Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, February 3, 1878, Page 9

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: SUNDAY. FEBRUARY 3, 1878—SIXTEEN PAGES 9 ELIGIOUS. The Theological Frights of the Past Three or Four Centuries. . childhood’s Faith, if Found- ed on Absurdities, Should Perish. 1n;0pen Letter to Dr. Thomas on His Recent Pulpit Utterances. D, Byder's Views on Eternal Pun- ishment Taken to Task by a Critic. An Old-Fashioned View of Bible Truths---The Deluge and Belief in Witches. Justice Versus Mercy---Expedi- ency the Basis of God’s Gov- ernment of the World. Redemption of the Murderer and Dam- pation of His Victim---A Reply to “The Tribune.” General Notes, Personals, a Boy’s Composition, Serv- ices To-Day. TAEOLOGICAL FRIGHT. YOE SCARE OF THE SO-CALLED ORTOODOX. To the Editor of The Tribune. Jourst, Jan. 25.—On reading the action of {be Metoodist ministers at their Monday meet- inrfn catting off all debate on **Eternal Tor- ment,? oze could attribute the cause to but ope motive, and that is, they had become grock with what, for want of a better name, may be called ¢ Theological Fright.” We bave seen children frightened so as to paralyze them for the time. We have noticed dults, during a railroad accident, lose all con- 1ol over themselves, so that others had to bear 1hem from the wreck to safety. But for a real downricht fright, we thipk there is none xhichequels a theolomical one. When those who profess to be teachers find themselves in soch 2 position that they refuse to discuss snd nesolse 1o reaflirm, they betray a weakness that istruly piiful. But our purpose is not to par- tiularly criticise these, but to noticea very 1ew instances where this theological fright has oecurred. The name of Vesalius, the founder of modern zxatomy, stands forth as one of the benefactors of the race, - He soon became dissatisfied with thecld systems. Before him the dissection of e buman body was thought to be sacrilege. Even such men in the early Chursh as Ter- tuilion and Aucustine held arnatomy ‘o abhor- rence. Boniface VIIL interdicted dissection as wrilege. Vesalius braved ali this theologic trieht aud ignorance, and studied his science by toe only true method. To secure subjects” for his investigations he witkstood the fires of the Inquisition and the virus of the plague. The result was that at 2§ Legaveto the world his great work on human matomy. With this work ended the old and bezan the new. But the conflict was coming. The theological world bad bound itself to the srstem of Galen. - His followers at once gave tattle, avd, alter usirg all their weavons of epithets, they besun the sharper—the weapons theologie. These at first failed. Charles V. had made him his physician_and_could not spare him. Bat when Phitip I1, of Spain came to the torone all was chanwed, Vesalius was falsely charzed wita disgceting living men. Lie was driven out, 2:d, while on 3 pilgrimage to the Holy Land, wsé shipwrecked, in the prime of life. "All this nesalted from hate aroused by theologic fright. He was hunted to death by men who, in their {rnorance, supposed he was injuring Teligion. His work only consisted in destroying the old falte system ‘and creating a new, founded on ,the true method of inductive science. Let us recall another victory of medical sdouce over theologic izmorance. “Early in the Isst eentury Boyer introduced inoculation as a weventive” of small-pox, uand socon a few tUsteltful persovs - followed his esample. Thealorians on_both sides of the Chaonel be- cme frightened. The French theologians sol- emly condemned the practice. The Enslish drvines were vepresented by the Rev. Edwara Massey, who, in 1122, prepareda serman in whicly ie declared’ that Job's distemper was con- fuént small-pox, and that Job bad probably Ieeninoculated Ly the Devil, and that discases were sent a3 4 punishment foy sin, and that this tttempt to prevent them was a ** disbolical op- ention.” This theological fright lasted for Tews, for as late as 1733 the Rector of Canter- ury denounced from his pulpit the practice, audwas supported by many of his brethren in the Church. The common weapons used during this eonflict were the charges of atheism ang soreery. Another great fright occurred when Jenner wade bis preat and blessed discovery. 101798 zuanti-vaccine socfety was formed by clergymen yeiclans calling upon the English people 10 stop this new practice, as bidding defiance to Heaveu iesel, even to the will of God. In 1803 the Rev. Dr. Ramsden preached before the Luiversitr of Cambridge on the subject, min- gling texts of Serapture with falsehoods against Jenner, but wiser men pressed forward, and the Sistory waswon over ignarance and theologic gty 5 py R 0TS o eminent Scoteh physician, forr Stapson, advocated the use of auesthet- k3 in obstetrical cases. Soon the storm began; clergyman after clergymau denounced e lrexrment, as wicked and ‘impious. It was leclared contrary 10 Holy Writ, and texts ware dled in abunuance. It was declared that to use chloroform was *to_ avoid part of the pimesal earst: on woman.” & Unto the woman said, I will greativ multiply thy sorrow aod E‘{um}m: in_sorrow thou shalt bring forth b Gitdren.’ Dr. Simpsou defended the hohe that hehad introduced, yet such was It enorance and theologic power that the Uattle gcemed lost, when, fortunately, his wit Smeto his aid. My opponents forget, be dud'~ ‘the twent <t verse of the second fiauter of Genesis. Thatis the record of the Tt surgical operation ever performed, and betext broves that i be miaker of the universe s He took the rib from Adam’s side for oo Sreation of Eve caused u deep sleep to fall 2Addan.” This was a stuoniug blow, but the boologians had streurth cnouzh left to ‘eclare that 1his operation took place before n" @we inio the world, and the sleep could i 10t hiave been caused for the purpose of renev- ;j{mm. Dr. Chalmers now appeared, and, trafew heavy blows routed the enemy for- e, Probably the theologians of this time re- not to debate but to reaffirm the o btural soanduness of their position, strength- Oned by letters from their proviucial brethren. U the Boston Commion, upou a monument Srected 1o ore of the discoverers in anmsthetics, 1 ese words: **This also_cometh from the ™d of Hosts, who is wonderful in counsel and exeelient in working."” bflliud this inseription, then try and realize whf loolish and useless was the fright-theologic Th possessessed these men. - €L Us turn for a moment to another depart- Tfinl In which the conflict was Jong and severe. !ri:f:he thecloric mind probably no_greater e hasever occurred than that produced by ’ ¢ Iuvestizations and demonstrations of geol- o8y We will only eclect a fewinstances 10 show the bitterness of the conflict and uselcssness of ® fright. From the first demonstrations of Reology war commenced. “The dostrine of the b urch was that *jn the beginning God made the Leavens and the carth, thay **all things ml‘rt' made in the begitmng,” and that to say that stones aud fossils have been made since b beginuing s coutrary 1o Seriptures, nrefllog’y declared that fossils are *‘sports of 1 e, or the *“‘results of a seminal gir act- 0% on rocks.”” or *models made Ly the Cre- or before He had fully determined upon the %1 manuer of creating various beings.” In the faeenth century the true idea was proclaimed, it made but little impreseion. Near the %tmg of the seventeenth eentury De Clave 4 and others revived §t. Then the theo- ¢ faculty of Paris denounced the theory as boscriptural; and, destro; banished the’ authors xmm“%fl's“'é‘.fd“}?i‘é’é’g them tolive in townsor frequent. places of public Tesort. At the middleof tiic eighteenth century Buffon attempted to state simple geological ;ruths. The iheologians immeaiately dragzed im from his bizh position, and forced im to Tecant and publish his recantation to the world. 