, 1874-01-18

cose-szhich Is not improbableke this, for example
you Tie prosecuting attorney. You gu one lone Wit
ness, credible and competent" who testaes, posi-
e that 1s Its
ct, that he and heard him cock IT, and Place the
muzzc the head Of man md and that the nan
bring ten men, good and true, all of whom swear,
positively, that they were in tho neighborhood Of the
n did mot
aud the jury, and everybody else, think of me AZ
lawyer should stand up and urge the testimony OF
bar did not ki tho man in question: Whatever the
parties might think of me, very plain IS 70 what
the Govt and 5y oa 'nnk o e o t9 s
lone witness IS to what he did see would
overbaance the testimony OF the ten as to what they
jury (your audience sunday erentng> witness and
simply testified what you do not know, while there
are many and intelligent w me-, men and 10 ~.
ing-who ready to testify and do testify modessT
ana thankfully, every day, u thst ;t. they know that
" Though 4 man die, yet shau he i've agaan."
argument. It Was doubtless intended Is such
by the writer, aud, after tho first porusal, We
are almost tempted to exclaim with the student
in Faust:
feel MS stupid, from al you've said,
As II q min-wheel whired In my head !!
And yet is 1t not absurd and extremely pre-
sumptuous to require us to admit that Spirit
ualst, testifying to supernatural communications
between himself and his friends beyond the
grave, is entitled to the same credit which wit
ness may claim who sweafs to natural fact
This, and this only, is the very pith
and marrow of the lndicrous PROPOSE
tion OF Truth-Seeker" In answer to this
proposition, submit that the shooting and the
consequent death are things within the limits OF
wel-known natural Jaws. Spiritual communica-
tinns, however, are simply operations OF occur
rences not within the scope Of the powers OF
Nature, positively ascerlaned and established.
The form can be demonstrated lad oculos to
all men tho latter are believed to exist BY q
few men only, who mistake their suppositions
Tor positive knowledge. And right
here is tho difference between the nature of tho
proof produced By Materialism and the evidence
us illustrate the distinction BY g practical
example: II 'Trutn-Seeker should inform
me that lie had witnessed runaway
on any Of the streets OF Chicago. I
should believe him, because I know
that horses eau run, aud that carriages may be
statement that he had seen horse OF carriage
raised twenty feet big in mld-air without any
visible physical agency wha.over, should take
the liberty to dou0t the verncity OF the
gentleman though his crehbiAty as a
man aud brother stood unimpeached and un-
inpeachable. The laws Of gravity cannot thus
easily be abolished. They would not permit me
to believe the wonderful story Of ''Truth-scek-
err; at least not until was personally favored
with u clear and unobstructed view Of the mir
aculous mid-alr performance. And here, re-
peat, lies the distinction between actual proof
admissible On the tr1al Of any question submit
TED to the Judgment of impartial and intelligent
men, aud tho alleged evidence vouched for BY
Spuitualists and, III the name OF common JUS
t;ce and common sense, [ protest against con-
founding the ono with the other. and thus
placing fact and hypothesis on par, E. j.