an elaborate system of
worship. V. Or their religion was destitute of certain elements
found in most religions. Perhaps it had no temples, or no priest-
hood, or acts of worship like prayer or })raise. VI. Or their
superstition would not allow them to name or talk of their
gods. Every atheistic tribe (supposed to be so) has been found
to have superstition, and that the mistake arose from one of the.^^e
causes.

Another Subterfuge of Evolutionist.

It is a very common thing with the evolutionist, when an ob-
jection is urged to any position of his theorv, to retort dogmati-
cally that evolution does not teach or involve what is objected
to, and often the objector is taunted with not understanding what
he is talking about, and impudently told that he had better study
and understand evolution before he ventures to urge objections
to it. As this is never followed by a statement of what is the
teaching of evolution, the retort is but an uncourteous evasion.
Huxley wonders at the marvelous flexibility of the Hebrev.' text
that admits of so many and so different interpretations. Students
of evolution have far more reason to marvel at the wonderful
flexibility of the unerring, inflexible records of nature, as they
are called by the scientist, when each one presents a different in-
terpretation, and often many and conflicting interpretations in
his own writings or lectures, and each and all of them can, as ne-
cessity demands, be rejected as not being the teaching of this in-
flexible record, though they were presented as such. The inter-
preter of the Hebrew text, not only denies the interpretations that
he opposes, but he is courteous and honest enough to present
what he thinks is the real interpretation. In this, he is more
courteous, honest, and courageous than the evolutionist. Let
persons criticising evolution meet ttiis discourteous evaiiion, by

382 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

demanding what is the real teaching of evolution, and the evasion
can soon be exposed. The author insists as due to truth, and de-
manded by courtesy and honesty, that critics condemning any
.statement in tliis book, as not a fair statement of evolution, not
only deny, but state what is the teaching of evolution.

Matter and Force not Self-existent, but the Creations of Mind.

The issue between the theist and the atheist can be presented
thus : There are existences, mineral, vegetable, animal, and ra-
tional, now in being. They did not cause themselves, but have
a derived existence. Then as " Ex nihilo nihil fit — Out of nothing,
nothing comes," something must have existed forever as their
cause, or source of their being. Either a series of existences
such as we have now, extends back eternally, or something ex-
isted before the series of existences now in being came into being,
as their cause. Every thing that exists now, is finite, conditioned,
contingent, dependent, and perishable. Nothing that we see, caused
itself The finite, the contingent, the conditioned, the dependent,
the perishable can not be self-existent, independent, eternal, and
self-sustaining. Nor can an infinite series of such existences.
Such a series would be an absurdity, and impossible. Nor can an
infinite number of such existences. If these properties of self-
existence, independence, and self-sustenance be not in the indi-
vidual existences, no aggregation can evolve out of them what is
not in them. " Kv nihilo nifiilfit." Then something self-existent,
independent, and self-sustaining must have eternally existed as
the origin of all that exists, or there must be something absolute,
uncaused, unconditioned, and necessary, that has eternally ex-
isted as the ground and source of the finite, conditioned, depend-
ent, contingent, and perishable that exists. The issue between
theist and atheist is; What is the necessary, absolute, uncaused,
unconditioned being or substance? What is it that is the self-
existent, independent, self-sustaining and eternal ? What is the
ground, source, origin, or cause of all existences and phenomena?
This is the problem of problems, that determines all systems of
science, philosophy, and thought. The theist affirms that abso-
lute intelligence, or mind, or spirit, m the absolute, the uncondi-
tioned, the uncaused, the necessary being; that mind or spirit
alone is self-existent, independent, self-sustaining, and eternal.
The atheist, to have an adequate basis for existences, and phe-
nomena, and for evolution, if he be an advocate of evolution,
must affirm that matter and force, blind, irrational, insensate
matter and force, are self existent, independent, self-sustaining
and eternal — that blind, irrational, insensate matter and force
are the unconditioned, the absolute, the uncaused, and necessary,
and the ground and origin of all existences and phenomena. Also
that the essential properties of matter and force, are eternally in-
herent in them. Also that the original elementary substances of
matter are self-existent, eternal, independent, and self-sustaining,
and that their essential characteristics are so ; and that the laws
of nature, of which he speaks, are self-existent, independent, eter-
nal, and self-sustaining. Then by the action, interaction, and re-

APPENDIX. 383

action of these elementary substances and their characteristics,
and of matter and force, and their essential properties on each
other, in accordance with tiiese laws, all existences come into be-
ing. It is a common course of the evolutionist to begin and go
back, through rational, animal, vegetable, and chemically ar-
ranged matter, to mere matter and force without these. The mind
has become bewildered by the long course, and confused by the
chaotic cloudy things called matter and force, presented for its
consideration, and like one in the dark in a haunted house, is
ready to believe and accept almost any thing. Tyndall asserts
we have in these nebulous nondescripts the potencies of all be-
ing. Spencer confuses the mind with sonorous phrases, such as
heterogeneity and homogeneity, differentiation and integration,
etc., and conjures a universe into being with these cabalistic words.
Let us, however, pause and look carefully around us, and in-
quire whether there is not bald assumption, and assumption in
contradiction to all reason in the starting point of the evolution-
ist, in this primeval fog of nebula, or star-dust, or fire-mist, or what-
ever he choses to call it. The atheist must prove : I. That
blind, irrational, insensate matter and force can be self-existent,
independent, self-sustaining and eternal. II. Prove that they
actually and beyond a doubt are so. III. Prove that even if
they are self-existent, independent, self-sustaining and eternal,
they can be the origin and source of all existences and phe-
nomena. IV. Prove that they are really and beyond doubt the
origin and source of all existences and phenomena. It will not
do, as is generally done, to assume that they are self-existent,
independent and self-sustaining, for that is assuming the point at
issue. Nor that they can be, or may be, for neither is sufficient
basis for reasoning, and both are denied. Nor even if they are
self-existent, independent and self-stistaining, that they are the
source of all that exists, for that is the real issue that is con-
tested. The atheistic evolutionist must demonstrate that matter
and force, their essential properties, the elementary substances
of matter, and their characteristics, and what he calls the laws
of nature, are undoubtedly and actually self-existent, independ-
ent, self-sustaining and eternal, and that they actually and un-
doubtedly are- the source of all that exists. An attempt to prove
that matter and force are self-existent, independent, eternal and
self-sustaining, is sometimes made thus : I. He assumes they are
indestructible. II. Then they will have no end of existence.
III. As they will have no end of existence, they can have had no
beginning, or they are eternal and self-existent ? To this the re-
ply is easy : I. He does not know that they are absolutely in-
destructible. He only knows that he can not destroy them.
Can he prove that higher intelligence can not destroy them ?
II. Infinite Intelligent Power could make them indestructible by
any power except himself. III. Because Infinite Intelligence
made them indestructible by any power except himself, and be-
cause he permits them to exist for ever, does not prove they are
self existent. IV. Even if they were indestructible, it does not
follow that they had no beginning, and are self-existent.

884 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

The reply of the theist to the position that matter and foree
are self-existeiit, independent, self-sustaining and eternal, is: L
Matter and force (unless we include in the term force mind-force)
can not from their very nature and constitution be self-existent,
independent, self-sustaining and eternal. II. Matter and force
are subordinate agents, subordinate to mind, and created articles,
the creations of mind. III. Blind, irrational, insensate matter
and force can not be the source and ground of all the existence
and phenomena that exist. Even if we concede that matter and
force and their essential properties, and the original elementary
sUrbstances, and their characteristics are self-existent, independent,
^If-sustaining and eternal, we have no basis or source of the
evolution claimed by the evolutionist. Blind, irrational, insen-
sate matter and force and their physical, irrational, essential
properties, and the elementary substances of matter, and their
physical, irrational characteristics, could not originate, start or
control the evolution claimed by the evolutionist, and bring into
being the existences and phenomena now in existence.

I. Matter is not self-existent and eternal — does not have nec-
essary being. If we take the latest results of scientific research,
and pass back to what it places before us as its elementary idea
of matter, to its primordial constitution, its primordial molecule'^,
they are of definite size and shape, and have definite character-
istics. We can easily conceive how all this could be different.
Hence, it is not necessary and eternal, or self-existent. Hence,
the primordial molecular constitution of matter, matter in its
primordial constitution, does not have necessary being, and is not
seif-existent. II. Matter, in its primordial constitution, has a
definite number of elementary substances. These have definite
characteristics. Each has peculiar and definite properties. Each
has peculiar and definite aflinities. These elementary stib-
stances, essential properties of matter, and peculiar characteristics
of each substance, and its atfinities, are arranged in exact mathe-
mati>jal proportions and law. All this can be conceived of as
being different from what it is. Hence it is not necessary and
self-existent. Then matter in its primordial constitution has not
necessary being, and is not self-existent. If it be claimed that
this is not the primordial constitution of matter, will any one
tell us what was back of it ? What could be back of it ? How
coidd matter exist, or be thought of, Avithout these characteris-
tics here enumerated? Will he describe it to us ? Can he think
of it without these characteristics? And if it did exist without
them in its primordial constitution, whence came they when they
did appear ? The same holds true of force and its properties.
They are in its primordial condition, co-ordinated and adjusted,
and act in accordance with exact mathematical law in all respects.
We can easily conceive of a diflerent arrangement. Hence this
is not necessary and self-existent. If it be objected that this is
not the primordial constitution of force, will the objector tell
what it was ? How could force exist, or how can we think of it
without such co-ordination ? The present co-ordination is the
onlv one that accords with reason, and the one reason would

APPENDIX. 385

give, but others are conceivable, and fortuity, which must have
controlled, if there was no reason, could have given them. The
one in accordance with reason obtains in the primordial consti-
tution of force, and of matter also ; hence it is not self-existent.

II. Matter and force are subordinate agents, subordinate to
mind, created articles, the creation of mind. The most rudimental
or elementary idea of matter that science can give us, places it
before us in its molecular constitution, and shows that its primor-
dial molecules have definite size, shape, and characteristics. This
is not self-existent and necessary. It has been derived from some
source back of it. There is co-ordination, plan, method, system,
and law in it. These have their only conceivable, thinkable
ground in mind. Then mind was back of this primordial consti-
tution of matter, and gave to it this first constitution, or absolute
beginning. Matter is a subordinate agent, subordinate to mind,
a created article, the creation of mind. In its primordial consti-
tution matter has essential properties. These are co-ordinated in
plan and by law. It has elementary substances. These are co-
ordinated and arranged in accordance with mathematical propor-
tion and law. These elementary substances have their peculiar
characteristics. These express idea or thought. They are co-or-
dinated and arranged in system, method, and law. This is not
necessary. AVe can conceive of a different arrangement. It is not
self-existent. But there are realized in this primordial constitu-
tion some of the highCvSt ideas of reason. It is in accordance with
them. Fortuity of blind matter and force could not realize these
ideas of reason 'in co-ordination, arrangement, adaptation, adjust-
ment, hnv, method, system, and plan. Then matter is not self-
existent or the result of fortuity in its primordial constitution. Ii
is the creation of reason, realizing in its absolute primordial con-
stitution ideas of reason.

In the primordial constitution of force, its properties or charac-
teristics are co-ordinated, arranged in method, system, and law in
all respects — how, when, where, how long, hoAv often, with what
energy, in what order of succession, with Avhat rapidity it acts. In
this are realized some of the most exalted ideas of reason, the most
abstract ideas of pure reason. This is not self-existent, nor the
result of fortuity. It is the result of reason that was back of the
primordial constitution of force, and realized these ideas in such
absolutely primordial constitution. Hence force is a created prod-
uct, the creation of mind. If it be objected that this is not the
primordial constitution of matter and force, let the objector tell
us what was back of it? What ^cas the primordial constitution
of matter and force? How could matter and force exist without
these things? Where did they come from when they appeared, for
they are now in being? Theii we present to the materialist this
dilemma. In his most rudimental, his initial concei)tion of matter
and force and their essential properties, there are realized ideas of
reason. He can not think of matter and force without these ideas
of reason. Then in his initial idea of matter and force in their
absolutely primordial constitution, there must be realized ideas of
reason. Or if he eliminates these ideas of reason, he renders mat-

386 THE PROBLEM OF PEOBEEMS.

ter and force iin thinkable, and removes them out of being. To
get rid of reason and ideas of reason, in the primordial constitu-
tion of matter and force, the materialist has to remove matter and
force beyond thought and out of being, and reduce the universe
to nonentity, and begin with nothing. The moment he brings
matter and force into thought or being, he brings with them ideas
of reason, that prove that they emanated from reason. Hence rea-
son must be back of matter and force to give them being and ren-
der their existence thinkable or possible.

Even if we concede the self-existence of blind matter and force,
and their irrational physical properties, and of the essential ele-
ments of matters and their irrational physical characteristics, we
have no adequate origin of the evolution claimed by the evolu-
tionists. We have no adequate control of the course of evolutiou
or the present order of things. We miist place in the ahsolute
beginning and primordial constitution co-ordination, adjustment,
arrangement, order, system method, law, plan, or we can have no
start, no course, no result of evolution. Disorder can not evolve
order. Unadjustment can not evolve adjustment. Absence of
co-ordination can not evolve co-ordination. Unadaptation or for-
tuity can not evolve adaptation. Absence of method can not
evolve m.ethod and system. Confusion can not evolve order and
law. Aimless fortuity can not evolve plan. Chaos can not evolve
law, plan, purpose, order, and system. So declares common sense.
It is an insult to common sense to suggest such a thought; and
yet this is the fundamental idea of atheistic evolution. To make
evolution and development even thinkable, we must have in tlie
absolutely primordial constitution of matter and force, in the
course of evolutiou and in the present order of things, realized
those most exalted ideas of reason, co-ordination, order, method,
system, law and plan. It is an insult to reason to suggest such
development, if such is not the case. It is an insult to reason to
suggest such realization of these ideas unless reason be back of
such primordial constitution to realive them. Then to get rid of
intelligence as the ground of evolution, the atheist has to strip
matter and force in their constitution of every thing that renders
evolution thinkable. And to have evolution he has to place in
the absolute primordial constitution of matter and force, charac-
teristics that have their only thinkable ground in mind. He in-
sults reason if he assumes that these characteristics have any other
ground than reason.

There are only three conceivable methods of operation of mat-
ter and force and their properties. Chance or fortuity. Fate or
blind necessity. Or under control of mind. The atheist talks
of order, system, method and law, order of evolution, law of de-
velopment, or of nature, method of nature. He is grossly incon-
sistent, and has no right to use one of these terms. To get rid of
intelligence, he empties the course of matter and force of all idea
of purpose, end or plan, all ideas of intelligence in control of it,
all unitizing ideas of reason, all connecting links of thought .-ire
rejected as being realized in nature. We have the aimless for-
tuity of the grapeshot, in the operation of the essential properties

APPENDIX. 387

of matter and force, and the peculiar properties of elementary sub-
stances, and chemical action, the actions of organs, and all na-
ture. To have evolution and progress or development, there
must be a change, hence these factors can not be controlled by
fate, or they would always produce the same necessitated result.
Evolution under fate, or blind undeviating necessity, is an ab-
surdity. Then to get evolution, we must discard this idea, and
have change. If there is no control of reason, the blind factors
produce only chance, fortuity, aimless fortuity. It is absurd to
talk of evolution and development and i)r()gress by the aimless
ongoings of fortuity of blind matter and force. Not only so, but
what right has the evolutionist to use the terms law, order,
method, system in such a grapeshot series ? How can there be
creation by law, evolution by law, or in accordance with law of
nature, order of nature, in such a grapeshot series of Jiappen-
stances f All talk of law, order, system, method or of evolution or
development or progress is an insult to common sense. The evo-
lutionist empties the course of matter and force of all action or
idea of intelligence, and then deliberately steals from the opera-
tions of intelligence every term he uses in his system. The terms
he uses and applies to his evolution are only possible in the action
of mind. If there be not mind and reason back of matter and
force, and controlling these ongoings, if their ongoings be grape-
shot fortuities, all talk of law, order, law of evolution, law ofna-
tute, order of nature, creation by law, evolution by law, are ab-
surd. To render evolution thinkable there must be co-ordina-
tion, arrangement, method, system, order, plan and law. All
talk of evolution without these ideas is folly. All talk of them
with the blind, aimless fortuitous ongoings of mere matter and
force, asserted by the evolutionist, is folly. Altcrnativity, choice
and freedom under law, is all that can be allowed and have evolu-
tion. Grapeshot fortuity is preposterous as a basis for evolution.
Co-ordination, arrangement, order, law, plan are absurdities, ex-
cept as they are based in reason, and are the results and acts of
reason. The evolutionist, then, has no right to the iise of tlu se
words, and they have no place or connection in his system.

It is time that this was understood. It is a trick of scientists
to speak of all idea of creation and miracle, providence and all
religious ideas, as though tliey were in violation of all law, and a set-
ting to one side of law,"or at least capricious and lawless. The issue
between evolution and creation, government and ])rovidcnce, by a
Creator, is not an issue between law and violation of law, or law and
luck of law : but a question as to wliat kind of law. It' atheistic evo-
lution be true, if matter and force be the origin of all things, there
can be law only in the lower sense of a uniform course of acting,
and this must be undeviating fate or necessity, and if .so no evolu-
tion. If change be possible as there must be to give evolution, there
can be nothing but aimless fortuity, if there be but matter and
force, and no law at all, not even in the lowest sense of an uni-
form mode of acting. It is only when all things have their origin
in and are governed by intelligence, tliat there can be law, even
in the lowest sense, and it is only in such cases that law is possi-

388 THE rrwOBLEM OF PKOBLEMS.

ble in its true sense, a determination of the end to be reached,
nnd the methods of reaching it. Creation and government by
Creator and providence are in accordance with law, the highest
and truest law, law of perfect reason, God creates and governs
and exercises providential care over his works, in accordance
with law, the highest law, a law of infinite perfect reason. Then
it is the atheist who violates all law in his system, and has no law,
but aimless chance, and no basis for law, and no possible place for
law, not even the law of capricious intelligence. We return to
liiin the charge of having a system without law, if true to his
system. If he uses the terms law, order, method svstem or plan,
he purloins them from the very system that he assails as destitute
of law. The evolutionist makes what he calls law depend on
generalization of phenomena. If his system of aimless fortuity
be true there can be no generalization and no law, as an expres-
sion of such generalization. Generalization results from the
operation of law. Evolutionists makes the principle depend on
the process, when process results from operation of principle.
Law reveals the principle that determines and regulates the j)ro-
cess. Law is found by generalized observation and not created
by it. Evolutionist reverses the true process.

The Source of all Existences and Phenomena Unknowable,

The former position of the atheist, that matter and force are
self-existent and the source of all being, has been so thoroughly
exploded that a new evasion is now resorted to by these advanced
thinkers. It is admitted that matter and force are themselves
phenomena, and not the source of being. "As they are phenomena
there must be a noumenon, or that which is their source, Spencer
says to talk of appearances without a something, a reality that
appears, is absurd. But determined not to admit the existence of
a God, or an intelligent source of all being, it is asserted that the
source of all things is unknown and unknowable. The query
arises. If it is unknown and unknowable, how do these thinkers
know anthing of it? How do they know that back of phenomena
there is such a povver? How do they have any conception of it?
How do they know enough about it to know that it is unknowable?
How do they have sufficient conception of it, if it is unknown and
unknowable, to have the idea or conception that it is unknowable
or even exists? In the affirmation it is assumed that the affirmant
knows that this power exists, and knows that it is unknown, and
knows that it can not be known, and knows a great deal about it,
ibr he knows enough to give many things connected with it that
make it unknowable. This evasion is expressed in various ways:

I. We have not sufficient data connected with this power to know
any thing about it. Above all, and that is the real object of the
evasion, we have not sufficient data to affirm that it is intelligence.

II, We can have no knowledge, not even an apprehension, of the
infinite. As this unknown power is infinite we can have abso-
lutely no knowledge, not even an apprehension of it. HI. The
term God is but a term giving a name to .something of which we

APPENDIX. 389

know nothing, but wish to talk about. It is a phrase, a phrase used for
convenience, but expressing no idea or knowledge of ours, but
rather a symbol representing the unknowable, like the letter X,
in an indeterminate equation. It represents something of which
we have no knowledge, and have no means of knowledge. If a
personification, it is but a term personifying our ignorance. IV.
Or if we do make a person of this power, we are personifying it
in ignorance and weakness, just as the child personifies and must
personify every thing that affects him, or causes the phenomena he
observes. V. Or in making a person of this power we merely pro-
ject ourselves into nature and worship ourselves. VI. Or we
make this power in our ov\'n likeness. We make God in our own
image. Is it the case that we have not sufficient data to determine
the nature, characteristics and qualities of this power? Can not
we tell from the phenomena produced by this power, its nature,
character, and qualities? Inductive philosophy is at an end if we
can not, for it is based on that principle. Can not we tell from
what proceeds from this source, the nature of the source ? If not,
all search for knowledge is a chimera, and knowledge a delusion.
Let us take a familiar illustration. I have before me a book re-
garded as one of the master-pieces of human genius, the Illiad, I
trace it back through translation and copy, versions and commen-
taries, until the time of Pisistratus. I learn that, for at least four
hundred years before that, it existed in oral tradition. I can not
learn its exact epoch. I can not learn who was its author. We do
not know whether it had one author or several. We do not know
whether Homer was the author or not, or even whether such a
person as Homer ever lived. We do not know when the author
lived, or where he lived. Certainly, if ever there was a case of the
unknown and the unknowable we have it in this case.

Suppose I say Homer is but a phrase or term giving a name to
the unknown author. No one would seriously demur. But sup-
pose I affirm that Homer is but a term for an unknown power, a
letter X, a symbol for an indeterminate power. We do not know
that the unknown power producing the poem was an intelli-
gence. We have not sufficient data to prove that it was an in-
telligence. We can know nothing of the power producing the
Iliad, except that it existed, and is unknown and unknowable.
All would denounce such talk as nonsense. They would say :
We know that it is, and must have been the creation of mind.
We know from the character and nature of the work, the ciiar-
acteristics of the author. We know the attril)utes of his mind.
He was the greatest poetic genius that ever lived. He is un-
rivaled in genius, power, sublimity and poetic grandeur. A\'e
can determine the nature of the cause, and the cliaracter of the
cause, from the effect, his work. So in the case before us, we csin
determine the nature of the source or power from the phenomena
produced by the power, from what proceeds from the source, and
we can determine the attributes and character of the power,
from the character of the effects or products of the pow(>r. If
we can not, then all inductive philosophy, all knowledge, and
search for knowledge, is a delusion. In the present constitution

390 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

of tilings, that have been produced by this power — in the course
of evolution culminating in the present order of things — in each
step and the entire cours;e emanating from this power, in the pri-
mordial constitution of things, in the absolute beginning of phe-
nomena proceeding from this power, are realized some of the
most exalted and abstract ideas of reason, order, co-ordination,
arrangement, adjustment, adaptation, system, method, law, plan,
prevision, provision, alternativity, choice, the most abstract and
profound ideas of mathematics, in arithmetical proportion and
number, and geometrical proportion and form, of beauty, utility
and harmony. Then the present order of things, the course of
evolution, the absolute beginning or primordial constitution of
tilings, had their origin in reason that realized these ideas. The
phenomena produced by this power are rational phenomena, the
phenomena of reason, and the power producing the phenomena
is reason. We know this just as certainly as we know that the
Iliad was produced by intelligence. Then we can determine this
symbol. We can learn the value of this X. The equation is not
indeterminate. On one side we have the highest products of
reason. On the other, we have reason as certainly as it is true
that if A = B and R = C,.then A = C. The term God is not
a personification of our ignorance, but the appellation of a power
that we know to be personality, if we can know any thing at all.
It is not a convenient term giving an appellation to something
we must speak of, but can know nothing, except that it exists;
but it is a name for a being whose existence and character we
know, if we know any thing, and given on account of such knowl-
edge, expressing not ignorance but knowledge.

Nor is it true that our knowledge vanishes and becomes worth-
less or imaginary wdien we expand the idea to infinity. We can
not comprehend the infinite, but we can apprehend it. We can
not comprehend its quantity or degree, but we can ajiprehend its
existence, and know its qualities. The objector does when he
aflirms we can not, for he apprehends its existence, and one
quality, that it is unknowable, another it is unknown. And
several qualities in his reasons why it is unknowable and un-
known. One quality at least in each aflirmation. The objector
admits knowledge of the infinite in space and duration, and in
being and causation in this power, the source of all things. He
rises from the finite through the relatively infinite to the abso-
lute in space, duration and being and causation in this power,
that he declares is the source of all being. We can rise through
finite displays of intelligence, through relatively infinite displays
of intelligence, to absolute displays of intelligence in the same
way, and to absolute intelligence. The objector denies it, not
because there is any greater difiiculty or any defect in the pro-
cess, but because he is determined to reject Infinite Intelligence.
In this evasion there is a juggling substitution of things entirely
different, a juggling confusion of radically different ideas. A
comprehension of quantity or degree, is substituted for, or con-
fused with, an apprehension of quality or character. I stand
before the Pacific Ocean. I can not comprehend its magnitude,

APPENDIX. 391

either in numerical expression, or in sense effort to see it, or feel
•it all. But I should regard it as nonsense for one to declare,
therefore I could not know and understand the properties of the
water that was under my sight and power to investigate, and
that I could not know that the infinite ocean possessed in in-
finite degree, what this portion possessed in finite degree. Such
an assertion confounds comprehension of quantity or degree, with
knowledge of quality or character. From what proceeds from
a source we can determine the nature and character of the
source, even if infinite. We know it is infinite in the same
quality. If the phenomena proceeding from this power possess
tlie characteristics of but one attribute, we know it has this at-
tribute at least. We know it hai^ all the attributes displayed by
what proceeds from it, if it be true that we can determine the
cause by the effect. If we can not, we may as well stop reason-
ing, the denial of reason and reasoning practiced by the atheists,
with the rest.

We no more personify the power back of nature, when we
make it an intelligence, as does tlie child personify the stone that
hurts him, than the child Avhen he reaches manhood personifies in
a rhetorical sense, Avhen he attributes his pain to the one Avho
strikes him, and blames him for it, and regards him as an intel-
ligence, and as responsible for it. He recognizes the intelligence
and personality and responsibility that exist, and does not create
them, in his mind. So we recognize the reason and personality
that displays itself in nature. We do not create the personality
and reason, by our imagination, or fancy personality when none
exists. One is as clear a recognition of undoubted personality as
the other. We no more project ourselves into the forces of na-
ture, and worship our own image projected into nature, than the
child projects himself into his father's conduct, and reveres and
loves his own image projected into the conduct that he observes,
and that causes his love. As the child observes real acts of
another personality, and learns their character, and loves and es-
teems the personality that produced the conduct, on account of
its character, so we observe, in nature, the acts of personality.
We learn the character and nature of that person from the char-
acter of his acts. We worship that person on account of his
character, as we learn it from his acts. We no more make (iod in
our own likeness than the reader makes the author in his image,
or the pupil the teacher, or the child his ])arent. 'Jlie reader rec-
ognizes intelligence, and common qualities in the author, with
his own, that really exist. So does the pupil in the teacher, tl:e
child in his parent. And so we recognize intelligence, and com-
mon attributes of intelligence in ourselves and our Creator. We
do not fancy the acts ot^ intelligence we see in nature, nor create
by imagination or fancy the intelligence, that we say caused
them. We see the acts of intelligence, because they are in na-
ture the same as our own acts. They are acts that we know intel-
ligence alone could have produced. We then know that intelli-
gence produced tliese acts of intelligence. This course of reason-
ing of the atheist, if carried out, would deny all knowledge of

392 THE PROBI^EM OF PROBT.EMS.

any personality but our osvii, and all personality but our own.
There is tliis 'much truth in it: We are apt to judge others by
ourselves. Self-knowledge colors our knowledge of others. It is
so in the case of the pupil, the child and the reader. They in-
terpret, to some extent, the parent, the teacher and author, by
themselves. Their mental bias aflects the character of the effect
the parent or teacher has on them, and their estimate of the
character and acts of parent and teacher. But this does not
prove that they can have no knowledge of parent or teacher, or
of their character. Nor that they only see their own personality
entirely in the supposed parent and teacher, and that the parent
and teacher are unknown and unknowable. Nor that parent and
teacher can not reveal themselves and ideas to the child, and cor-
rect its mistakes, and give a correct knowledge. It only demon-
strates the necessity of such revelation and instruction, and of
careful study by the child. The objection only proves the neces-
sity of revelation, and not that we can have no knowledge of
God.

The Application of the Eeductio ad Absurdl'M to the
Teleological Argument.

The main reliance of the atheist now, in his attempts to meet
the teleological argument, is what is called the Rednctio ad
Absurdum refutation. This is an attempt to extend the argu-
ment to the Creator it demonstrates, and thus break it down by
showing that, if logically carried out, it leads to an absurdity.
The ablest presentation of this famous reply to the design argu-
ment, is the tract of B. F. Underwood, the eminent -atheistic
lecturer and debater, on "-The I)esign Arjynment .'''' By request
the author here gives, by itself, his refutation of this attempt of
Mr. Underwood. In applying the design argument to the Crea-
tor, he assumes that the cases are analogous, when they are not.
There is analogy in certain respects, between man's work pro-
duced by intelligencje and the processes of nature. This analogy
suggests the argument. But there is not analogy between either
man's works and the constitution of nature, on -tJie one hand, and
the being and attributes of the Infinite Creator, on the other. In
one case we have co-ordination, arrangement, order, system and
plan of parts, organs and material instrumental causes. In the
other, infinite, eternal, self-existent harmony of attributes of in-
finite, eternal, self-existent mind. In the one case we have adap-
tation of parts and organs, that are material, to certain ends or
work. In the other, infinite, eternal and self existent potency or
sufficiency of eternal, self-existent and infinite mind to the crea-
tion of what exists. Then we reject, in reasoning concerning the
Divine Mind, the terms co-ordination, order, arrangement, adap-
tation, on which the extension of the design argument to the
Creator is based, as utterly inapplicable, and cut short the exten-
sion of the argument. It can not be extended, because there is
not an element of similarity or a parallel in the cases, and all

APPENDIX. 393

attempt to do so is based on gross fallacies and is a gross ab-
surdity.

We reject, also, in speaking of creation by absolute reason, the
terms contrivance and contrive and work, when used in the sense
that we use them in applying them to man's work. Such appli-
cation makes the Creator an artificer, a tinker, that has to con-
trive and plan and study out the ends to be reached, and how to
reach them. The terms contrivance and plan are too mechanical
in their ordinary meaning. Absolute reason absolutely knows
the perfect end, and the perfect means to be employed, and ab-
solutely and perfectly uses them, and accomplishes that end, per-
fectly present to infinite reason. There is no study, or contriv-
ing, or planning, no working or toiling, such as finite reason
is compelled to use. Parley's argument is liable to the objec-
tion, that it is too mechanical. It speaks of the Creator as a
mere artificer, a tinker, or at best an admirable inventor and
machinist. The infidel has availed himself of this defect and
caricatured it, in his assaults on the design argument, especially
when he charges it with anthropomorphizing God.

But the attempt to extend the design argument to the Abso-
lute Intelligent Cause, is a violation of the highest law of reason
and all reasoning. From finite space we rise through relatively
infinite space to absolutely infinite space. Here we stop. Rea-
son does not ask what bounds absolute space, knoAving that be-
cause it is absolute, it can have no boundary or limitation. In
like manner, we rise from finite duration, through relatively in-
finite duration, to absolute duration, or eternity; and reason
stops, knowing that absolute duration, being absolute, has no
limitation, and no beginning or end. In like manner, from finite
displ lys of causation reason, rises through i datively infinite dis-
plays of causation, to absolute causation. From finite displays
of intelligent causation, reason rises through relatively infinite
displays of intelligent causation to absolute intelligent cause.
Reason doas not ask whar caused absolute intelligent cause, any
more than it asks what bounds absolute space, or what preceded
or succeeds absolute duration, knowing that as absolute space can
have no limit because absolute, and absolute duration neither be-
ginning nor end, because absolute, so absolute intelligent cause can
have no limitation in causation or being, and can have no cause,
because absolute. The attempted extension of the argument is
as absurd as it would be to continue to apply the limitation and
boundaries of finite space or duration to absolute space or dura-
tion. As one is absurd and a violation of all reason, so is the
other.