1n this aze so strong was the power of theolozy the 150 vears passed before the Scriptural view of fossils was overthrown by sclence, and this was finally accomplished by &cilln, in his_de- ductions of facts from the fossils found at Calabria. The theologic trumpet now sounded a retreat and a new position was taken: *That the fossils were produced by the deluge of Noal.” ‘While a few dissented from this view ss a false position, the preat majority upheld the octrine that tossils were the remains of ani- mals degtroyed at the flood. This was consider- fid sound doctrine” apd 3 blessed means of remndliflg " science with Seripture, To sus- tain this *Scriptural view» great efforts were put forth by both - Catholic and Protestant theologians. ~ One declared that certain fos- sil remains of o mamimoth, discovered in France, to be the bones of giants men- tioned in Scripture. There were giants on the earth in those days (Gen., vi., 4). Father Torrubla did the same thing in Spain.” Increase Mather sent similar fossils to England with the same statement. One theologian made a great arade of the bones of 3 ereat lzard found in ermany. He claimed that it was the fossil man, thus proving the reality of the deluge. In regard to the theologic conception of the deloge, no propesitions were too absurd to maintain a theory supposed to be vital to the Bible. Some declared that the tail of a comet. bad caused the deluge; others that the carth contained a great cistern from which the waters came and to which they returned. Froofs were exhibited iu_ vain that no universal deluge could have taken place. The only answer was the text: *And all the high mountains, which were under the whole heaven, were covered,” and the violent denunciation of infidetity. In England, France, and Germany, the belief was fusisted upon that the fossils were produced by the deluge of Noal, as a part of the faith essen- tial to salvation. Suchwasthe power of theology united with ignorauce, that it took 120 years {for the searchers of God’s truth, as reveuled in Nature, to place their deductions on a founda- tion sccure enough to overthrow the enemy and silence its volce. Here we remark, strauge as it may appesr, England made the most bitter fieht against geology, and was the first to cry *‘quit,” on the basis of a sham science. The’two ways by which this figuc was conducted by the theo- logiaus was that a great doctrine was in danger, for il these fossils were the remains of animals which lived and died before Adam, where would the doctrine go that death was the result of sin ocenrring in Adam’s fall¢ Then there was the attack by the Jiteral interpretation of texts which always serve the best method of rousing the popular mind. We think it would be well for those who are defending the doctrine of cternal torment to remember that the battle was fought and lost against geology in wuch the same way by the ery that a vital doetrive of Christianity is fn danger, and by attempting to lead the pon- ular mind by the literal interpretation of texts. ‘We can hardly realize, and probably the great mass who are now listening to the attacks made on Farrar, Beeclier. ana Thomas do not know, that ouly little more thau thirty years azo clergrinen were burling their weapons at all eologists, and especially at such Christisn ivines as Dr. Buckiand, Dean Couybeare, and Pre Smith, and such religious scholars as Prof. Sedgwick, under the terms of “infldels,” “im- pugners of the sacred record,” and “‘assailants of the Volume ot God.” Geology was deciared by these defenders of “gound doctrine” *‘not a subject of lawful in- quiry,” denounced as **a dark art,” as * dan- gerous and disreputable,” as ‘“‘a forbidden province,” as “infernal artillery,” and as “an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation.” It is bumiliating to read the petty annoy- ances which such men as Sillimap, Xfllcllconi:, and Agassiz had to endure from the defenders of “sound doctrine.” We all know, or ought to know, the frightthsttook place when geology came in conflict with the literal reading of the text wherein it was declared that the world was made ip six days. We will give but one in- stance: Prof. Stuart, of Andover, declured that geolozy Was becoming dangerous; that to speak of six periods of time for the creation was fiving in the face of Scripture: that Genesis ex pressly speaks of six days, each mede up of an cvening and a morning, andg ot six periods of time. He was replicu to by Prof. Kiogsley, of Yale, in an article which vroved that the record speaks just as clearly of asolid firma- nent as of six davs, and if Prof. Stuart had zov over ong difficalty, 2nd accepted the Covernican theory, be might s well get over another, and accept the demonstrations of geology. We need not say that the Fictory was with Yale and Science. We notice in a sermon preached from & Chicago pulpit words to thiseffect: * Dr. — is Jooking to a church in the New Chicago ‘Theatre, with an 38,000 salarv. This is not the first time abuse has taken the place of logic. In the conflict against geology, Dean Cockburn attempted toscold its supportersout of the field. From his pulpit he dewounced Mary Summer- Fille in coarse lauguaze for studies which_haye made her hopored throughout the world. In otber departments of nature the theologe fright bas caused mischief. In Russia, by a strange rendering of 2 text, the great masses of the peasantry iwere prevented from raising and eating potataes; and iu Scotland, in_the bezin- ning of this centary, the use of mills for win- nowing grain was denounced as contrary to the Scripture. as in the texe: *The wind bloweth where it listeth,” as leaguing with Satan, who is % Prince of the power of the air.”* This was thoughz a suflicient cause for excommunication from tue Scotch Church. Forthis statement read the work, Sir J. Y. Simpsou, vol. I, in which we find that a person was forbidden the communion for * raising the Devil’s wind,” with a winnowing macbine. As other results, arising from theologic frizht and the literal reading of tests, we mention the fact that, on account of certain cxpressions in Ezelkiel, at one period, any wap that did not place Jerusalem in the centre was considercd mpious. And then how men have been injured by literal interpretation of texts inregard to receiving interest for money. Others have re- fused, in our own land, to ‘answer the Census Marshals, their reasons being based on the re~ sults of numberiog the children of Isracl. ‘We cannot refrain from giving a short state- menz of & theologic frizht, which resulted in the Inughter of a nation. In Paris, during 1867-'63, war was declared against, certain Pro- fessors of the Medical Schoof of Paris. The at- tack was led an aged and veuer- able prelate. The theolozical party sent a spy,in the person of a young student, to these Jectures. He returped with the report that the speaker declared that as longashe held the chair he would combat the false idea of the existence of the son). The good Carainal arose in his place in the Senete and_declared the as- sertion wicked and impious. The report spread, and the next Jesture was crowded. Another Professor arose and asked to be heard. Heheld in his band the notes of the offending Profes- £or, and read from them that Do mention bhad Dbeen made of the soul. The real expression swas the idea of un art which had been combated as false in medicine. The result was that the theological party retreated amia the laugnter of all France. _And now what inference may be drawn from these tew statements, taken from writers whosc truthfulness cannot be impeacted ¢ Is it not this, that theologicval fricht is not n\new thinx Arc there hich tirst, What in the bistory of the past? not migbty vet subtle intlu promt students in theology 1o a: is sate ¢ and, second, What is true? Theseques- tious are only different in a word, yet the au- swer to one hias ¢riven multitudes to the prison and the racl, to the literal flames of this worid; while the answer to the other bas rendered men wsound in the faith,” *‘in good repute with their elders,” und **bright lights in their sect.” "The method always adopted has been to pro- claim to the masses the moral value of 2 dogma nd its proof by the literal meaning of texts. We all know that oue of the hardest conflicts ever fought was the one over the meaning of the six days of creation. The cry was, " Give these any other than a literal meanine and noth- fng but disaster will resuls to Christianit! Has the result proved the truth of this asser- tion? How many clergymen in now reading these words of Scripture include ooly six days of twenty-four hours and exciude all gense of a larger ulllcnniu;z? " Take the heb ral rendering of thosc texts or passazes ;'hi:h spenkg of witcheraft, arc they true to the facts of history? The time has been when thousands have suffered cruel deaths, when millions firmlv