New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-12-05

ogy mace the absurd assertion that the Tn.
changeable Divine Being could have existed
Tor all eternity without doing ANYTHING, and
then suddenly changed his mind and in less
than wcel; created a universe, set il all 90.
ing, and then needed rest like a frail human
body, suggesting the blaSphemous idea that
the Divine Creator was tired ont Science
proved that, As far as concerns this cath, il
was formed many millions Of centuries ago
and went through different stages Of trans.
formation, each lasting immense periods OF
time, and that the Divine power was active
all the time as it is now, and will be forever
Ihcologians maintained, on the ground Of
the same tradition, which they continually
have been misunderstanding and misinter.
pretins, that this single creative act took
place six thousand years ago; but science
produced relics Of plants and animals which
must have lived millions of years ago, while
| the circumstances and localities in which they
were found proved that other millions of wears
preceded them.
In all these, as i'll every other instance
science has been triumphant, while thcolo.
glans had to give in and acknowledge, how.
ever reluctantly, these triumphs; aud not
withstanding they at first cried that religion
was IN danger, that they accused the scien.
fists of Radicalism, Deism, Atheism, and
hurled at their heads other accusations of the
same sort, the only activity they exercise
now, consists of attempts at reconciliation
between science and theology; and this in
decd is their legitimate calling.
In all the tumut created by this antagon-
ism, which is unwisely kept up by certain
class of theologians, there is one great con-
ISOLATION. 1t is the consideration that the rel
alive positions Of theology and science have
been changed since the time of Newton.
Then the spirit of the tribunal which con-
demned Galleo still prevailed; every new
scientific theory was tested by the teachings
OF the theOlOgans Of the day, and if these
men decided that it was contrary to their
doctrines, it was condemned; this being the
spirit Of the society which was under the
tntelage of the clergy, no man, not even
Newton, dared to be anything hut orthodox.
No doubrthis had great deal to do with the
difference in the apparent theological opinions
Of the scientists ofthat time and of the pres
ent day, when science, by experience made
conscious Of her superiority, has lifted up her
head, and in place Of being the handmade of
theology. and being judged by theology, has
placed hersclfin position to Judge the teach
ings OF theology, and to decide which are true
and which are erroneous. Let the reader
keep in mind that we speak of theology and
not Of religion.
his life to the study Of Gods own handiwork
has more true religion and more exalted
idea Of that mysterious Divine Being, who,
with such wisdom, power, and superior con-
cepton Of the truly beautiful, presides in the
management Of the infinite Universe, than
the so-called theologian who, neglecting the
study of Gods own handiwork, confines him
self to the discussion of old obscure literary
traditions. For our part, at least, We must
confess that our religious feelings Of awe for
the Creator have often been severely shocked
by visits to a certain theological seminary, on
class OF theological students, on the classified
properties of God, what He is, and what He
is not. To the scientist such lecture is
nothing but arrogance and blasphemy, and
such lectures are, alas, occasionally pro-
pounded in some of our orthodox churches
Scientific Americaa.