There is but one way of evading this: that is, to deny that we
can rise to an apprehension or knowledge of the absolute. But
the fact that the objector himself does, and admits he does in
space and duration, and admits its validity, and that reason does
in intelligent cause, or we would not have the term intelligent
absolute cause, is sufficient proof that reason can, and does, and
that the act is valid ; as valid in intelligent causation as it is in
spa'ce or time. Again, Spencer and Underwood both refute their

394 THE PROBLEM OF PROBr.HMS.

own argument in attempting to extend the design argument to
the Creator, and confess we can apprehend the infinite. Both
place back of all phenomena an unknown power. Both affirm the
reality of this power. As they make it the source of all phenom-
ena, they confess its self-existence, independence, self-sustenance,
and eternity, or that it is infinite and absolute. Here is a confes-
sfhn that reason can apprehend the infinite, and a claim, by them,
to apprehend it. It is a confession that when reason reaches the
absolute it stops and rests satisfied, having found the ground of
all being, for they do so themselves. But we can turn the tables
on these philosophers, and reasoning just an they do, we can re-
duce their reasoning on an tmknown power, to an absurdity.
Using the terms just as they do (illogically, however, we confess),
we can say that from what proceeds from this unknown power,
there must be the most admirable adaptation to producing phe-
nomena, and from the character of the phenomena, there must be
the most perfect co-ordination and arrangement in this unknown
power ; and by a parity of reasoning, there must be an unknown
power to produce this unknown power, and so on, ad injinitimi;
and thus the argument proves to be utterly fallacious, for it nec-
essarily ends in an utter absurdity.

They would retort, doubtless, and correctly, that phenomena
are the results of power, and we pass back until we reach absolute
poAver. Power itself being the source of phenomena, is not neces-
Siirily a phenomenon ; and that there mtist be at lejtst one power
that is not a phenomenon, or all things are phenomena, and with-
out any power, which is absurd. Then there must be a power, the
source of all phenomena, and when reason reaches the unknown
power, the absolute power, it has found that power, which, being
absolute, can not be a phenomenon, and is the sotirce of alljDhe-
nomena, because it is absolute and can have no limitation. So
we say reason declares that all we see can not be efiects, or we
have effects without cause, which is absurd. Then there must be
a cause that is not an effect, or is uncaused, and is thc^ basis of all
causation and being. When reason has reached this it rests satis-
fied, knowing that absolute cause can have no cause or limitation,
becatise absolute. Spencer mtist abandon his phantom, the un-
known power, or accept absolute intelligent cause. Underwood
attempts to destroy the argument by applying the reasoning of
the design argument to the plan of the universe that must have
been in the Divine Mind, and claims to prove that the argument
proves the plan to have been self-existent and eternal, which is
abstird. Hence, the argument is not valid. There is fallacy
again in confounding things not parallel. There is harmony and
consistency and logical unity in the plan, but not arrangement of
parts. Again, we can admit the eternity of the plan in the
Divine Mind, but not its self-existence, for it is an act of mind,
a creation of mind, and can not be self-existent. The attempted
refutation is a gross absurdity. We are asked, sometimes, why
not stop with an infinite universe, if the mind stops with the in-
finite? Because the realization of the highest and most abstract
ideas of reason, in the universe and in its absolutely primordiaJ

APPENDIX. 395

cniistitutioi), prove it is constructed by reason, that realized these
ideas, and throws the reason back on absolute reason, and here
reason rests, having found absolute cause. Reason can never stop
in efiect, even infinite effect, for it knows every effect must have
a cause, an infinite effect, an infinite cause. But when it reaches
absolute cause it rests, because it has found adequate ground for all
being, and it reasons that absolute cause can not be limited or have
a cause. AVhat we call infinite effect is not absolute or unlim-
ited in all attributes, for it is limited in the origin of its exist-
ence. It is an effect and must have a cause. Such is not the case
with absolute cause. Hence, reason stops with absolute cause,
and not until it has reached it. Spencer does not stop with in-
finite phenomena. He passes back to absolute power, the un-
known power. There he stops. The only issue can be: Is this
power reason or intelligence?

The design argument is strictly and severely inductive. The
atheist should either attempt to show that its premises are incor-
rect, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The attempted rediictio ad absurdum is a shallow subterfuge, a
weak attempt at evasion, a feeble attempt to obscure the reason-
ing by sophistry. It assumes that the argument is what it is not.
It attempts to inject into it ideas and terms, or to change the real
meaning of its terms, and thus break it down. Let the atheist
answer these questions. I. Do not the co-ordination, arrange-
ment, adjustment, adaptation, order, method, system, law, plan,
prevision and provision, design, purpose, allernativity and choice,
that are self-evidently seen in mans operations, using the
forces and materials of nature, have their only conceivable origin
in his intelligence ? Must not intelligence be their cause, their
only conceivable cause ? He dare not deny that there are these
characteristics in man's operations using the materials and forces
of nature. Nor that man's intelligence is their cause, and that
intelligence must be their cause, and is their only conceivable
cause. II. Are there not co-ordination, arrangement, adjust-
ment, adaptation, order, method, system, law, plan, design, pre-
vision, provision, purpose, alternativity and choice, in the crea-
tion of the matter and force of nature, in the absolute primordial
constitution of nature, in the course of evolution of nature, in the
present constitution of nature, in all the existences and phe-
nomena of nature, and in the production and control of all exist-
ences and phenomena of nature? If he denies this he contra-
dicts the voice of all human reason, which has recognized these
characteristics in all of these cases, from the first man who ob-
svrved nature, until tlie present. He contradicts reason and
common sense, which intuitively recognizes these characteristics
in these instances. He contradicts himself, for he uses these
terms in all of these cases in describing nature. He can not de-
scribe nature without using them. His system of evolution rec-
oirnizcs them in all these cases in nature. It is impossible
unless they exLst in nature. He renders all study of nature, all
knowledge of nature, and all science an impossibility and a de-
lusion. IH. Do not the co-ordination, arrangement, adjustment,

396 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLE^MS.

adaptatiou, order, method, system, law, plan, design, purpose,
prevision, provision, alternativity and choice there is in the
creation of the matter and force of nature, the absolute primor-
dial constitution of nature, the course of evolution of -nature, the
present order of nature, in every existence and phenomena of
nature, and in the production and control of every existence and
phenomena of nature, have their only conceivable origin in rea-
son ? Must not reason have been their cause ? Is not reason
their only conceivable cause? It is an insult to reason to deny
it. Reason declares that these ideas, and the ideas of mathemat-
ics, beauty, order, harmony, law and utility the most exalted
and abstract ideas of reason that are realized in the creation of
matter and force, andjn the absolute primordial constitution of
nature, in the course of evolution in the present order of nature,
in every existence and phenomena of nature, and in the produc-
tion and control of every existence and phenomena of nature,
must have been realized in each case by reason, which created,
constituted and controls nature by them, and realized them in
nature in each case. From this there is no escape except to de-
throne reason. The fog of the attempted reductio ad absurdum
will not obscure it, any more than a puff of the objector's breath
will blot the sun out of tlie noonday heavens. Thrusting one's
head into that fog, an unknown power, will no more save the ob-
jector than the ostrich thrusting his head into the sand saves
him from the pursuer.

Is Religion a Perversion of Man^s Nature?

The position of the atheist now is, that religion is a perversion
of man's nature, at least of one element in his nature. To estab-
lish this, he should tell us>the element perverted. He can not do
this, and give a name to it that expresses its nature, and define
it correctly, without conceding religion. The element is venera-
tion, spirituality and conscientiousness. The proper and absolute
object of veneration, and without which it is not satisfied, is God.
The proper object of spirituality is spirit existence, and spiritual
life. The absolute standard to which conscience appeals is its
"oxgJit ;" "I ought to do this. I owe the doing of this," to what ?
To an Absolute Lawgiver, Ruler, Judge and Executive — God.
Then to establish his position that religion is a perversion of an
element in man's nature, the atheist must tell us what element
is perverted, establish clearly its nature, and in this way its prop-
er use, and then show that religion is a perversion, by showing
that it is not the proper use of this element. If religion is an
abuse, it is an evil only, and that continually, and only evil can
come out of it. The position that man has progressed by means
of what is evil, and out of it by means of it, is an absurdity, and
a contradiction of our moral inttiitions and experience. If re-
ligion is evil, then progress has been possible only as man aban-
doned it, rejected evil, and chose truth, and practiced the good.
The assertion of some atheists that progress has not been in con-
sequence of religion, or by means of it, but in spite of it, is the

APPENDIX. 397

only true ground. The assertions of others that Christianity has
clone great good (in its day) is an absurdity, and only an attempt
to cajole its friends, and lull them to sleep until these persons
can destroy it. Another query arises here : Since men have
always had religions, and thus perverted their nature, in what
can we trust reason and human nature? If it has always made
this greatest of all mistakes in this most important of all things,
and perverted itself in the most important act it ever did, in what
can we trust it? Is knowledge possible ? Is not search for knowl-
edge a delusion, and knowledge itself a chimera? Then if human
nature be so unreliable, how did these philosophers find it out ?
By means of this delusive nature ? May not their attack on re-
ligion be a perversion of nature, and what they present in its
stead a perversion of nature? Certainly these philosophers must
have a different nature from human nature, that is so unre-
liable.

Another inconsistency is met here. Every other element of our
nature is to be elevated, expanded, and cultivated according to
the atheist, but this religious element. It is to be eliminated.
AV^e are not to have perfect religion, but atheism, no religion.
Why? Because in religion there is government, restraint, respon-
sibility, law, punishment. " The simplet<ui hath said in his heart
(his wishes, his desires; not his head, his reason, his intellect)
there is no God! " An attempt is made to show that veneration
for the true and good and beautiful in art and nature is the only
legitimate use of the religious element. How do we know what is
true, beautiful, and good, without an ab.solute standard in Abso-
lute Reason, or God ? Then all other elements have an absolute
resting place, and end in the absolute. Why not this element
have an absolute object of veneration, the Absolute, True, Beau-
tiful and Good in Absolute Eeason ? But we deny that admiration
for the true and beautiful and good in nature and art, are a full
exercise of the element that is used in religion. As well might
one claim that the tawdry daubing of the savage is a full exercise
of the law of beauty. We deny that religion is a perversion of
thirt love for the true, beautiful, and good, or that it hinders such
exercise of this element. On the contrary, religion is the only
complete exercise of this element, and religion is neces.sary to its
proper exercise, in the lower field of the atheist. The Christian
can admire the beautiful in nature and art as much as the atheist,
and in an infinitely higher degre-e, for they are the work of Infinite
Wisdom. He can love the truth in nature as much as the atheist,
and in au infinitely higher sense, for it is the voice of Infinite
Wisdom and Truth. He can reverence the good in nature as
much as the atheist, and in an infinitely higher sense, for it is
the image of Infinite Goodness. The Christian has higher themes
and conceptions of the true and beautiful and good than the athe-
ist. He has absolute themes and standard which this element
demands, and which alone will sati.'^fy it. They have absolute
authority and sanction, and an absolute standard which satisfies
conscience and man's entire religious nature.

398 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

But what does the atheist iDclude in human reason ? Does he
include man's mental, m jral, and religious nature? In what sense
is man's reason his guide? In the sense that it includes man's
mental, moral, and religious nature, and God and revelation,
that they demand and accept? All will accept it. But if this is
rejected, it is but a partial recognition of human reason. Reason,
when it has all the data it demands, God, religion and revelation,
is man's guide. Enlightened human reason. What does that
mean? Does not reason require the exalted ideas of God, religion,
and revelation to enlighten it? Has reason ever been satisfied
with its own decisions and guidance? Can it ever be made so?
Have noi reason and conscience ever looked to a higher element, to
religion ? Has reason and conscience ever been satisfied until they
had this? Have not they ever rested satisfied in it? Will reason,
no matter how enlightened by mere science, ever be satisfied with
that alone, without religion, and an absolute standard in God?
Can reason give man more than good advice? Can it give sanc-
tion and authority to its teachings? Can reason decide what is
right and what is wrong? Can it decide what makes a thing right
and the opposite wrong? If it could, can it give such autiiority
and sanction to its decisions as to impel men to do what is right,
and restrain them from doing what is wrong ? Ought not we to
carefully weigh these questions before we cast to one side religion,
for icliat is called enlightened reason f

Can Modern Science, Physical Science, and Evolution give us Moral-
ity, and a system of Morals f

Can morality be made a subject of investigation by physical
science? Has It the data or methods to attempt or conduct such
an investigation ? To ask the question is to answer it. What
would such persons investigate to learn and determine morality ?
How would they conduct the investigation? Investigate matter
and physical force? Use crucible, retort, microscope, scalpel, tape-
line, and balance? No; they would have to investigate man's
moral and religious nature. They would have to accept and use
the catholic ideas of his religious and moral nature.^ \» itliout
them they would not think of'such investigation ; for in this ele-
ment of man's nature alone is found the subject of investigation,
and these catholic ideas alone furnish ideas to be used in the in-
vestigation, and the means and standard of investigation. Then
has science, physical science, any thing to do with morals? If
atheistic evolution be true, can there be any morality, or moral
idea, or character, in any thing? Mere matter and force have no
moral nature, character, or idea in them. If there ever was a
time when they alone existed, there was no moral nature or char-
acter, and such things could not have come into being, nor any
thing possessing them, if the scientist's maxim, " Out ofliothing,
nothing comes,^' be true. . Let us lay to one side all ideas of mo-
rality, and trace this course of materialistic evolution. Let us tjike
physical science as our standard. First, we have to lay to one side
all" freedom, all volition, all choice. Physical science, with its

APPENDIX. 399

mjitter and physical force, knows only necessity. Out of sucli a
basis no freedom or volition could be evolved. Next, we lay to
one side all idea of truth and falsehood, good and evil, vice and
virtue. There can be no such distinctions. We have no founda-
tion for such distinction. Such distinction could not be evolved
out of mere matter and force. They would never hint or suggest it.
All things are alike the product of'evolution by matter and force,
and there is no distinction or moral quality in them. One thing has
no greater right to exist than another. "^We can not elevate one
act or thing above another. We have no standard above what
matter and force produce. These distinctions we make are — well,
we were going to say false, but we can not, for they exist, and are
the products of matter and force. The whole nature of man is a
contradiction, a clash, a warfare of things alike evolved by neces-
sity. If we say one of these antagonists ought to exist, we have a
standard above physical science, and discard physical science.

The supreme of physical science is force. All is evolved by
force. The fittest survives,. and that is the strongest. There is no
fittest, for that comes from something above force. Force evolves
ail things, and one is as fit as the other. The strongest survives.
Force kno^vs no high or low, no fit or unfit, no good or evil. It
only knows the strongest or weakest. Then an unrelenting strug-
gle for life is the order of nature. Massacre is normal and right.
A selfish struggle for life, in which the strongest survives, is the
supreme order of nature, and the supreme law. Self-pieservation
by any and all means in our grasp, (which is not the law of na-
ture, as is asserted, but the law of brute nature,) is indeed the
supreme law of nature. A selfish struggle with all else, a selfish
struggle in which all else is ruthlessly extirpated, and in which
the strongest survives, is the supreme standard. This is as high
as evolution, in which there is a struggle for life and the strongest
survives, can go, for a stream can not rise above its fountiiin.
Right and wrong, vice and virtue, self-denial and self-sai rifice
are aggravating cheats and impudence. They torture us with
ideas and dreams that are false and cannot be realized, for the
strongest survives. Then they torture us for our failure to realize
them. Our nature is a most cruel mockery and delusion, espe-
cially what we madly regard as its highest element and controlling
element. Then there are other beauties still to unfold. Selfish
struggle in which the strongest survives is the supreme law. Then
self-gratification is the supreme end and law for us, for that is but
carrying out the supreme law, a selfish struggle in which the strong-
est prevails or survives.

Then each one struggles with all the rest, and the strongest
prevails— might makes right. Each selfishly takes all he can get,
and keeps aU he gets. Truly, in this system of materialistic
evolution, " The chief end of man is to keep all he gets, and get
all he can." Another beauty : There is only blind, irrational
matter, and blind, phy.'^ical force in the universe, except in man,
and a lower order of intelligence in animals. As the stream can
not rise above its fountain, there is no difference in man's acts,
for all arc the ongoings of force, and alike necessary, and alike

^100 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the product of force. The highest achievement of human reason
of man is, to learn the ongoings of nature in time-succession, and
learn to keep step with the machine. The struggle is for life and
self, and self-gratification. Man's supreme object is to get all
the gratification that he can, witliout being crushed by the
machine. All talk about laws of nature is nonsense. There is
only time-succession. All talk about obeying laws of nature,
or nature executing its law, is nonsense. You keep step with
the machine. You do not disobey law. You were • not wise
enough to keep step, and the blind machine crushed you. It
is not executing a law. You know that this machine is irra-
tional. You know that you are smart enough to cheat this irra-
tional machine, nature, out of vast amounts of selfish gratifica-
tion, and avoid being crushed, provided you are stronger than
your fellow-men that come in collision with you. Indeed, that
is the supreme law, for in this struggle the strongest prevails.
Do this, lor there is no Intelligent Euler, Lawgiver, Judge and
Executive. Pitch in, and the blind monster, nature, with your
help, crush out the hindmost.

Then if there be a law of evolution, and all things be con-
trolled by necessity, as must be the case; if struggle for life, with
survival of strongest, be the supreme law that controlled it, and
controls it now — for no stream can rise above its fountain — then
self-denial for what we call virtue and truth, are mere cheats
and shams. Indeed, they are a sin, for they are a violation of
the supreme law. The martyr, the patriot, the philanthropist,
are not only fools and madmen, but criminals, and these things
that this delusive humbug, our nature, calls the chiefest of vir-
tues, are the highest of crimes, for they are violations of this
supreme law, a struggle in which the strongest prevails. Their
supposed glory is a cheat. Not only so, but the man who re-
lieves disease, or one in want, or suffering or distress, is guilty
of a crime, as much as the one who helps a criminal escape from
a sheriff". I know this will be indignantly denied, but let the
one doing it take mere matter and force, and Darwin's laws, and
the course of atheistic evolution, and show wherein there is one
particle of injustice to the system of atheistic evolution out of
mere matter and force. I challenge any one to change it one
particle, with only such a basis to reason from. Finally, can
physical science produce, at best, more than material civilization ?
This is but an iucrease of power. How shall it be used? What
shall control it? Material science can not hint an answer to this
question. Arc the most learned, most scientific men, necessarily
the best? Does mere physical science make them so? Physical
science can noi give us a moral idea.

Draper^s Conjiict of Rdirjion and Science.

No book has ever been published that has displayed so great
lack either of intelligence to comprehend the question it discusses,
or of honesty and fairness to .state and meet it. It is continually
presented as a conflict between Christianity and science. We

APPENDIX. 401

have no correct definition of either. The author assumes that
a certain hierarchy is Christianity, and tluit its assaults on
science have been the attacks of Christianity. A more unfair
?;tatement never was made. Christianity is a system of docrma,
or of truth to be believed ; and of worship, or of acts of religious
aspiration and devotion; and of discipline, or rules of life, pre-
scribing how man shall discharge his duty to God, his fellow-
man, and himself. Its object is to save man from the love of sin,
the practice of sin, the guilt of sin, and the punishment of sin.
It teaches that if men believe with the whole heart its doctrines,
perform in like manner its acts of worshij), and live its rules of
life, they shall work out and attain to this salvation. This
doctrine, worship and discipline are contained in the New Testa-
ment alone. Christianity teaches that the New Testament is the
only rule of faith nnd practice of men, and what can not be read
therein or proved thereby, is not to be required of any one as an
item of faith or religious duty. Christianity teaches that the
apostles were inspired to give the New Testament as the only rule
of faith and practice of men — that the New Testament is a reve-
lation, and the only revelation of the will of God now binding
on men. The New Testament clearly teaches all this itself. It
teaches that inspiration and revelation ceased with the apostles,
and that the opinions or acts of no man or set of men or hie-
rarchy or church are binding on men as is the New Testament,
nor in any sense except as they are based on it. The New Testa-
ment recognizes the right of conscience and private judgment in
using the New Testament.

The New' Testament most pointedly forbids and repudiates tlie
idea that the acts or opinions of any man, or set of men, shall be
regarded as Christianity. It contains pointed and clear teaching
on this point. Christianity, then, being a revealed system of
doctrine, worshij) and rule of life, is to be found only in such
revelation. This is as plain as sunlight. Then, when charging
Christianity with any course of conduct, the one making the
charge must prove either: 1. That Christianity, the New Testa-
ment its only rule, enjoins and commands such things. 2. Or
that it approves of them. 3. Or that it tolerates. 4. Or that
they are the natural and necessary outgrowth and result of the
teachings of the New Testament. Will Dr. Drajier or any of his
advocates or apologists answer these questions? I. Where in the
New Testament is this ]>ersecution of science, this opposition to
science commanded? II. Where in the New Testament is it
approved? III. AMiere in the New Testament is it tolerated or
mentioned without condemnation? IV. Of what teaching or
doctrine of the New Testament is this opposition to .scit'uce the
natural and necessary outgrowth ? Had l)raj)er honestly asked
himself these questions, his book would never have been written.
We will go farther, and affirm that this })ersecution is utterly
foreign to the teachings of the New Testament, to their spirit,
and tendency, and express declarations. Christianity does not
concern itself with science, in the modern use of the word. It
forbade its teachers being entangled in the disputes and quarrels

o4

402 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

of science, when engaged in the discharge of tlieir religious and
churchly duties. It utterly forbids all temporal pains and penal-
ties being inflicted by the church. Admonition, rebuke, and
withdrawal of chnrch-fellowship, are its extreme penalties. Its
unworldly, charitable spirit, its exalted and unusual philanthro-
py, and freedom of conscience and judgment, forbid all such per-
secution.

Some years ago the monarchists of Europe used to point to
American slavery as the natural result of the principles of our
Declaration of Independence. They used slavery as a means of
assault on republicanism, and declared that its iniquities were
tlie necessary result of democracy. Not long ago the State lec-
turer of the Good Templars, in one of our States, spent a week
iti a drunken debauch. The brewers' organ charged his conduct
on the temperance order to which he professed to belong. Amer-
icans used to be very indignant at the dishonesty or unfairness
of monarchists in charging on the Declaration of Independence
and republican principles what was a palpable violation of every
one of them. The Good Templars were indignant that the con-
duct of a man, in violation of the obligation of the order, and
every principle and object of the order, should be charged on the
order, as the teachings, or necessary result of the teachings, of the
order. It displayed either an utter lack of intelligence or an
utter lack of honesty. The two cases given above, are not any
more palpable and gross than "Draper's Conflict of Religion and
Science." Had a priest acted in this way in regard to science,
with what indignation it would have been received by these
scientists. Is such, worse than pettifogging, as this the fair,
liberal and dispassionate literature, written on impartial and
scientific priciples, that this new science is to give us? If so,
we will soon have a repetition of the " Conflict," only scientists
will be acting just as the hierarchy it unjustly regards Christian-
ity acted.

Biblical Contradictions of Science,

■ There are but three portions of the Scriptures that are re-
garded as contradicting science that are worthy of serious con-
sideration. These are the account of creation, the account of the
flood, and Joshua's commanding the sun and moon to stand still.
We will endeavor to examine these accounts, just as a scientist
would examine them, if found in the archaic literature of any
other nation than the Hebrews — just as Muller would examine
them if found in the literature of the Persians or Indians. We
regard as established by research in ethnology, philology, old re-
ligious histories and historic traditions and archaeology the follow-
in'g facts. We can trace all dialects back to one parent stem, and
trace them to their origin in AVestern Asia. We can trace all
races of men to one common origin in Western Asia, as we ex-
amine the origin of their language, traditions and religion, and
trace their migrations, and their ethnological origin. We can
trace certain universal traditions to their origin in Western
Asia. We can trace old religions to one origin in Western Asia.

APPENDIX. 403

Mankind began in Western Asia, with one race or parent stock,
with one hmguage, one religion, a simple monotheism, and tradi-
tion says it was a revelation, and one set of historic traditions,
and a common civilization, witli society, law, government and
knowledge of the useful arts. The oldest records we have of men
are of men in Western Asia. They place man before us compara-
tively civilized. Rawlinson declares that there Avas in the val-
ley of the Euphrates, or around the Persian Gulf, a Hamitic
race, the Accad, that is the oldest of which we have historic
trace. Baldwin calls it the Cushite, and places it in Arabia near
the Persian Gulf Bunsen calls it the Kamitic, and places it in
Egypt. But Baldwin and Rawlinson prove that the Egyptians
came from Asia.

All these agree that this parent race had language, from which
was derived the Hamitic, Egyptian, Semitic and Touranian fami-
lies of languages. That they had civilization and learning, from
which came Egyptian, Persian and Indian civilization and learn-
ing. Also Phoenician and Canaanitish. This language was re-
tained as the language, sacred language, of the Chaldean priests,
or priesthood of Assyria and Babylonia. So were its traditions
and religious ideas. They were the esoteric doctrines of the
priests of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Arabia and Western Asia,
Persia and India. There are certain historic traditions that are
common to humanity all over the globe. Tliey are creation,
primeval innocence and purity, angelic intercourse, great longevity,
a first transgression or a corruption, loss of angelic intercourse, in-
nocence and longevity, a flood and preservation of men and ani-
mals by a ship. These traditions had their origin in Western Asia,
in the cradle of the race, and in this Accadian history and learn-
ing. There are two accounts that have come down to us, both
having their origin in Western Asia, and in the region in which this
Accadian civilization flourished. One is the Chaldean tradition,
published by George Smith, in his last work ; and the other is the
account in the Scriptures. These agree in a remarkable manner,
and doubtless had a common origin. They are free from the puer-
ilities and absurdities of other accounts, and have that peculiar
style that characterizes veritable history. We need examine only
the scriptural version found in the book of Genesis. This book is
attributed to Moses, a Hebrew legislator, statesman, warrior,
prophet and leader, who lived about fifteen hundred years before
Christ. The records of Egypt and Israel, and the voice of antiq-
uity, establish : I. There was such a man as Moses. II. H^
people were in bondage in Egypt. III. He lead them over into
Asia and into freedom. IV. -He gave them their national religion,
laws and government.

It is established with ten-fold the evidence we have for Hesiod
or Herodotus, and a hundred-fold the evidence we have for Con-
fucius, Guatema or Zoroaster, that he wrote the Pentateuch, ex-
cept small additions, that do not seriotisly affect the text. The
voice of the learned world in the time of Christ, and ever since,
the history of Pagan antiquity, and the voice of the entire litera-
ture, history and institutions of the Hebrews, established this

404 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

beyond a doubt. No one would question it unless there were
ulterior motives to be reached. This account of creation and
subsequent events, down to the time of Moses, was written long
after creation, we believe at least four thousand years, and per-
liaps much longer. All nations had historic traditions. Western
Asia had some very complete traditions. All that was preserved
cf the history of the race, for many generations, was preserved
in tradition. From the Accadiau civilization down, there were
Avritten, hieroglyphic or piptorial fragments of tliese traditions.
These traditions were the basis of all the old religions and my-
thologies, and were preserved more or less complete in them.
Mo.^es may have collected and corrected these fragments in
Western Asia and Egypt, and used them as a basis for his his-
tory. The character of the book of Genesis accords with this
stipposition, and some think establishes it. It would not affect
the truthfulness of his history. Let us now examine this ac-
count just as we would any archaic account, and compare it with
the teachings of science, and see whether it contradicts the es-
tablished facts revealed by scientific research — whether it agrees
with them. Let us remember that man had no science of geology
then, and no geologic terms. Moses did not know any thing
about them, nor the people to whom he wrote. He was not
writing a geologic treatise.

The account is written in bold figurative language. It uses the
terms and ideas of ordinary speech, with poetic license. As
Moses was writing for other generations, and other peoples than
his own, if he be.allowed to explain his object, the account had
to be written in an universal language. Jtist as signs, gestures
and intonations are a nattiral language, so symbolic language,
figurative language, clothing ideas in metaphorical garb, in [X)etic
style, is an universal language. The account had to be written
in this manner. Then from the first verse of Genesis to the close
of the third verse of the second chapter, we have the JEpic of
Creation, written by Moses; a majestic setting forth in symbolic
expression and figurative language^ an outline of the great facts
of creation, in poetic style. Then the accotiat would only be
correct in general otitline. It is unfair to subject it to the mi-
croscopic analysis to which modern cavilers subject it. We
can not expect scientific terms, for there were none then ; nor
scientific precision, for it is written in poetic and symbolic style.
The objections are these : 1st. The order of creation is not the
^nie as the order of sticcession established by science. 2d. It
teaches the heavens are a solid firmament in which the stars are
set. 3d. It represents the creation as occupying only six days
of twenty -four hours. To the first objection we reply that the ex-
act order need not be followed, in a poetic account, and very
often is not. Then again such geologists as Dawson, Dana,
Tenny, Silliman, Hitchcock, Miller and a host of our best geolo-
gists prove that there is stibstantial agreement, as full agree-
ment as can be found between poetic and literal descriptions in
other things. The writer sets forth in poetic style what would
appear to an eye witness as the prevailing order of existence,

APPENDIX. 405

or what was specially prominent in the creations of each
period,

Cosmical light appeared on the second day. The light of the
sun became prominent on the face of the earth, on account of dis-
pelling of the hitherto prevailing clouds and vapors, on the fourth.
Then treating this poetic account in a candid spirit, there is no
real contradiction between it and any established truth of geology.
In regard to the second objection, we reply that rakia means sim-
ply what is spread or expanded, in its etymological meaning. It
is not confined to what is spread or expanded as a plane. It docs
not contain necessarily the idea of material or substance in what
is expanded. It may mean, and does sometimes, expanse of space.
That is what its root meaning expresses. In this old writing we
should give preference to the root or old idea. We are not com-
pelled, by its use here, or the context, to give to it the idea of
matter expanded in a plane, or of a plate. Even if the Hebrews in
after ages so understood it, it does not prove that the writer in
this sublime epic, in his poetic expression used it in that narrow
materialistic meaning. It is unfair to take the meaning that will
falsify the account and make the author talk nonsense, and insist on
giving that word that meaning, evidently for the purpose of
making him utter nonsense, and of destroying the account. In
all other documents or writings, our scientist friends would say :
" The author has a right to the presumption that he talked sense,
and such meaning should be given to his words as will make sense,
if they have such meaning, and the context does not forbid." They
will apply this rule to alTwriters but those of the Bible, and allow
it to be applied to all but them.. If one attempts it with them,
he is insulted by being sneered at in regard to the wonderful flexi-
bility of the Hebrew language.

The word has another meaning than the one the skeptic gives
to it, evidently to falsify the account, and it is its root meaning,
and on that account we give it to it, especially as it agrees with
the poetic style and demands of the account, and his absurd
materialistic meaning does not. The third objection, that it repre-
sents the creation as occupying only six days of twenty-fours hours,
is of the same character as the last. The word yam means the time
from daylight to dark— twenty-four hours — the time of a genera-
tion, the period in which one lived, the time of an event or thing,
whatever it may be. We could give hundreds of cases giving
scores of illustrations of each meaning. In this account, in the
fifth verse, it means a period. Also in the fourth verse of the
second chapter, it means the entire seven periods of creation. Then
God rested on the seventh day — ceased from creation. He is rest-
ing or ceasing now. We live in that seventh period, or day, now.
It is a long period of time, not twenty-four hours. Hence, by
parity of reasoning, the others wTre. Then we are not compelled
by the context to give to yam any such meaning as a literal day.
AVe certainly are not by its meaning and use in other places. Its
use in two places in the context forbids it. One use in the con-
text, and the one that most palpably determines its use in this
account, most palpably forbids it. This is not a dodge, but was

406 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

believed by old writers thousands of years before geology ever
raised this objection. Again, this account claims to be a vision,
a retrospective vision, as prophecy is prospective vision. In pro-
phetic language day generally means simply a period, and not
often twenty-four hours, especially when poetically used, as this
is. Then the same remarks about the unfairness of the infidel
apply here, that were made over raJda.