believed in it, when s vast amount of literature was printed Upon the subject, when learned Judres gave it their carnest and patient attention, when min- Isters—godly, but, alas, mistakenmen—preached Vast pumbers to death’ from the text: ¢ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ Once belief in itcheraft was considered **a sound doctrine,” pow un esploded falsity. Has religion suffered loss? We think not. Taking also the belief incvilspirits, and their power to obscss men, causing sickness and im- Thorality in conduct. weask, Would sny clergy- man, now carncstly engaged in defen he belief of eternal torment, in o case of sickness in his family or parish, venture to sugzest that the cause of the sickness arose from obsession? e think not. Yet the writer has witnessed, within the Jast ten years, in our own land, pco- ple in some respects intellizent, claiming that when sickness came into the neighborhood it was the work of * black spirits,” and only When theee were * caught,” or “ bound,” would hgalth return. Onc man, the owner of a fine farm, spent many of his evenings in (to him) the good and great work of ‘‘catching” thesc **black spirits,” which infested the neighbor- hood. Let us remewber thap the belief in witcheraft and demouniac possession has been as vivid and real in the mindof man as thedoctrine of cternal torment. And whilo the doctrine of cternal torment seems to be stoutly defended, may it niot be rather a defense of the body than the lifed May not this rule be a_good one to apply, viz: ~ When a belief is. fresh and full of life, and stronger thau the age, men hasten to dis- cuss it; but when it has lost its freshness and vigor, and falls behind the average iutellectual and moral standard of an age, they bar discus- sion and reallirm ¢ s When we hear the sound of defense, we would ask these defenders: Are you not making au attack on the sibilities “of the race fn the future, the hopes of countless hearts, thut their luman wreeks of affection, which drifted into the unknown, —may be rescued and saved? May not God havea revelation in man gs well o to man? IMave we Dot secn position alter position abandoned with a frizht and fight beeause the revelation of God in man had grown larger aud higher than any theological measurement? When the humauity of a people or age grows larger than its theolozy but one result can take place: the abandoument of the old belief. The age calls for honesty not only in the mart and Scnate Chamber, but also intellectual nonesty in the treatment of subjects appertaining to the province of relligion. When reading the essay delivered before the Methodist ministers we were reminded of the ling of Burns: “Lord gri'c us eyes 1o sec ous- sei’es as others sce us,’” when the reader de- clared that ‘“ 0ld Calvinism is dead,” and that Methodism has had g laree share in hastening that death. “True,” he continues, ** the Pres- byterian, Baptist, and Cougregational Churches have the embalmed corpse bidden away in their theological chambers, and when some censor investizates to see if they are sound in the faith, thev Iead bim to the silent chamber, where they take the wet cloth from jts face and he looks and is satistied, but down in the parlors sneh npresence 1s unknown.” May not this as- seni?n prove 3 boomerang whieh nay burt the user ‘We would inquire how many parlors of Meth- odist theology, or churches, does the body of et nal torment inhabit? Are you quite sure that ‘You are not mistaken, brethren, us to the sick iman’s location in your homes? We know that we have no right o the scerers of your theolog- ical nousekeeping: but, while the homes of your religions neighbors hiave, as you chaim, an *em- balmed ™ body, would it be strange if you have a skeleton? Would you allow your students to testify in open court what they have learned in this matter! We would respectfully suggest +hiat, as this age has no faith in the viftue of rel- cs, and as * embalmed !’ corpses and skel- ctons “are unpleasant things to have in the house, some arrangements be made with all parties so that these dead forms of belief be both buried at the same time, and thus allow the mourners an opportunity of mutual con- doleuce. ‘This question will not be decided by texts for or against, not by a few mistranslations, not by popular pulpit cforts, but on far broader grouuds than these. In this search for the true answer such ques- tious us these must arise: What is the nature of God1 the extent of His justice? the limit of His mercy? the meaning of the fucarnation the extent of the atonement, and its remedial power in this and the world of spirit? the beginning of evil, whethier lu inan or from without! the na- ture of man?if complex, how far dues this complexity account for evil! and also in the Bible itself, how much are its records colored by the medium through which it came? how much did the moral and intellectual atmosphere influence the writers in recording - what we find written? These are only a few of the many questions bearing on the proposition that God eternaily torments a part of 1fis children. Meanwhile, let the defenders of this theory read and ponder the words of Franeis Newman, nobly said, thirty years ago. * That every fresh advance of certain knowledge apparently sweeps off o portion of (so-called) eligious belief, but only to leave the true religious element tore and more pure, and in prc:{mrticm 10 its purity will be its influence for good and good cuéy." 1VE. CHILDHOOD’S FAITH. IF FOUNDED ON 10NORANCE 1T SHOULD FALL. To the Editor of The Tribune. CnICAGO, Jan. 23.—%“Church,” in 2 recent Suxpay TRIBUSE, in reply to an . article on “The Moral Value of Delusion,” asks the question, “Why do such men of admitted can- dor and benevolence as Mr. Strong, Mr. Swing, aud others of their kind, seek to shake the con- tidence of the peoplein their childhood’s faith? ™ The question is 3 pertinent one, und I hope that the gentlemen referred to may answer it} but in the meantime I will essay a reply. ~ By the peonle I presume * Church” means those who have been brought up from iufancy in orthodoxy,—those who have through the in- strumentality of the pulpit and Sabbath-school been taught not only to believe the Bible liter- ally, bt many dogmas which it is claimed it teaches, This belfef, then, in orthodoxy is what e carls **tne people’s childbood faith.” As *Church ”” admits these gentlemen to be men of candor and benevolence, they, when say- ing what is calculated to “shake the confidence of the people in their childhood’s faith,” must have been thoroughly convinced of the unsound- ness of that “childhood’s faith.” This very candor aud honesty impelled them to speak; and If thus convinced that certain dogmas were false, injurious, and frrational, I certuinly be- lieve them to be fully warranted in attacking them with whatever persisteuce and severity they may choose to employ. If that faith is founded on jgnorance and superstition, the soomer it be sbhaken to its fall the better. No man or organization has a right to teach a system founded on error, falschood, or delusion, simply because he or they betieve the effect to be *Iavorable to the morality of the masses, and a source of satisfaction and happiness to its believers.” This_doctrine abpears too Jesuitical for tids age of the world, and is certainly the most pitiful plea of orvhodoxy that I have ever heard offered. Let us Jook at some of the articles of belief that constitute *the peonle's childhood faith,” —articles which ate taught to-day from a ma- jority of orthodox pulpits and to over 5,000,000 scholars in the Saboath-schools of the United States, and see if we cannot ind many things of s0 absurd a nature us to justify those gentle- iu gi “childhood’s falth™ 3 pretty aking up. Let us begin av Genesis. Although the Mosaie account of creation was long since dis- carded by scientists, and is not any lonzer ac- credited he higher intellectual classes, it is taught in ali the orthodox Sabbath-schools in-| this country. Children are there taught that God, having created the heavens and the carth_in sixX days of twenty-four hours cach, rested on the “seventh dav and hallowed it, and that that was the origin of the Sabbath. But the wisest theologians do not teach that now. They say those six days meant six great periods of timé, but say nothing abcut the sey- enth day being also