Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

clusion or prove a fact. We have referred to one, the inductive. This kind always begins to rear its logical structure by laying its foundation on the solid substratum of fact-building upwards until the last embellishment is given to the goldenpointed spire of truth.

The other, the deductive process, is more metaphysical and begins by assuming that the mind is a microcosm—a miniature universe-and hence, that there is a correspondence between all things external to man and his intellectual and moral attributes. Its appeal is to consciousness, feeling, affection, etc.

Both modes are legitimate, and to the honor of the deductive be it said that by it have been anticipated certain grand expositions of scientific facts, first deductively realized and proclaimed, and afterwards experimentally demonstrated. Of course this method lacks the certainty of the inductive and is more liable to abuse.

By the inductive method we are taught that fire will burn, and that heat, at a given temperature, will reduce certain metals. By it we know that the tendency of crime is to the loss of fortune and reputation. But if we see for the first time a strong man maltreat an infant our nature revolts. Why? The concord that exists between the external and internal is rudely shocked, and we instinctively rebel against the act of cruelty. So, when told that witches should be burned and heretics tortured and slain; that there is a hell prearranged for adults, and a limbo for babies born out of reach of the baptismal font; the human heart, when not obdurated by a soulless theology, abhors the teachings. Witches-those nonexistent creatures of superstitious fancy-burned in the persons of innocent men, women and children who, cowed by a faith so dark that the Egyptian plague of darkness was sunlight to it, confessed their guilt. And heretics, roasted on the gridiron of persecution. Think of it!

And the infant who may never reach the confines of heaven to say to the mother who bore it, "Farewell, mother; the God of tender mercy has forbidden it; never again shall I be enfolded in thy loving embrace to the heart whose pulsations fed me with the life-current." The soul of humanity sickens and revolts at doctrines so hideous, because they shock the moral and affectional harmonies of that nature "which God has created for nobler purposes" than the acceptance of the doctrine of eternal hate.

All honor to the deductive philosophy, for it teaches us that if you pile syllogisms mountain-high, and dogmas to the infinite, the human heart will still be loyal to love. That the mother will yet cherish her babe, and if need be invade limbo to find it: though her first embrace should be the last, yet would eternal raptures seem concentred in one moment of maternal joy.

But Mr. Ingersoll says, "Water always runs down hill,” and the Father protests because water sometimes evaporates and goes up into the clouds. Fire also demoralizes it; even vegetables seduce it by capillary attraction. We might add that, perchance, a servant maid carries a bucket of water up hill; therefore, water does not always run down hill. Surely this baby is too small to whip. But suppose we retort by a quibbling process quite as rational.

Lambert." The forces that govern matter are invariable." If so what becomes of miracles? The Father no doubt intended to be understood as having affirmed that the forces of matter are invariable unless when interfered with by some superior force.

He wrote with sufficient precision; for no one can, while announcing general principles, stop to note every particular exception, and no rational man expects it.

Lambert.-"A stone thrown up falls." Yet it may not; it

may find lodgment in its upward course. This is "small talk," and used only to show the dignity of a philosopher and divine who forces us, by parallel comparison, to show that priestly arguments are lighter than "the stuff which dreams are made of."

Issue is also taken on the definition of law. Perhaps one has not yet been framed which is not liable to justly adverse criticism.

Blackstone defines law as a rule of action, and as applying to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. I might define natural law, in its general sense, as a governing principle or force. Yet I do not believe the common sense of the world will remain suspended, while Blackstone, Ingersoll, the good priest, and my humble self contend about a word which all rational men understand, but which no one may be able to define with entire exactness.

But, pray, consider the definition of the laws of nature as recorded in the "Notes."

Lambert.—"The laws of nature, then, as commonly understood, are the uniform action of natural forces expressed in words."

So we are to infer that if men were speechless, and could not by writing express natural forces in words, the laws of nature would be non est, and the universe plunged in chaos! The good priest has only confounded law with our conceptions of it, as "expressed in words."

Hamlet, it would seem, was not amiss in his answer to Polonius. "What do you read, my lord?" "Words, words, words." A pot-pie might be defined as a composite of dough, meat, butter, pepper and salt, expressed in words. The poor mute most forego the delicious repast.

CHAPTER IV.

REPLY TO CHAPTER III.

The Black Flag-More Metaphysics-" Pure Act"-Can we Know that God Exists?-Difference between Knowledge, Belief and Opinion-Human Ignorance—The Right to Express an Honest Opinion—The Modesty of Science— Moral Right and Legal Right—Martyrs to Truth; the Debt we Owe Them.

THE Father, in his "touch of metaphysics," his "tail-piece," etc.-choice diction for a priest; but so he heads his chapter -reminds us of the Scotchman's definition of metaphysics. 'When," said he, "a man talks that to another which the other man don't understand and he don't understand himself, that is metaphysics."

66

Our Father at the outset hoisted the black flag. He would neither give nor take quarter. Nothing was to be taken for granted on either side. Let us see how well the promise has been kept.

Ingersoll. "To put God back of the universe compels us to admit that there was a time when nothing existed except God."

Lambert.-"It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. The eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act could, therefore, be co-eternal with his being. The end of the act—that is, creation-could be co-extensive with the eternal act, and therefore eternal. To deny this is to affirm that there could be a moment when the eternal and omnipotent God could not act, which is contrary to Christian teaching."

But what you call "Christian teaching" is the very thing

in controversy. What, right have you to assume the point in dispute as true? This is not only taking something, but everything, for granted. But you say, "the eternal God can place an eternal act." Reader, what is the placing of an eternal act? It is a conundrum, which we give up and pass to

you.

"To put God back of the universe" is certainly to affirm that in time or order of being he antedates the universe. If this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God created matter out of nothing?" Can you conceive of such a creative act, without a time or point in infinite duration when it was performed? Try it.

[ocr errors]

We are told in the "Notes" that, "before creation was, time was not." This as poetry may pass, but as a fact it is inconceivable. But if true, how do we know it to be true? We are also informed that reason teaches that the universe could have been created from all eternity. Whose reason? What grounds have you for saying that reason teaches such an incomprehensible proposition? Create means to make, to bring into being. How, then, can anything be made or brought into being "from all eternity?" To say that God could create anything the existence of which was co-eternal with his own being, is to affirm the possibility of God having created himself. It is said that God is self-existent, but never has theology been plunged in the delirium of nonsense so far as to affirm that God was his own creator. But if it be true that the universe was always created, it must have existed "from the beginning." That is, there never was a time when it was not. Precisely what Mr. Ingersoll asserts. How pleasant it is to see extremes meet! to behold the good Father and Mr. Ingersoll, as in this case, clasp each other in logical embrace. "We may be happy yet."

We are told that “God is pure act, the source of origin of

« ÎnapoiContinuă »