Then taking the account as it really is, as a poetic description
in symbolic language of the leading events of creation in general
outline, and allowing the writer the same right as we concede to
others, the presumption that he wrote sense, and that such mean-
ing be given to l\is words as will make sense, and the account a
sensible one, and taking the root meaning of rahia, and the one
demanded by the poetic style of the account, and taking the mean-
ing of yam usually given in prophecy, and the meaning in which
it is twice used in the account, and in the place which definitely
defines how it must be taken ; we have all the agreement of the
account with the facts that could be expected or asked in such an
account, a poetic description, using words in their common mean-
ing in poetry, and addressed to people utterly ignorant of science.
Unless we have ulterior designs to accomplish and Avish to make
the w'riter utter nonsense, and to falsify and destroy the account,
we will do this. If we have that object in view" we will give to
them the meaning that will make nonsense of the account, even
if we have to reject the meaning that the context declares must
be the meaning of the words, and the meaning that the style and
account will allow, and allow no other.

But is this account a revelation and inspired? Some think
Moses was merely the mouth-piece of the Spirit that wrote it
through him. Others, that the events passed in prophetic visions
before him during six literal days, and he described tliem as they
occurred, and in that sense day means twenty-four hours, and
was so used, although the original of the vision was a period of
time. Or that he speaks of each day's vision, and day means the
period that was set foi'th in vision in a day, and not the time of
the vision. Others, that he merely collected and corrected and
united in a consistent whole, accounts already in existence, until
he reached his own day. The fact that there are traces of tliis
account in other systems of mythology or religion, and that we
have in the ^ccadian account one very similar to this, rather es-
tablishes the latter view. I know that it is claimed Ipy some ad-
vocates of the Bible, that all these accounts are stolen or borrowed
from the writings of Moses, and are subsequent to him ; but s.ucli
a position is untenable. The Indian, Egyptian and Assyrian ac-
counts are undoubtedly older than the days of Moses, in their
origin. This is palpably the case with the A.ccadian account.
Whether both accounts, the origin of all other traditions, and
the account of Moses, are both separate revelations, or Moses ac-
cepted and incorporated into his book a correct record or tradi-
tion of a previous revelation, the account in Genesis and what-
ever that is true that may be in the other traditions, were, of
necessity, a revelation. The original of the Accadian account

APPENDIX. 407

was a revelation. So was the orioinal of Avhatever truth there
was in other traditions. Our reasons for it are these: Man,
when Moses wrote, and before this time, had no science of as-
tronomy, and not a ghost of an idea of geology. He had no
experience, or recollection, or knowledge of creation. If he
attempted an account, it would have to be a guess, and would
be full of errors. He did make such attempts, especially in
attempting to amplify the fragments of tradition he had in his
possession. All such accounts are puerile, contradictory and
absurd.

Many gods, men, angels, monsters, animals and monstrosities
figure in them in the most absurd manner. All have the incon
sistency of having an universe existing before the creation they
describe, and as a foundation for it. This account begins with
placing the infinite, self-existent Jehovah anterior to all Ijeing ex-
cept Himself, as the origin of all things. All things had their
source in absolute mind. It represents him as bringing all things
into being as immediate and absolute creations, as far as the
origin of each great class of being is concerned. This is express-ed
in a sublime and grand style. The afcts are worthy of divinity,
and in a manner Avorthy of divinity. The account has been re-
garded by all critics as the model of sublimity and grandeur in
description, conception, and in the things d'escribed. There is
nothing childish, puerile, or inconsistent, or merely fanciful about
it. It is absolutely free from all the absurdities, fancies and puer-
ilities of all other accounts. As we have shown,' when properly
interpreted, it agrees with modern science, as much as a poetic
account in general outline could possibly agree with it. Where
did man get this account so above the age and his condition and
beyond his knowledge and power? It was a revelatioji. Whether
revealed first to Moses, or others before Moses, and then also to
him, or he copied it, and handed it down to us, we know not
certainly, and care not. It is true and an inspired history of
creation.

We have not availed ourselves of certain saving clauses that
some writers use in defending this account. It is true that man
had no geology when Moses wrote, and had Moses Avritten an
accurate geoh)gic account, suited to the present state of science,
the people then could tio more have understood than an alpha-
bet class could understand Lyell's Principles of Geology. It is
true, also, that had he written it so much above the state of
knowledge and the human intellect, men would have rejected it
as children reject the statements of Lyell's Geology, because they
can not comprehend th&m, and would have done so for genera-
tions. It is true, also, that it Avould have defeated its object, the
salvation of man from sin, and set him to studying science. It
is equally true that were Genesis adapted to our style of thought
and our scientific knowledge of to-day, that four thousand years
from now it would, no doubt, be far more unfitted to the style
of thought than the infidel supposes it is noA\. It is true that
the Bible is not a book of science, and could not be. Also, that in-
spiration was not omniscience, nor revelation, except on its partic-

408 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

ular object. The Bible might have spoken of creation as men
then thought and spoke, and have accomplished its purpose.
We, in our common speech, say the sun rises and sets, when we
know it does not. So does the Bible. It might have done so in
regard to creation, and no one could reasonably object. The
spirit of inspiration might have used day and firmament as the
infidel claims, and there could be no valid objection to it. Such
expressions v/ould not be revelations or science any more than
the expression the sun rises, nor an indication of the ideas and
teachings of inspiration on such matters ; but a use of words in
their ordinary use, and an accommodation to the necessities of
human speech and thought.

But we believe that revelation should speak the truth, when
revealing the facts of creation, and accord with scientific truth,
as far as it does speak. AVe believe we have shown that Moses
does not use the ideas and beliefs of his day. His account is
free from them, and infinitely above them. He wn-ites in poetic
style, and gives, in symbolic language, in general outline, the
leading facts. He had to do this, on account of the state of
knowledge then, and the fact that his account was for all nations
and generations. Symbolic language is the universal language,
and he used it, giving to his words the meaning they have in
])oetry, and in such composition, prophetic vision and it agrees,
i.i all respects, with science, and in such a manner, and to such an
extent, as to prove it to be a revelation, when we take into ac-
count the age in which it was written, and the state of man's
Liiowledgc then, and the character of man's attempts, when un-
i.ispired, to describe the same events. Such we believe to be a
f lir and candid treatment of this remarkable account, and one
t'.ie infidel would give, if found elsewhere.

Noachian Deluge.

The tradition of a flood is perhaps the nearest an universal tra-
dition of all the historic traditions. It is found in all quarters
of the globe, and in nearly all tribes of men. The flood was
back of the historic period of Egyptian history. So it was before
t'le Accadian civilization that preceded it. Then, the flood trans-
pired before the emigrations of races, and while man was in the
cradle of the-race, and in Western Asia. We have two accounts
that are almost literally and verbally the same, the Accadian or
early Chaldean account, and the account recorded by Moses in
(lenesis. These accounts from different nations evidently had
the same origin. The Accadian account existed before the days
of Moses. Moses, from the peculiar structure of Genesis, doubt-
less took and united into a consistent whole, traditions that ob-
tained in Western Asia, concerning many of the important
events of man's primeval history. He united these with proper
connections and additions. The account of the deluge is one of
these traditions which he either took from the Accadian literature
or from the same source from which it obtained it, for the ac-
counts had one origin, and the Accadian is the oldest. Part of the

APPENDIX. 409

account is tradition, and part the work of Moses. AVith a lew
preparatory remarks in the VI. chapter, extending, perhaps, to
the eighth verse, Moses copies the account of an eye-witness.
The account is just as an eye-witness would write it. Just as it
appeared' to Noah and his sons. Noah was a prince, wealthy and
educated, and evidently as educated as the civilization of his
day. There had been thousands of years of history and progress
of mankind who were yet in the cradle of the race.

The remains of man's work in that region, the pyramids and
other works, that were erected shortly after Noah, show that
the building of the ship was not an impossible task in his day.
How much of this account in the Bible is true? With a proper
interpretation, all of it. Great catastrophes have destroyed life on
portions of the earth's surface often during geologic times. Great
floods liave devastated portions of it, in consequence of geologic
catastrophes and subsidence of land. The coal formations are a
proof of this. A great catastrophe within the human epoch has
devastated Western Asia. The Dead Sea is thirteen hundred
feet lower than the Mediterranean. The Caspian is eighty feet
lower. The Jordan, it is thought, once flowed through a u'ady
or valley to the Eed Sea. A great geologic catastrophe, pro-
ducing a flood, devastated this region. It happened in human
history, for man has a tradition and history of it. The race was
in the cradle of the race in W^estern Asia and had not separated into
races and languages then. The catastrophe afiectcd the whole
human race, and destroyed it, except a few saved in a boat or
vast ship. It devastated the then habitable and inhabited earth.
The ones saving themselves in the ark, saved their domestic
animals with them. One of them, as an eye-witness, described it
as it appeared to them. Moses used the account. The writer, as
was customary in the hyperbolic and extravagant speech of AVest-
ern Asia, and of that early period of our race, speaks of what
w^as devastated — the inhabited earth — as the " whole earth." Of
the animals of that region, as all the animals. Of the animals
saved, as all the entire animal kingdom. He writes as it looked
to him, excited as he was by so awful a catastrophe.

Then, making necessary allowances for the hyperbole and ex-
travagance that characterized the speech of Western Asia, and
the early periods of the history of our race, and for the exag-
gerations of an eye-witness, excited by the awful catastrophe he
witnessed, it is correct. There was a flood whicli destroyed all
men -but a few, and devastated all the then inhabited globe. All
animals of the then inhabited globe were destroyed, except what
man saved. These few men saved themselves and these animals
in an. ark. The Bible account is historically definite, consistent,
and of deep moral significance. Of great antiquity. Forms an
essential part of a grand religion. It is true.

Joshua^s commanding the Sun and Moon to stand still

It should be born in mind that in those days of the writing of
the book of Joshua, there was no punctuation, as there is in

410 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEM.^.

our printing and writing now. Quotations could not be sepa-
rated from the author's Language as they can now. On that
account they were quoted as a part of the author's language to
a degree not practiced now. Often they were not separated from
it. Let the reader turn to Judges v, and read the " Song of
Debomh and Barak." In it, it is declared "the stars, the hosts
from heaven, in their courses, fought against Sisera.'' All under-
stood this to be poetry, and no one objects to it. But suppose a
writer in the days of the Kings were writing the history of his
people, and were describing the battle of Barak with Sisera, and
were to say, This is the time when, as it is written in the " Song
of Deborah and Barak," " the stars in their courses fought against
Sisera, and the hosts of heaven." All would understand it to be
a quotation of poetry, and not a historic statement. There wa.s
a Hebrew poetic book — Jasher. In this book, with the license
of poetry, the author declared that "Joshua commanded the sun
and moon to stand still, and the Lord hearkened, and the sun and
moon stood still for a day." The writer of Joshua quotes this
poetic declaration of one of the favorite poems of his people, and
quotes it in the literal manner of the composition of that day, in
precisely the manner we have supposed above. Just as we would
understand one to be poetic license, so we do the other. There
is no more cojitradiction of science in the quotation from the
book Jasher in Joshua, than there is the Song of Deborah and
Barak, recorded in Judges ; only in one the whole song is quoted,
in the other only a paragraph. It is quoted in the literal manner
of the writing of that day, as though a part of the text; hence
the misinterpretation and confusion over it, and the desperate
attempts to do what never can be done, make it accord with
science, or explain away its contradiction of science, if Ave take
it as a narration of a historic fact by the historian, and not a
quotation of a poetic hyperbole, from a national poem, and
quoted in the literal manner sanctioned by the usages of writing
in that day, and caused to some extent by lack of punctuation.

Absurdity of Materialism.

We have spoken of the absurdity of the idea that mind can be
correlated with physical force, and asked what knows such corre-
lation. If mind be physical force, then physical force knows the
correlation of physical force with physical force. Some years
ago Abner Kneeland was bothering some young preachers with
objections to the idea that there was any such entity or existence
as a Spirit. Mind AVfis merely a function of matter. Matter was
the only existence. At last he appealed to a gentleman present,
who had taken no part in the conversation (Colonel Knapp, of
Winchester, 111.), and asked him what lie thought of it. "You
believe in the existence of matter as an entity, a reality, a real
existence?" queried Knapp. "Yes, sir," he replied, very confi-
dently. " Why do you believe in the existence of matter?" con-
tinued Knapp. "Because it is self-evident," said Kneeland.
promptly. " Solf-evident to what, if there be no existence but

APPENDIX. 411

matter? Self-evident to itself? The existence of matter self-
evident to matter ?" queried Knapp. Kneeland's answer was
never given. We submit it to all materialists. Also the ques-
tion, if mind be physical force, and be correlated with physical
force, what knows it; measures the correlation? AVhat is the
standard ? What is the measure, and what is the expression of
the equivalence ? What is the momentum and velocity, and
other characteristics of physical force of mind ? Can it be
measured off* and weighed and computed as we can physical force?

MilVs Ahmrd Attempt at Wit.

Evolutionists have ever been nonplused by the api)lication of
their own favorite axiom, " Ex niliilo nihil fit " — " Out of nothing,
nothing comes" — to their own system of evolution of all things
out of blind, irrational, insensate matter and force, and by blind,
irrational, insensate nuitter and force. They wish to eliminate
all idea and possibility of intelligence having any thing to do
with the origin of the course of evolution. Mind, intelligence,
reason, and mental and moral nature and character, have been
evolved out of blind, irrational, insensate matter and force, and
by means of them. AVlien they have taken this position, as they
must to get rid of all intelligence in the origin of evolution, and
in control of evolution, the query is presented: How can matter
and force, blind, irrational, insensate matter and force, evolve
what is not in them, if out of nothing, nothing comes ? KSome,
like Tyndall, assume that all possibilities of being were poten-
tially in the primordial matter and force. But science demonstrates
that the condition in which the scientist claims matter and force
were primordially, renders all idea of life an abstirdity. Then
common sense scouts the idea that reason, thotight and moral
nature were potentially or actually latent, or nascent, or active,
in fire-mist of blind, irrational, insensate matter and force.
Mill's attempts to set to one side the objection that matter and
force can not evolve what is not in them, with a shallow witti-
cism. He says : " It no more follows, that because num is intelli-
gent, his sotirce or cause must be intelligence, than because \\e
find pepper in the soup, there must be pepper in the cook." The
evasion will not let him out of the dilemma.

If the making of the soup was an evolution, and tl.e cook
evolved the soup entirely out of herself, we would say that if we
found pepper in the soup, there must be pepper in the cook, for
if the cook evolved the soup entirely out of herself, there could
be nothing in the soup that was not originally in the cook. And
we Avotild say if there was pepper in the soup and none in the
cook, then the soup could^have been evolved out of the cook, for
evolution could not put any thing in the product that was not
originally in that otit of which it was evolved. Mill's illustration
is a most admirable refutation of his attempt to chtim that mat-
ter and force can evolve what was not originally in them. If he
means to a])ply the witticism to the reasoning on causation, it
is equally fallacious. We say that man, an, intelligence, must

412 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

have had an intelligent cause, not on the principle that the effect
must be like its cause, or the cause like the effect, but on the
ground that an effect must have an adequate cause. An unin-
telligent cause is not adequate to produce an intelligent effect.
A cause may produce what is less than itself, but never what is
greater, much what is infinitely greater, as must have been the
case, if an unintelligent cause produced intelligence as an effect.
Again, in material and rational nature, there are effects that
must have had an intelligent cause, not on the ground that
causes must be like the effects, but on the ground that causes
must be adequate to produce effects. This attempt of ]\Iills is as
shallow and fallacious as Spencer's attempt to set to one side the
design argument by the watch illustration.

The Man with Two Wives.

In listening to an attempt made by one of tne most eminent
advocates of evolution, to illustrate and demonstrate the action >
of the principle of natural selection, the author was struck with
it as an illustration of the utter blindness displayed by these per-
sons, as to the real effect of their principle of natural selection,
if we were to apply it as a cause to -produce the phenomena un-
der investigation. He was attempting to account for certain
animals changing their color during different seasons of the year.
He took the case of the large hare of tHe Xorthern States. It
is a dark color in summer, when there is no snow, so that its
color is so like the old forest leaves on which it lies, that it is
very difficult to see it. It is white in winter, and can lay on the
snow, and it can hardly be noticed at any distance, and is gen-
erally passed without notice. "Xow," said he, very learnedly,
*' the theory of creation assumes that intelligence so created the
hare that it is white in winter and brown in summer. Intelli-
gence adapted the color of the hare to its surroundings to protect
it from its enemies." Well, it does look very much as though
that was the case. " But," continued he, " Science says that in
summer the enemies of the hare could see and destroy the white
or light-colored ones, and the brown ones escaped. In winter the
enemies of the hare could see and destroy the brown one.s, and
the white ones escaped. So you see that natural selection se-
h'Cted the brown ones who escaped in summer, and the white
ones who escaped in winter, and thus the white color of the
hare in winter, and the brown color of the same animal in
summer, Avas caused by natural selection. The conditions
adapted the animal to themselves, or the animal adapted itself
to its conditions, and was not adapted to them by some higher
intelligence."

A more complete jumble of words, and preposterous attempt to
make a case out of the very opposite of what was needed to estab-
lish it never was seen. There was no natural selection to save
the animals, but, on the contrary, to destroy them. Their enemies
selected them. Those that survived did so not because nature
selected them for that purpose, but because they escaped natural

APPENDIX. 413

selection of their enemies. Then destructive agency is appealed
to as preservative agency. It seems to common sense that if the
enemies of the hares destroyed the white ones that coukl not
evade them in summer, and then destroyed the brown who escaped
in summer but could not evade them now, there would be no
hares left. Then the absurdity of using this to account for
changes made in such opposite directions in so short a time. How
could the operation of such destructive agency make the same
animal exactly the opposite in color during one part of the year,
to what it was the other part? I heard of a Mormon who had two
wives. One was an old woman and the other was a young one.
The Mormon spent an equal portion of time with each alternately,
for they would not live peaceably in the same house. When he
was with the old wife, she pulled out black hairs, for she wanted
him to look as old as herself. AVhen he was with the young wife
she pulled out white hairs, for she wanted him to look as young
as herself. Here was the principle of natural selection at work.
According to the lecturer, the INIormon's hair became black while
he was with the young wife, and white while he was with the old
wife. Unfortunately for the theory, that was not the case. Like
Jack Sprat and his wife, one of whom ate all the fat and the other
all the lean, and who cleared the cloth and leit the platter clean,
one wife pulled all black hairs and the other all white ones, and
left the Mormon's head as bald as a ripe pumpkin. Common sense
says that what the lecturer called natural selection, would have
exterminated the Imre^as the Mormon's wives extirpated the hairs
of the unlucky Mormon's head.

Common sense, says also, that intelligence gave to the liare those
colors as its protection, and adapted the color to the surroundings,
and that neither the animal adapted itsejf to its surroundings, for
it had neither the intelligence nor the power to do so. Observe
what an absurd attempt to strip the Creator of the I'esults of his
wisdom and power, and absurdly ascribe them to the hare. Nor
did unintelligent conditions adapt the hare to themselves, for the
conditions, as far as they operated at all, destroyed the hare. A
careful analysis of nearly every supposed case of natural selection
would develop as great ab^surdity. Intelligence, and the work of
intelligence, are ascribed to animals and unintelligent conditions,
and destructive agencies are appealed to as preservative agency.
Any thing to get rid of intelligent cause.

Mimicry of Nature.

The change of color in animals at different seasons, that enables
them to escape their enemies, suggests another wonderful feature
of nature — what is called its mimicry. There are insects popularly
called walking-sticks, that when in danger will fold up their legs
and look so nearly like a dead stick or piece of twig, that unless
they are seen doing it, they will escape the search of almost any
one. Evolution supposes that some nondescript insect once ex-
isted. Those who were most like sticks escaped. Of these,
those that were most like sticks escaped and perpetuated them-

414 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

selves, and the process continued in that direction during an
almost inconceivable time, until the present wonderful mimicry
is reached. But there are some questions to be answered. First,
there would have to be a vast change before the change would be
at all useful, or operate in saving the insect. What kept this pro-
cess in operation persistently in one direction for such a vast
period until the change became great enough to have a particle
of preservative effect? Then the act of the animal in folding up
its legs: what principle of natural selection did that? Here is
a display of considerable intelligence. Then intelligence must
have implanted the instinct that acts so intelligently. The author
once accidentally detected a butterfly in which this mimicry was
still more wonderfully displayed. It Avas flying around, and flew
so near him as to be alarmed. It folded up and lay on some dead
oak leaves, and looked so exactly like them that it was only by
turning each leaf near vhere he saw it last that he found it by
touch.

He laid it and a leaf on his hand and examined them, and
asked if blind, irrational matter and force wrought out such a
result. The color w^as a perfect mimicry. So was the head an
exact mimicry of the stem of the leaf when it had been attached
to the tree. There was the stem running up through the leaf,
and its branches off, all mimicked. Not long after he detected
another that fastened itself onto a twig, and mimicked a green
leaf in the same way. How did all this come into existence?
They mimiciked oak leaves, the prevailing leaf of that region,
and the prevailing variety of oak. One mimicked a dead leaf,
the other a green one. If natural selection did this, what Avas the
insect before it was changed into such a wonderful imitation?
What preserved it until change enough was made to produce any
preservative effect ? What kept the influences at work during all
this vast period of time, until such a wonderful result was
reached as would be preservative ? I know it may not be scien-
tiflc to ask such questions, but still reason luill ask. A negro ora-
tor was once expatiating on creation. He described the process
of making man until he was set up against a fence to dry.
"Look here," said a skeptical listener: "who make dat fence?"
"O you stop your noise," said the preacher. "Such questions
spoif the best preaching in the world." So such questions may
spoil the best theories in the world, but common sense will ask
them. It will not believe that blind matter and force, or un-
intelligent conditions, ever produced such wonderful acts of in-
telligence.

Blind, Irrational, Insensate Matter and Force.

Not long since, in a public discussion with the leading advocate
of evolution, the leading advocate now on the rostrum, at least in
the United States, the author invariably presented the issue con-
cerning each phenomenon ascribed to evolution thus : " Can
blind, "irrational, insensate matter and force evolve such a phe-
nomenon?" His opponent complained bitterly. He said it was

APPENDIX. 415

like attempting to excite the odium, theologicmn against an oppo-
nent. It wa.s attempting to create a prejudice against evolution by
calling it bad names. It was an attempt to do Avhat I censured so
severely in the infidel —attach absurdities to the theory, load ab-
surdities onto it, until I made it absurd and ridiculous, and broke
it down. In reply, the author asked him if'the expression was not
literally true? To get rid of intelligence in the cause of existences
and phenomena, had not he made matter and physical force the
origin of every thing? Had not he emptied them of all intelli-
gence, and severed them IVom all connection with intelligence in
the beginning of evolution, and in the course, until man was
evolved? He could not deny it. Then the author continued:
" Is not matter, is not physical force, insensate ? Do they have
sensation at the commencement of evolution, or during a larger
portion of the course of evolution? If they do not, then they are
insensate. Are matter and physical force rational? Were they
at the commencement of evolution ? Were they rational during
the course of evolution?" He dare not say that they were.
Then they are irrational.

Are they endowed with foreknowledge, prescience and pre-
vision ? Were they at the beginning of evolution or during evo-
lution ? Then are not they blind ? Then when I call them blind,
irrational, insensate matter and force, I speak the exact truth,
and I present the issue just as it ought to be made. The issue
that the evolutionist ought to be compelled to meet is this:
Were these phenomena and existences evolved out of blind, ir-
rational, insensate matter and force, and by blind, irrational, in-
sensite matter and force? He ought not to be allowed to evade
the issue, cheat his readers out of a sense of the utter absurdity of
liis theory, and to cover the nakedness of his system by any subter-
fuge. Neither by taking refuge in an Inscrutable Power, as does
Spencer and Huxley. Nor by audaciously foisting into blind,
irrational matter and force all that he Avants to draw out of them,
as does Tyndall. Nor by such learned phrases as homogeneity,
heterogeneity, differentiation, integration, etc., with Spencer.
Nor by such convenient personifications as laws of nature,
nature of things, or natural selection, or survival of fittest, etc.,
with which Darwin hides out of view the nakedness of blind, ir-
rational matter and force, and substitutes between them and the
reader words, such as selection and law, that the reader uncon-
ciously accepts as the cause of the phenomena, because they are
acts of intelligence, without asking,: "What selects? What
makes the law?" If he w^ere to do this, and remember that it is
bliiil, irrational matter and force that does all this, that is really
til? source of all this wonderful phenomena^ he would reject the
sp3 nilation as an insult to his common sense.

If these evolutionists were compelled to tell the naked truth,
an 1 not allowed such subterfuges : if they were compelled to write
an 1 say "blind, irrational matter and force," instead of those delu-
sive phrases, "natural selection," "'laws of nature," "natural
law," their books would never be written, one syllable of them,
nor would one of them ever utter a sentence in favor of evolu-

416 THE PROBLEM OF PROBT,E>[.S

tion. Let one of them place himself before the audience and
use the terms " blind, irrational matter and force," where the
theist uses " God," as he ought if as honest as the theist, and he
would break down under the sense of the utter absurdity in ten
minutes. Yet this is just what he should do. In setting up
evolution as the true theory of the origin of existences and phe-
nomena, instead of creation by God or intelligence, common
honesty and truthfulness demand that he say candidly "blind,
irrational matter and force" evolved each existence and phe-
nomena out of blind, irrational matter and force. To this issue
he should be held, as Sisyphus was held to the task of rolling the
stone up the mountain side. Let the reader in reading tliese
speculations continually set to one side all such subterfuges and
evasions, and carefully and resolutely place in the speculation in
their stead what truth demands should be there, ''blind, irrational
matter and force," and he will never read through a single book,
nor listen till the close of a lecture. The absurdity of this
mockery of all reason would be too overpowering to be borne.

Parolles and His Drum.

One of the most contemptible characters in Sliakespeare is the
braggart Parolles. He was continually boasting of what marvel-
ous exploits he could do, and had done. The little he did was
magnified into a prodigy. His commander has the unreasonable
injustice to ask him to perform one of these miraculous exploits,
as a proof th:'.i: he had done what he claimed he had done, and a
proof that he could do Avhat he boasted he could do. In
like manner we read in speculations of evolutionists of Avhat con-
ditions have done, and of what they can do. It is assumed they
have done certain things in the past, as serenely rfs though the
speculator had been eye-witness to thetmnsiietion. It is assumed
they are doing now, or can do certain things, as seYenely as
though the speculator had witnessed similar things a, thousand
times. Some times a small variation or change is cited, and then
spread over all the phenon^ena of nature. Or a multitude of
such small variations, and all nearly alike, are cited as though a
million persons of one trade could do the work of all trades. Or a
slight change in an organ is cited as proof of how it was pro-
duced, as if the effect of the sun in changing a person's color
would account for the individual. Or things that are connected
with the variation are assumed as the cause of the variation, and
of what is varied, because they happened to be cojineeted in
time, like the Tenterden steeple was the cause of Godwin's sands,
and also created the sand and the laud that was changed into
them.

^ These speculators should be made show, by actual demonstra-
tion, that their conditions and causes can produce the phenomena,
and how they did. and that they actually did so. The reader is
bewildered with phrases and speculations and strange phenomena,
and allows the evolutionist to assume the whole question. If the
reader were to stop and take such an organ as the eye, and study

APPENDIX. 417

it until he understood it, and then attempt to trace out the for-
mation of that organ, by the operation of the unintelligent con-
ditions of evolution out of blind, insensate, irrational matter and
force, he would stop before he commenced so absurd a task. If
the evolutionist were like Parolles, compelled to apply his theory
to such a case, and trace out and illustrate its operations in the
evolution of such an organ, he would shiver over it as Parolles
did over his boast to recover his drum. That the reader may
aj^preciate the utter weakness and nakedness of the system, let
us undertake to apply it. Let us take the whale. It i? an im-
mense warm-blooded, air-breathing mammal, that brings forth
and su-ckles its young, as does the cow, or any land mammal.
This enormous animal, that has been found one hundred feet
long, and of the weight of a7i army of land animals, has been
evolved by the operation of unintelligent conditions, influencing
blind, irrational, insensate matter and force. What Avas the pri-
mordial germ of such an animal ? Was it the same as that from
which the mouse descended ? Where did it begin its course of
development ? On land, as conditions would demand ? If so,
hoAv came it ever to take to the sea ? This is in utter violation
of all conditions and natural selection.

If in the sea, how did such conditions develop an air-breath-
ing warm-blooded animal that procreates and brings forth and
suckles its young like a land animal ? These results are in di-
rect opjX)sition to any and all conceivable effects of the condi-
tions. Then the same conditions produced at the same time,
out of other primordial germs, cold-blooded, water-breathing
animals, that produce eggs, and have no care of the offspring,
nor a particle of intense maternal instinct there is in the whale.
W^ill some one who believes that evolution is as clearly estab-
lished as the Oopernicnn system trace before us the evolution of
the whale, as the astronomer runs back through the motions of
the heavenly bodies, and tells when there were eclipses and tran-
sits? That is the boast. It is as clearly demonstrated as the
Copernicf^.n theory of the universe. Then take the family of birds.
We can see or conceive of the locomotion of animals on land, or
of fishes and animals in water. But the locomotion of an animal
many times heavier than air, through the air. What could give
any tendency to such locomotion to a land or water animal ?
Then several of the most difficult and profound problems in me-
chanic;, have been solved as man ean not, with his thousands of
years of study, with all his intelligence. Then the primordial
germ or type from which the bird was evolved. Did it once
move on land ? If so, how came it in violation of all conditions
and natural selection to take to the air ? If originally an air
animal, wdiat solved all these profound problems, and adapted
the bird to the air? Or if a land animal, did unintelligent con-
ditions operating on bliad, irrational matter and force, solve
these problems ? Then how did conditions compel a land animal
to leave the land, and undertake that inconceivable locomotion
through the air ?

What gave a tendency in that direction ? What kept up this

418 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

tendency ? What preserved and co-ordinated results in the evo-
lution, for such a vast period of time? Let us conceive for a
moment of this nondescript land animal ceasing to use its non-
descript limbs on land, the place they are adapted to, and to
which every condition would direct and confine them, and prac-
ticing the attempt to use them in the air, for which they were
uttei-lv unadapted, and persevering in such useless attempts for
countless cycles of time, for these changes have been so gradual
as to be imperceptible during historic and geologic ages, until at
last all this struggle, that wavS utterly useless to countless genera-
tions, became useful! There could be no use of the organ, or
tendency to use it until it was complete and fit to be used. Use
can not develop an organ, for it can not be used until it exists
to be used. Hence the above course of development of an useless
organ is the height of absurdity. The author once presented this
case to an eminent lecturer on evolution. He sneeringly and
discourteously replied that evolution did not teach or suppose
any such case, and taunted the author with his ignorance of
evolution. Will he or any other one tell us ivhat evolution teaches
or supposes in regard to the evolution of the wing of the bird f Does
it teach any thing at all, except perhaps to assert the evolution
of the wing by unintelligent conditions during an immense pe-
riod of time, when it can not give a ghost of an idea of how it
was done, or proof that it has been done, and common sense
can present thousands of the clearest and most palpable reasons
that render sucli an evolution impossible and inconceivable ?

If the evolution hypothesis be as clearly demonstrated as the
(Jopernican System, will the demonstrator trace the evolution of
the wing of tlie bird back as the astronomer does the relative posi-
tions of the heavenly bodies? Let us take one more illustration
still more wonderful. Let us follow the evolution of the eye. We
have already shown that evolution can not account for the origin
and development of the senses or sensation. Nor can it for the
organs used in sensation. AAvay back in the eternal past, a non-
de^cript something, evolved out of a germ, Avas aifected in an un-
usual and entirely new manner by light. By some means one
particular part of' its organization became unusually sensitive to
light. This tendency continued. This in the course of countless
generations led to the formation of a nondescript aggregation of mat-
ter, in a certain part of this nondescript's nondescript organiza-
tion, that modified force in such a way as to evolve the sensation
of sight. This continued until we have that wonderful organ the
eye, and all its varieties. Some have one lens and others thousands.
S )me see by night, others can gaze on the noonday sun. Some
see in water, others in air. Some see but a few feet, others like
the eagle's can rival a telescope. Now let us ask some questions,
even though it spoils the best theory in the world. How came
that nondescript's organization or the matter in it to be sensitive
to light ? How came there to be any thing there to respond to
light and have any sensation ? Then hoAV came such slight influ-
ences to be perpetuated and co-ordinated in an ascending scale for
countless ages, through countless genciations, until they become

APPENDIX. 419

even in the slightest degree useful ? How came the profound ideas
of reason, displayed in the construction of the eye, to be realized?
Then the ditferent ideas of reason Vealized in the construction of
diUerent kinds of eyes? Then how came the most rudimental eye
to remain in existence for countless ages, and be unclianged down
to the present time, as is the case ? How came all the intermediate
varieties of eyes, as you call them, to remain unchanged through all
conditions and clumgesof conditions down to the present, as is the
case ? Conditions are not producing one particle of these changes
that you claim evolved the eye, and have not during the count-
less ages of geologic epochs.