a great period of time. Next take the gtory of the creation of man and woman, aod of all they did tn Eden; of their reputed disobedieuce” and_ expulsion; of their baving involved the whole human race in sin and ruin, and brought it under a law whose sanctions werce eternal punishment. ow, thourh Science has laid its sure and iconoclastic iund upon this story and spoilt it utterly, declaring Adam to have been a myth, ond Eden ouly adream of the imagination, it i3 taughe in the churches and the Sabbath-schools us authentic bistory, and God-inspired at that! « Chilahood’s faith ' fs thus taught to cling to fahie when seience and reason both declare that that faith is Iaid in delusfon. Science says that Adam peverlised. Reason, pursuing the subieet, declares that It he never lived he never sinned, and did not therefore bring the race under that condemuation that dogmadeclares he did; and that this race is not lost, or liable to be punish- ed eterpally for a finite offeuse; that the evil that men commit in this life is of a phiysical ua- ture, or superinduced by some physical ietlrmi- ty or want, and when they cease to live they will cease 10 sin. Look at the story of the flood, which scierce declares never by any possibility could bave oc- curred in the way in whicn Moses * writes it up.” fle represents it as having been caused by rain, but overlooks the important physical fact that Do more water could come down in ran than bad previously gone up in mists and exhalations. Then comes the wonderful story of the Ark; how Noab, a shepherd or a farmer, with no knowledge Whatever of naval archite ure, built a vewsel Jarger than the Great East- ern, three stories_high, with a carrying capacity cqual 1o a whole ficet of modern sliips! How it laid out in the weather over a hundred years while building, and did not rot; how, without sails or sallors, it rode out all the storms ona sea_where the wind had a clear sweep {or 95.000 miles. As such a ship would cost several million dollars at this time, the question is sug- zp.:te.d, Where did Noan get the funds to build with! The narrative leaves us to infer that he built it upon credit, aad that he must have had more paper_afloat by the time the ark got afioat than Sam Walker everhsd on the market at sny one time duriog his most {nflated, palmy days. Nor did he bave to takeupanyofit when he came ashore. That ark must have, with pitch when with *beaked prow it swam uplifted on the flood.” But men lived so long then that if they did work for Noah without pay for sucha little it they hadn’'t been drowned. The historian says Noah lived nearly 1,000 years, but he does not tell us what the peculiar ‘conditions of life werc at that age of the world that they were so wmuch more favorable to longevity than they are uow. Then e tells us of the rainbow that was set in the cloud as a covenant that there would be no more floods to destroy the earth; but be does not.explain how it was that there was no rain- bow before the flood when it rnined while the sun shone. Moses did not seem to know much about natural science, if be was “learned in all the wisdom of the Exyptiuns”; and Le often puts his foot in it,” although 1ospired, as he says he wes. Passing on into Exodus, we come upon an era when, according to Moses’ account, the natural order of things suddenly siyes way to the miracalons and supernatural.” During his life “he and God and Aaron ™ use these wonderful agencies in carrymg out all their joint plans ana purposes us the chicapest and easiest of all jn- strumentalitics. Up to this period compara- tively few fustances of the exhibition of miracu- lous power are mentioned, but now they come thick and fast. No event is worthy of record in ‘his sensational history if ot accompanied with one or o series of hair-raisiug miracles. Notice a few thivgs that “‘childhoo’s faith? must :_rlulp down a8 a child takes squills,—~with itseyes shut. ‘When Aaron came before Pharoah to perform that Jittle steight-of-band trick with his rod (it had =il been previously talked over between +‘him and God -and Moses), be cast down his rod and it became o serpent. Then Phoroah called ihe wise men,~doubtless a liost, for every country has a yreat many wise men,—the sorcerers and the mugicians cast down every man his rod and they puccame serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed 'up their xods, or, rather, their snakes (for they had become snakes). - Tuking all three of these classes together there must have been o pretty Tespectabie turnout; and, it ‘every man had o rod, Aarow’s rod must have swallowed nearly o cord of wood—or snakes—without increasing its size or weight, as we are certaiuly led to infer iu Exodus, 7, XV. Next, let us examine the twenty-first and twenty-second verses in the fourtéenth chap- ter of Exodus: *‘Apd Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord caused the sea togro back by astrong cast wind alt that night, and made the sea dry land, aod the waters were divided. And the caildren of Israel went into the midst of the sca upon the dry ground, and the waters were o wall unto then on their right hand and on their left.”” “Childhood’s faith,” can you stand unmoved between those towering liquid walls? O Moses! were your history not 1uspired I should be half inclied to doubt it! Let us go on to the time when Aaron made o golden cali for the Hebrews 10 worship. Iz is not difficult for even * childhood’s faith to accept the statement that Aaron, who had reeently scen so many ntighty miracles wrought, should fall iuto idolatry as soon as Moses’ back was turned. Where was that wonder-working rod all_this time to remind him waat he had been? What o miserable memory he must have had, i€ he passed through all the thrilline scenes that Moses says he did, " to forzet God so soon afterwards! lle couldn’s have been the man that God took him for when Iie trusted him with that terrible rod that could turnrivers into ]L_Eluml, and bring plagues and pestilence over alt gyt When that canvas tent, or tabernacle, -was building. according to Moses’ account, God seems to have lost all iuters&f in everything else in His universe, and gave ub ali His time to the superintendence of its construction. He seems to have been in daily communication with Moses and did ot let the smallest detail escape His notice. Chapter after chapter is taken up in the history, with reports of these communi~ cations of God concerning the most trivial things, Does it not seem strange to even cred- ulous “childhood’s faith” that God would so frecly and familiarly communicate with Moses upou such {rivolous matters, and remain silent regrarding so important and solemn a sub- ject as the destiny of the race? If He had ever Leld such famliar intercourse with man, is it not_likely that He would have answered some of the great questions us to the future, that the human mind has been sadly and anxiously ask- ing through all the unnunbered ages that have unrolled their slow cycles since maw's first ap- pearance on this earth? Now let us look at Moscs’ statement that the laws that He gave to the Hevrews at Sinai were: written upon stove by the finger of God Himself. Wil not “childhoud’s faith ” be a little stag— gered when science, while quictly gud laborious- Iy pursuing its researches in the éiadowy Eayp- tian past, discovers hicroglypliics jong antedat- ing Moses, recording the very laws. alinost word. for word, that Moses claimed God wrote! Such is the fact. Dr. Haven, the distinguished En- ghish traveler and explorer, was the fortunate. finder of those hicroalyphics, and sent them to- the Historical Society of Great Britain, where. they now are. Thus Science, several thousand. vears aiter Moses' history was written, declares that history to be simply founded upon fact, und not only strips the events mentioned there- in of every feature of the miraculous and super— natural, and effectually upsets his claim to in-- spiration, Lut discredits cvery statement that. hie ever made concerning any events of a super- natural charactes Science has never vet discovered within its wide! domaln u single instance where o vatural law Tas been supérvened; and draws the indubita- ble conclusion that miracles are impossible.. also, makes the unanswerabie declara-- “no testimony for auy miracle of er kind, can ever amount to a proba- -, much less proof.' Let us leave Moses