The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1859-05-19
INDEPENDENCE, MAY l2, 1850.

Mr.. EDITOR
In your last issue l notice an article
over tine signature of E. G. B. The in
tention Of the writer evidently is to re-
view tine course of independent lectures
which have been delivered here the past
winter, and as it is fair sample of many
other criticisms which the individuals
who were connected with that course Of
lectures have been subjected to, l beg
the pardon Of your readers and yourself
for noticing it briefly in reply. Your
correspondent evidently is one of those
who are numerous enough to be called a
class su; ycner;s. He has certainly heard
none of these lectures; he certainly
knows nothing definitely of their charac-
ter but like the other members of his
class, he is all the better qualified to act
as critic on that account. HIS animal
versions are based upon the fact that the
positions assumed in those lectures do
not accord with his Jclief and not upon
the question whether they be true or
false. He is very sure that the " ten
dency Of such teachings is only evil"
and that their " only aim is mischief"
although he is utterly unable to tell your
readers what those teachings" are, in
order that they may be able to judge for
themselves how much mischief" there
is in them. The dear people" must
be protected from the /" tree of know
ledge" at all hazards We, their mas
lers, must exercise a charitable over
sight over what is presented to them,
otherwise they might cease to be govern
ed in their belief Ia la E. c. B. with
out reference to the question of truth or
error"
Your correspondent asserts that were
it possible to subvert the religion of
Jesus" that :" freedom, enlightenment
and refinement would be destroyed with
it," Such assertions are common enough
Every one who is the fortunate possessor
of a good suit of wearing apparel can
hear them at least once in each week.
But coming from one who evidently has
some claims to the title of scholar, and
who, presume, is not paid regular sti.
pend for expressing opinions of a partic,
ular character, they evince an ignorance
of History which is somewhat surpris,
ing. Barring ny assertion upon histori.
cal evidence, / challenge him to the de-
NAL of the fact, that the Christian relig-
ion, as a system, found the dominant ma
tons of the world in state of civiliza,
ton, embracing morals, literature, and a
cultivation of the arts and sciences, at
least equal to that of the present day !;
and that, from that time, the spread of
that religious system and the moral aud
Intellectual degradation of man were ex-
actly equal and coincident to each other
for a period of fourteen hundred gears.
Upon the same historical evidence | also
challenge denial Of the concurrent fact,
that since the time when the race began
to emerge from that cloud of ignorance
and superstition, the looping off and mar
rowing down of the relations of religion,
the surrounding and separating it by
purely metaphysical boundaries from the
active, useful, and necessary duties Of
life, and the advance of science and re :
finement have been exactly equal and CO.
incident to each other. Your correspon-
dent is anxious to support the authority
of the d" Mosaic creation" and manufac-
lures an argument by stating that be-
cause astronomers use the expression Of
Of "sun rising" which is not strictly
correct, we do not lose confidence in the
science of Astronomy. Therefore be
would reason that the objections raised
against the Mosaic History" are not
valid. Will he please to inform us when,
and by whom, objections have been rails
ed against the language ascribed to Mos
es? The objection is raised against the
statement on the ground that it is untrue
in point Of fact, not that the expressions
used are improper. But l am sure no
Infdel will differ from him on the sub
ject of the q Mosaic History" while he
makes it Pigment of the imagination, a
" word picture" story having no foun-
dation in actual events. Infdelty can
have no quarrel with him if, as he
says, Revelation lies beyond the range
OF our perceptions, and which. there fore,
Reason alone could never athom." He
surely should not quarrel with those who
assume his own position that it is imagi-
native, sword picture" unreasonable
and untrue. The only difference between
them is that he Jel,eves because he can
not understand, because Reason can
never fathom it," They disbeiieve from
exactly the same motives. The belief of
the one is bounded by his ignorance,
that of the other by the actual grasp Of