Then so delicate and sensitive is the eye, that it can not be
changed, or will not admit of change of conditions. Any such at-
tempt destroys it. All talk of evolution of so sensitive and deli-
cate an organ by conditions is absurd. And another trouble
arises, also, in tliis supposition. Away back, early in the geologic
ages, at the time when, if this theory be true, if there were any
eyes at all, they must have been rudimental, is found the trilobite,
a highly organized animal in certain respects, with a perfect eye
of the highest order, and this trilobite is absolutely without any
ancestral forms or typical progenitors. It appears suddenly with-
out any preceding lower types, with a perfect eye of the highest
order without any previous rudimental eyes, out of Avhich it was
evolved. Such facts will spoil the best theory in the world, unless
we say, as did the Frenchman, '" so much the worse tor the facts."
Such, are a few, and only an infinitesimal part of the difficulties
that beset our scientist Parolles, in his attempt to capture his evo-
lution drum. But let him be held resolutely to his work. Lot
him tell us what sort of thing this inconceivable nondescript, that
was varied by conditions until all we see w^ere evolved out of it —
what sort of thing was it? Where did it come f rom ? Where did
the conditions come from ? How came it to be possessed of this
wonderful power of adaptability to conditions? What preserved
and corordinated the results in the ascending scale ? How came
the same conditions to produce such contradictory and opposite
results? How could they evolve out of matter and force what
was not in them, or in themselves? Have conditions one particle
of causal efficiency? Can they cause any thing? Can they vary
any thing? (Jan they produce the thing varied? Can they do
more than to permit the variation to exist when it has come into
being independent of themselves? Can they produce just the
opposite of themselves ? And, above all, let the advocates of this
dcinonstrated theory, trace before us the course of evolution, and
prove that conditions could produce such results. Show us how
t ley did it. And prove that they did it. Then we will have a
demojistration such as Ave have for the Copernican system. Then
let the reader avoid being deceived by the various subterfuges of
tli3 evolutionist, and hold the theorizer to the practical test.
" The •])r()of of the pudding is in the eating." Show us how this
could be done, how it was done, and prove that it was done so
This is the method of physical science. The evolutionist attempts
to explain the origin of all existences and phenomena by physical

420 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

science. Let him confonn to its methods, and do it as physical
science demands. The theory of creation, resting in rational
thought, appeals to rational thought and not to physical science,
as does evolution.

Proper Tests of the Two Theories.

Let us anticipate a retort that may be made by the evolutionist.
He may say, " Will you give us a practical illustration of your
theory of creation, such as you demand of us? When we see some-
thing created, we ought to accept your theory, and not till then,
according to the ordeal to which you subject mine. Serve both
alike?" We reply that no such retort can be made, nor such de-
mand made, for the two theories do not rest on the same methods
of proof. The creation theory rests on the methods of rational
thought. It is based on the deductions of reason, from the phe-
nomena and characteristics of the phenomena. The evolution
theory appeals to conditions now in existence as causes. It pro-
poses to solve the problem by physical science, hence it must use
the methods of physical science, and present the proofs of physical
science. If the author were to attempt to convince a man of the
existence of spirit by the methods bf rational thought, appealijig
to phenomena and their characteristics, and to deduce the exist-
ence of spirit as a rational conclusion from the phenomena and
their characteristics, and a spiritist were to come forward and say,
"That is not the real proof We know that there is spirit, be-
cause spirits materalize themselves, and we can see, feel and hear
them ; '' the inquirer would say, " Well, materialize a spirit, and
let us see, feel and hear it, and then we will have your proof, and
not till then." Such a demand would be just, but no such de-
mand could be made on me. I had promised only rational proof.
Indeed, I would deny tliat such proof, as the spiritist offered,
e;)uld be given, or that it was a question susceptible of any such
proof .

In the case before us we deny that the question of the origin
of existences and phenomena can be settled in the way in which
the scientist undertakes to settle it. It can not be settled or
tested by his metliods, for it does not furnish the data that such
methods require. The scientist admits that the genesis of a new
species, or a new existence or phenomenon, is something of which
he has no experience or knowledge. Then he can not apply his
methods, for he has not the data. Until he has such data, he can
do nothing with the question, and is undertaking what he is
utterly impotent to do. As it stands at present, he can only fur-
nish us the phenomena as they now transpire, and have since long
before human experience and their nature and characteristics.
Then from these reason, as a question of inductive reasoning,
rational thought, must settle the question. Science stops with
furnisliing the phenomena and their nature and characteristics,
]vea><on does the rest. But when the scientist claims, as did
Huxley, to give a demonstration by the methods of physical
science, to solve the question by the methods of physical science,

APPENDIX. 421

we have a right to insist that he fulfill his promise. As in the
illustration, we say to him, " 8ir, prove that your conditions that
are in existence and operation now, and must produce the same
results now, if they ever did, can produce such results. Show us
how they did it. Prove that they did. Prove to us that such
causes produced such effects. That the phenomena were pro-
duced by such causes. Give us the practi-cal proof demanded by
physical science, such as is given by the astronomer for the Co-
pernican system, for you assert you have the same proof." Sucli
a demand is fair, and justice demands that it be made and met,
since the evolutionist promises just such proof.

But no such demand can be made of the creationist. Ke pro-
fesses to give no such proof. His course of proof admits and de-
mands no such, tests. He admits that there can be no practical
test, in the lower use of the word practical, for we have no such
phenomena transpiring now. He claims that the question can
not be settled by any such method. He claims that it can only
be settled as a question of rational thought, by inductive reason-
ing. He takes the phenomena, and their characteristics, and us-
ing the fundamental principle of all inductive philosophy, he de-
termines the cause from the nature of the eifects. He gives the
highest method of proof, the purely rational, that which appeals
to reason in its highest and noblest exercise. His conclusion is
the only one that reason can accept, the one that reason gives by
every law of its being, and with every power of its existence, and
is reached in the only way that the conclusion can be reached, as
reason declares. Hence, we insist on the test we have presented,
for that is what the evolutionist promised, and insist that he can
give no such test, and that the question admits of no such proof.
We give the proof we promise, and the only proof the question
admits of, and the proper test of our proof, and the highest proof
and test.

Evolution Hypothesis and Copernican System.

When atheists are asked why they do not accept the idea of
God, if human reason be their standard, since reason has so uni-
versally believed it, they reply that they are no more bound to
accept it than they are the old idea, once so prevalent, that the
earth is a plane, and the center of the universe, and the sun re-
volves around it. They are no more bound to accept the theory
of creation, than they are the Ptolemaic hyiDOthesis which elab-
orated and undertook to make scientific the above popular no-
tion. Huxley presents the evolution hypothesis as the Coperni-
can substitute for the Ptolemaic theory, creation. But the cases
are not parallel. The idea of God is, in one sense, an intuition,
an immediate intuition. Man has an intuition, a constitutional
tendency, to worship, to have aspirations for higher, superior be-
ings. He has no such aspiration toward the old idea of the
shape of the earth. Again, the data and course of reasoning are
not the same. One is a lalse sense perception of phenomena
The other is a clear deduction of reason from characteristics of

422 thp: problem of problems.

phenomena, concerning which there is no misconception, for the
atheist himself ascribes them to the phenomena. There is not
the remoteness in one case that there is in the other. Then,
again, when the evolutionist explodes the creation theory, as the
Ptolemaic hypothesis has been exploded, we will abandon it.
And when he demonstrates it, as the Copernican system has been
demonstrated, we will accept the evolution hypothesis. This
illustration of the evolutionist, and the comparisons he makes in
it, are rather shrewd, but are based on a rather impudent as-
sumption. As matters stand the creation theory occupies the
l);)sitiou of the Copernican system. It accords with the highest
ideas of reason, and is verified by them. The evolution hypothe-
sis occupies the precise position of the Ptolemaic hypothesis. It
is not based on the highest and broadest deductions of reason.
It is contradicted by palpable demands of the problem. It is
verified by no true scientific method or observations. The evo-
lutionist should change places of the theories in his illustration.

Another Absurdity in Illustration.

A prominent infidel lecturer undertakes to illustrate the ab-
surdity of the design argument, thus : "The design argument
claims that because we see order in nature, as we do in man's
works, we should reason that they had like causes, intelligent
causes. According to this reasoning, if I see a rat hole, and
learn by experience that it was made by a rat; and I see Mammoth
Cave, an almighty big hole, I should conclude it was made by an
almighty big rat." In the first place the word rat, on which he
makes his ridicule turn, and which is the gist of his reply, has no
place in the illustration. It is introduced to throw ridicule on
what can not be met by argument. Yv^'e do not, in the' design
argument, say that an almighty man created the universe, but
absolute intelligence. Intelligence is the only point in the argu-
ment. Then the illustration is not germain. If the same charac-
teristics are in one effect as in the other, we would conclude, and
correctly, that as one was produced by intelligence, it matters
not whether of rat or man, so must the other be. The species of
the organization of the intelligence has nothing to do with the
argument. The argument should be, "If we find certain charac-
teristics that can be traced to intelligence as their only conceiv-
able cause, in one case, and then find the same characteristics in
tlie other case, we should ascribe them to a like cause, intelligent
cause." Then the absurdity is in an absurd element that the
skeptic introduces into the illustration that is utterly foreign to
it. And also the illustrations of cave and hole are not analogous.
But we affirm that intelligence caused the cave, and the only
difference is that a vastly greater intelligence operated, and used
second causes to produce a vastly greater result. But the eviden-
ces of intelligence are as clear in one as in the other, and vastly
more palpable in the case of the cave, and of an infinitely higher
order. We notice these attempted evasions to show that in all
such cases the infidel either assumes the point at issue, as in the

APPENDIX. 423

use of the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories, to represent the
creation and evolution theories; or he introduces some foreign
element that is ahsurd, and undertakes, in this way, to prove that
the idea he is opposing is absurd. He rarely attempts to meet
the argument fairly, and to set it to one side by fair reasoning.
No set of reasoners need as close watching as these men, who are
so scientific, and are continually criticizing their opponents, for
their unscientific methods.

Review of Iluxkifs Demonstration of Evolution,

The most important and exciting event that has transpired in
the scientific and literary world during the past autumn, was the
visit of T. H. Huxley, the eminent English scien.tist, author and
lecturer, to our country. What rendered his visit one of gi-eat
interest, and clothed it with special importance, was the an-
nouncement, made in advance, that he would deliver three lec-
tures, in which he would do what the world has long been de-
manding, and will continue to demand, before it will accept the
evolution hypothesis, and what its advocates have been so long
seeking and attempting, a demonstration of the hypothesis known
as the evolution theory. Every one expected from such an an-
nouncement, and had a right to expect it, that undeniable facts
would be presented, and that the theory of evolution would be
deduced from them in the clearest and plainest manner, and
established as a clearly proved scientific theory, and a demonstra-
ted system of scientific truth. The reputation of the lecturer,
as the ablest living lecturer and advocate of evolution, raised the
expectations of all parties very high; some in eager anticipation
of having at last what they had lojig sought and desired in vain ;
and others in gravest apprehension lest great harm should be
done to what they regarded as the highest interest of millions.
Since the subject is a fiercely contested question, very clear and
thorough «vork would have to be done, to accomplish what the
lecturer promised. Since evolution is advanced by its advocates,
and was presented by Huxle}', as the opponent of the theory of
the creation of all existences and phenomena by intelligence, and
was presented by Huxley as the solution given by science to the
problem of being, the attempt was to demonstrate that the theory
of evolution is the true and scientific explanation of the existence
of all existences and phenomena.

Huxley should : I. Have stated in all its magnitude, in clear
outline at least, the demands of the problem, for which he offered
evolution as a solution. As it is very earnestly disputed that it
is a solution of many, and the most important elements of the
problem, he should have stated the problem carefully, and been
especially particular in placing the disputed elements fully before
the audience, so that Avhen he was done they could compare the
solution with the problem, and especially these disputed elements,
and decide Avhether the theory of evolution was a solution of the
problem, H. If he undertook, as he claimed he did, to state
all the conflicting solutions of the problem, he should have stated

424 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

all of them, and fully and fairly, placing all before the audience
m all their essential features, and in their full strength. III. If
he undertook to disprove all of them except evolution, as he
claimed he did, he should have clearly and fairly shown that each
of them, fairly stated in all essential features and full strength,
failed to meet the demands of the problem. IV. To demonstrate
that his solution, evolution, did meet the demands of the prob-
lem, he should : 1st. State accurately and carefully the fiicts on
which he based his theory, establishing that each and every one
was a fact clearly proved. 2d. Show that his theory was an un-
doubted deduction from the facts, and clearly established by
them. 3d. Show that his theory, thus established, solved tiic
problem — met all the demands of the problem. He should be
especially careful to avoid two errors. First, he must not incor-
porate into his theory an idea that was not clearly established by
the facts he cited to demonstrate it, thus extending it beyond what
was established, or was a legitimate deduction from the facts.
Second, extending his theory over what it did not cover, or, in
other words, claiming that it solved things of which it was no
solution. He should be careful to confine his theory in his state-
ment to what Avas established by his facts, and in application to
just what it met and explained. V. He should have passed the
problem in detail before his hearers, and applied his theory to
each element in detail, and proved by practical demonstration
and illustration that it was a solution of each element of the
problem. And in regard to the elements concerning it, which de-
nied that evolution was or could be a solution, he should have
examined them carefully, and have shown that such objections
to his theory were not valid. Either that it did meet and ex-
plain these elements of the problem, or that no such issue was to
be met, and there was no such element to be explained. The
audience and the world had a right to expect all this from one of
the reputation of the lecturer, and who had studied the subject
more, and was regarded as one who understood it better than any
person living, with perhaps one or two exceptions. His promise
to place the evolution hypothesis on the same basis of demonstra-
tion, on the same basis as the Copernican system, involved such a
work. Above all, the transcendent importance of the theme he
discussed, in its direct or indirect bearings on science, morals,
religion and thought, demanded all this work at his hands.

We propose now to examine his work and test it, and see how
near his demonstration came to meeting these demands that his
promises authorized the world to expect from him and exact at
Ills hands. Did he state the problem fully and clearly, especially
Uie disputed points, the ones at issue? I think no one dare say
Viiat he did. The issue or problem, the origin of all existences
. and phenomena, involved, at the least, the following elements:
1. What was the origin of matter and force? Are they self-
existent ? If that is claimed, it should be shown how they can
be, and especially that they actually are so. If not self-existent,
then it should be stated clearly what is their origin. As this is
the question of questions, the fundamental question, it should be

APPENDIX. 425

clonrl}' met. 2. What was tlie origin of the essential properties
of matter and force? Are they self-existent? Or did they pro-
ceed from some antecedent source? If so, what? 8. The co-
ordination, adjustment and adaptation of these essential proper-
ties into an order, system and method, with hnv and plan ; whence
came it? 4. The elementary substances of matter and their pe-
culiar characteristics, whence came they ? 5. The co-ordiuation
and adjustment of these elementary substances into an order and
system with law and plan, whence came it? 6. The planetary
and stellar worlds and systems, their forms, orbits, motions, dis-
tances, masses and relations, whence came they? 7. The co-
ordination of all these things mentioned in the previous six
queries, in exact mathematical law and proportion, in numerical
expression and magnitude, and geometrical form in a system,
realizing the most exalted and abstract ideas of reason, in mathe-
matics, harmony and law, whence came all this? 8. Chemical
action and affinity, and its almost infinite and infinitely varied
results, and its wonderful law, whence came they? 9. The co-
ordination and adjustment of all these in a perfect system with
perfect plan and law, and the co-ordination of all nature to
chemical action, affinity and its results and law, whence came
they ?

10. Crystallization, the result of chemical action, with its laws
of number and proportion, and of geometrical form and angles,
all realizing the most exalted ideas of reason in proportion, order
and harmony, whence came they? 11. The co-ordination of all
these inorganic processes and results to each other and the whole
system, whence came it? 12. Whence came that wonderful phe-
nomenon we call vegetable life or vital force? 13. Whence came
the vegetal)le cell, germ, seed and plant, the vegetable organisms
built up by this life, and in which it is manifested ? 14, Whence
came animal life, so wonderful in sensation, instinct, understand-
ing, power of voluntary motion and locomotion? 15. Whence
came the animal cell, germ or organisms built up by this animal
life, and in which it is manifested? 16. AVhence came sensation,
instinct and understanding, so varied and wonderful in different
animals? 17. Whence came all the orders, families, species and
varieties of vegetable and animal life and organisms? 18.
Whence came man's organism and brain, so wonderful and so
different from all animals? 19. Whence came reason, moral and
religious nature and character, and their results ? 20. Whence
came the realization of the most exalted ideas of reason in co-
ordination, adjustment, arrangement and adaptation into order,
method and system, with law, plan, design and purpose, with
prevision, provision, alternativity, and choice, beauty, harmony
and utility in the absolutely primordial constitution or absolute
beginning of things, in the course of evolution, in each and every
step in it, and in the present order of things, in each existence
and phenomenon, and in the universe? Whence came all this?
These are the disputed elements of the problem he proposed to
solve, and his solution had special reference to these.

If it be said that his undertaking did not require all this, and

36

12G THE PROBT.RAf CJF PROBLKMS.

that his promise did not require him to state all these issues as
elements of the problem, we reply that the theory of creation
claims to account for the existence of all being and phenomena,
and to explain every one of the above issues. Bo Huxley him-
self said in his lecture. He offered evolution as the scientific
substitute for the theory of creation, hence he oiFered it as a
solution of every one of the above-mentioned issues. Evolution-
ists oifer evolution as the scientific solution of all these issues,
and as the scientific substitute for the theory of creation, and
invariably use it as such. Huxley assumed that it is a solution
for all these elements in the practical use he made of it, in the
scope he gave to it, and in his offering it as the solution given by
science instead of the theory of creation. Such, then, were the
elements of the problem he proposed to solve, and demonstrate
that evolution is the true and scientific solution. As all of
these issues are subjects of earnest controversy between the
conflicting theories of creation and evolution, Huxley should
have stated them all clearly and fully, and frankly avowed his
task to be to explain them by evolution. Huxley made but a
partial statement of the problem in the beginning, stating but a
few issues, and these as weakly as possible, as though he wanted
to have as little to meet as possible ; and in his demonstration of
evolution, and his application of it, he reasoned as though but
one element were involved in the entire problem, and this, the
origin of species, is the least important and least diflicult of any.
A person reading his demonstration in the second or third lec-
tures would suppose that his work Avas simply to show how
variations and species were produced. He would not dream
that he was trying to give a substitute for the whole theory of
creation.

Did he state all the conflicting theories as he claimed he did,
and state them correctly, fairly, and in their full strength ? With-
out inquiring whether the interpretation he gave of Milton's
poetic description of creation be correct, or discussing now whether
it be, as he by cowardly covert indirection sneeringly insinuated
the theory of creation presented in Genesis, we most emphatically
deny that he stated the theory of creation as it is held by its
advocates, with scarcely an exception. In addition to what he
presented, there are the following theories: 1st. God created
matter and force and implanted in them, and stamped upon them,
invariable necessary laws, in accordance with which they have
evolved all things, and that he acts only through these laws, and
in them only, in their first constitution. 2d. He created matter
and force and implanted in them, and stamped upon them, invari-
able and necessary laws, in accordance with which they have
evolved all existences and phenomena; but God is ever ]n-esent
in these laws, and through them his power evolves all things in
accordance with his will. Persons "who are full and complete be-
lievers of the evolution of all things out of matter and force, hold
one or the other of these theories. 3d. The author holds the fol-
lowing theory: God created matter and force and implanted in
them, and stamped on them, principles and laws in accordance

APPENDIX. 427

with absolute reason, and in accordance with these laws of
reason they operate and have evolved portions of the phenomena
that have come into bein^ since creation, but such evolution has
been within certain limits. There has been development from
the first creation, but it has been development that was in its
most important features development by creation, and by succes-
sive steps. There has been evolution of the plan of Infinite Wis-
dom and Power, and evolution of existences within certain limits,
but God has created directly each new and higher step of existence
when they appeared; such steps as are indicated by the twenty
elements of the problem as enumerated.

There was evolution of the Divine plan in the course of develop-
ment, but by successive steps, by direct creation, with evolution
by variation between these steps. This was not without cause,
but had Absolute Reason as its cause. It was not without law,
but was in accordance with law, the highest law, law of Infinite
Intelligence, and is the only theory that has any law in its real
meaning, and the only theory that has a cause, in the true sense
of the word cause. The Creator brought into being matter an (I
force. He gave to them perfect laws. He created the essential
properties of matter and force. He created the elementary sub-
stances and their characteristics. He created chemical affinity
and its action and crystallization, and he created life, both vege-
table and animal. He created each species, by creating perfect
the first of each species at the beginning of the species. Then all
succeeding individuals are produced by the action of the laws he
established, and variations within definite limits. God is potenti-
ally and actively present in government and providence in the
ongoings^of nature. Government, providence, prayer, inspiration,
revelation, atonement, mediation, and forgiveness are not capri-
cious or without law, or in violation of law, but are a necessary
part of the highest law, law of rational beings, and are a part of
its perfection, and necessary to its perfection. There has been
rational, moral, and religious development in human history, but
religion, morality, and reason, and those catholic ideas of reason,
religion and morality, mentioned above, are the factors of such
evolution. They must be the factors in an evolution of intelli-
gences, a development of the reason^ and moral nature of intelli-
gences, controlled by an overruling intelligence. I believe this
accords with the teachings of the Scriptures, and is the teaching
of the Scriptures. I believe this theory of creation by successive
steps, of evolution by creative steps, is the theory of the first
chapter of Genesis. I refer the reader to the explantion of that
chapter given in a former article.

Th(7n we impeach Huxley's statement of conflicting theories as
imperfect, omitting several, and as unfair and incorrect.^ We object
to the unfairness and untruth there is in his representing the the-
ory of creation as being without law, or in violation of law.^ It is
in accordance with law, the highest law, law of Infinite Wisdom.
The theory of evolution is without law unless itvbe the law of
blind, fatal necessity, Avhich would admit of no change, and invari-
ably produce the snme results. In that case there could be no

428 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

evolution. As Huxley claims an evolution out of blind, irrational
matter and force, and by means of them, of all existences and
phenomena, he must have change, and the only change and opera-
tion there can be in a system based on blind, irrational nuitter and
force, and by means of them, is the chance fortuity of the blind,
aimless ongoings and happenings of blind, irrational matter and
force. Law, in a system of evolution of blind, irrational matter
and force, and by means of them, is an absurdity, is impossible and
unthinkable. The theory of creation and control by Intelligence
is the only theory in which there can be law in any sense, and is
the only theory that is in accordance wiih law, has law. AVe object
also to the assumption, so unfair and untruthful, that the theory
of creation brings existences and phenomena into being without
a cause, or in violation of the law of causation. This is implied
when he covertly insinuates that it implies that there was a time
when events did not follow a fixed order, and when the relations
of cause and effect were not fixed and definite, and did not con-
trol as they do now. The theory of creation is based on the trnth
that all existences and phenomena had a cause, an adequate cause,
an intelligent cause, and that events do certainly follow a fixed
order, an order established by Infinite Wisdom. The issue between
the theories of creation and evolution is not whether events follow
a fixed order, or whether they are controlled by law, and have
been produced in accordance with biw, but concerning what kind of
law. Evolution says a law of fatal necessity, of blind, irrational
matter and force, in which case there could be no variation, no
change, no evolution. Or a law of chance fortuity of the aimless
ongoings or happenings of blind, irrational matter and force, whi(^h
is an absurdity, for in such a case there is no law. We hand back
to him, where it belongs, the charge of having a theory without
law. The issue between the creation and evolution theories is not
whether existences and phenomena have a cause, but concerning
what kind of cause. Evolution says matter and force are the
c.iuse, when the inertia and passivity of matter and the utter lack
of self-direction and spontaneity there is in force, render the idea
of their being causes in any sense, or being more than the instru-
ment of causes, an absurdity. Then we hand back to him the
c:i:irge of having a theory that briifgs things into being without
a cause. It belongs to his theory. Theory of creation has a cause,
the only cause there is in the universe, mind, and an adequate
cause, an intelligent cause. It has law, the law of Infinite "Wisdom,
and is the only theory that can ha^'c law. We reject, also, as un-
truthful and an insult the cowardly insinuation that theory of
creation is to be placed on a level with the idea that perhaps there
wis a time when two and two did not make four.

We repel, also, the covert and cowardly insinuation against the
honesty and intelligence of believers of the Scriptures, in the re-
mark, that scientists can only siand by and admire the flexibility
of the Hebrew text, that admits of so many and such conflicting
interpretations. It is a fact that language is flexible, and admits
of many interpretations often. He professed to be very honest
ii;id e.mdid in his lectures. He was excessively cautious and

APPENDIX. 429

careful to be as clear and precise as he could be in liis statements.
And yet already it is a fact that many and conflicting interpre-
tations have been given to his language, so deliberately matured,
so thoughtfully worded and expressed, to make it so clear there
could be no mistake, and that all must understand it correctly.
^Vere there arguments in sneers, \vc might rehearse the one huu-
dred and tifty exploded, conilicting, and contradictory hypothe-
ses in geology, that have been abandoned in as many years, and
as many in physiology, also in chemistry, and so on with the
entire round of sciences, that are practical knowledge, and so
clear and precise, definite and harmonious, and marvel at the
wonderful flexibility of the inflexible record of nature, that is so
deflnite, clear and uniform. Says a late writer, " We have hardly
mastered a theory until we are called on to abandon it for a new
one." We might rehearse the multitude of conflicting theories
and interpretations of nature, that are now fierce matters of dis-
pute between these scientists that have every thing so clear and
definite. We might rehearse many theories that have been ad-
vocated at different times by the same person, and even by the
lecturer himself, that are conflicting and contradictory, and
marvel at the flexibility of this inflexible volume of science that
admits of so many and so conflicting interpretations by the same
person. But such sneers and insinuations are not argument,
nor are such covert misrepresentations of an opponent's position
as abound in this lecture. Huxley injured himself and his
cause. He presented as Milton's theory, what he intended his
hearers to understand to be the teaching of the Scrij^tures. He
covertly insinuated that he dare not say that it was the teaching
of Genesis, on account of the dishonesty and sophistry of believers
of the Bible, who interpreted Genesis in any way so as to save
the inspiration and truthfulness of the record, regardless of what
must be its real meaning. It would have been honest and manly
to have said Avhat he meant, as an honest, truthful, courageous
man. Then his hearers could have respected him, and not have
felt a feeling of contempt for the cowardice that said in covert
insinuations and sneers what it did not dare to say openly. It
was the cowardice and treachery of one who stabs under a flag
of truce, and. while rehearsing a treaty of peace, and uses the staft"
on which the flag of peace is fastened as the weapon to pierce
the one he is deceiving by means of it.

Then the unfair and dishonest representations of the lecture in
regard to what the theory of creation is, in regard to its teaching
that things once did not follow a fixed order, its being a theory
without law or in violation of law, that it taught that events
haj)pened without a cause, that there was a time when the rela-
tions of cause and effect were not fixed and deflnite as now, and
that the theory was on a level with the assumption that two and
two might once have been something else than four, have injured
liis attempt and himself, and must forever after cause all fair-
minded men to have a far different opinion of him from what his
pretensions claimed for him. His attacks on the theory of crea-
tion {>resented in Genesis were but three: 1st. It represented

430 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

existences as coming into being instantaneously and by creation.
Science teaches they are evolved gradually. 2d. It represents the
time as but six days of twenty-four hours, if the account be
honestly interpreted. 3d. It does not present the order of crea-
tion that science teaches. In regard to the first, we reply that
the account does not conflict with the idea of creation by evo-
lution within certain limits. It represents new types of existences
as coming into being instantaneously, and by creation, and in
their highest perfection at first. So does geology as far tis its
records go. Geologists meet with each new type suddenly, in its
highest perfection, without a trace of connecting links between
ic and lower types. In regard to the second, we reply that in
the Hel)rew Scriptures the word yam, here translated day, has
these meanings : 1st. The time from sunrise to sunset. 2d.
Twenty-four hours. 3d. Past or future time without limit. 4th.
A future pro})hetic period of indefinite length. 5th. An epoch
or period of time in history. 6th. A season of the year. 7th.
A period of life, as old age. 8th. A specified time of indefinite
length. Scores of instances of many of them, and many of all
of them, could be given. It has such meanings in the P^nglish,
a)id all languages. Then language is flexible and susceptible of
(litferent interpretations. In the second verse of the first chapter
day means an indefinite period. In the fourth verse of the sec-
ond chapter, where its use settles its meaning in this account, it
means an indefinite period, the time of God's ceasing from crea-
tion in which we are living, and which is not ended yet. This
determines the duration of the other days. Then we object to
tlie unfairness that forces on to the word an absurd meaning,
which the context does not require, but forbids, evidently to
destroy it. It does not allow the fair principle to be applied,
that the writer is presumed to speak sense, and such meaning
must be given to his words as will make sense, unless the context
lbrl)ids. There is no necessity for giving such meaning in this
account. Its being prophetic vision forbids such a meaning, for
daij does not have such meaning in vision and prophecy. The
context gives the meaning, period — and compels such an meaning,
and forbids the idea of twenty-four hours.

In regard to the charge that the order contra4icts that of
science, we can not enter into an elaborate detail, but will repeat
the remark made elsewhere, that the account is a bold poetic de-
scription, in general outline, of the leading events of creati(m, as
they would appear to an eye-witness in prophetic vision, written
for a people destitute of all science of modern times supposed to
contradict it. Hence it is unjust to insist on examining this ac-
count as a literal, scientific account^ in which scientific precision
in order and detail are attempted. General agreement is all that
is to be expected. There is this agreement, if we can accept the
testimony of such geologists as Miller, Hitchcock, Silliman,
Guyot, Tenny, Dana and Daw.son. Several of these are the
masters in geology. Several of them are the greatest living geolo-
gists, and the masters of Huxley in geology. Dawson, in his
Archala, very fully elaborates and establishes this substantial

APPENDIX. 431

agreement. So does Dana. These are the greatest of living
geologists. Dana thus interprets the record in Genesis : I. In-
organic Era. 1st day ; creation of cosmical light. 2d day ; the
earth divided from the fluid around it, or individualized. 3d day ;
first, outlining of hind and water; second, creation of vegetation.
II. Organic Era. 4th day; light from the sun becomes prev:dei;t
<m the earth. 5th day; creation of lower orders of animals.
6th day; first, creation of mammals; second, creation of man.
These masters in geology, and of Huxley himself, dechirc that this
accords with the teachings of science, and that no uninspired n;a]i
could at that day have fabricated such an account, so simple, sub-
lime and grandly correct, and accordant with the teachings (.f
science. 1 leave these masters in geology to set to one side the
utterances of this refractory and presumptuous pupib

In the second lecture we have an evident cautious preparation
of the hearer for the weakness of the demonstration. lie
tries to raise expectations and surmises, and to prepare ihe
mind to accept them as demonstration. As lago expresses
it, "He is preparing the mind to accept as demonstration
what demonstrates but thinly." His course is like that of a troop
of elephants in crossing a bridge. They drive the smallest ones over
first to see how long the bridge will bear. In this lecture he
seems to make concessions that he utterly disregards in a few
moments, and during the rest of his argument. He concedes that as
far as our knowledge goes, species have been persistent, and have
never changed into other species. Then in the face of^ this he
coolly bases his entire argument on the broad assumption that
they'liave not been persistent in any sense, but all have changed,
and^ are the result of such change, and without one particle of
proof. He admits, with seeming candor, the utter lack of proof in
the geological records, and especially in regard to transmutational
links, or transitional forms, or links in the course of transmuta-
tion. He then boldly uses this very record, that he has admitted
has no proof, as his sole proof, and bases his arguments on the very
links that he admits are utterly wanting. He bases his demon-
tration on these defects, in the record, as though he had the miss-
ing links, and knew just wluit they were. He assumes we will
find these missing links, and that they will infallibly be of the
precise character needed to establish his theory. The theologian
can only stand by and admire, he knows not which most, the
marvelous coolness or amazing audacity that could pursue such
a course when discussing a topic so earnestly contested. He an-
nounced that he would place the evolution hypothesis on as posi-
tive a basis as the Copernican system of the universe. This sys-
tem is based on well established scientific truths and observa-
tions, and confirmed by the test of long experience and ciireful
study.