and pass to bis illustrions! and humane (1) successor, Joshua. ile had been Moses? pupil and minister for some time, and scems 10 have been an apt acholar. The miracles that Moses wrought, numerous and amaziug as they were, sink into insiznificance, compared with the stupendous ones that Joshua, in_his little history, says that he per- formed. Sec how he arrested that deep, swifi- flowing river Jordan, when it was overtlowing its banks, and piled its waters up ina heap, where they remained piled up until that vast horde struck their tents and marched across its dry bed! What an immense pile of water must have accumulated while that straggling throng was filing by! Moses used to attribute some of his great miracles partly to nataral catses, apparently belug a little scrapulous, and afraid that hie would not be believed if he claimed them to be wrought wholly by supernatural poser. When he spoke of the flood fhe said it rained forty days and nights; when he relates te miracle of the dividing of the waters of the Red Sea, he says a strong east wind blew all night, driving th waters buck, cte. But Joshua hesitates at nothing. He puts no limit to human credulity. ‘Believing mankind will aceept anything that he says, he parts com- puny with slow-going, scrupulous truth, and relutes those wonderful, astounding events, in which he says he fieured’and led, with as much coolness a5 Stanley, the African explorer, ever assumed when he reported his udventures to the New York Herald. Notice the effrontery with which he tells the story of the taking of Jericho, llow some priests tramyed around the walls of the town for seven days plowing rams’ horns; how, on the seventh day at a certain sig- tion th: nal from = Joshua, the priests blew an unusually heayy blast upon the rams’ horus, when ‘down ca the massive walls, and ** they took the " murdercd the overpowered inhabitants. men, women, and children, in cold blood. pillaged the town, then set it ou fire, putting allof the gold, silver. iron, and all other mosables of value that they foun into the treasury of the Lord. He Iays this in- famous act uponn God Almighty. Hesays that God told him to commit this brutal, wholesale wnurder; an act that excecds in cruelty and bar- barism any of those recent bloody massacres of Bulgariaus by the Bashi-Bazouks of Turkey, that'sent a shudder of borror -throughout all Christendom. ~ But the inhuman butchery of the inhabitants of Jericho by Joshua was™ but the beginning of the bloody career ot that merciless monster. The wars of ravine that he waged from that_time forward against the sur- rounding petty Kiugs were characterized by the most erdel atrocities. When o town or city was taken vo quarter wus given; old and young, mzle and female alike, he remorselessiy put to death, No cruelty was too hideous, no atrocity 100 cnormous, for him to practiee when plunder could thereby be obtained. In his bListory he seems to gloat over his cruel, infamous ucts; and to cap his enormous bascness, he blus- hemously claims that God was leading him ‘Wwhile he Was perpetrating those terrible crimes! But his pawes are too bloody and too tull of horrors to linwer over them. I will mention only one more miracle, bug this one, however, caps the climax. Himalaya-like, it overtops all others recorded other 'miracle-worker that lias ever writien. When Lie had overcome the Amorites znd put them to flight he hadn’t & g slaughtered as many of them as he desired wheuhe percelved that night was approaching. He resorted to the_expedient of-stopping the sun (He was full of expedicuts). c £aid in sight of Isracl, San, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the Valley of Ajalon. Andthesun stood still; aud the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves.” How, oh! “childhood’s faith,” canst thon ac- cept as inspired the writings of this inhuman ‘monster, compared with whom the infamous THeliogabalus of Rome Was lovable and lamb- Dbeon as thickly covered with mortgage as it was' spell as 100 vears they could have stood it, even® like? O Joshua, prophet of God though thou - claimest to be, **There’s a blot of infamy on thy name, So biack that, rested it upon the brow of fiend, Tle'd binsh ta mect his fellos, And Iude his hellish face for shame.” DousT. THE SITUATION. AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. THOMAS. To the Editor of The Tribune. Towa Ciry, Jan. 30.—I bave endeavored to keep track of the late utterances of distingulsh- ed vulpits regarding future punishment, and especally those of the Rev. Dr. Tnomas. I find that which began with sensational rhetorie has, Ly agitation, been pushed into the realm of logic. Yermit me to thank him for bis use of the occasion in disburdening Methodism of the many absurd theotogical crudities heaped upon this doctrine by Romanism and Calyinism, and impliedly referred to all evangelical churches in sweeping assaults upon orthodoxy. In all the wave of remark on this subject, set in motion at Westininster and now reveling with the “ white-caps * in San Francisco. Bay, much has been unfair, more superficial, aud all unde- cisive. Whether a preacher deals honestly with his liearers in raising questfons he cannot settle T will not now discuss. This asitation, in all its mieht and main, has not advanced the inquirs a single step, but re- turned to the point from which' it started, the uestion: ** What did Christ teaca?” To this all have answered in substance, He taught that future punishmeut will begin; that He nowhere taught it will end; that, if He used words inthe same sense us to Iell that He did as to Heaven, in the same sense in which His nuditors und “(:f.d Him, He really taught that it will uever en Now, if we would go further and philosophize upon facts Christ Igs. reverlod, the quegllun must be, not whether God is good and wise, but whether His goodness and wisdom appear to us in this doctrine. Since Dr. Thomas claims ihe n%ut to reject a God or a Bible that he cannot fatnom, it would be well to try bis plamb-lin in waters deeper than the familiar relativities of cause and eflect, free-ogency, and immortality. luasmuch as all parties concede that reveuled data make no -conclusion appesr but eternal penalty, and develop nothing bnt negative whinings and yearniugs of the unwhipped crim- inals for a different conclusion, why not adyance to the ultimate question thaw can alone decide whetler we can isco‘fl:ri)hllosophfcally what is revealed Scripturally? 1 suzgest the question, In the relations in which we are placed, that involve eternal punishment to the incor- rigible, may the incorrigible deserve what the structure of our relations im- ply? This is the last and hardest question the Universalist can put to the orthodox theolo- gian. Ir the eriminal cannot personally deserve what the interests of the Disine Governmens require, then the Government iscruel. And since cruelty dare not be charged against God’s Governmeut, orthodox theology must answer the ahove question or admit tnat it cannot philosophically manage the revealed facts, If the demerit of the incorrigible sinner is justly liable to eternal pepalty, then Dr. Raymond’s postulate (which Dr. "Thomas adopts) that *God can coutinue no existence_that is worse than non-existence,” must fu)). For no matter how much worse than non-existence the exist- ence of the sinner may me, yet, if he deserve it, the relations o whicl arped it cannot be charged with cruelty. This postulate illustrates thut both Dr. Thomas and the good Doctor have not successfully managed the revealed facts; for Christ stated, unflinchingly, that it were- better for some men had they never been born.” Nor will it aoswer the purposé to say that by choosing eternal continuance in sin men must, therefore, deserve the cternal sufering in con- sequence of eternal sioning. This is only to assert that man’s relztions involve him in oter- nal sinning and suffering, but it is the justice of these relations that is the question'in haud. Beside, this resort to eternal sinuing to justify eternal suffering, is a surrender of the position that temporal incorrigibility descrves cternal penalty. In a word, orthodoxy declares that the rejection of Christ here 1s a crime, the penalty of which is eternal suflering hereafter. Is the demerit of the crime equal 0 the severity of the penalty? 