He finally announced his method of proof thus: "When we
have all the evidence concerning the subject we can hope to have,
and it is in favor of the theory, we should accept it.." ^ Does he
mean to assert or have us understand that is all the testimony we
have for the Copernican system ? He says nothing about how

432 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

much evidence we can hope to have, whether it be much or next
to none at all. Nor in what sense it must be in favor of the
theory, whether it must clearly teach it, or merely hint it as a
surmise or possibility. Suppose we have next to no evidence at
all. shall we except it ? Suppose the evidence merely raises a sur-
mise of the possibility of such a theory, are we to accept such
surmise? Suppose there are other the »ries as plausible, or nearly
so, what then? He says nothing concerning objections that
stand in the way of the theory, and what influence they should
have, and wisely, for had he entered that field the objections to
evolution would have buried the surmises in its favor, raised by
his evidence, deeper than Jove buried the Titans. He relies on
the law of circumstantial evidence to establish his theory. The
rules for testing circumstantial evidence are these : I. There
must be sufficient number of facts favoring the theory to raise a
reasonable, a strong presumption in its favor, and they must point
very strongly in that direction, before a man is warranted in ad-
vancing and advocating the theory, or in demanding that others
accept and act on it. In this Huxley's evidence is very defi-
cient. There is not enough to raise a strong presumption, and
they do not point in the direction of his theory with sufficient
strength to give him any warrant in demanding that we accept
his theory, and change our science, morality and religion, and
base them on it. II. There must be no undeniable facts tliat
raise insuperable objections, or even strong presumi)tions, against
the theory. In this his evidence is utterly destroyed, for there
are multitudes of facts that place insuperable objections in the
way of the acceptance of his theory. They flatly contradict it.
III. There must not be, as a necessary or logical part of the theory,
when logically developed and fairly carried out, tiie absurd or false,
either as a part of the theory, or as a necessary deduction from it.
In this Huxley's theory is fatally defective. When stated fully and
consistently, also when logically carried out, it necessarily involves
the absurd, the contradictory and the false. IV. The conclusion
must be based on positive testimony and not on supposition. Sup-
position must" not be used as fact, or as a basis for the conclusion,
for such supposition may be false. V. The conclusion or theory
to be established must be the only possible one that will explain
or account for the facts. If there be one or more other theories
that will account for the facts, the theory is worthless, for the
facts admit of other explanations that may be true. VI. The
theory must not be elaborated or expended in its enunciation be-
yond what is ji fair and necessary deduction from the facts on
which it is basedl VII. The theory must not be expanded in ap-
]dication beyond what it logically covers, or beyond that to which
i't is logically and properly applicable. If we admit all that
Huxley presents in his lectures to be facts, he makes no attempt
to show that evolution alone will account for them. Nor does he
make any attempt to show that other theories will not account
for them. Nay, more, he scarcely makes an attempt to show that
evolution will account for them, and this slight assumption is a
failure.

APPENDIX. 433

He makes no attonipt to t-liow that the creation theory will
not account for the facts he cites. He merel}' claims, or as-
sumes the possibility that evolution produced them. We claim
that the creation theory will account for them, that it will ac-
count for them far better than he claims the evolution theory
can. We claim that the creation theory alone will account for
them. We have urged over one hundred utterly insuperable
objections to the evolution theory. We have reasons almost in-
numerable and unanswerable, that the creation theory is the
only possible theory, the true theory, and the only theory reason
tvili accept. Reasl)n alone can settle this question of the origin
aiid cause of existences and phenomena. Physical science can
only place before us the phenomena and their characteristics,
but it is utterly impotent to settle the question of their efficient
and final causes, or Avhat produced them, and for what end
were they produced. Huxley's failure and his course proves
this. He cited certain facts, as he claimed. But he did not
present a single scientific fact, or particle of testimony, as to
what produced the facts. He, as an act of reason, or metaphys-
ics, inferred that they were evolved. This is a practical admis-
sion that science can not settle this question and that reason
alone can do it. Reason declares that intelligence alone could,
and did produce the plienomena, and for certain ends. Then
his theory is based on assumptions, and assumptions known to
be untrue. He assumed, without one particle of proof, and in
the face of all proof, and clear proof, that there were no spe-
cific differences between the four animals he used in his lec-
ture. He based his argument on such assumption, and, if he
does not assume it, his argument is worthless. There are differ-
ences of species wider than there are between the horse, the zebra,
the ass, and the gnu. We know that these will not hybridize
and perpetuate their kind. We know' that one was not evolved
out of the other. That there are no transitional or transmuta-
tional links or forms between them. There are far wider differ-
ences, and specific ditferences, between the animals he parades
before us. Hence, his demonstration is absolutely worthless,
for it is based on an assumption known to be j)a]pably and
utterly untrue. He exaggerates resemblances on which he bases
his theory, and he overlooks or ignores differences that com-
pletely overturn it. He overlooks the palpable fact that if re-
semblances suggest similarity of origin or kindred ()f species, so
do differences" suggest difference of origin and difference of
species. If more and .Htronger differences exist than resemb-
lances, they set to one side all deductions based on resemblances.
Also, if one impossible difference exists, it sets to one side all
resemblances, no matter how many. His reasoning ignores the
law of species entirely. Species are defined in four ways: 1st.
A species lies within the limits of variation. 2d. Progeny is
like the parent. 3d. Species lies within the limit of hybridiza-
tion. 4th. Species never passes the chasm of sterility. He ig-
nores these laws in his four animals. He overlooks the fact
that the same reasoning that proves sameness in species in these

434 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

cases, will, with far greater force, prove the horse, zebra, ass
and gnu to be one species, when we know they are not.

Again, his reasoning ignores the real and vital difference of
species. Similarity of structure does not prove sameness of
species, nor is structure the liighest standard in determining
species. The real distinction lies outside of observation. It is
in the life-power; that produces progeny like the parent, although
tlie germs of animals be in structure precisely alike. And the
same life-power or principle refuses to hybridize in different
.species, although the germs brought in contact are precisely
ill ike in structure. Here is where the real difference lies; hence
his similarity of structure in these four animals is utterly worth-
less. This real difference that lies outside of observation until
we see it in its results in the two cases mentioned, is ignored
in his illustration. Again, his reasoning is faulty in this. Pur-
sue the same course by fours up and down the scale of existence,
in all orders and species, and it would obliterate all species, all
families, all orders. The operation of such a process as he sets
forth, would destroy specific differences and all species. It
would also destroy all old species, and leave only an infinite
variety of new animals, not specifically different from each other.
Then, since he found absolutely no transitional forms, or evi-
dences of transmutations between these species, he has not
affected the chasm between species one particle. Our Quintius
Curtius has cast himself into the yawning chasm, and it still
stands as it did before his rash leap. He does not present one
particle of evidence of the evolution of one of these animals
out of the other. He does not adduce one particle of evidence
of transmutation of one into the other. He does not find one
transitional form or connecting link. He finds a ladder, with
four steps, wide apart, when he should have found an inclined
plane." He finds four animals specifically different on the four
steps. He does not find one particle of evidence that one of
these ever passed up onto the next step, or was transformed
into the animal on the next step.

He does not show that conditions produced or evolved one of
these animals, or that from which they descended, or produced
one of their characteristics. He makes no attempt to show that
struggle for life, and the conditions, the factors of evolution ac-
complished one of these results, or changed either animal or its
characteristics into that above it. Even if he had established
that these changes were produced, creation might have pro-
duced them, and he did not show thate evolution did or could.
Creation must have produced the animal varied, and the con-
ditions that varied it and controlled them. Then this vital part
of his demonstration is an utter failure. Then, it may be a small
matter, but it is worth noticing. His eocene orohippos figures
in his diagrams as large as the other three animals, with which
it is connected in the illustration. It was no larger than a fox.
How would it have looked to have placed jtist before an animal
as large as a horse, one as large as a fox, and then tell the audi-
ence one was the direct descendant of the other? The absurdity

APPENDIX. 435

of such a conceit is quietly ignored and concealed, by making
the diagrams of the same size. If a priest hpA done this he
could have wondered at the marvelous flexibility of diagrams!
Then his theory is vastly greater than his facts establish in regard
to these four animals, if we concede all he can claim. He claims
that one was evolved out of the other in an ascending scale. The
facts give it no support, but positively forbid such a supposition.
But now comes the most astounding part of this demonstration.
Admitting all he claimed in the case of these four animals, he
only proved evolution the case of four species. He then ex])ands,
without warrant, this meager conclusion over all the species of
that family. Then over all species, groups and orders, tlius de-
ducing from what establislied only the evolution of four species
out of each other, the evolution of the hundreds of thousands
of species of geologic an<i historic time. And next comes the
most marvelous part. Even when he has thus, without warrant,
and in violation of all reason, expanded his theory hundreds of
thousands of times beyond its proper limit, he has but covered
one issue in twenty, and that the least difficult. But he pro-
ceeds next to expand it over the entire twenty issues in the
problem, when nearly every one of them, singly, is inconceivably
more difficult than the one element he could only cover by ex-
panding hundreds of thousands of times his theory, that was not
sustained in a single feature by his f;;cts, but contradicted in toto
by them. Truly one can only stand by and admire the absolutely
infinite flexibility of a theory that can be stretched from so
small a compass, to cover an infinite number and magnitude of
so conflicting elements. And this is accounting for all existences
and phenomena, and the twenty elements of the prol)lem of ex-
istence and phenomena, as clearly as the Copernican system
acc(mnts for the facts of the position and motions of the plan-
etary and stellar systems! And this is demonstrating the
evolution hypothesis as clearly as the Copernican system is
established !

Then this vaunted demonstration only places before us the fact
that four animals of different species of the same order are in
the position of four steps of a pyramid. There is no more proof
of evolution than there would be to place before us the flail, the
threshing drag, the threshing machine of fifty years ago, and
one of our present harvesters and threshers. There is absolutely
no more proof that one was evolved out of the other, and, abo\ c
all, that it was evolved by unintelligent conditions, instead of
intelligence. There is the same necessity for intelligence in one
case thftt there is in the other, and infinitely higher need of in-
telligence, for an infinitely higher result of intelligence is placed
before us. He stiwted out to find an inclined plane, and found
a pyramid, up the steps of which the animals could not leap,
nor could conditions, unintelligent conditions, lift them. But
suppose he had found an inclined plane, instead of the steps of a
pyramid, there would be no proof that each portion of the plane
was evolved out of that below it. If, in our illustration of ilie
four machines, we were to place a sufficient number of machines

436 THE probIjEM of problems.

between the four, to reduce the difFerences to an infinitesimal
quantity, so that no one coukl point out any distinction between
any two consecutive machines, would it prove that one was evolved
out of the other, and especially by unintelligent conditions?
And if he had established that each part of the plane was
evolved out of that below it, it does not do away with intelli-
gence, or the necessity for intelligence to originate, plan and
control the evolution. Huxley found only the ascending steps
of a pyramid, and nature does not leap. This is practically ad-
mitted, and he assumes that there must have been intermediate
forms that reduced the ascent into an inclined plane. Of this
he offered no proof, and all the facts contradict it, but had he
found such forms, we still object, nature does not slide any more
than it leaps. And if it did, whence came the materials of the
pyramid or plane, and the power in nature that slides or leaps,
and what co-ordinated these materials and this power in this won-
derful pyramid or plane? Does it remove the necessity for
intelligence, to constitute, control and sustain nature in its
operations, to show what wonderful things nature can do, and to
increase their wonder?

The writer has seen envelopes made by hand. A score of pro-
cesses were gone through by a score of persons. No one would
deny that intelligence produced each process and its results.
Lately he saw a machine perform the work. A man laid on a
table a pile of sheets. The machine picked them ofl', one by one,
and deposited envelopes in piles of twenty-five each, finished en-
velopes. All that the operator did was to lay down the sheets
and pick up the packages. Did that prove that intelligence had
nothing to do with the operation, and that blind, irrational mat-
ter and force evolved the machine, and blind, irrational matter
and force was all that had any thing to do with its operation ?
On the contrary, was it not the highest evidence that intelligence
must have devised the machine, and must control its operations ?
Were not the wonderful results produced by the machine, so much
the greater evidence that intelligence must have invented and
constructed it ? And does not increase of the wonderful nature
of the results, increase the evidence that intelligence must have
invented and constructed it, in the same ratio? Then let Huxley
establish that nature can do an infinite fold more than we now
believe, and he has only increased the necessity for intelligence
to constitute nature, and the evidence that intelligence consti-
tuted nature. These are two minor thoughts that deserve notice.
In Huxley's cases of evolution, there was a retrogression in pass-
ing from the animal with several toes to the animal with all
united. It was an evolving of the lower from the higher. When
he announced his theory in his first lecture, he confessed that it
absolutely required long time. When reminded in a note that
astronomy and other sciences absolutely refused to grant so long
a time, he, in his last lecture, attempted to waive this to one side by
bluster. He must either disprove the limit set by these sciences,
or give up evolution, or bring evolution within greatly shorter
time, which utterly destroys it.

APPENDIX. 437

Let us now take the two conflicting theories, evolution out of
blind, irrational niatter and force, and by blind, irrational matter
and force, and the theory of the creation of all exii^tences and
phenomena by Ab.solute Reason, in accordance with perfect law
of perfect reason, and test them by applying them to the solu-
tion of the twenty elements of the problem, as we have enumer-
ated them : I. How came matter and force into being. Evolu-
tion either says they are self-existent, and contradicts reason,
wliich says they can not be self-existent, but are subordinate
agents, subordinate to mind, created articles, the creations of
mind ; or it confesses that such an assumption is absurd by as-
cribing them to an Unknown Power, and, in so doing, contra-
dicts all inductive philosophy, which declares that from the
nature and characteristics of wliat is produced by the Power,
we can know the nature and characteristics of the Power. The
theory of creation ascribes the origin of matter and force to rea-
son, and thus accords with the principles of true inductive phi-
losophy, which so declares, from the characteristics of matter
and force. II. The essential properties of matter and force,
whence came they ? III. Their co-ordination into a system in
accordance with law, whence came it? IV. The elementary
substances of matter, and their peculiar characteristics, whence
came they ? V. Their co-ordination into a system in accordance
Avith law, whence came 'it? VI. Chemical afiinity and actions,
and their laws, so varied and wonderful, whence came they ?
VII. Their co-ordination into a system in accordance with law,
whence came it? VIII. Crystallization and its forms and laws,
whence came they? IX. The co-ordination of all these inorganic
processes, to nature, and to each other, in accordance with law,
whence came it? X. The planetary and stellar worlds and sys-
tems, with their masses, forms, orbits, distances, velocities and all
relations, all co-ordinated in accordance with mathematical law,
realizing the most exalted ideas of reason, whence came they?

Evolution says that blind, irrational matter and force evolved all
this, when it is an involution, or a depositing in matter and force,
what is not in them, and it violates all reason when it claims that
blind matterand force realized these highest ideasand actsof reason.
Or it ascribes them to what it calls an Unknown Power, when such
results reveal the power, and make it known to be intelligence, as
^'early as we know the sun to be the source of light. The theory of
creation by intelligence ascribes all this to Absolute Reason, their
only conceiveable ground, and in obedience to every principle of in-
ductive reasoning, which declares that reason alone realized these
exalted ideas of reason in accordance with which nature is consti-
tuted. XI. Whence came that wonderful phenomenon we call
vital force in the vegetable, or vegetable life ? If it be replied
that it is the one physical force modified by the organism of the
vegetable, we reply that it is now clearly established that the or-
ganism is the result of the action of the vital force on matter.
XII. Whence came the organism in which the vital force is dis-
played— the cell, germ, seed or plant? It is now usual to deny
that there is a chasm between inorganic matter and physical force,

438 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS,

and organic life and organisms. We give the following differences
between inorganic matter, physical force, chemical action and
crystallization on one side of the chasm, and vital force and vege-
table organisms on the other. Vital force takes lifeless mineral
ingredients and transforms them into living matter. Crystals, the
highest inorganic products, are mere statical aggregates. Living
organisms, vegetables, are dynamical products. Crystals can be
decomposed and reunited any number of times. Decompose the
vegetable organism; and it is destroyed for ever. Crystals ,init
heat in formation. Vegetable organisms absorb heat. Inorganic
molecules have immobility. Vegetables have motion in a certain
sense.

Inorganic bodies are built up from without by accretion. Vege-
table substances from within by assimilation. Inorganic bodies
have not the power of reproduction or self-multiplication. Vege-
table bodies have. Chemical action is destructive of vital force
and vegetable organisms, when it conquers vital force. It tears
down and destroys the organism when dominant. Vital force con-
structs and builds up only by conquering and subordinating
chemical action to its uses. These two forces are antagonistic.
It is not a difference of degree, or of modification, but of nature.
They can not be correlated. There is a chasm here that can not
be bridged over. Scientists admit that they do not know what
force is, nor what life is especially. How can they declare that they
can be correlated ? Evolution is dumb before this chasm. Hux-
ley, when writing for the Encyclopoedia Britannica, as a scientific
author for a work that would stand for ages, makes these state-
ments : I. When the earth was in the early formative, condition
revealed by science, life could not have been on it or in its ele-
ments. II. There is a chasm between the not living and the liv-
ing, that must be bridged over, or evolution is impossible. III. We
have no knowledge that it is bridged over or ever has been. IV.
It is contrary to all experience, knowledge, and analogies of nature
to suppose it ever has been bridged. V. Then spontaneous gene-
ration of life must have occurred, or evolution is utterly impossible.
VI. We have no experience or knowledge of any kind that spon-
taneous generation ever did occur. VII. It is against all experi-
ence and knowledge and analogies of nature to suppose that spon-
taneous generation ever did occur. VIII. At present we are
inexorably shut up to the conclusion that a supernatural act in-
troduced life, that co-ordinates matter in the bioplast, the initial
point and origin of all living organisms. In his demonstration,
speaking as a special pleader for evolution, he ignores these state-
ments he made as an author in science, and assumes the very
opposite. We will accept Huxley, the author of science, and
reject Huxley when pettifogging as a special pleader for a hobby.
Darwin practically confesses that there is this chasm between the
not living and the living, and that he can not bridge it by com-
mencing his theory with life inbreathed into primordial germs by
a Creator. He can not assume life and germs as a starting point
without basing them on the immovable rock of creation by intel-
ligence. After he has used an intelligent Creator to launch his

APPENDIX. 439

ship he tries to discard it, but he can not. He needs it as a pro"
peliing power, a moving energy every moment, and to push it off
of shoals a score of times afterwards. Evolutionists like Darwin
use the idea of a Creator as the clown claimed he used the ladder
when he boasted that he could set it up in open air, climb to the
top of it, and draw it up after him ! They use the idea of a Crea-
tor to climb tip on to a clear starting point, and then undertake to
draw it up after them, and to deny using it, and ridicule all idea
of its ever being used. They can not use the ladder and then
cheat us out of what they did, by calling it an Unknown Power,
as does Huxley. It is stealing the ladder of creation, and trying
to deceive its owners by calling it by a false name. The products
of the power in which they try to hide prove it to be intelligence.
Sometimes evoltitionists try to deny that there is this chasm, or
to bridge it by such nondescript substances as protaplasm or bathy-
bius, Huxley once claimed that there was on the deep-sea bed
a substance that was the link between inorganic and organic mat-
ter. He called it bathybius. Otliers called the nondescript par-
ticles monera. Haeckel builds his evolution of life on it. So does
Strauss. Late deep-sea dredgings prove that it is clearly inorganic,
and is no such substance as has been claimed. In a late number
of the Americati Journal of Applied Science, and but a short time
before this lecture, Huxley admitted that the existence of any
such substance as he once claimed and called bathybius had been
disproved. In this lecture he assumes it as a reality, and as the
link between inorganic and organic matter. As a special pleader
for a hobby, he assumes what he confessed as a scientist had no
existence, and built his theory on it. The theory of creation ac-
cepts the teachings of science, that life was created by intelligence
and builds up the vegetable cell, germ, or seed, for it always taught
that such was the case.

Xin. Animal life, with locomotion, sensation, power of volun-
tary action, instinct and understanding, whence came it? XI V.
The animal cell, or germ, or organism, whence came it? Evolu-
tionists seem to be in a dilemma here, from which they can see
no escape. Some times they call: our attention to existences that
they claim are links between animals and vegetables, and they
seem ready to claim that animal life is evolved out of vegetable,
or to confound the two at a certain connecting point. Then,
again, our attention is called to such substance as bathj^bius
that is claimed to be a connecting link between animal and inor-
ganic matter. In both cases insuperable objections beset them.
Microscopy has placed an impassable chasm between animal and
vegetable life and organisms. They differ in cellular structure.
What will nourish vegetable life and cell, will destroy animal
life and cell. What will nourish animal life and cell, will de-
stroy vegetable life and cell. The difference is one of nature, and
is a vital one, and can not be bridged over. Vegetables have
not sensation ; have not voluntary motion as animals have. Then
there lies between vegetable and animal life these irreconcihible dif-
ferences. Between inorganic matter and physical force, and animal
life and organisms, there lies all the difference there is between

440 THE PKOBLEM OF ITvOBLEMS.

vegetable life and organisms, and inorganic matter and physical
force ; and in addition to that, all the difference there is betAveen
vegetable and animal life and organisms. As it is often assumed
that there is no difference between inorganic and organic m.atter,
at what is assumed as the connecting point, or between life and
physical force, we wdll state other facts. The name now given to
the most ininute and lowest disj^lays of life and its organism, the
initial point and minutest unit of life is bioplasm. It consists of
pabulum or nutrient matter, germinal matter, or matter in
which formative life is active and present, and this life and ger-
minal matter are called the cell, and the life the bioplast ; and
also formed matter, or matter that has been used by the bioplast
and rejected. The center of the cell may be called the bioplast.
It takes inorganic or formed matter, and changes it from not
living to living matter, then rejects it as life passes out of it, and
changes it into formed matter. Bioplasts always come from bio-
plasts. They have the power of self-subdivision and self-movement.
In self-subdivision each bioplast becomes a new bioplast. When
these bioplasts are dead they can not be resurrected. Chemistry
can not produce the work of the bioplast nor explain. It is antag-
onistic to it and destroys it, unless the life in the bioplast con-
quers and subordinates it. Bioplast comes from bioplast alone.
This teaching the latest and best establis'.ied results of scientific
research show structure is the result of life-powder, and difference
of structure the proditct of difference in life-power. Huxley
and all evolutionists claim that structure modifies force and pro-
duces life, or life is the product of structure, and that difference
of structure produces difierence in life. In this, evolution posi-
tively contradicts the fundamental principle of physiology, and
as this is a fundamental idea, the basis idea of evolution, it is
utterly false — must of necessity be so. Let any one carefully fol-
low this thought, and it overturns all idea of evolution from mere
matter and force. Then life was created and implanted in. the
matter of the bioplast, that thus became living matter, by the
Creator, and not by chemical action or physical force.

XV. Tlien whence came instinct, that often works out stich
wonderful results of reason? Also, understanding and volition to
a certain extent in animals? Evolution can not answer, except to
assume that it is physical force modified by the animal organism.
This, reason utterly refuses to believe. Creation says it was im-
planted by intelligence. XVI. Whence came the co-ordination
of the vegetable organism and life Avith each other, and the co-or-
dination of the animal organism and life with each other, and all
four of these with each other, and to all the rest of natnre, and
nature with each and all of them? Evolution can only say it
Avas evolved outof Avhat did not contain it. In it are realized the
most exalted ideas of reason, and creation says they were realized
by reason. XVII. Then whence came the orders, groups, fami-
lies, species and varieties of animals and vegetables? Tliis is all
evolution can make any shoAV of accounting for, and here it
utterly fails. Its theory of difference of life being caused by
difference of structure, is contradicted by science, which teaches

APPENDIX. 441

that difference of structure is occasioned by difference of life.
All bioplasm of animals is precisely alike at first. But as the life
begins to act in evolution, differences begin to appear between
the four great orders of animals, in the first appearances of their
germs. Then difference of species appear, then of varieties, tluis
proving that the real difference is in the life, and not in the struct-
ure ; nor is it caused by the structure. Each bioplast, under the
action of this life, builds up the animal from whence it was de-
rived. There is co-ordination, prevision and provision back of
the commencement of such process, Avhich had their origin in in-
telligence. This radical difference in the starting of develop-
ment, and in the life back of it, forbids all idea of evolution.
Evolution fails to account for this difference in life, the real
difference, and for the co-ordination, prevision, law, and plan.
Creation says all this had its origin in intelligence.

XVIII. Whence came man's wonderful bodily organism, so
wonderful and so different in essential particulars from those of
animals; and his brain so much. larger, and his specific character-
istics so Avonderful and so much above animals? An eminent
physiologist enumerates four hundred of these specific differences.
Here evolution utterly fails. There is a chasm between num and
the most man like ape no evolution can bridge. There are not
almost innumerable intermediate links, such as evolution, by
slight differences, requires. There are absolutely no traces of any
such. The oldest fossil remains of man prove him to be just what
he is now. When we recollect the millions of remains of animals
easily destroyed, that have been preserved through geologig catastro-
phes, and that man is the latest and last of the varieties of animal
life, and that he has not been subject to any such violent catas-
trophes; and when we remember hoAV easily and how certainly his
powerful skeleton with its large bones must have been preserved,
and find no traces of these intermediate links with equally pow-
erful skeletons, and reflect what millions there must have been on
the earth, we can only conclude that there are no such remains
because there are no such links.

XIX. Man's rational, moral and religious nature, and its cath-
olic ideas and results, whence came they? Here evolution stands
dumb. Wallace and Huxley admit they can not explain this.
If it be claimed that life can be correlated with physical force,
and is physical force modified by the organization in which it is
manifested, we appeal to these facts. Tyndall, Bastian and Spen-
cer admit it can not be done. Then we ask, if physical force be
correlated with life and thought, which are but physical force,
what knows the correlation ? Does physical force know the cor-
relation of itself with itself ? Life-force or power has conscious-
3iess, spontaneity, rationality, knowledge and Abolition. Physical
force has not a suggestion of either. Life-power controls all
forces. It is conscious that it is different from Ibrce. It is re-
sponsible, and possesses moral character, and so do its acts. All
tins is lacking in physical force. In the displays of life-power
tlie same act differs in character on account of motive. This is
not true of force. Spirit, by intuition, knows and judges the

442 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

character of its own acts. We give no character to an act of
spirit until we pass back to the motive that prompted it. Mind
and force are separated by the characteristic of consciousness,
and by every act of mind in consciousness. Life is not force, but
an intelligent, conscious moral power. Life is independent of
force in its origin. Never evolved by force or out of it. Force
is mechanical. Life is a living power. Then all talk of correlat-
ing life, especially rational life, with force, is as gross a contradic-
tion of all true science and sense as can be conceived.

XX. Then the immeasurable difference there is between man
and animals in mind, or the displays of life-force, if we use the
phraseology of the evolutionist. Let us array these carefully be-
fore us, that we may clearly apprehend what evolution has to
bridge over, to trace man's origin back to animals. 1st. Man has
a conscience. Animals have none. 2d. jMan has a moral nature.
Animals have none in any sense. 3d. Man has a religious na-
ture. Animals have none. 4th. Man has elaborate and exalted
systems of religion and religious ideas. Animals have none. 5th.
Man has the idea of future life and wonderful anticipations and
s|)eculations concerning it. Animals have none. 6th. Man has
responsibility and accountability, and a sense of responsibility and
accountability to a higher power, and of reward and punishment.
Animals have none. 7th. 3Lan has remoi-se for evil acts, and ap-
proval of conscience for those that he calls good. Animals make
no such distinctions in acts, and have neither remorse nor ap-
proval. 8th. Man divides acts into voluntary and involuntary,
and the latter into right and wrong. He always inquires into the
nature of acts and things, and divides them into the categories of
good and evil, true or false. Animals have not a particle of this
in thought or act. 9th. Man always inquires into the cause or
source of things, and their nature. Animals never do. They
have no faculty impelling them to do so. 10th. Man reasons on
his reasonings. Animals never do. 11th. Man has ideas of uni-
versal, rational principles, universal truths, in mathematics, logic,
ethics, science and art. Animals never have. 12th. Man reasons
on his reasonings by means of these universal truths and build up
vast systems of reasoning. Animals never do. loth. Animals, as
individuals, do not accumulate a vast systeni of experience and
thought. Man, as an individual, always does. 14th. Man, as a
race, has accumulated the experience of generations in science,
art, knowledge and all departments of life and thought. Ani-
mals never have. 15th. Men have built up vast sy.stems of relig-
ion ; always have. Animals never have. 16th. ]Men have built
up vast systems of ethics, art, science and government. Animals
never have. 17th, Man acts rationally and morally, from rational
and moral nature and motive. Animals necessarily and instinct-
ively. 18th. Man has free volition, a will in liberty. Animals
have not. 19th. Man has to experiment, learn, discover; and he
makes mistakes. Animals make no mistakes. 20th. Man makes
sublime discoveries and grand inventions. Animals make none.
21st. Man, as an individual, progresses, improves. Animals do
not. 22d, Man, as a race, imj)roves, progresses, and is susceptibla

APPENDIX. 443

of endless progress. Animals are as they were at first, and are
not susceptible of progress. 23d. Man invents and uses imple-
ments and machines ; has to do so to accomplish his purposes.
Animals use no implements ; need none to accomplish their ends.
24th. Man, as an individual, spontaneously progresses. Animals
do not. 25th. Man, as a race, spontaneously progresses. Ani-
mals do not. 26th. Man retrogresses rationally and morally, and
in life, unless he accepts the true and good and practices them.
Animals are liable to no such retrogression. 27th. The above
facts concerning man prove that he is on probation. Animals are
not. 28th. Man is a source of development and progress to others
and those beneath him. Animals are not. 29th. Man has the
noble element of rational love, and the domestic feelings, and the
family. Animals have not. 30th. Man has aspirations for the
good, true and beautiful, and for progress and advancement. An-
imals have none. 31st. Man's highest and true good is in self-
denial and self-sacrifice for others. Animals are selfish, and self-
preservation and gratification their supreme law and end. 32d.
Man has produced the wise, the good, the learned, the great, the
patriot, the philanthropist, the martyr. All this is foreign to and
in direct opposition to brute nature. 33d. Man's real end is
achieved by conquering nature, and rendering it subject to him-
self, and in conquest of self and his own nature. The end of the
brute is accomplished in servile obedience to nature at large and
its own nature.

Man has all these characteristics, and they are continually ex-
panding in activity and power. There is not a trace of them in
the brute. The most persistent efibrt of man's intelligence can not
make the animal nature take on one of these characteristics or show
a semblance of them. The animal can not be touched by them.
Then, to talk of unintelligent physical conditions developing out of
the animal what the highest efforts of man's reason can not touch
or excite a trace of, is absurd. Evolution, however, asserts that all
these noble qualities of man's rational, moral and religious na-
ture have been evolved by the operations of blind, irrational na-
ture, on the nature of the brute. The theory of creation says
that Infinite Wisdom created man a Spirit, like himself in nature,
and made him in the mental and moral likeness of the Infinite
Creator. XXI. Lastly, and to this we call special attention, as
the question of all questions in the problem. The co-ordination,
arrangement, adjustment, adaptation, order, method, system, law,
])lan, design, purpose, prevision, provision, alternativity and
clioice, the realization of these most exalted and abstract idens
of rea.son, and those of mathematics — beauty, harmony and util-
ity— that are realized in each of the twenty elements of the prob-
lem mentioned, whence came they? Evolution says, out of
blind, irrational matter and force, or out of an Unknown Power.
Reason says that it is an insult to reason to suggest that they
were evolved by force and matter. It declares that the Power
producing them is Reason, and must be known to be Reason. It
declares that Reason realized these ideas and constructed the
Universe in accordance with them in such realization.