1 offer the following answer: “T'o be fairly warned against the commission of crime the citizen must be Informed 1o some way of the interests the Government that renders his proposed act a crime. And this in- formation must indicate the magnitude of those interests that wive the measure of the crime against them. In pursuance of this principle clvil governments set forth by law the interests that are gought, the measures for securing them, sud tne penalty for thwarting them. 'The Divine Government has informed its citizens that its intercsts -are the eternal happiness of its subjects. The grand measures 1o sccure this culminate in the manifestation of infinite love by the sacritice of Christ, and the penalty that indicates the extent to which these inter- ests cannot afford to be thwarted is_stated by Christ to be eternal punishment. Now then the citizens are foformed of their responsibility by these three grand exponents as published in the Bible, and therefore cannot avoid seciog that the exigency is infinite. The logical - de- merit of sin must be infinite. But shuce personal demerit must be measured by personal mr{;h.ude, the citizen must not only see logicaily, but feel sensibly, that he will bla.ken his soul with infinite guitt it he reject Christ. Inasmuch, then, as the muenitude of opposing motives meusures the guilt when those motives are trampled upon in_the commission of crime, the question arises, What are t1 tives and what their magnitude that seck to dissuade us from thecrime of rejeeting Christ? T answer: There are three grand points at which man s susceptible te motives: (1) Fear of pun- ishment. (2) Hopc of reward. (3) Senscof obliga- tion. In all these three departments the Bible appeals to man to dissuade him from sin with motives of infinite degree. Unlimited penalty, uplimited reward, and tl finite love illus- trated in the sacrifice of Christ press upon his sense of 1he inflnite with a_persuasive fullncss 20 which nothing can be added. 1u the deliber- ate and final’ rejection of these, his turpitude is unlimited, his demerit infinite. But, being sinite in his capacity to suffer, he must require infinite length of time to reap the demerig of his crime, therefore eternal punishmaat. - Permit me to say in concimlon that Dr. Thomas has treated this question from the stapdpoint that man is rather a poor imbecile, —that he is “‘made a little jower than the angels,” but, as an exponent of Divine glory in rejecting sin, be mounts above them *crowned with glory and honor.” EMORY MILLER. BIBLE TRUTHS. AN OLD-FASHIONED VIEW. To the Editor of The Tribune. Cmecaco, Jan. 25.—1In relation to the religious controversy, I fear Iam a little old-fashioned, finding it difficult to get over the idea that, us Seripture was made for plain people, it must in ‘the nature of the case pe intelligible to plain people, without the necessity of long-winded, -erudite dissertations to settle the meaning of the simplest English words. Now I will select three subjects from the Old and New Testaments, which I venture to affirm .are stated (cach of them equally) as unequivo- cally and unmistakably as it is posstble for the English or any other language to state any- thing, and about the meaning ot which a plain ‘man Jike mysclf never had any doubt when he sat down to read the Scripture account of it. I mean the universality of the Floog, the be- llet In witches, and the cternal damnation of the wicked,—my point being, that i€ we aceept the two first (as it is to be presumed we do) we Tave no right to reject the other. to the first, the statements are as follows: Aud the high hills under the whole heaveus were covered,” “and the mountains were cov- ered,” ** and the ark rested on the Mountaius of Ararat.” * Inthe seventh month the ark rested,” ** in the tenth month were the tops of the mountains seen,”? “and all flesh died that ntoved upon the carth,” and * every liviog sub- stance was destroyed which was upon the face of the carth.” Novr, If L belleve this statement, how can I ispute the fact that the Flood was universal? Now as to the witches, The evidence is sim- ply oserwhelming. Moses, the fuspired law- wiver, says: * Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” evidently a direct command from the Al- ighty. ‘* A woman also or a man that hath a Tamiliar spirit shall surely be put to_death.” Seul, avandoned by God, Sought the Witch of Endor and suid, ** Callme up him whom Ishall name to thee''; and she suid * Whom shall I call up?” and be said * Call me ud to the ‘Spirit of Samuel,” *and when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice,” etc., sod Saul said what form is Le of. and she sald” *‘an old man cometh up,” etc., and Saul pereeived that it was Samuel, and Satauel suld to Saul, 3Ly hest toou disquicted me to bring me upi o lonz conversation following between 1hem. ‘To the huutble believer in the mysterious workings of Providence this might be sufficient 10 sustain hig faith in an aze which openiy re- Jjects the idea and amoug people the professing Christian portion of which gives the subject a very wide berth, notwithstanding it cownes at- tesied under the eacred xyris of Saul, Samuel, and the inspiration of the JAlmighty: but to the ruthless skeptic, who denies the historical accu- of the Scriptures, I subjoin the notable estimonyofa man learned fin the law of our own times—Sir Mathew Hale, Chief-Justice of En- £land—in sentencing a woman convicted for the erime before a jury of her.Christian coun- trymen in 1683. As'tothe reality of the crime, he says there can be no doubt, “for, firstly, the Holy Seriptures hath affirmed so much, and the wisdom of ll nations hath provided laws against such persons, which is an argu- ment of thefr confidence of such a erime,” and the goalike Wesley (in alluding to the learned men who, he perceives, are giving up the accounts of witches as old wives' fables) says, “Tam sorry for it, for they well know that giving up witches is’ giving up the Bible.” And the philosopher Glauvil says: “ Besides the Seriptures therc hath been o fall an at- testation given to them in all ages, that these our su contlident exploders of them fn this pres- ent age can hardly escape the snspicion of hav- ing some hankering toward Atheistn,” - e Seripture account of these subjects is ac- cepted by the devout believer who knows and knows no more his Bible truc a3 a sacred Dumnmn]y. without spot or blemish.s The modern lights seemingly ignore the inspired record, as well as the universal consent of man- king, thvough all the ages, on the grouna for- sooth that these were the dark ages. But the difliculty still reraging. *8ball God pat lies in the mouth of = mau!” and are we to go on taking the Scriptures in a Pickwickizn sense? Civis. JUSTICE VS. MERCY. EXPEDIENCY THE BASIS OF GOD'S ACTION. To the Editor of The Tribune. OAR PARK, Jan. 26.—The advocates of end- less punishment make what they regard, and what their opponents concede, to be their strong point in opposition to the argument based npon und drawn from God’s attribute of infinitc goodness, in the affirmation that, though God s infinitely zood, He fs also nfinitely just, and hence that the tendeacy of infinite love to indis- criminate mercy is counteracted aund held in proper restraint by the inexorable demands of justice. It fs asserted by one side and not de- nied by the other that the integrityof the moral uviverse rests on the infinite justice of God, and that its demands must be met though the heavens fall or the whole humag race sink to endless perdition. I presume I am stupid and dull of comprehension, but if justice be 2n attri- bute of God in the same sense and to the same extent a8 goodness, I am at an utter loss to dis- cover how, i the conduct of God toward a race every one of whom has sinued and come short of His glory, both can find adequate wanifesta- tion. Justive. demands punishment (so it is asserted), love urges mercy; the claims of jus- tice must be satistied, how then shall love obtain its desire? Certainly (on the assumption that the demands ~of justice are inex- orable), its claims canwot be sct aside " to eratify & merely sentimental fmpulse; and while love may plead for mercy and yearn over its object, its voice must be hushed even in the soil of God, acd justice, the great conservator of moral rectitude, must tri- umph, no matter how great or long-continned suffering it inflict