444 THE PROBJ.EM OF PROBLEMS.

Such are the elements of the problem. Evolution utterly fails
to account for them. They pronounce evolution an absurdity.
Creation by reason, in accordance Avith the highest law of reason,
alone can solve either of these elements of the problem, or the
entire problem. They demonstrate creation by reason, and point
to reason as the source of all existence and phenomena, as clearly
as thought has its origin in mind. Then we suggest that the
apostles of evolution — I. State the problem fully and fairly,
especially these disputed elements. II. That they state fairly
and fully the conflicting theory, in its full strength. III. Thnt
they show by a fair application of the conflicting theory to each
of these twenty elements of the problem that it fails to solve
them. IV. That they establish the data on which they base evo-
lution. Then shoAv that the theory is a logical deduction from
them, being careful not to expand it beyond what is Avarranted
by the data; and, above all, that they beware of stretching the
theory in application, and applying it to things Avith AA'hich it
has no connection. Huxley failed, utterly failed, in every partic-
ular of such work. His demonstration Avas as total a failure as
ever Avas made in human effort. Let each believer of the theory
of creation by intelligence notice particularly what the eA'olution-
ist must do to solve the problem he has undertaken, as Ave have
explained it above, and try all his speculations by such a test, and
they will vanish like mists before the morning sun.

Review of Carpenter^ s Fallacies of Testimony.

The positions taken by tlie skeptic in regard to the New Testa-
ment haA'e been A^arious and almost infinite in variety. It has
been asserted that Ave haA'e no e\'idence that such a person as
Jesus, or such persons as his apostles, ever lived, and no evidence
that any of the events of the Ncav Testament history ever occur-
red. These books were fabricated hundreds of years after the
age in Avhich these events are declared to have transpired. Or
that the history is a fabrication of men of later ages, based on
traditions and exaggerated legends of Avhat Jesus and his apostles
said and did. Or that it is an exaggeration and expansion in la-
ter ages of brief simple writings of the apostolic age. Or that
the history is an exaggeration of the life and sayings of .Jesus,
made by his enthusiastic fanatical apostles some years after his
death. Or they are intentional exaggerations and fictions, woven
j'.round the real history of Jesus by his apostles. Or they are rec-
ords of a mythical story that grew up around the career of Jesus
in the course of perhaps a hundred years after his death. The
searching criticism to Avhicli the books of the New Testament
have been subjected has developed so much testimony to their auth-
enticity and genuineness, and their truthfulness, that the skeptic
has found he must either reject all the history of the Avorld that
is older than A. D. 1000, or accept the Ncav Testament on the
s.ime grounds as he does all other literature older than that date.
Hence all candid and well-informed skeptics accept the Ncav Tes-
tament as substantially authentic. 2;enuine and truthful. This

APPENDIX. 445

they are compelTed to do on accouni; of the imaflfected air of can-
do.-, truthfulness and life-like narration that characterizes the his-
tory, tlie definiteness and particularness of detail — the undesigned
:ind natural coincidences perfectly harmonizing with the customs,
literature, persons, places and contemporaneous history of the
apostolic aire.

Tlien there is contemporaneous history of the succeeding genera-
tion. Then the candid skeptic has either to reject all literature
as old as these books, or accept them. In the March No. of the
i 'opular Science Monthly is a very shrewdly wjitten article by Dr.
Carpenter, that states the position of such persons at the present
time. They are willing to accept the ordinary and the natural in
t lese writings, but the miraculous and supernatural they reject.
But we can not do this, if we would. The supernatural in the
New Testament, is not a foreign element foisted into the natural,
that should cast out, nor a minor element that can be rejected and
do no violence, or little violence to the natural. It it the basic
idea of the entire book, in its history, doctrine, law% and rule of
lite. It is on it that the New Testament bases its claim to l-e
accepted by men. Eeject the supernatural, and the rest will
crumble away in our grasp as surely as will the corpse after the
spirit has been driven out by violence. Then such an attempt in>
peaches the honesty of Jesus and his apostles. People believed
Christ and his apostles wrought miracles. They never undeceived
them but claimed that they did. They based their claims to be
accepted as teachers, the claims of their doctrine, and the author-
ity of this doctrine and themselves on this claim. Christ could
not have had the influence over the people to lead them to believe
that he wrought such miracles as he claimed to Avork, unless he
really performed them. The actual performance of the miracles
is the only rational cause of the belief. People, especially hostile,
•skeptical people, could not have been deceived in regard to his
miracles. They cotild have undeceived themselves. His enemies
would have exposed him. Then Jesus himself is the greatest of
all miracles. His character, life, and teachings, are the miracle to
be explained. They were utterly unselfish and purely benevolent,
perfect in love and self-sacrifice. He was free from all prejudice,
and was as broad as humanity in all things. He was entirely
unambitious in all directions. He was self-suflicient in teachings
and life. His teachings were universal trtiths, universal and
eternally applicable principles, susceptible of universal and eter-
nal application. His life and teachings were perfect and complete,
and without the blemishes of all other teachers. His lack of
learning of acquaintance with the world, render this the miracle
of the New Testament. It renders miracles perfectly consonant
with his character. Enthusiasm or fanaticism never produced
such a character. And he "vvas absolutely free from either. Love
of consistency did not impel him to allow the people to attach
miracles to his acts. For he was perfectly honest and truthful,
and no flaw can be found in his life and teachings. Then when
such a character allows miracles to be attributed to him, and

446 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

claims to work them, and bases his claims on them, he certainly
wrought them.

AV^e can not account for the acceptance of the teachings of Jesus
and his apostles except on this ground. Men accepted their
teaching, before whom and among whom these miracles were
claimed to be wrought. They changed their lives and conduct in
accepting it. They had no earthly motive for doing so All such
motives were against their doing so. They endured persecution
and death for what they must have known to be false, unless it
was true. Gibbon's four reasons for the acceptance of the religion
of Jesus by such persons, concede nearly the whole ground. The
extraordinary zeal of which he speaks could not have existed, un-
less these persons knew that what they claimed to have seen really
transpired. Their doctrine of future life was based on one of
these miracles they claimed they witnessed. It would have had
no influence on them unless they knew that the miracle really
transpired and demonstrated its reality. Their pure and austere
morality, which he concedes, forbids their being deceivers, and
they were unless they witnessed these events. The growth of the
Christian republic was impossible unless the builders and the ones
they converted, knew the facts on which it rested to be real, and
they must have known it if they were false. Then we can not
reject the supernatural without destroying the character of Jesus
and his apostles, and utterly destroying the history and doctrine
of the New Testament, and rendering utterly incredible the early
history of the church and early Christians, which skeptics them-
selves admit to be true.

We have, so far, based what we have said on the concession of
the skeptic, that the New Testament is authentic, genuine, and
truthful, at least substantially so. Carpenter seems to concede this,
for he says the argument now is, " Granting that the narrators
wrote what they saw, or believed they saw, etc," the argument,
would not assume that form unless the narrations be authentic
and genuine. Such a concession would not be made by him unless
it were true. He concedes, then, the authenticity and genuineness
of these writings. He does not state, however, the issue. He does
not state it correctly. He says, " Granting that the writers nar-
rate what they saw, or believed they had seen, or had heard from
witnesses that they had reason to regard as trustworthy as them-
selves, is their belief a sufficient basis for our belief?'' Now I pro-
test that this is not the issue at all. The narrators do not present
their belief as a basis for our belief. They say " We have not fol-
lowed cunningly devised fables, but were eye-witnesses of what we
loll you." " We saw with our eyes, heard with our ears, and
handled with our hands, what we tell you." The issue is this:
Granting that we have their testimony, is their testimony a suffi-
cient basis for our belief? Must not we accept their testimony
on the same grounds that we accept any other, and all other testi-
mony? Must not we reject any and all other testimony, on the same
grounds we reject this? Although Carpenter seems to concede
that we have their testimony, yet we will briefly recapitulate why
we believe we have their testimony, as they delivered it. Why

APPENDIX. 447

we believe that the apostles and companions of Jesus and his
apostles wrote the testimony we have now, or why we accept these
books as authentic and genuine.

These facts will be conceded by all intelligent, candid skeptics :
There was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, who lived during
the reign of Augustus and Tiberius, and suffered death under
Tiberius. There were such men as James, John, Peter, Matthew,
etc., who were his companions and followers, who preached what
they said Jesus did and taught, and made disciples of Jesus of
thousands of Jews and Gentiles, and founded churches, and suf-
fered martyrdom and death for so doing. There was such a per-
son as Saul or Paul of Tarsus, who preached, as he claimed, the
teachings of Jesus, and made many converts, and established
many churches, and suffered death under Nero. There were in
the Roman Empire, in Nero's reign, scores, and doubtless hundreds
of congregations of disciples of Jesus, made by these persons, em-
bracing many thousands of persons. They were in Asia, Africa,
Greece and Italy, and their islands, and in nearly all the cities of
these countries. Tacitus so declares, and that Nero persecuted
them. From Nero's day to that of Trojan, they suffered several
severe persecutions. At that time, A. D. 100, according to
Pliny's official report to the Roman Emperor, they had thou-
sands of churches, and hundredsj of thousands of members. In
A. D. 150 they had increased to millions, and had controversies with
Pagans and heretics and infidels, and with each other, and
made appeals to the Roman government against the persecutions
they endured. From A. D. 150 they were regarded with aj>-
prehension by the Roman government. In A. D. 250 they had
increased to many millions, and had thousands of churches all
over the empire, and were regarded with alarm by the govern-
ment.

The contemporaries of Jesus told their stories of his teachings
and his acts. There were traditions extant in the apostle's day,
from the death of Jesus to A. D. 100. There were the testimony
of living eye-witnesses or versions of them, and the witnesses were
living during this period. Paul wrote many letters concerning
the doctrine and acts of Jesus, of which authentic and genuine
copies are extant. Tliere were writings professing to be writen by
the apostles, or to record what they said in A. D. 100. Tliey were
concerning the acts and teaching of Jesus. There were extant from
A. D. 100 to A. D. 350, the ei)istles of Paul, and writings ])rofess-
ing to be written by the companions of Jesus, or what they said
Jesus taught or did. These writings were read, studied, used
as a rule of faith and practice by these Christians. They were
preached, commented upon, and written about until a vast litera-
ture grew upon them. They were used in controversies with
each other, with infidels, with Pagans, and in public appeals to
government, by these Christians. From A. D. 100 to 350 large
numbers of learned men abandoned Judaism, Paganism and
philosophy for these books. They preached them, taught tliem,
wrote on them, suffered persecution and martyrdom for them.
None will deny these statements.

448 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

Then these queries arise : Did these Christians have the same
books from A. D. 100 to A. D. 350 ? Did they have the same
books in all phices ? Were their books changed or corrupted dur-
ing this period? Have we the books they had? Had they
other books that we have not ? Have the books we have been
corrupted since their day ? Or are they authentic and genuine ?
We can trace the books we have now back to A. D. 850. We
have three old copies from different and independent sources,
reaching hack to that period, that are as we have them now.
This is conceded. Perhaps we may as well glance at the apocry-
phal books of the New Testament, of which the infidels talk so
much. We agree that there are apocryphal writings extant, and
that there were others lost. But we deny that, with perhaps one
or two exceptions, these can be traced back to A. D. 200. AVe deny
that even in their day, which was usually long after this period,
that they were accepted by any considerable portion of Christians
as authentic and genuine. We deny that they were ever ex-
cepted as sacred, or inspired, or canonical like our present books,
by any considerable portion of Christians. They were in no sense
rivals of our present books. We read of no great controversies
over these or any such books, as there would have been
had there been such books, from A. D. 100 to 200. There were
no forgeries of books during this period, for we read of no contro-
versies, such as such acts must have occasioned. Our present
books were not written from A. D. 100 to 200, or we would have,
in the literature of the church, recards of the controversies such
acts would have occasioned.

The writings quoted and appealed to, then, were accepted with-
out question, and without rivals. Xo mention is made of rivals.
Some of the quotations that infidels clamor over were of oral tra-
dition. Some of these were written by such men as Papias. Some
were quoted by writers on a few occasions. No one ever regard-
ed them as canonical, like the other books. The writers from A. D.
100 to A. D. 250 were men of pure morality, lofty and severe vir-
tue. They opposed all deceit. They condemned all attempts at
deceit. They would not have been guilty of it in their writings.
They had no motive for it. They died for their love of tiie
truth. They preached and practiced reverence for their sacred
books, and scrupulous care in keeping them pure. They were
learned and intelligent men, and some of them men of eminent
learning and ability. They had no motive for such corruption.
It would have exposed them to defeat by their enemies. Their
enemies never accused them of such an act. Their writings and
their books they have handed to us as canonical escaped such
corruption. Will the infidel prove that the apocryphal books he
prates so much about were written before A. D. 200? That they
were ever accepted as authentic and genuine by any portion of
Christians? That even when they were accepted as authentic
and genuine, that they were regarded as inspired and canonical?
That any books but those we have now were regarded as such ?
That there ever were any rivals to these books? Will he tell us
how many times apocryphal books are quoted by writers before

APPENDIX. 449

A. D. 200 ? How many times they are quoted as canonical ?
Will he tell us what evidence he has that there was any dispute
on this question? Will he tell us, if he refers to sentiments en-
tertained by certain writers, that it was right to deceive in relig-
ious matters, if any Christian writer before A. D. 200 entertained
such an idea? Will he show that any considerable body of
Christians before the year 200 did so? Will he sliow that' any
of our present books were corrupted by such persons before A. D.
250? Or at any time? Let us have proof, and not insinuations.

We reject these apocryphal books for these reasons, and refuse
for the same reasons to have them used as rivals of the canonical
books.- They are extravagant, foolish and puerile, like all fabu-
lous legends. They are just like the age in which we first find
them — the fourth and fifth centuries — when superstition and
such conceits abounded. They contain traces of the heresies and
controversies of that age. Their style is entirely different from
that of the canonical books. Their arguments and ideas are
foolish, extravagant conceits, like the works of that age (400 to
500). They attempt, just as mere human curiosity would, to patch
up the history of Jesus by telling of his childhood. There is a
chasm as wide as between the romances of Lippard and Bancroft's
history between them and the plain, simple, grand history of the
New Testament. They are not quoted or referred to by the writers
of the second and third centuries more than four or five times at
the most, and there is dispute whether these quotations refer to
apocryphal books. There is dishonesty in the way the infidel uses
these books, and the claimshe makes for them. He exaggerates, mis-
represents, and actually manufactures many of his so-called facts.

We will now present our reasons for believing that the New
Testament books are authentic and genuine. 1. We have, in the
Peshito-Syriac translation, a translation as nearly like our pre-
sent books as a translation can be like the original, and made, all
critics of note admit, early in the second century, and very prob-
ably in the latter part of the first, or, in other words, certainly
not more than twenty years after John, and probably during his
life. 2. We have, in the old Italic, Ethiopic and Coptic transla-
tions, translations bearing the same similarity, made during the
second century, or within one hundred years of John, and proba-
bly during the life of some who were cotemporary with him.
3. We have, in the Canon Muratori, a catalogue of the books of
the New Testament, with the exception of two torn off at the
beginning, and one or two minor omissions, just as we have them
now. All critics of note place this in the second century, and
about A. D. 170, or within seventy years of John. 4. We have
extant writings of Barnabas and Clement of Eome, cotempora-
ries of the apostles, Justyn and Ignatius, who were cotemporary
with John in early life, Iranceus, Origen, Tertullian and Clement
of Alexandria, who were of the next generation. Barnabas and
Clement quote from some of the present gospels. Justyn says
they were read in the churches. He does this in A. D. 140, or
fifty years after John, in a public memorial to the Roman gov-
ernment. Ignatius makes thousands of quotations ; Iranseus over

38

450 THE PROBLRM OF PROBLEMS.

seven thousaiicl. TertuUian quotes from every chapter of Mat-
thew, Mark and Luke, and nearly every chapter of John, and
from the rest of the New Testament in proportion. Our present
New Testament can be largely reproduced from his writings.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria quote so much that our pre-
sent New Testament, -with the exception of a small portion, can
be reproduced from their writings. 5. These writings were quoted
in controversies, public controversies between Christians, between
Christians and heretics, infidels and pagans. Quotations from our
present books were made in thousands of cases, and they were quoted
and referred to as existing books, known, read and used by Chris-
tians as sacred books, and a rule of faith. 6. They were quoted by
Justin, Origen and others, in the same way in public documents
addressed to the government. 7. In their writings these defend-
ers of Christianity have left their replies to those who assailed
it. In them they quote statements of heretics, infidels and pagans
of the existence of such books and of their contents, that prove
they were our present books. As these were quotations in public
controversy they must have been substantially correct. 8. Taci-
tus, Pliny, Lucian, and other pagan writers, have left testimony
that such people existed, that they had such books, and other
testimony corroborating the main features of these books. 9.
These books were read, studied, used as rule of life, and regarded
as sacred, commented on and discussed and written about, until
a vast literature grew upon them. They sustained a relation to
the life of millions of people that was peculiar and sacred. 10.
These writers abandoned paganism and philosophy for those books
and Christianity. They laid down their lives for their belief.
They endured loss of all things. They were of lofty and severe
morality, says Gibbon. They condemned all fraud and deceit.
They regarded these books as sacred. They enjoined as a most
sacred duty keeping them pure. They condemned, unqualified-
ly, all idea of corrupting them. They were men of learning and
ability. Some were men of eminent learning and ability. They
must have known whether these books were authentic and genu-
ine or not. They died for their belief of their authenticity and
genuineness. They were neither hypocrites nor deceivers, for
they had no motive for such conduct. All motive of that kind
was in the opposite direction. They were not ignorant or fools.
They knew what they affirmed, and for which they laid down
their lives. This gives these books a series of evidences no other
books have, and the highest kind of evidence.

11. This religion was founded, the events on which it was based,
claimed to have transpired in a most public manner, in a learned,
skeptical, hostile age. These books were accepted by learued
men in a learned, skeptical, hostile age — by men who must have
known that they were not what they claimed, if they were not,
and men sacrificed all advantages for them, gained no earthly ad-
vantage, and suffered death and persecution for them, under such
circumstances, and these men were neither fools nor fanatics, and
could not have been knaves, hypocrites or deceivers. 12.
Their books are our present books, for Lord Hails, Sir George

\

APPENDIX. 451

Dalryniple, reproduced all of our present New Testament, except
eleven paragraphs, from the writings of these men, writers from
the apostles' day to A, D. 250. 13. The undesigned coinci-
dences and incidental allusions to customs, events, persons, places,
etc., is in exact accordance with the age of the apostles. 14. There
are no traces of the events, places, customs, persons, etc., of the
later age to which infidelity ascribes them. No forger could have
secured the exact coincidence on the one hand, and avoid such
coincidences on the other. 15. There are no traces of the con-
troversies and heresis of the later ages to which infidelity assigns
them, as there are in the apocryphal books written in that age.
They were not written in that age, or the writers would have
placed in such books support to their opinions, as they did in
apocryphal books. They were written before such age, or in
the age of the ai^stles. 16. These books are written in Hellen-
istic dialect, Greek written by a Hebrew. At first the Hebrews
controlled the churches. They did in the apostles' day. Later,
the Greeks controlled the cluirches. The Greeks had fierce dis-
putes with the Hebrews in that later age. They despised tlie
Hebrews. They would not have received forgeries from the He-
brews. These books must have been written by Hebrews. They
were written -among and by Hebrews, and received by both He-
brew and Greek, during the first century, during the dominance
of the Hebrew.

17. Kenan and other intelligent, candid skeptics accept the au-
thenticity, genuineness and truthfulness of most of the Pauline
epistles, and of portions of other books. This they do because
they must accept these books, if they do others as old. If they
reject these books, they must all others as old. But if they ac-
cept this much, the connection is so vital and inseparable with
the rest that all must be accepted. No such separation can be
logically or reasonably made. 18. There is all the evidence, all
kinds of evidence, for these books, that there is for any other
books as old. There is other and far higher and stronger evidence
for these books, that there is not for other book.s. There is one
hundred fold as much evidence for the authenticity, genuineness
and truthfulness of this small volume, the New Testament, as
there is for all the profane literature, for all the literature of the
world as old. There is a thousand fold more evidence for this
book, than there is for any book as old, that the infidel accepts
unquestioned. There is not a book in the New Testament that
has not more evidence than any book as old, that the infidel ac-
cepts. Most of the books of the New Testnment have, each of
them separately, more evidence than all extant literature ac-
cepted by the infidel. 19. Subject the literature of the world,
aside from Christian literature, that claims to be older than A. D.
1000, to one hundredth part of the severity to which infidelity
subjects Christian literature, and there would not be a vestige of
it left. Subject all literature to the same severity, and we would
not have a book one hundred years old left, and a large portion
of subsequent literature, even of living authors, would be re
jeeted. We have two thousand MSS. of the New Testament.

452 THE PROBLEM OF PROBTiEMS.

Several copies are older than A. D. 1000. Of most books accepted
by infidels, as old, we have but a few, in most cases but ten or
twelve, and very rarely over a score. Not one of these is older
than A. D. 1000. But few older than A. D. 1400. We have more
MSS. of this one book than of all literature of the world that is
as old. We have several copies of the New Testament older than
any book accepted by the infidel. They are older, by six hundred
years, than any book he accepts, and a thousand years older than
some he accepts. Such are the facts. For these reasons I ac-
cept the New Testament as authentic and genuine. For these
reasons I believe I have the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude ; or the testimony of eye-
witnesses, and the record of the testimony of eye-wit nes.ses.

But it may be asked. Why do you believe their testimony ? Is
their testimony a suflicient foundation for your belief? It is for
these reasons. Every canon of evidence sustains their testimony, as
Greenleaf shows. These events were such as are clearly suscepti-
ble of proof They were open, public, and could have been ex-
posed if there had been fraud. They were in the presence of
shrewd, scrutinizing enemies. There could be no fraud or trick-
ery. There could be no mistake or delusion. They were of such
a nature that mistake or delusion was impossible. The testimony
is that of eye-witnesses. The witnesses were, in intelligence and
character, competent. They were not deceivers. Were not de-
ceived. They were not deceived into extravagance and fanatic-
ism and myths. Their morality in life and teachings is above
question. 'J'heir teachings and lives forbid the idea of deception.
Their suffering, persecution and martyrdom proves this. A man
ma.y, through self-interest, suffer persecution for testimony, but
never death, for he has no interest in such a case. Self-interest is
all in the opposite direction. A fanatic may die for a dogma, but
never for a fact or for his own testimony, when it is false. A false
witness never suffered martyrdom for his lie. His character and
all self-interest forbids it. The witnesses testified to the facts in
the same country, and among persons who must have known that
the events did not transpire, if such were the case, and began
such testimony right after the events. Thousands of these peo-
ple accepted it, and forsook all for such testimony, and suffered
persecution and death for what they must have known to be
false, if such were not the case. There was no reason for this,
and every reason that could induce fraud was directly against it.
Then these preachers claimed to work similar works all over the
Roman empire, in the same open and public manner. On such
a claim they converted thousands of eye-witnesses, of learned and
skeptical, in that learned and skeptical age, who, in opposition
to all interests, accepted persecution and martyrdom, in believing
their claim to perform such works openly in their presence.

Let me here emphasize a thought that is vital to this entire
discussion. The narratives of the New Testament have every
feature of a truthful history by eye-witnesses. The account is di-
rect, natural, life-like, and is so, not on account of the art of the
writer, which is apparent in every page, as is the case with a novel,

APPENDIX. 453

but because the writer writes what he saw as it transpired.
There is no attempt to excite wonder, or to astonish, or amaze,
or glorify the actor, but to tell the plain story. We are never
told of the personal appearance of Jesus, or of his attitudes and
gestures and manner, like the novelist, but just the unvarnished
tale of what he said and did. The story is as plain and life-like
as the tale of a child. No more perfect models of unadorned
narrations of facts ever were written. As you read you feel that
the writer saw just what he wrote. Histories of wonders and
apocryphal works differ in all respects from this. Extravagance,
exaggeration, desire to tell something wonderful, and to make
the story as wonderful as possible, appears in every sentence.
The narratives of the New Testament differ from stories of won-
ders as history does from the marvels of a haunted house or ghost
stories. This utter lack of all characteristics of such narratives,
this very perfection of historic narration, is the highest of evi-
dence that they are unvarnished, unadorned, unexagge rated
statements of facts as the narrators saw them, and that they saw
them just as they were, without extravagance or delusion.

Monumental institutions, baptism, the supper, the Lord's Day,
the name Christian, were established in commemoration of these
events. Were established at the time, in the place, and among
the persons where these events were said to have taken place.
Were in commemoration of events that these persons could not
have helped knowing to be false, unless they actually transpired.
Thousands of these accepted these institutions and died for these
lies, unless they were realities, when they must have known they
were lies, if they were not realities. Out of all this grew a
grand system of religion, that has done more for the world than
all else combined. It has reformed the wicked, the vile, and
lifted the debased and fallen. No system of truth can do more
than has been done by this system of falsehood and deception,
or of delusion and fanaticism, unless these facts be realities, un-
less this testimony be true. For these reasons do I accept the
testimony of the witnesses.

But there are miracles in the history. Well, what of it ?
They are impossible. If the objector is omniscient and knows
all there is in the universe, he can affirm they are impossible.
If there be a God, they are possible and probable, if there is
sufficient reason for such an act. It is no more impossible or im-
probable, than an act of creation or starting a course of evolution.
It is contrary to human experience, human experience of nature,
and is therefore improbable, so improbable that it can not be es-
tablished by testimony. It is assumed that the experience of
certain generations is the experience of all men, and their expe-
rience of nature is all nature. Then we present the testimony
of hundreds of persons of their experience of nature, or at least
of their experience. Then experience is presented to disprove
miracles and rejected in thier proof. Again, a lack of experience in
the objector is used as experience, and used to set aside experi-
ences, the very thing he claims must be the standard. There is a
four-fold defect in Hume's argument. 1. Lack of universal

454 THE PROBLEM OF TROBLEMS.

knowledge. This alone can give the experience necessary to
make the argument valid. 2. Lack of experience is used as* ex-
perience. 3. Testimony is relied on to establish what the objector
wants to establish, aud rejected when it conflicts with it. 4.
Testimony of a portion of the race as to their actual experience is
set to one side on account of the objector's lack of such experi-
ence. Then in regard to a miracle we ask: Is there in the uni-
verse power sufiicient to the act ? There is. Was there adequate
reason for the act ? There was. Was the act worthy of the
Power and the object for which it was done? It was. Was it
calculated to accomplish the end? It was. Practically, has it
done so? It has. These questions apply to the miracles of
Christianity.

But Carpenter practically admits that miracles are probable, or
possible rather, and under circumstances may be probable. The
reader is referred to chapter vii for answers to the rationalistic
arguments against miracles. There remains but one more ques-
tion to be answered. If you accept the miracles of Christianity,
why not accept the wonders of Paganism, Mohammedanism,
Catholicism, Mormonism,and all religions and delusions, and spirit-
ism, witchcraft, sorcery, and kindred delusions? Albert Barnes
says this is the real question in regard to miracles, and he wonders
that infidels have not pressed it more, and virtually confesses his
inability to meet it. Carpenter can say with Othello, " On that
hint I spoke." He asks why not accept these wonders as well as
the miracles of Christianity? If we reject the wonders, why not
reject the miracles of Christianity? We frankly reply, if they
have no more evidence than the wonders, reject them. But
because there are counterfeits, and many, is no argument that
we should reject all coin, and that there is no genuine currency.
Because the counterfeit has many of the features of the genuine,
is no reason why we should reject both, for that was the attempt
in counterfeiting, to give it all the features of the genuine. But
unless we can detect the differences, show^ features in the coun-
terfeit not in the genuine, and features in the genuine wanting
in t!ie counterfeit, we can not distinguish between them. Let us
first, then, expose certain fallacies in Carpenter's exposure of
fallacies, and then we will be ready to show wiiy we reject these
wonders, and do not, on the same grounds, reject the miracles.
Why we accept the miracles and do not the wonders.

The first is his citing the multitude of witnesses there are for
these wonders. A falsehood may have a thousand-fold more tes-
timony than a truth, and yet Carpenter wall accept the fact and
reject the falsehood ; and the number of witnesses is not the only
thing he would consider, or even the principal thing. The char-
acter of the act, and of the witnesses, wiU be taken into account.
A hundred men may testify that Washington was guilty of some
crime or folly, and we reject it because we know from his char-
acter that it can not be true. One man may testify to his doing
an act of opposite character and we accept it, because accordant
with what we know to be his character. So, also, the character
of system is to be taken into account. Again, he complains that

APPENDIX. 455

no scientific tests were applied to the miracles. No scientists
ever tested them. Scientific tests are not the tests they need.
Nor are great men or scientific men the best men to test them.
Tliey were out of their fiekl. They would be the poorest persons
to test them. The case of Wallace, Owens, Hare, Crookes, Tall-
mage, Edmonds, and a thousand others prove this. It is not
scientific men that have exposed spiritism. They have been as
easily duped as any class. Shrewd, practical men of common
sense have done it. If I were the Doctor, I would say as litrle
as possible, about that! Just such keen, skeptical, shrewd men
did test the miracles of the New Testament. His cases of visual
illusion do not apply, for not one of the miracles Avere of that
class. Then allowing the widest margin to visual illusion, it
could not affect materially such acts as these miracles. Consti-
tution and training could not materially affect such acts as these
miracles. The constitution of the keen, skeptical Jews, was in
opposition to accepting the miracles. The witnesses had no
mental expectancy. Mental expectancy was often in the oppo-
site direction, and always with the Jev;s.

The miracles were not at all of the same character as the won-
ders of spiritism, and the other Avonders he cites. Nor were the
witnesses such persons as the mediums, in an abnormal state of
mind or body, or both. Nor were the witnesses excited mental
expectants, like the circles of spiritists and other witnesses
he cites. The facts are not all visions and trances, and seen in
vision and trance. His reference to Swedenborg does not meet
the case. The events testified to Avere not like those testified to
by Crookes, nor were they performed under such circumstances,
favoring trickery or delusion. The Avitnesses Avere shreAvd, sensi-
ble men, and not scienthts^ like Crookes and Hare. The apostle.s
AA'ere not sensitives nor enthusiasts, nor Avere the facts they testi-
fied to at all like the facts referred to by Carpenter. They Avere
sturdy, clear-headed, hard-headed fishermen, Avho displayed, in
after life, most admirable coolness and common sense. Misinter-
pretations of sensation Avill not do either. The witnesses, neither
apostles nor Jcavs nor Pagans, had prepossessions that would cause
such misinterpretation. The facts could not be thus misinter-
preted. His elaborate theory of ideo-motor action, or unconscious
cerebration and control of muscle, Avill not touch a case in the
miracles. Nor Avill his theory that the AS'itnesses long after-
AA^ards stated A\diat long thought had lead them to believe. They
could not thus unconsciously deceive themselves concerning such
facts. Nor concerning so many acts. Nor so many other per-
sons AA'ho knoAV that they never transpired. There Avas no time
for such self-deception, for the apostles preached the miracles of
Jesus immediately, and among those who must have been eye-
Avitnesses.

The Tell case and the life of Jesus are not parallel in a single
feature. Has no eye-Avitnesses. It Avas hundreds of years in ac-
cumulating. Contemporaries and eye-Avitnesses did not die for
testimony. The Avorld Avas not reA^olutionized in opposition to its
efforts by eye-Avitnesses, by means of the facts in Tell's case, and

456 THE PEOBLEM OF PROBLEMS-

millions did not die for their testimony, to what they must have
known to be false, if it were not true. The case of fet. Calumban
bears no analogy either. The acts were frivolous, ab»urd. Noth-
ing depended on them, on a belief or rejection of them. Neither
witnesses, nor acts, nor system, nor results bear any comparison
to the New Testament. His tacit and practical dragging the
miracles of the New Testament, and the character of their actors,
to the level of the tricks of the Ohasidim, and the character of
such knaves must be rebuked as an outrage. Does Carpenter
mean to say that the pure, sinless and perfect Jesus, the be-
loved John, the noble James, the frank and open-hearted
Peter, were on a level with the knaves in the Chasidim, and
that their exalted, self-sacrificing, purely benevolent, miracles
w^ere like the selfish knavery, and falsehood and trickery of such
knaves? Why does he say that he fails to see any essential
difterence ? True, he throws in the Old Testament between,
as a means of letting down as easily as possible the outrage,
but why quote them in the connection he does, if he does not
intend to have his remark apply to the miracles of the New
Testament? His attempt to account for healing by natural
agency, is weak to puerility. It will not apply to but few of
the miracles. It impeaches the character of Jesus and his
apostles, for they claimed the healing to be a miracle.