on tbe sentient creature. Jus- tice is everything, the creature nothing. But, withouc furtner preliminary, let me say what I commenced in this article” to say, and what I shall, very likely, be considered a fool for saying, viz.: That the doctrine of infinite jus- tice, ns embodfed in Christfau creeds, and pro- mulgated in Christian teachings, as aimost uni- versally accepted as o moral axiom, us used by the advocates of endless punishment and not denled by its oppouents, 13, in my humble judgment, a specious falsehood, o delusion, and a snare; the one fatal belief, admission, or doc- trine that has introduced Into Christian crecds those dogmas respecting sin, retribution, and atoncment that have made them stumbling- blocks to multitudes of thinking minds. both learned and unlearned, and have been largely instrumental in driving them into doubt and in- fidelity. ‘This doctrine of justice permeates the whole body of Calvinism, aud makes it the stern, gloomy, forbidding thing it is to persons of loving natures and generous impulses. It reaches up to the thronc of God, and drags Christ down on its reeking altar to satisfy its demands with an_infinite offering of tears, zony, and blood. Eliminate to-day from our thought and speech tho- assertion that God is infinitely just, in the sense in which the asser- tion is made, and properly comprehend and de- 1ine the relations of God to justice as the facts and the truth demand, as reason, cxperience, observation, and God Himsell declare, 2nd the subject of future punishment becomes one of uot very ditticult solution, the veil of mystery that shrouds the atonement becomes thinner, the moral government of Giod and its final - out- come are rationally presumable, God’s infinite 1ove becomes more than a mere emotion beld in rigid silence by the stern cqmmand of justice, and, in the case of sinful man’s well-grounded hope, takes the place of doubt or gloomy de- spair. I do not, of course, deny the existence of justice 23 a principle of moral rectitude and of moral zovernment; but what I do deny is the force and influence attributed to it both i theology and ‘fooul\u apprehension. Justice, in theology an: mfum ‘acceptance, is an en- throned divinity, sitting above God on a blazing Sinal of its own, promuleating laws to all ra- tional creatures, God included, which they are fnexorably bound to respect. According to this idea its demands must be en- forced; and woe to God, and Woe 0 man, if compliance be not granted. Norw, L ask, s there any such principle swariog 1ts sceptre over the entire moral universe, de- manding of God the infliction of punishment for sin, which He must at its behest inflict or be esteemed a conniver at sin or a driveling senti- mientalist? No! No! The whole thing is prepos- terous, and 50 palpably false that it is passing strange the intellizent world has so long wor- shiped this Moloch of blood and terror. The prevalent idea and teachiug is, that for every wrong to our fellows, for every violation in uct, thouzht, desire, or aflection, of the rightecus laws of od, justice demands aud must bave full satisfiction. This is presumed to be essentfal to the equilibrium of the moral universe, just as the constant force of gravita- tiou fs essential to the harmony of the physical upiverse. Suspend the force of gravitation ina single world and physical ruin and chaos ensue. So, it is believed, if the ‘demands of justice be notcomplied witli, moral ruin and disaster must inevitably follow. But is all this or any of this true in respect to justice and God’s relation to it? 1 answer, not in the sense inwhich theology propagates it, viz., that every wrong or injury done to another, every violation of the law of God, must receive adequate punishment, either puni- tive or cousequentlal. Whst then is the func- tion of justice! Letme answer this indirectly. All sin, ail wrong, all moral crime, i3 com-~ mitted agninst o person or _Dersons, and the business or function of justice is to point out. so farasin the circumstances 1t can be doue. what the injured party may clain in satisiaction for the wrong, and what the wrong-doer must render if the claim be urged against him. 1t never says the claim shall be or must be urged by the person holding it. It does sav to the transgressor that if satisfaction be demanded he must reoder it. Justice leaves i¢ entirely with the injured party to enforce or abandon his claim, as mercy or expediency may dictate. 1t neither knows nor cares whether the claim be enforced or not; whatever satisties the iujured satisfies justice. Another dves me 2 willful jojury in _persom, property, or reputa- tion. I have a just claim for reparation. Am I bound to enforce it? Does justice make any such demand: Certainly not. T may let it pass upnoticed, or cuforce it in wuole or in past; the choice remains with me. In either case justice makes no protest, utters no mur- Taur of complaint. All that is required, and This moral expediency always demands of both God and ma, is. thay in the exercise of mercy, or in casc of Iailure, for any cause, to enforce just claims, the interest, the h:\?niness, the well-being of others shail suffer no injury. The claim, therefore, on God, in the administration of his moral government is not that He shall in every case of wrong mete out exact justice to the sinner, for this would leave no room for the exercise of love and mercy, and would make God the mere executive officer of justice, but the demand §8_that He shall never be unjust. This s all that is essential to the stability of moral government. To this extent, but no farther, is God bound; not by an abstract priudleo outside of Himself, but by Flis own essentfal knowledge of what s right aud what is best on the ground of wise expedi- ency for the hiphest good of His creatures. In- finiie love and wise expediency are the two con- trolling forces of God's moral government and of His moral relations to mun. It is not what sin merits or what are its just deserts, but what will produce the greatest good to tbe creature, for so surely as God exists the highest good of the creature i the greatest glory of the Creator; and eternal loss, dnmn,’.'bl:. or ‘suffering to the creature is, fix it as smoothly 2s we may, eternal dishonor to the Creator, because it argues fail- Qre of moral resources, elthier an inodequate sup- ply to meet the exizencies of the case, or want of wisdoin in toeir use. My article is stretching out beyond its in- tended limits, but [ inust crave the indulgence of both cditor and reader 1o say a few things respecting justice,without which what I bhave al- ready sad would be incomplete. As I have al- ready stated, the prevalent idea of justice is that adequate penalty must be infifcted for every wrong. This {s supposed to be essential to the moral harnony of the universe and the vindication of the righieousness of divine law. Will some theological or legal expert be kind enough to tell me how much suffering is equiv- alent’ to an act of wrongi Please tell me what known or conceivable relation there is between guilt and suffering. How much of one offzets or balances the other? How long must I hold my haud in.the fire to bilance dig, [ alie or o cheat of the value of one or_one mill- ion dollars? Are guilt and suffering in anycon- ceivable manner comparable? Can one stand in . any known or conceivable sense as the cquiva- lent ot the other! Are incomparable things comparabie! Has ruilt, or can it bave, any woral relation tosnilerine as equivalent of one another, either in the mind of God or of man¢ It might with equal propriety be asked, Has a mountain any equivalent relation to an emo- tion, an earthquake to a thought Is there any moral alzebra by which an equation can be formed between guilt and suffering so that we- may know or God may know how much of one is the just compensation or equivatent of the other?* Of course all talk of moral equivalents Is, in the estimation of thinking, unprejudiced minds, sheer nonsense. Yet on theologital the-~ ory Christ sutfered and diedas the equivalent of human guilt. Sin being an infinfte wrone, jus- tice demanded an intinite punishment, and au infinite being had to suffer to satisfy justice and preserve _the integrity of moral govern- ment. Justice has uever told and never can, God hus never told, and we may. say, withont irreveremce, He umever cau, because it is & moral impossivility, how much sutfering is the moral equivalent of sin; yet, as theology bas it, justice demands satis- faction, and God bas no choice but compliance. 1t justice demands inflictfon, she should be abls to specify how muen, but ste i3 utterly dumb when we ask the question, and resson com- pletely fails to solve the problem. The truth is, nelther God nor man administers moral at- fairs on the asis or assumption of equivalents. Expediency contemplating the best possible re- suits to the poverned, is the principle of all wise moral administration, human or divine. If justice must be satisfled, she certainly ought to polut out the extent of her demands, but this she never does. Too little infliction fails to mect the demand, and too mach wonld be injustice. So this grand principlc, so rizorous inits exactions, can in no case tell the extent of its demunds. It clawors blindly and furiously for satisfaction, and threatens the stability of the moral universe if it be not granted, yet can never tell us or God how much will sat’sfy the demand. This question of justice mnst be settled before the CYIESH'JDS that spring from its popular and theological conception can ever be rightly understood. i SEEK THE TRUTH. 4 WORD 70 THE LADIES OF CENTENARY CHURCH. To the Editor of The Tridune. Cmicaco, Feb. 1.—A card appeared in last Sunday’s paper statingthat the ladiesof Dr. ‘Thomas’ church were very much alarmed lest their pastor should wander {rom the oid paths, and venture beyond the pale of orthodoxy (or words to that effect). Dear ladics, permit s word of admonition from a woman who some- times dares to think for herself, and Iwould also suggest o “word of wisdom ™ to a few other anxious ladies who have cutered the arena witha protest against the investigation of the great snd momentous subjects which are sttracting the attentlon of both clergy and laity all over this continent. Do you think your hysterical cries of fear and a few verses of poor thyme, witha weak attempt at satire, or the ‘prayers even of the faint-hearted sisterhood, are a sufficent barrier to the mighty waves of thought which are surging lke a resistless tide over this great country? If you will reflecta moment, I think you will sec the absurdity of the weak and flimsy srguments (1) with which you propose to meet the stern logic of reason, and the plain declarations of Seripture, whick are being bronght forward tu establish tho advanced thought of a few of Chicago’s talent- ed clergymen. Pardon the comparison, but you remfnd me ot the story of the old lady who went down to the seashore and essayed to stop the incoming tide with her broom! 1t ever the people of Chicago and this great and free muntr{ had reason to rejoice. it i3 that the spirit of investization bas at last enter- ed the Church, and that the foundations of our Teligious belfef are being inspected. When we consider that the creeds of all the so-cailed orthodox churches were framed by human and fallible men, and in times of great ignorance (compared with the light of thie prescet age), when saperstition reizned over the minds an «consciences of the most enlightened; in an aze when it was considered sacrilegious to reason upon religious subjects, and especially upon the doctrine of che ruture destiny of man, isit a matter of astonishinent that thinking men and womnen should doubt the xuthority of * such standards of faith? Ifthe Protestant churches deny the right of their clerzy to call iu question the dogmas which coustitute their creeds, they had better cease to call themselyes ‘- Protest- ant? (which means to protest), and adopt the dogmn of “‘infalifbility.” The Church of Rome has ever been the most consistent, in that it never claimed to be a free Church, or that fits members bhad a right private judgment in matters of belief, but that they must vield implicit obedience to the Church in every thing that pertains to religious faith and pravtice. ON. If ‘we proiess to believe that the Bible is an * open book, and _ that mankind are st liberty to read and understand it for themselves, do not Iet us fear the result of canaid investigation. It is noble and God-like to reason. safld to_Israel, * Come snd let us reason together.!” Paul reasoned with unbelievers und Athenlan philosophers, and he_commanded his Thessalo- nian brethren to * Prove all things, and hold 1ast that which s good.” And shall the pro- fessed ministers of the Gospel, at this late duy, jemore reason, aud. rely upon superstition and the ** tradition of the fathers » instead of arpu- ment, to silence the spirit of inquiry which is knocking at the door of the Church, and de- manding a ** reason for their hope ! The ereat question with the Clristian should e, uot what is_popular; not_what onr ereed teaches, but what {s Truth. Christtaught that it was * truth that made us free.” Error only enchains and darkens the miod. Truth courts light aud uvestization, while error shrouds it- self in darkoess and mystery. Dear ladics of the Centenary, one word more. Would you encourage S'nur pastor fn his noble misslon, us teacher and leader of a free and in- dependent people! \Would you have him stand in the van of religious freedom and progress? Then seek to nold up his hands, and streugthen Ifs spirit in the nobfe work he has undertaken. May be go ou in his efforts to dispel the honest doubts of believers aswell as sseptics, and plant the fect of anxfous inquiry upon an enlightened Seriptural faith. Bid bim ™ God-speed ™ instead of hedging up his way, and vou will be true helpers in the church, and *handmaidens of the Lord.” T caunot close this letter of admonition with- out expressing my grutitude to Tiz TRIBUNE for the noble stand it has taken in favor of tree investization, and for its great liberality in openiny its columus to the public, thaf the peo- ple may havea “free pulpit,” without price or proscription. L. M. THAT MURDERER AND HIS VICTIAM. REPLY TO 4 “*TRIBUNE ™ EDITORIAL. To the Editor of The Tribune. Cricaco, Feb. 1.—1 have walted for the pastors of the ¢ity to comrment on your * Sup- posititious case of a murderer Who diesfregen- erate and his victim who dies unregenerate,’” found in Tig TriBGSE of Jap. 20. Bot there may be many good reasons why they do not answer which do not {mply foability to meet the case, and [ can’t longer repress a gesire to say something on the subject myself. (1) The subject i3 not anew one. Seldom perhaps has it been, put as graphically as i your editorfal, yet [ iave been familfar with it in substance for many years. 1ndeed it s, I thiuk, o favorite {ltustrative argument against future punishment with certain controversial- ists. I do not, however, object to it on account of its age, but mentjon this merely to show that, as1t has not heretofore been thought unanswer- able by the clercy. {t will not probably be now. (@) ‘Why you should call speclally on the “Calvinistie™ clerzy for rep;‘y rather than on the Luthersn, Arminian, Episcopalfan, aad Roman Catholic clergy, who all teacn future punishment, is not appurent; but, waiving that, 1 would say: (3) The supposition assumes and appeals to an iostinctive demand for er&ull_v or justice in the treatment of men by their creator, and so far 80 zood. 1L the great principles of justice were more thurongmg discussed in connection with this matter, better results wounld be reached. (4.) 1t assumes that when thercls an apparent want of equity, reason demands anexplanation; and ths is just what makes a day of judgment necessary, for a pablic revelation of the right- eousness of God's dealings with men. And so there is one of the specific doctrines of evag- }!\:llf;l :ellz‘lnn implied if not granted. Thanks or that. Now let us analyze this very plausible fllus- tration a little. Are you shocked in this case at the jdea that a peoitent murderer should go to Heaven? ls murder, then, an unpardonsble sin? If so, then there is one class of sinners who can’t be saved, and 6o universal salvation is denfed by this“supposititious case.” But then what would become of the prayer of Jesus for his murderers: “Father forgive them,” it thelr forgiseness was impossible! And bow could the Apostle Paal be for vtnblvho perses cuted the Christians unto death? Do you say, “Of conrse you did pot mean this”1" Wbat, then, is {1 that shocks you fu Lhe supposition that' this murderer goes to Heavent Is ‘