We draw the* following line of demonstration between the
miracles of the New Testament and the wonders, as reasons why
we accept the miracles and do not accept the wonders — why re-
ject the wonders and do not reject the miracles. Let us warn the
objector against claiming, because he can occasionally find a
miracle that has not one of the characteristics claimed for them,
that he has set the argument to one side ; or because occasionally
a wonder is not of the character I attribute to them, he can set it
to one side. We take them as cla-sses, and especially the leading
acts in each class. We claim that taking the majority and the
leading acts in each class, the characters assigned to them are
just : 1. The miracles were of such a character as to be clearly
susceptible of proof by testimony. Wonders are not generally of
that nature. 2. The witnesses to the miracles were living eye-
witnesses. This is not often the case with wonders. 3. The
witnesses to miracles were in circumstances to know whether they
transpired or not. Such is not usually the case with wonders.
4. The circumstances of miracles were such that, if they did not
transpire, witnesses must have known v. The opposite is the case
with wonders. 5. The witnesses of miracles were competent in
knowledge and experience to test them, know and testify. 8uch
was not the case often with wonders. G. All circumstances favor-
ing deception, fraud, trickery, or illusion, or delusion, were ab-
sent in case of Bible miracles. The very opposite is true of the
wonders. 7. If mistake, delusion and fraud were detected always
when tests were applied the miracles should have been rejected.
Such was not the case with miracles. Such has ever been the case
with wonders. 8. Miracles were various and diversified. They

APPENDIX. 457

Avere almost infinite in variety, and in every domain of nature.
Wonders are few and in a select line chosen by the operator.

9. ^limcles were in public, and in the presence of scrutinizing
enemies. They asked no protection or concealment. Wonders
are in secret, seek concealment and the presence of believers
only. 10. In nearly all cases, conditions were such as to render
mistake, fraud or delusion impossible in case of miracles. Won-
ders were performed in conditions favoring fraud, mistake and
delusion. They seek and demand such conditions. 11. In most
cases no conditions were arranged or demanded for miracles.
Wonders demand careful preparation and arrangement of condi-
tions. 12. If conditions were arranged for Bible miracles, they
were such as rendered the miracle greater and more difficult, and
prevented all fraud, mistake or delusion . The conditions demanded
by the wonders, or under which they were performed, were just
such as favored mistake, fraud and delusion, and would be de-
nuinded to produce them. 13. Miracles were unique, and were
not such as can be paralleled by trickery delusion or unusual
abnormal phenomena. Wonders are just such as can be paral-
leled by fraud, delusion and abnormal phenomena. 14. Miracles
were without aid of second causes. They were immediate, in-
stantaneous and spontaneous. Wonders were through second
causes and protracted and laborious effort. 15. There were no
failures in the miracles. There were frequent failures in the
wonders. 16. Workers of miracles never had to resort to lying
and fraud to cover failures. AVorkers of wonders often had to
do so. 17. Workers of miracles were of the best and highest
character. Workers of wonders often the reverse. 18. Reality
of miracles was not questioned by the people among whom they
were wrought, although often relentless enemies. Wonders were
denied generally by many, and often by all but a few.

19. Miracles were characterized by mercy, goodness and benev-
olence, and were without fee or reward. Wonders are malicious,
evil, and for fee or rcAvard. 20. Miracles were characterized by
dignity, grandeur a,nd divinity. Wonders are silly, puerile, child-
ish and worthless. 21. The witnesses for miracles remained an
unbroken phalanx in their testimony in the face of persecution
and death, and laid down their lives for their testimony. Wit-
nesses for wonders often confessed fraud, and never submitted to
such tests. 22. Miracles were not absurd and Avithout object,
but were grand in character and liad a noble object. Wonders
were absurd in character and without object, or had an evil one.
23. Miracles were not productive of evil. Wonders generally
were. 24. Great results, such as restoring to life «:r healing the
cripple, followed miracles, and they could be tested by them.
No great results followed wonders to test them. 25. The testi-
mony of witnesses for miracles is simple, plain, life-like and his-
torical, and free from fables and extravagances and absurdities.
Testimony for wonders is not historical in character, and is full
of absurdities and extravagances. The apocryphal accounts of
.Jesus and of miracles are of that character, and differ from the
New Testament, just as fable does from history. 20. The wit-

39

458 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

nesses for miracles told their story in the same place and time
as the miracles transpired. Witnesses for wonders never did.

27. The account of the miracles is clear, plain history, not tran-
sient rumors. Testimony for wonders generally were rumors,

28. Miracles retjuired belief with whole heart. Eternal life
depended on them. Changed whole life. Life of believers in
that day depended on them. Nothing depends, generally, on
belief of wonders.

29. Miracles were not in accordance with views of hearers and
witnesses, but in opposition generally to the views and wishes of
most of them. Wonders are generally in accordance with views
and wishes of hearers and witnesses. 30. Miracles were wrought
in advance of belief of the religion to establish it. AVonders
usually follow after belief 31. Miracles actually transpired, or
the whole account is false." There is no medium ground of mis-
take, fraud, trickery or unusual and abnormal ])henomena. They
admit of no explanation by natural causes. Wonders are paral-
leled by mistake, fraud, trickery and abnormal or unusual phe-
nomena. Can be accounted for on natural principles. 32.
Miracles submit to and admit of all tests. A multitude of wit-
nesses. Were permanent in eifects. Had all possible tests.
Wonders refuse to submit to tests. UsualU' but one v/itness, or
but few, and excited believers. They are momentary in effects.
33. Miracles can not be regarded as exaggerations that can be
reduced to natural events by proper criticism. Wonders are just
of that character. 34. Miracles were addressed to senses. Not
to passion and imagination. Were open, in public. Wonders
were the very opposite. 35. Miracles were wrought by power
of God, Christ, Holy Spirit and angels. Wonders by witches,
goblins, demons and vile spirits. 36. Miracles were worthy of the
cliaracter of their author. Wonders are in exact accord with low,
vile characters. It is blasphemy to attribute them to divinity.
37. Miracles are the basis of a sublime system of history, morals
and religion. Wonders are not. 38. Miracles revolutionized
men's lives. Reformed the wicked and elevated the degraded.
Wonders never did, but rather degraded.

39. Miracles wrought a revolution in the world's history.
Apostles died for them. So did a churcli of glorious martyrs.
The political, social, domestic, mental, moral and religious life
of the enlightened world is based on them, and has been molded
by them. Nothing of the kind ever followed the wonders. 40.
The evidence of miracles increases with time. Their glorious
results in the history of the race and the lives of men. The
increase in freedom, social freedom and happiness, in domestic
happiness, in mental power and purity, in moral life and purity,
and in religion in nations, the great movements of the age, are
all a direct testimony to the miracles of the New Testament.
Such is not the case with these wonders. No system of delusion,
mistake or falsehood, as Carpenter evidently regards these mira-
cles of the New Testament, could " produce such results. For
these reasons we accept the miracles and do not accept the won-
ders. For these reasons wc reject the wonders and do not the

APPENDIX. 459

miracles. We commend to Dr. Carpenter and his associates in
opinion these rea.sons, asking a careful, thoufrhtful consideration
of tliem. "If I had not done works that no other man ever did,
they had been without sin. If you believe not my words, believe
on account of my works " — Jesus. In conclusion, we enter an
eternal protest against any such unfair system of reasoning as
overlooks the above radical differences between the miracles of
tiie New Testament and all the wonders as this article of Car-
penter.

What ivill you give in the place of Christianity f

We have already several times demonstrated, by an appeal to
human nature, as maniiested in human conduct, as revealed to
us by history, geograj^hy and ethnology, that man is a religious
being, a worshiping' being. All systems of mental philosophy
nlhrm that there is a religious element in man's nature. Phre-
nology says that it is composed of three essential elements of
man's mental constitution — Veneration, spirituality and con-
scientiousness. It also affirms that the perfect and absolute ob-
ject of the awe, reverence, worship, love, adoration and aspira-
tion, that are the natural expression of veneration, is God, or an
Infinite, Perfect and Absolute Being, the only perfect object of
these emotions and feelings. It also affirms that the perfect and
absolute object of spirituality is God, who is Infinite, Absolute
[Spirit. It also affirms that the perfect standard and authority
and sanction of the "ought" of conscientiousness, "I owe the
(h>ing of this," and of "duty," or "This act is due to," is God,
as Absolute Lawgiver, Ruler, Judge and Executive. All human
history declares that man is a worshiping beinc: — that he will
become like the Being he worships — that he regards this Being as
the supreme intelligence, knowing what is right, the supreme
model of what is right. Then religion is the regnant element
in man's nature, in determining his morality, his life and con-
duct. Man, then, must have a perfect object of worship as an
object of av\'e, reverence, veneration, love, devotion and aspiration,
as a model and as a sanction and authority for what is right,
Asa matter of history, religion has furnished to government and
law their foundation, to morality its sanction, to revolution its
aspiration, animating principle, consolation and assurance of
success and reward, to poetry its exalted themes, to painting
and sculpture their themes. Religion has been the regnant prir-
ciple in human conduct, a dynamic power in human eflort and
jirogress, originating the idea and aspiration of progress, giving
the first impulses, sustaining man in his efllbrts, cheering him in
his struggles, and directing and controlling his efforts. The
great legislators, reformers, poets, moralists of all ages, the men
who have moved the world, and lifted it, have been men of re-
ligious faith, and have based their movements, laws, poems,
morals and reforms and ideas on religion.

Men know and feel the action of this religious element, and
its cravings for the Absolute, True, Beautiful and Good, or God.
Hence, wdien atheism and materialism asks them to cast to one

460 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

side all religion, this element in their nnture, feeling that a ruth-
less attempt is made to strangle it, cries out in the question :
"What will you give us in its stead?" There are manufacturing
cities, the smoke of whose furnaces continually obscure the sun.
There are persons who work, and even live in mines. Some have
been born and reared there. Their nature has become so per-
verted and abnormal that it can not bear the light of the sun.
It is oppressive. Suppose these persons were to demand of all
the rest of mankind that they shut out the sun and its light, the
cry of reason would be, " What will you give us in its stead?"
And mankind woukl pay but little attention to eulogies on the
benignant and glorious nature of gas, that never scorches as does
the sun, or oppresses with its heal, or dazzles the eye with its
brilliancy. They would care but little about the protests of such
persons that they felt no need of the sun, and got along better with-
out him than with him. They would be influenced but little
by such vagaries of abnormal, perverted nature. Materialists
have felt this element of their own nature struggling like the
Titans under the mountains of sophistry they have piled on it.
They have felt the pressure of this demand of the human soul,
when presenting their spirit-murdering policy for acceptance.
Comte, after spending a life in denouncing religion, and in try-
ing to exterminate it, at last plucked out the eye of religion,
drove out the spirit of the system, and, with the corpse left, con-
htructed the " religion of humanity." His own nature was not
satisfied, and he found other natures were not satisfied, unless
this element were gratified. Even the cool, rational, logical
Mill approved of this system, to a certain extent, but would
substitute private adoration of woman as the religion. Hare the
Owens and Denton run into spiritism. Ingersoll and others show
tendencies the same way. All prove that they have a religious
nature that they can not extirpate, and whose clamors they can
not stifle. All these attempts to gratify it are like those of
Comte, an emptying of the sacramental cup of religion of the
wine of the real presence. Deity, and then deifying the cup.

But some attempt to meet this demand by pertness, dogmatism
and ridicule, that is often real arrogance and insolence. One of
the latest attempts of this kind that we have seen is a little tract
from the Boston Investigator oflice, entitled. Religion: An Infi-
del's Answer to the Question, " What Will You Give Us In Its
Place T\ It commences — " The advocate of freethought is often
asked, when he has exposed the- absurdities of the Christian re-
ligion. What he proposes. to give in its place? Our reply
is (and we presume it is the reply of infidels generally) that we
regard Christianity as a system of superstition, and can not see
that any thing is needed in its place except a knowledge of the
Truths of Nature, Avhich Christianity contradicts, and which
must necessarily re})lace it when belief in that system is de-
stroyed. If Christianity is a superstition, we do not want
another superstition to supersede it. When one falsehood is
exposed, we do not want another falsehood to take its place. The
convalescent is not at all alarmed at the thought that another

APPENDIX. 461

disease is not to take the place of the one from which he is re-
covering. Tlie victim of consumption, if he has been so fortu
nate as to obtain relief from his disease in medical skill, does not
say : ' Doctor, now what do you propose to give me in the place
of consumption ?' He does not imagine that the old disease
should be replaced by rheumatism, gout or tic-douloureux. The
removal of disease is followed by health, and health is the
natural condition of the human system, in which it is able to
receive and assimilate the nutriment required to give vigor and
strength to the body. So the rejection of the fables, fictions and
false dogmas of any system of superstition, in which a man has
been educated, leaves him in a healthy mental condition — a con-
dition favorable to the acceptance and appreciation of the teach-
ings of science, art, history and philosophy, which constitute the
proper food of the human mind, and are essential to its ex-
pansion and development, as physical food is to the health of
the body."

If we accept the statement of the case assumed in this extract,
the answer is clear and satisfactory. But let us analyze it. We
object to the usurpation of the title " freethinker" by the
infidel, and of *' freethought" for his system. The disciples of
Jesus are the freest thinkers in the world. " If the truth make
you free, you shall be free indeed." They are just as free as the
truth. Thev think just as free as the truth. The truth is free-
thought. License is not liberty, nor is rejection of truth free-
thought, but slavery to error. Then we object to the lawless
disciples of error, who are in bondage to its caprice, usurping
these noble words. It is assumed that Christianity usurps the
place of the truths of nature. The infidel can not name one
truth of nature that Christianity has dethroned. The truths of
morality do not usurp the place of the truths of physical science.
It is assumed that it contradicts them. The infidel can not
name one sentence of the New Testament that contradicts a
single truth of nature. It is assumed that Christianity is super-
stition. It is religion, the normal expression and gratification
of the regnant element of our nature, and the remedy for super-
stition. If religion be a perversion of our nature, wdiat is its
normal use ? Comte and Mill confess religion is the normal use
of an element in our nature. Christianity is compared to a dis-
ease, and extirpating it is like restoring a man to health. Now,
there is a beauty in that comj^arison we want to consider. Evo-
lutionists assure us man is the h-ighest product of the law of
evolution, that controls all things. We are to study this law,
and conform to its ongoings in time-succession. They assure us,
also, that man began in superstition. In religion. Then, accord-
ing to the illustration, this supreme law of the universe, this law
of evolution, that we are to study and conform to. has given us,
as its highest expression, a lot of consumptives, a lot of creatures
universally diseased and abnormal. How did the infidel rise
above this abnormal and diseased, consumptive condition ? How
did he learn that it was a disease, and that his cough was not
normal? How did he cure it? If nature, if the law of evolu-

462 THE PROBLENf OF PROBLEMS.

tion that we are to study, and to which we are to conform, has
given us, as its highest expression, a religious being, and religion,
.how did the infidel find out that, in this, its crowning eflbrt, it
is diseased and abnormal? What Avere his data, what did he
study, what was his standard? If human nature be thus diseased
and abnormal, how did he find it out? He must have a different
nature from others. Then, if it has been so universally dis-
eased, abnormal and deceived and deceiving, in what can we
trust it?

The teaching of nature is that man is a religious being, relig-
ion is health, superstition is disease, and atheism is suicide. The
atheist is like the mad-man, who would pluck out his eye to get
rid of a stye on the lid. Christianity is a healthy use of man's
nature. It cures disease, superstition, and saves from suicide,
atheism. Then it is assumed that to remove religion, to remove
the highest expression and declaration of his supreme law of
evolution, to extirpate what has in all human experience been the
regnant element of man's nature, is to restore it to health. It
will then be able to receive food and assimilate it. Now we ask
what truth can man receive after rejecting religion that he can
not receive now? What influence will rejecting religion have
on his receiving a single truth that the infidel offers? The offer is
like that of a quack, who learning that a person has perverted food,
especially that containing carbon and saccharine matter, should
advise him to eliminate out of his food these elements, most es-
sential of all to life and strength, that he may be able to receive and
assimilate minor elements. Common sense would say that he should
make a right use of these vitally essential elements, and not
eliminate them. It would say that the elements left would be
useless without the uses met by the elements it is proposed to
eliminate. So in this case we advise to make right use of the
regnant element in man's nature, religion, and it will aid in a
right use of all the infidel prates so much about. It is absolutely
necessary, as the ruling element, to a right use of what he con-
tinually harps over. The rejection of religion is no more neces-
sary to a healthy state of the mind to receive science, art, phi-
losophy and any other truth, than the rejection of all carbon or
saccharine matter, out of food, is necessary to a use of the other
elements. On the contrary a retention and proper use of religion
is as essential to the perfection of other truth, and to their proper
use and action, as these two elements are to the use and perfec-
tion of the action of other elements in food. It is assumed that
religion usurps the place of the teachings of science, art and
philosophy. Now, will he name one whose place it usurps?
^V"hat single truth has he that the Christian has not as perfectly
as he? Nay, we will say that the Christian has it in a sense tliat>
he has not, and a higher sense. Take any truth in science, art,
philosophy or history, and the Christian has with it the ideas of
religion, God as author of truth, of all truth, of all beauty, all
goodness. He has an infinitely higher, purer, loftier and more
spiritual idea of these truths than the atheist can have.

"But suppose we descend to particulars, to illustrate the fact

APPENDIX. 463

that for every false doctrine of Christianity we give the truth,
fact or moral precept, of which the doctrine is a virtual denial.
In place of the doctrine that all men are sinners through Adam's
disobedience in eating an apple six thousand years ago, we teach
that men are sinners or transgressors only so far as they disregard
willfully the laws and conditions on which depend man's physical,
intellectual and moral well-being." There are four misrepresen-
tations in that extract. It misrepresents the Scriptural doctrine
of sin. It represents Christianity as denying what he presents.
It represents the Scriptural doctrine for sin as usurping the place
of what he presents. It assumes what he presents to be a substi-
tute for the Scriptural doctrine of sin. The Bible says man was
created pure, and he must have been, if created by such a Being,
as reason declares must have been his Creator. It declares he
violated law. He disregarded the conditions of his physical,
mental and moral nature. There was a first sin. This was fol-
lowed by others. The consequences of this transgression affected
man's posterity. Were hereditary. So teaches experience and com-
mon sense. Then there is no error in the Bible statement. It
teaches as a part of the truth his doctrine, and his doctrine is
only a part of the truth. There is no conflict, and he has substi-
tuted nothing for a particle of scriptural teaching.

" In place of the doctrine that there is no other way to be saved
from sin than through the blood and merits of Jesus Christ, we teach
that man can be saved from sin only by avoiding a sinful course
of life ; and that he will be far more likely to do this by trying
to improve his own blood and merits than by depending on
the blood and merits of any body else." Christianity teaches
most clearly that men can be saved from the consequences of sin
only by avoiding a sinful course of life. There is not an idea that
he presents that is not presented by Christianitj^ Men hav.e to
improve their own blood and merits ; — so Christianity teaches.
But the order of history and nature is the elevation of the fallen
and degraded and lowly by the self-sacrifice of the good and exalted.
The atonement of Jesus meets a want in our nature that nothing
else can. It is suited to man's wants. It saves man from sin.
Would preaching evolution do what Christianity has to save men
from sin ? Christianity requires a man to be far more sinless than
does materialism, and gives him the way demanded by his nature
to accomplish it. But where did this writer get his idea of sin
and righteousness and law and good ? Not in his evolution of
matter and force, in which the strongest survives. That gives no
freedom, no moral quality, no moral action. He gets his ideas
that he tries to wield against Christianity from Christianity. He
steals them from what he would destroy. His system of evolution
of matter and force would never give them. " Instead of the rite
of baptism, we would encourage the practice of bathing, having
more faith in the physical hydropathic qualities of water than in
the spiritual efficacy'of watei", believing that cleanliness is of more
importance than godliness." This statement is an insult to com-
mon sense. It represents baptism as substituted by Christianity
for bathing. I can have all the bathing he can, all the hydro-

464 THE PKOBLE.M OF PROBLEMS.

patbic effects of water. All institutions have ordinances. This
writer submitted to many when be became a Mason. Christian-
ity has the ordinance of baptism — a beautiful and expressive sym-
1)ol and rite of initiation. He can no more substitute bathing
for baptism than he can combing one's head for an oath of inaug-
uration. Again, while Christianity above all systems teacht-s
I)urity and cleanliness, it is not true that ck^anliness of person is
of more importance than being in spirit like the perfect God.
Nor do these conflict. The truly good person will be a cleanly
})erson. They are not antagonists, as this writer represents theni,
but kindred excellences. This misrepresentation is all there is of
this article.

" For the doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, we pro-
pose to sub-^titute general information respecting the laws of
iiealth and reproduction, so as to insure the generation of human
beings under circumstances favorable to their physical and moral
development, thereby rendering regeneration unnecessary. In
short, we would have human beings born right the first time, so
that nobody would imagine that they need to be born again."
Now that is gross misrepresentation. The Christian can study
the laws of being, and use all the means and knowledge that the
materialist can have, and have his children born as perfectly as
the materialist. There is nothing in Christianity that stands in
the way. It, by its pure teachings in regard to this relation and ])a-
rental responsibility, secures such results. After our children are
born, Christianity gives them a guide in accordance with their
nature. It regenerates them when born wrong. Materialism can
not do this. AVhen he has done all he can by natural law, chil-
dren will need Christianity and its regeneration. "For prayer
we substitute self-reliance and trust in the universality and uni-
formity of natural law. No manna comes by prayer ; so we de-
]>end upon our own exertions for food. The lightning is not
turned from its course by clasped and uplifted hands; so we look
to the lightning-rod, rather than to the " Lord,'' for safety and
protection in a tempest on land or at sea." This is gross misre-
presentation again. Prayer is not in conflict with the uniformity
of nature's laws. This whole materialistic misrepresentation rises
no higher than food and material law and matter. Prayer is a
part ot a perfect moral government of God over his rational crea-
tures, in which the matter that this writer deifies is the servant
of spirit that he seems ignorant of. The Christian labors for food,
and uses the lightning-rod as much as he does. Christianity
does not conflict Avith this. This entire sentence is so gross a
)nisrepresentation as to be a falsehood. The Ch^-istian has every
US3 and knowledge of nature that the materialist has, and" in the
spiritual and religious world he has truth and blessings that the
iriaterialist ignores. He can make a higher and better use of na-
ture than the materialist; for he can study and believe One who
created and rules it.

"Instead of holding up to lazy and selfish people a heaven of
idleness and psalm-singing in another world, as one would hold
up a piece of meat for a dog to jump at, we teach the duty of

APPENDIX. 465

personal oiToit on llie part of all to realize our dreams of a true
i leaven in this world — the only world (Christians, Spiritists and
Free Keligionists to the contrary notwithstanding,) that anybody
Lhows any thing about." This is full of misrepresentations. Chris-
tianity does not offer heaven to lazy or selfish people. It enjoins
self-denial, self-saerificing toil for others, as the way to reach
heaven, because the way to fit one for it. The idea of such char-
acters reaching heaven is repugnant to its entire spirit and teach-
ing. It does not teach that eternity in Heaven will be spent in
idleness and psalm-singing. I do not read it in the New Testa-
nient. The idea that Christianity presents Heaven to such per-
sons in such a way is an insult, and can only be excused on the
ground of ignorance, which itself is inexcusable. The Christian
can make a heaven of this world as well as the materialist, and,
indeed, he alone can. AVhere did this writer get his ideas of mo-
rality and goodness and self-sacrifice, that will make a heaven of
this earth ? Certainly not in an evolution of irrational matter and
force, by means of a brutal, selfish struggle for life, in which the
strongest survives? AVhat is the materialist doing to make a
heaven of this world? Where are his missionaries? his Young-
Men's Christian Associations, Sunday Schools, reformatory asso-
ciations, and movements to make the "svorld better ? Where are his
martyr philanthropists ? Boasting that they have the numbers and
Avealth, they do not spend for humanity one dollar where the
Christian, so caricatured in this article, spends tens of thousands.
Making a heaven of this earth, as Christianity proposes to do,
and in the only way it can be done, is the Avay to prepare fcr the
future Avorld ; and preparing for the future w^orld is the way to
make a heaven of this world, just as making a right use of youth
is the way to prepare for manhood. How would it sound to say
to the child : Instead of holding up a noble manhood, as a piece
of meat for a dog to jump at, belore your lazy inclinations, we
Avill teach you to make all you can of youth ? Can a noble man-
hood encourage idleness? Is not preparing for it the right use
of youth ?

*' Instead of attempting to frighten children of various ages
with the wicked vagary of a lake of fire and brimstone, in which
God Avill punish his children eternally, for their mistakes and
fallacies, we endeavor to deter men from wrong-doing by show-
ing that nature punishes every-wdiere those wdio disobey her man-
dates, that she judges the offender w^ithout the delay or circum-
locution of court trials, and executes her sentence with simplic-
ity, directness and the most rigid impartiality." The Christian
knows and believes in the laws of nature, as established by God,
as much as the materialist. He knows men do not receive in
this world all the punishment due their crimes, in a majority of
cases. He believes in a righteous ruler who rules in the moral
world, and will, with infinite wisdom, render to each man ac-
cording to his works. But let us take out that convenient per-
sonification and read it as the materialist ought to present it,
" We deter men from wrong-doing by showing that blind, irra-
tional matter and force every-where punish those who disobey

466 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

their mandates, that they judge the oflfender and execute theii
sentence with simplicity, directness and impartiality." In such
system can there be any mandates, judgment or sentence, or ex-
ecution of sentence? There is a machine of blind matter and
force. Man cheats it out of all the gratification he can and
avoid being crushed. If he makes a miscalculation the machine
crushes him. Any talk of law, or judgment, or sentence, is
absurd. All this is stolen from religion, and used in a pirati-
cal attempt to destroy it. " Instead of exhorting men to pre-
j)are for death, we try to teach them how to live, believing that
a faithful discharge of the duties of this life is the only sensi-
ble preparation for death that can be made." Again, we have
misrepresentation in presenting things as antagonistic that are
not. Christianity teaches that a faithful discharge of the duties
of this life is the preparation for death, and it tells how it is to be
done, in discharge of our duties to God, our fellow-men, and
ourselves. Materialism would not have the idea of duty in this
life, except as it gets it from religion. Its brutal struggle for
life with survival of strongest, never gave the idea this writer
stole from religion.

"In the place of the ordinary observance of the Sabbath, we
favor spending the day in a natural pleasant manner — making
it a day of rest and recreation, of pleasure and profit, allowing
every one to follow the bent of his own inclination, provided
he does not interfere with the rights of others." Would you
have any day at all ? Christianity teaches man to spend the
day in rest and recreation by cultivating his higher nature and
his spiritual w^ell-being. Is there no recreation or profit except
in mere material physical pleasure ? Worship of a perfect be-
ing, elevating praise and song, and listening to the most ex-
alted themes of morality and religion, is a rational way of
spending the day. All should be inclined to spend it in that
way. Then Christianity gives us the rational method, and
where it is observed in that way people have rational enjoy-
mLMit in it, and there alone. ''Instead of building churches
and dedicating them to the Lord, we prefer to build school-
houses and institutions of useful learning, and devote them to
the advancement of man." There is inexpressible impudence
in that statement. Does building churches interfere with build-
ing school-houses and institutions of learning? We can have
churches in which the highest instruction is given, on the
highest topics, moral and religious education, and have school-
houses as well as the infidel. We have the most schools wliere
we have the most churches. Churches have given rise to educa-
tion and schools. They have followed the work of churches.
Christianity and Christian benevolence founded the first schools
and our colleges. How many colleges has infidelity founded ?
How many mission schools in this or in heathen or other lauds ?
It has not a college to day except where it has stolen, by hypoc
risy, in professing to believe what it did not, schools founded by
Christian benevolence. Infidelity rules in many schools now,
but it stole them, by hypocrisy, from Christian beneficence.

APPENDIX. 467

" For preaching of theologians, who are harping continually on
the mysteries of.another world, while they are unable to give us
any information respecting matters of interest in this, we are
trying to substitute the teachings of scientists, philosophers,
poets, agriculturalists, mechanics, the teachings of men whose
studies and pursuits qualify them for public educators. As a
substitute for the fables of the Bible we offer the curious and
instructive facts of modern science, astronomy, geology and
chenjistry. Such is our answer to. What will you give us in the
phice of Christianity?" Again, we have the same dishonesty in
representing things as antagonists that are not, and that Christi-
anity will have to be removed before this work can be done.
I'reachers know as much of this world as the infidel. AVe have
six days for what he ])rates about, and one day for the exalted
themes of religion and morality. We have as much of the in-
struction of scientists, philosophers, etc., as the materialist has or
can have, and religion teaches us how to make a right use of
them, and gives to them a meaning that materialism can not.
We have the most of these things where we have the most Chris-
tianity. Theologians have been the. best educators of the world,
and its leaders in thought. We can have all the science the
infidel can, and the Bible for man's religious nature and moral
nature, and to give a use of these things that he can never have.
Then we protest against assuming that religion is a perver-
sion of man's nature; against assuming that it excludes a single
idea — that this writer offers in its place; against the utter dis-
honesty of representing it as an enemy of one of these truths;
against claiming that it must be rejected to enable us to have
and use these truths ; against the infidel impudently arrogating
to himself the learning science and the schools and reforms and
]>hilanthropy of the world; against his offering to us, instead of
(^'hristianity, what Christianity gave to us, and we have already
in consequence of Christianity. Colonel Ethan Allen was taken
]»risoner during the Eevolutionary war, and taken, in chains, to
ICngland. As the ship was leaving the shore of America, a
British officer said to Allen, who lay manacled on deck, looking
at his native land for, perhaps, the last time : "Allen, if you
will quit the rebels, and do all you can for the king, he will
give you all the land you can see off there in New Jersey."
"That reminds me," said Allen, "of what I read in the good
book. The devil offered the Saviour of the world all the world
if he would worship him. The rascally old scoundrel did not
own a foot of land or a thing in creation. They all belonged
to the one to whom he offered them, and he had been trying
to steal them for thousands of years, and every thing he had
in his clutches he had stolen from the one to whom he now
offered them." The offer of this infidel writer, to give us cer-
tain things instead of Christianity, is precisely like it. And as
the rightful ov/ner said to his impudent, deceitful tempter, so
we say to all such offers, " Get behind us, deceiver. It is writ-
ten, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him onlj
shalt thou serve.' "

468 THE TROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

Matenalism and Christianity Contrasted.

Man has to solve in his life these problems : I. Ethics or
morals. II. Philosophy — mental science in all departments —
physics or natural science in all departments. III. Politics or
government. IV. Family or domestic institutions. V. Society
or social and neighborhood relatioiLS. \L Arts, fine arts, and
the useful arts. His nature, surroundings and wants compel him
to attempt a solution of these problems, and he has to make a
practical essay at their solution in his life. Two systems or
modes of thought have controlled men in their solutions of these
problems, and the systems they have wrought out in solution
of them — the religious or spiritual, and the irreligious or materi-
alistic. All systems of religion have accounted for the origin of
existences and phenomena, which is the basic idea of all else, and
have based all these problems on the idea of divine power, au-
thority and government. This idea has determined the solution
of all these problems, and molded and controlled the constitution
of the family, the society, the state, and also the morals, arts
and science and philosophy of mankind, from his earliest history
until the present hour. Materialism gives an entirely different
answer to the basic idea, the origin of existences and phenomena,
and, of course, when logically developed, which has never been
done, because men have been influenced by religion even when
repudiating it, it must have an entirely different idea of man's
nature and relations, and this w^ill of course cause an entirely
different solution of the problems of morals, science, philosophy,
mental and physical, and of the arts. It will have an entirely
different system of morals, family, government and society. This
must be the case, from the nature of things. If the fountain be
entirely different in nature, its waters must be also different from
those of another fountain. Men's opinions concerning this mat-
ter are not mere private speculations, that have no practical in-
fluence. It is not like a speculation concerning whether the
planets be inhabited, or the undulatory or emission theory of
light or heat. They affect man's interest more than a belief or
disbelief of the Copernican theory of the universe. They deter-
mine all morality, moral and mental philosophy, all science, art
and the family society and the state. If logically developed,
these two systems w^ould give as different results, as different
solutions of these problems as can be conceived, as radically
different and antagonistic as light and darkness. As w^e are
asked now to cast religion to one side and accept materialism,
let us contrast the two systems. Let us look before we leap,
especially into the dark, over such a precipice.

Christianity is the most perfect of the various systems of re-
ligion now in existence. It is the one with which materialism
wages its most relentless war. It is the religion that now dis-
putes with materialism the mastery of the minds and hearts of
our people. The civilized world has to choose between these two
systems, and a fair contrast of the two conflicting systems will aid
us in making the choice intelliafentlv. As fundamental to the

APPENDIX. 469

choice there are certain universal affirmations of reason that must
be conceded. There is in the very nature of things such dis-
tinctions as the true and the false, the good and the evil. There
is more than imperfection, lack of development. There is posi-
tive falsehood and evil. The good and the true alone are benefi-
cial. The evil and the false are ever injurious. It is only by
the rejection of the false and the evil, and the choice of the true
and the good, that progress, development and happiness can be
secured. There can be no neutrality, no idleness. There must
be active choice of the true and practice of the good. A neglect
to search for the true and the good, and choose and practice them,
leaves one in the power of the false and the evil, and he also
iails to fit himself for and enjoy development and happiness.
If there be a God, man's duty is three-fold, to God, his fellow-
man, and himself, and these duties are inseparable. Man is, to a
certain extent at least, able to learn and discern the good and
the true, and the evil and ialse, and able to choose between them.
He is, to a certain extent at least, free, responsible and account-
able. He could have no morality if he were not. His belief
affects his conduct, especially belief in regard to the true or
false, good or evil. He is responsible for his belief, to some extent,
at least. He must search for, have, choose and practice the true,
beautiful and good. We are not safe when we are sincere. Nor
when we think we are right. Nor when we do as well as we know
how. We must be right. We must know the true, beautiful and
good, and be sincere in them. Practice them as well as we know
how, when we know the right how. Materialism can not be tried
by the lives of a few select atheists, or materialists. A man may
be better than his system, especially when he was educated and
formed by another system, as was the case with atheists. We can
only decide when men have been raised in atheism, entirely un-
restrained or uninfluenced by religion, and have developed in
their lives, unhindered, for generations, the tendency of their sys-
tem. The two French revolutions can be regarded as indications,
and only as indications.

Materialism presents as that which is self-existent, independent,
self-sustaining, and eternal, and the origin of all things, blind, ir-
rational matter and force. Christianity presents Spirit, Mind, or
Intelligence, Absolute Spirit, as the self-existent and absolute
Being and the origin of all existences and phenomena. When
logically developed these two systems must give diametrically
diilerent results.

Materialism denies all existence of mind or spirit, except as a
phenomenon or function of matter, or a different manifestation
of the one physical force pervading nature. It denies the dis-
tinction between the knowing mind and known matter, between
the body or the material organism, and the spirit or mind that
animates and uses it, and knows that it is distinct from the l)()dv,
in which it resides and uses. Christianity is based on this intui-
tion of a diflerence between matter and mind and physical Ibrce.
It is based on the distinction made in consciousness between the
knowing mind and known matter. Between the body which it

470 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

declares to be tlie tabernacle, house and instrument, and the spirit,
which resides in and uses it. It regards the spirit as conscious,
intelligent, rational, willing, responsible, and the inner man, the
real person. All its morality and ideas are based on this distinction
made by universal consciousness and intuition. Materialism de-
nies man's freedom, spontaneity, and free agency, and if consist-
ent,' his responsibility, and the reality of the distinctions
between good and evil, truth and falsehood. It denies all basis
for these ideas, and for the ideas, praise and blame, reward and
punishment, and character, and if consistent denies their exist-
ence and reality. There can be no basis for them in materialism ;
and if it has these ideas and uses them, it steals them from
religion, which it seeks to destroy. Christianity is based on these
intuitions, these fundamental ideas. It regards man as a free,
moral agent, as human consciousness has ever declared. It is
based on the intuition of universal reason, that all things are
either true or false, good or evil. Tnat all acts are good and
worthy of praise and reward, or evil and worthy of censure and
punishment, and that human conduct has character, that man
has character, and is responsible and accountable. Materialism
makes what it falsely and deceitfully calls man's moral nature,
stealing the idea and term from religion, inhere in man's material
organism. It must either deny all moral ideas and all moral
nature, or attribute them to blind, irrational matter and force,
or make matter and force evolve what is not in them. Christi-
anity makes the conscious, rational, willing spirit, the real man,
and makes the spirit the source of all moral action and charac-
ter, and mind the source of all things, and has an adequate and
rational basis for character, morality and good and evil. Mate-
rialism can not divide things into good and evil, true or false.
It has no basis for such distinction. If all things were evolved,
there is no distinction between them of a moral nature. It
denies, if consistent, all such distinction, and removes all such
distinction and basis for it. If it makes it, it steals the idea and
the standard from religion. Christianity is based on such a dis-
tinction of acts and things. It furnishes the only basis for such
distinction, and the only standard for making the division.

Materialism, having its origin in an evolution of all things out
of blind, irrational nuitter nnd force, and by blind, irrational mat-
ter and force by a struggle for life in which the strongest survives,
has, as its highest standard, selfish prudence, the standard of brutes.
It makes no distinction between men and brutes except in mate-
rial organization. Its only possible standard is selfish, brutal, and
degrading. It destroys all idea of devotion to the good and true
and beautiful, in opposition to selfish prudence, and for their own
sake. In fact, it renders their existence impossible. It makes
self-denial, self-sacrifice, and self-abnegation for the good and true
a folly and crime, for they are a violation of its supreme law, sur-
vival of strongest in a selfish struggle for life. jMartyrdom, patriot-
ism, philanthropy and devotion to the good of others are follies
and crimes, for they are violations of the supreme law. If it uses
these terms, or commands such acts, it steals them from religion.

APPENDIX. 471

for it has no basis for them, woiihl never suggest them, and they
are in violation of its supreme law. The standard of Christianity-
is the will of an Infinitely Wise, Holy, Good and Loving Father
in Heaven. It tells us nian was made in his mental and moral
likeness It elevates man infinitely above the brutes, and gives
him a standard infinitely above the standard of brutes. It elevates
man into love and righteousness. Let us present the basic ideas
of Christianity in detail, and contrast them with what materialism
presents in their stead. Christianity is based on, as its idea of ideas,
a perfect and complete revelation of an All-perfect Being, or a God,
infinitely perfect in being, character and attributes. Admitting
the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament, which were a neces-
sity on account of man's condition, the character of God unfolded
in the New Testament is perfect. This idea was gradually unfolded
and developed to perfection — unfolded by object lesson and illus-
trations, until a clear spiritual revelation was made, and a clear
spiritual apprehension reached. Man needs as the one want of his
spiritual nature, this Being as an object of awe, veneration, adoration,
Avorship, devotion, and love. As a perfect model and ideal. As a
dynamic lifting-power in heart, life and soul. Materialism has
nothing to correspond to this. One writter says he looks in the
mirror and sees the only God he worships there. Its highest wor-
ship is selfish worship of sii^ful human nature. Christianity reveals
to us the ennobling truth that man was created in the mental and
moral likeness of the Infinite Creator. It clothes man with in-
expressible dignity and grandeur. Materialism says man sprang
from a hairy arboreal ape, with powerful canine teeth, that Avas
engaged in a brutal, ferocious struggle with the ferocious animals
that surrounded it. From such a condition he emerged through
brutal instinctive animalism into brutal idiotic savagery, and
from that to his present condition..

Christianity reveals the Universal Fatherhood of God, and the
reasons on which the relation is base<l. He is the Creator of men,
the maker of their bodies and the giver of their spirits. He pos-
sesses in infinite perfection the mental and moral likeness in whose
image man was created. He gave his Son, our Elder Brother, to
redeem man. He is the common object of veneration, devotion,
and love of all men. He is the author of the glorious scheme of
the Gospel for the regeneration of all men. Materialism reveals
the ancestry of man in the Simian and the Ascidian and the fiery
cloud of chaos. It has not a suggestion of one of the exalted
thoughts on which the ])aternity of Christi;vnity is based. Chris-
tianity reveals the universal brotherhood of man and bases it on
exalted and ennobling ideas. Men are the children of one common,
infinitely perfectly Father in Heaven. They wear a common
mental and moral likeness of this infinitely perfect Father in
Heaven, in whose image they were created. They were redeemed
by one common Elder Brother, Jesus, the only-begotten Son of
God. They have one common system of religion, worshij) of their
Father in Heaven. They have one common destiny, a glorious
immf)rtnlity. jMaterialisni denies this common brotherhood often,
or finds it in a common uriirin in the Simian or Ascidian. It has

472 THE PEOBLE^r OF PEOBLEMS.

not oue of the ennobling ideas on which the ennobling idea of
Christianity is based. Christianity has the most exalted object
that mind can conceive or heart cherish — the elevation of all men
into universal love and righteousness, by the development and
expansion of this mental and moral likeness of God, in which
man was created by love and practice of righteous love and good-
ness. Materialism utterly lacks this idea. It has no basis for it
in its selfish struggle for life in which strongest survives.

Christianity makes man a co-worker with God in this glorious
work. Again we emphasize the inexpressible dignity and grand-
eur with which Christianity clothes man, in giving to him so glo-
rious a work, and so exalted a position as a co-worker with God in
it. Materialism has no idea to correspond with this. Man is to
study the ongoings of matter and force in time-succession, and,
instead of working with an Infinite Being, he is to avoid being
crushed by the remorseless monstrous machine. Christianity
teaches man that he is to accomplish his own elevation into love
and righteousness, by giving himself in loving self-sacrifice, toil
and self-denial and devotion for the elev-ation of others. It teaches
the martyr's zeal and devotion, the philanthropist's sacrifices, as
the noblest of virtues, the height of wisdom, and gives the only
motive that can cause them. Materialism teaches that man is to
study the ongoings of nature in time-succession and accommodate
himself to them, and, by selfish prudence in the struggle for life,
get all the selfish gratification he can. It makes the acts of the
martyr, patriot, and philanthropist a folly, a violation of the su-
preme law of nature, a crime. Christianity teaches that all
things were created by God our Father in Heaven, Infinite in
Wisdom, Power and Love. Materialism teaches that all things
are the result of the irrational happenings of blind, irrational
matter and force. Christianity teaches that all things are gov-
erned in wisdom and law by our Father in Heaven. Materialism
teaches that all things are under the control of fatal, iron neces-
sity, or the blind, fortuitous ongoings of blind, irrational matter
and force. Its talk of law is utter absurdity. There can be no
law or basis for law in such a system. Christianity teaches us
that there is a rational personity apart from matter, or there is
spirit. It teaches that we can look up to God, who is infinite
Spirit, to Christ, to the Holy Spirit, and to angels, and that we
have spirits like them in nature. Materialism denies all thi.s, and
teaches that mind is but a function of matter, and what we call
spirit is but a modification of physical force. It turns our
thoughts down to the force seen in animals, vegetables, and in
]ihysical nature. From this we came ; to this we return. Chris-
tianity assures us there is an eternal future life, in which we will
spend an eternity in making endless approximations to the infin-
ite perfections of the Divine 3Iind, in who.-^e mental and moral
likeness we were created. Materialism declares, " AVhat went
before man, and what is to follow after him, is to be regarded as
two black impenetrable curtains, which hang down at the ex-
tremes of human life, and which nothing has ever drawn to one
side. A deep silence reigns behind these curtains. A\Tien once

APPENDIX. 473

within, no one will ever answer those he left behind. All you
can hear is a hollow echo to your own question, as if you had
shouted into a yawning fathomless chasm." — HoJyoaJce. Christi-
anity teaches men that they are free in A'olition to choose truth
or falsehood, good or evil. It clothes man with the dignity of
rational freedom, governed by intelligence and motive. Mate-
rialism makes man a part of material nature, and denies and
scouts all idea of freedom. — Man's actions are a part of the nec-
essitated ongoings of nature. Christianity teaches that there is
moral desert in action and character. Materialism has no basis
for it, renders it utterly impossible and utterly denies it. Chris-
tianity teaches that acts can be divided into voluntary and invol-
untary, and the former into good and evil ; and that all things
can be divided into true or false, good or evil ; and that there is
character to all intelligence, and that it can be divided into
righteous and good, or sinful and wicked. Materialism makes all
acts alike necessary, and renders impossible all distinctions be-
tween good and evil ; for all things and acts are alike evolved.
It denies and renders impossible all distinction in things, acts or
character. Christianity teaches that all men are responsible for
what they do. They are accountable to God, as Lawgiver, Ru-
ler and Judge. It teaches absolute cognizance of every thought,
word and deed. All this is known to Infinite Wisdom and Just-
ice. Materialism teaches that men are to learn to accommodate
themselves to the ongoings of blind, irrational matter and force.
There is no responsibility, no accountability, to Intelligence, —
there is no Lawgiver, Ruler or Judge. Christianity teaches retri-
bution by Infinite, Wisdom, Justice and Power, as Executive,
Perfect rewards and punishments, in this life and in the eternal
life. It has perfect and absolute sanction in this. It has perfect
and absolute authority in being the will of an infinitely Wise,
Holy, Just and Powerful Being. Materialism has no retribution.
If you do n't keep step with the machine, it remorselessly crushes
you, but there is neither reward nor punishment. No righteous
rewarder, no righteous avenger. Get all the selfish gratification
that you can ; cheat blind nature out of it, and you have obeyed the
supreme order of things — a selfish struggle for self, in which the
strongest succeeds.

Christianity teaches that God, as our Father in Heaven, exer-
cises a providential care over his creatures and works ; and that he
exercises a paternal providence over his rational creatures, made
in his own image that he does not over mere material nature.
Strauss, the apostle of the new faith of materialism that is to take
the place of Christianity, says: " In the enormous machine of the
universe, amid the incessant hiss and whirl of its jagged iron
wheels, and the deafening crash of its ponderous stamps and
hammers ; in the midst of this whole terrific commotion, man, a
helpless defenseless creature, finds himself placed, not secure for a
moment that on an imprudent motion, a wheel may not seize and
rend him, or a hammer crush him to powder. This sense of
abandonment is at first something awful !" Christianity teaches
that, as his children, we can and should prav to our Father in
40

474 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

Heaven, and that He, as our Father in Heaven, will hear and
answer our petitions, wisely and in true love, as a wise parent
should. Materialism, through Holyoake, its leading English
apostle, declares : " Science has shown that we are under the
dominion of general laws, inexorable laws of unyielding necessity,
evolved by irrational matter and force. There is no special prov-
idence ; prayers are useless ; propitiation is vain. Whether there
be a Deity,"or Nature be Deity, it is still the God of the iron
foot, that passes on without heeding, without feeling, without
resting. Nature acts with fearful uniformity — stern as fate, abso-
lute as tyranny, relentless as destiny, merciless as death ; — too
vast to praise, too inexplicable to worship, too inexortdile to pro-
pitiate, it has no ear for prayer, no heart for sympathy or pity, no
arm to save ! ''

Christianity reveals sin as a fact and evil, as a reality in the
lives, conduct and experience of men. It gives a clear revelation
and clear teaching concerning the nature of sin, and a perfect
standard for testing and deciding what is sinful. It consists in
rebellion against the Supreme Authority and just law of God. In
selfishness "and love of self, and devoting life to self. Love of
evil and impurity. Hatred of holiness and justice. Materialism
denies the existence of sin and evil, for it makes all things and
acts alike, the evolutions of blind, irrational matter and force.
All are on an equality, and are alike without character or moral
quality, for there can be no standard and no difference in nature.
Christianity teaches that God, as our Father in Heaven, has re-
vealed Himself, His character and will, as a means of saving us
from sin, as a means of giving us a perfect religion, and a per-
fect rule of life. Materialism tells us we are left to the gropings
of our erring, doubting, sinful natures, in the gloom of irrational
matter and force. Christianity teaches that God has revealed
His will and scheme of redemption by inspiration of chosen men,
thus making man a co-worker with Him, and giving to revelation
a human element, suiting it to man's nature. Materialism scouts
all such idea, and leaves man to get his inspiration from studying
the ongoings of blind matter and force. Christianity teaches
that God manifested Plimself in miracles, giving evidence of His
presence, and credentials of revelation, by making a higher use
and display of nature and nature's laws than man could make,
thus cultivating man's religious nature, and awe and veneration.
Materialism makes a fetich of matter and force, and their ongo-
ings too sacred to be modified by intelligence, and for the highest
wants of intelligences, even if a higher and more exalted use of na-
ture be made by superior intelligences for the highest wants of man.
Christianity teaches that as our Father in Heaven, God has
given to man warning of future events; cheered him Avith promi-
ses of future blessings, and sustains and solaces him in trial and
danger with prophecy. Materialism leaves him to grope his way
in doubt and perturbation, amid the ongoings of blind, irrational
matter and force. Christianity takes the universal custom and
idea of sacrifice, and does away with all sacrifice of life and shed-
ding of blood, by a perfect sacrifice, the Son of God. It requires

APPENDIX. 475

of men that they present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God, and their spirits as sacrifices in praise and
worship and living righteous lives, and all their labor in devo-
tion to righteousness, h^ve and goodness. Materialism declares
our nature a delusion and a cheat in this idea of sacrifice, mocks
tills catholic idea of humanity, and knows nothing of the
sacrifice of body, life and spirit required by Christianity. It has
no basis for it in its materialistic, sensual, selfish system. Chris-
tianity gives to us a perfect expiation and atonement, in the Pon
of God. In this it accords with the laAv of nature and experience,
that elevation and salvation have come through the sacrifice of
the good and exalted. It exhibits God's abhorrence of sin, his re-
gard for his law, the enormity of sin, and it appeals to the hu-
man heart as nothing else can, or has. There is a power over the
human heart in the cross of Christ, and his sufferings for the sins
of his enemies, that nothing else ever had. Materialism ridicules
and bitterly assails this idea, exactly suited to man's needs, and
so dear to the human heart. Christianity presents to us a Medi-
ator, the Son of God, thus meeting the great want of the human
heart, and giving man confidence to approach God for pardon,
and to secure his favor and love, and confidence to begin a life of
reformation and righteousness. Materialism also ridicules this
idea, and declares that man — erring, sinful man — is his own
Christ and his own Saviour. Christianity presents to us, Jesus
the captain of our salvation, as a leader in religion and in life,
and reformation of the individual and the race. It thus meets
a want of the human heart. All revolutions and great movements
have had and must have such leader. Materialism leaves this
want of the heart unsatisfied. It can not rally or unite the
heart of humanity in such a reformatory movement. Christi-
anity gives to us a personal embodiment of doctrine and life, a
perfect example in Jesus of Nazareth. This is a want of humanity,
for man learns more by example than precept. Truth must be
incarnated in a life, especially moral truth, to have a saving
power. Materialism does not meet this want of mind and heart.
Christianity presents a perfect object of faith, gratitude, devotion
and love, in Jesus of Nazareth, This is the means of regenera-
tion and salvation of men. It is by faith in, love and gratitude
for, and devotion to, an exalted person, an embodiment of life and
truth, and a leader in reformation, that men are saved and re-
formed. It has been so in individual life and in revolution.s
and reformations. Materialism utterly lacks all this. Its selfisli
system, that places man at the head of an evolution of matter
and force, utterly rejects all such idea. It can not reach and
elevate human heart and life by such faith, devotion and love.
Christianity makes eternal, absolute and perfect this atonement,
this sacrifice, this Mediator, this Leader, this embodiment of life
and doctrine, this object of faith, devotion and love, by incarna-
tion, or making Him (God) manifest in the flesh, Jesus of Naza-
reth, who stands between God and man with one hand reached
down to humanity, struggling in sin, doubt and fear, giving it
confidence by the human side of his nature to approach God foi

476 THE PROBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

pardon, and to begin a life of reformation and righteousness, and
with the other hand laid on the throne of the Eternal, giving
man confidence to rely on him as a perfect Saviour, because
divine. Materialism utterly rejects and scouts this idea that is
needed by humanity as its one want, and is a power in human
life in salvation that is omnipotent and eternal.

Christianity offers to men redemption from evil, salvation from
the love of sin, the practice of sin, the guilt of sin, the punish-
ment of sin. Materialism denies the reality of sin, in opposition
to the feeling of every heart, and offers no redemption. Study
nature and keep step with the machine. Christianity requires an
entire reformation of nature, thought and conduct, heart and
life, so radical as to be expressed only by regeneration, being born
again. Materialism scouts and ridicules this idea, and has no
means or basis for reformation. It would never produce it.
Christianity teaches that if men repent from the heart, and for-
sake sin, God, as their Father in heaven, will forgive them, and aid
them in a life of reformation and righteousness. Materialism de-
nies all forgiveness, and has no basis or hope for it. Christianity
furnishes to men a perfect system of universal and eternal truth
to be believed, a perfect system of adoration and worship of a per-
fect Being, and a perfect rule of life, giving perfect teaching con-
cerning man's duty to God, his fellow-man, and himself. Mater-
ialism has nothing of this sort. Man is to study physical nature,
which would not give him a moral idea or truth, or rule for con-
duct, except selfish prudence. Christianity gives to man the
church, perfect in its organization and officers, with perfect ordi-
nances and services, preaching and teaching, perfect truth in
morals and religion, and exalted and eternal themes of thought,
cultivation and elevation, prayer, praise, benevolence and holiness
of life. Christianity requires, at man's hands, a perfect consecra-
tion of life. Love to God with his whole being, and his neighbor
as himself, a life molded and regulated by this rule of life, which
is perfect in teaching and model. ^Materialism lacks all this.
Christianity presents, as the end of labor and work, the elevation
of the race into love and righteousness, and men are co-workers with
Gt)d in this, giving themselves, in loving self-sacrifice, for this
end. Materialism, with its selfish, sensual origin and supreme
law, has not a suggestion of this. It condemns it and renders it a
fallacy, a crime, for it is a violation of its supreme law.

Christianity gives us fjiitli, belief of, and trust, reliance and con-
fidence in an exalted being, as the animating principle of life ;
hope of a glorious immortality as the animating aspiration of
life ; supreme love to God, and love to our fellow-men, as the ani-
mating motive of our life ; and supreme felicity as the end and
reward of being. Materialism has no basis for one of these, and
utterly rejects them. Christianity accords with the principle of
our nature that demands that all exalted and ennobling relations
be based on faith, and be matters of faith. Love of husband
and wife, parent and child, friendship, and all ennobling relations
are mere matters of faith. Materialism, being a system of sense,
and discarding faith, paralyzes and palsies the ennobling feelings

APPENDIX. . 477

and relations of heart and life. Christianity saves, men through
humility, self sacrifice, love, devotion and gratitude, which is the
only way of saving men. Materialism, placing man at the head
of all existence, and with its law of selfish prudence, is utterly
repugnant to this, the only way of elevating and saving men.
Then Christianity takes the catholic ideas of man's mental,
moral and religious nature, stri})s them of all error, gathers all
in one system, elevates and expands them into universal truths,
universal and eternally applicable principles, and is suited to
man's needs and wants. What it has done for man, which
materialism now tries to steal, proves it to be the system for
humanity, the perfect rule of faith, life and conduct. Material-
ism is utterly lacking of all these elements and destructive of
this life-giving, soul-saving power.

Conclusion.

We will part from the reader, who has patiently traveled with
us, so many times, the long path of evolution so obscure in
many places, and who has, with us, crossed the chasm which
creative intelligence alone could bridge for us, with a summary
of conclusions reached. The issues examined have been the
Nebular Hypothesis, and especially the atheistic use now
attempted to be made of it; the Evolution Hypothesis, giving
special attention to the Darwinian Hypothesis, as the leading
feature in the Evolution Hypothesis; and the Hypotheses of
Geology that are used to contradict the teachings of the Scrip-
tures, such as the antiquity of man, the order of creation, the
length of the periods of creation; and also the Atheistic Hy-
pothesis of Historic Development. The author has no wish to
stop the investigation of the data on which these hypotheses
are built by their advocates. On the contrary, he would en-
courage it all he can. He would not stop it, if he believed it
would overturn all religion and revelation, for in such a case
it would demonstrate their falsity, and he would, above all
things, desire to know it, if such be the case, and to reject
them. If materialism and atheism be true, let us find it out,
and know it, and the sooner the better. What he objects to is
the use that is attempted to be made of these hypotheses. They
are but inferences, guesses, made from a partial investigation
of but a small portion of the entire phenomena, that must be
thoroughly and all investigated before they can be established.
Their advocates demand that we accept them as demonstrated,
established, scientific truths. Also, that we base our science, and,
as a necessary result, our morals, society, life and thought on
them, as basic, fundamental truth. Not only this, but they de-
mand that we unship the intuitions of all humanity, from its
infancy until now, cast to one side the faith, the thought, and
the experiences of all generations of men, for these hypothesis,
these guesses. It is against this that we protest. We have
urged objections to the hypothesis. We showed that they were
not proved ; that we have not sufficient data for them, nor is

478 THE PPwOBLEM OF PROBLEMS.

the data sufficiently examined. We have exposed the radical
defects of their advocates, in not investigating the entire data,
and the very data that should be examined. Also, in not using
the methods and standards that are the very ones to be used.
We have showed wherein they have assumed as known what
was unknown, and from the nature of the case could not be
known. We have showed where they involved the absurd, con-
tradictory and false. We have done this for two reasons.
First, to show that the advocates of these hypotheses have no
right to make the infinite demand on us they are making.
Second, to show to them what must be done, what must be re-
moved out of the way, and what must be established before we
can comply with their demand. We remand the theories to
them, demanding that they do this work before they make sucii
an illimitable demand on our belief and conduct.

We want to leave with the reader this thought : That these
hypotheses have not one particle of scientific proof, and are not
science. They are guesses, inferences from partial data but im-
perfectly examined. They can not be made a part of mere physi-
cal science. When physical science can investigate such phenom-
ena as are claimed in these hpyotheses actually transpiring, then
they became a part of physical science. When physical science
can point to such phenomena now actually transpiring, it can
demonstrate these theories by methods of physical science. But
since physical science has not done that, and can not, these hypo-
theses can never become merely a question of physical science.
Physical science furnishes the phenomena and their characteris-
tics. Rational thought or metaphysics, by its inductions, must
settle the truth or falsity of these hypotheses concerning the
origin and cause of the phenomena. It is purely a metaphysical
question. Scientists sneer at metaphysics, but what are their hy-
potheses but metaphysics, and the weakest class of metaphysics,
mere inferences from the data, mere guesses. The utmost that
can ever be done is to change them into clear rational inductions.
When that is dpne all should accept them. But never until that
is done. Then these hypotheses are mere metaphysics. Their
name hypothesis, inference, guess, declares that, and they are the
weakest of metaphysics. Then .let the scientist cease to use them,
as a part of physical science, for they are not, and never can be.
Let him change them from mere guesses to clear inductions, before
demand that we accept them, much less base all science, morality,
conduct, and life on them.

The testimony for these hypotheses is what is called circumstan-
tial evidence. It is not, and never can be, positive evidence, until
we are pointed to such occurrences transpiring in such a manner
as is claimed in the hypothesis. The rules for testing circumstan-
tial evidence are these : Let the reader note them carefully,
and refu.se to accept the hypotheses, or at least to base important
action on them until they have fully met these tests, severely and
thoroughly applied. I. There must be many facts pointing in the
direction of the theory, and they must point very strongly in the
direction of the theory before any one is warranted in advancing

APPENDIX. 479

or advocating the theor}'^, much less demanding that people act on
it, or base important action or interests on it. Here all these hy-
potheses are fatally defective. But a small portion of the facts
are known, and they do not point strongly in the direction of the
theory. The facts that it is especially necessary to know to sustain
the theory are unknown, and the author believes they never can
be known. II. To change the theory into a demonstrated truth,
all the facts must be known. So long as any are unknown, it can
not be more than a theory, for the unknown facts might utterly
disprove the theory. This is exactly the case with these hypo-
theses. But a small portion of the facts are unknown. Those that
must be known to establish the theory are unknown, and the
author believes they ever will be. Then these unknown facts
might disprove the theories, and the author believes they would
totally contradict them. III. There must not be facts that raise
insuperable objections, or strong presumptions against the theories,
for the theories are mere presumptions themselves. There are
undeniable facts that raise strong presumptions against these the-
ories— that raise insuperable objections — indeed that flatly con-
tradict them. IV. There must not be in the theories when logic-
ally stated, nor in logical deduction from them, the absurd, con-
tradictory, and false. There is in all these theories, when logically
stated, and also in logical deductions from them, the absurd, the
contradictory, and the false. V. The theories must not be based
on supposition, either wholly or in part, for the supposition may
not be true. These theories are all of them based partly on sup-
]>osition, and indeed almost wholly so. Their most essential and
important features are based on suppositions that may be false,
and we have strong reasons to regard as false. VI. There must
be no other theory that will explain the fact. We must be neces-
sarily shut up to that theory, and that alone, for if there are other
explanations of the facts the theory is worthless, for the other ex-
planation may be true. Here these theories are fatally defective.
There are other theories that will, explain the facts, and far better
than they. Indeed the other theory is the one established by
clear inductive reasoning, and the only one reason can accept.

VII. The theories must not he expanded in enunciation be-
yond what can be clearly deduced from the facts. Here is the
fatal defect of these theories. They bear no more proportion to
the facts on which they are based than the boundless and un-
numbered assumptions of modern spiritism do to the facts in
it. VIII. The theory must not be expanded in application beyond
what it legitimately covers. Here is a radical defect in these
theories. Their expansion in application is like trying to cover
the heavens with the outspread hand. IX. Finally, so long as it
is merely circumstantial evidence, we are not warranted in basing
vital action or consequences on it, unless we are compelled to
act, and it is the only theory, or the strongest one ; but until
compelled to act, we should wait for further proof, and be passive
in regard to the theory while awaiting such proof. As already
said, here is the arrogance of the advocates of these theories.
They not only advocate them, but they ask us to risk vital inter-

480 THE PKOBLEM OF PROBLE^fS.

ests, indeed, all interests on them. They do this when not onU
are we not compelled to act, or when they are the only theory,
but when there are other theories, and one that is far stronger,
and is indeed the only one reason will accept, and the one that
has clear, inductive proof, and is the one on which man has ever
acted. Let the reader bear these tests in mind, and apply them
until these theorists — either show that we are shut up to this
theory, and must act on it, or change it from a theory to a de-
monstrated truth, established by clear induction.

Finally, these theorists make a most radical mistake when they
assume that even if their theories were true, concerning the
methods of cosmical evolution in the nebular hypotheses of sys-
tems and worlds, and the first evolution of our planet, and the
substances and laws by which they are controlled, and their pro-
cesses; and that life was produced, and all species and varieties,
as they claim in physiological evolution, and that their hypothe-
ses in regard to the order of production of life, and the period
taken and the age of man, and the theory of historical develop-
ment of man ; that it necessarily proves that intelligence had
nothing to do with the origin and course of evolution, and the
present order of things. It would increase rather than decrease
the evidence of intelligence, the necessity for intelligence, and
our conceptions of the degree of intelligence displayed. This is
a radical error. Let the scientist go on with his investigations,
and when he has changed every hypothesis into scientific truth,
established by clearest induction, it will not affect one parti-
cle the evidence for the existence and action of Absolute, Intelli-
gent Cause, nor the fundamental ideas of the Scriptures. Men
may have to change their notions of God and his modes of action
and their interpretations of the Scriptures. It may be that dog-
mas that are now regarded as fundamental Scriptural truths may
be abandoned, and be regarded as accommodations to human error,
weakness and methods of thought and ideas in early ages, or even
;is human errors incorporated into the Scriptures with the truth
they contain, but still theism and its catholic and universal
ideas and their perfect development in Christianity will stand
forever. But the author fears no such results as are indicated
in this paragraph, as his previous utterances prove.

Since nature and revelation have the same author, when
properly interpreted, they will be accordant, and' man will ever
say as he studies nature, "The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament showeth his handiwork. The invisible attrib-
utes of God are clearly seen from the beginning of the universe,
even his eternal power and divinity being manifested by his
creations." As he studies intelligently the Scriptures he will
say with the a])()stle, " The Sacred Writings are able to make
man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All
writing given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine,
for correction, for re])roof, for instruction in righteousness; and
by them the man of God is made perfect and thoroughly fur
nished unto all jrood works."

U^

THE NEW

RBF]

This book Is
taki

YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY
3RENCE DEPARTMENT

under no circumstances to be
en from the Building

,

-^

-m 419