, 1874-01-26
VS.. sUPERNATu-
RALISM,

''ou'' 1'"S o"r 'oasa An.l "oao.0 o"t ''e"''
NAAo4SAhAaM W.. 9oFStsN @11o-
r,crt,,ro 1r II, r.. Underwood To the
rrcc Iscitrtnt,a socintv.
Mr. n r. frnanruond loctnrod 1ost ovontnp at
I'm wast ao hofor, tnn
Religious Society, hin subject boing Naturalism
yorsus supornat,lralism or, tho Scientific vorsua
tbn Thon}orica1 Wow Of tho 1}n,yorse.a Tho
,'a,,aa 49, .a,l a,,a, .,a t,,a n,,,,;am.o rnrv
attentive inc lecture waB VOL det7ofoa, anu
evidently put together with gront caro-
Whom tho tloolog,an car,o to a stautl-still,
mir, tina 1oo,rror hsT 1oft I'm -oot IN sGo1."
ss" s" sas.s. aao Nv 49, ~" a... . s,,.t,o
sne sccn,ss ot'oeAvufou w. 70 11aeo tno 1o'a..on ~
oauso anu eheot. lie realm OF sc!onoe was TIC
| region OF tho natural TINT OF tho Church was
tho realm Of tho auperuaturnl Blnoo men be-
NM, to unocr1oto m uofortif1c rottora theo1oov
Raao,, ta ioaa ;ts 10 no,% ~, ,nan,imi sfho omnirn
n Ssc;onca was nnro varv imitcJ Int whon man
1,ora,, ~ nrnTctao h,a ranson iii hor,zon born,,
~ sertend omd t,a thaolnria, aow nia rnrts md
| GoIja an+.r"n,1oroJ insnn3ot a,tccaua;on rhn-
| n'nav oainoI Int 'AsI"sA nno vioinrv xhon ir-
u'vsy uornnca s'''t, nr'a,o1 "' ovor thn oarh ria
struurio botweon theo1ony md eolouco
was oniy q question botween man and man.
| Evarv nan sav hfa God only in tho nroioolol
| f1rnro NJ h;a nwu innor relf.
Man ,,atl niivat,cni from m nnaoyo]oned eon1t-
ton to that which he now occupied. Aa thpro
was groat difference in . photograph ot nan
nroaotG fro mfsut t hatr was uro 5 md
ill-outlinud, as compared with tint Of tho man Of
to-day, In ali roueot, something must be tn1,on for
| prantn1. Tin h1oaIat assumod tho oxiBtouco
of tho "Ego' which gnvo imaginary
existence to tho unlvor1o: tic ma
terialiBt to tho substantial nature Of
everything around lin. Tho Bpoalcr
Ind no neans Of determining tic absolute exist
cnco of ohfoots. Wo imtlTci Of thcm only as
they in,nrosyel themselves unon our senses.
Philoaophcrs know no moro Of tho ultimate
| dnRnitfon of ennoe thnn In tta tlays of Plato or
oven, oven pytbagorns. .'~ ''> '' >''' -
E1,nce was mn actun}tty, All NO could Bay waa
TINT Hnneo VIVA sef-oxistent Whatoyor llad e.
isted 1n,,gt hnyo oxistcl in ppaco. This propo-
! ation wou1d he aasontad to. Thoro waa only
omo aubstanco NJ wbteI, va conla tai{o cna
nizanro nnI lint WA untter. 1Tattor alono
enid ,naIo am jmnrosa]nn on mans senaos.
Whntoyor man porouiyed wos noccssnrily mn
/ torini. 4 mar onuId not ;mnrino nnvtl,inp tho
| conat;tuonta NJ woI ha haff novnr senr. Tho
| idon n n Golden cnff ar n n,e,m maid wng a con,-
nomnd ,uv Of ,doos formod from tha muion Of sim.
ri,1n ii1oaa fnrnoi frnm roa1itr. ~ fin vorv M
ol op
nl1strnrt leas lko beauty or joyo. We floludcd
ot,rsolyeE viii, mn at|iectyo. Denuty. strength
virtue woro mnthinkablo. uu1oss aasociatod xith
an object. TIC abstract was not tho thought.
loved wl,at was yirsuous. Therefore,
wa concluded ti,at Mi substance tint
We know was material In its nature.
Mind could not bo said to exist as MI inlc-
poplont Guilty.. We w wcro ali conscious Of .
mind. Int not Of an ontity. liz would not dony
lin oxintouco of snirt. or q spiritual figure,
Tie existence Of mind could bo proved by in
ductlon, not ho assumed a priori. Wo had not
| oyidonca of anytliur but matter. Matter was
/
nn1 recombinei. What was fointly bolioyod by
lin ancieuta to be trnc. ind boon proven by
modern science, rio flowers and grassoy above
Tie graves contained tho gnses W Of tic dcpartod,
a,d AMI nnssod into tie lie 6 body Of tho cattlo'
.n;o,,P P"vau ,rn,a !" ea,1ruo ~ nrston u1o;,,
~ faod nn1 t',a womt io ma,,a Tia hro;T n
aomc mn olae' 1Thnrn ,ycrn Arat,a waudorinr
rom,u1 u now WIN who contained tho orpnal oirmons
~ Sfouns
~ e;nca mottor couh mt bo 1eatrovc1 II cou,a
mt 1ava borur tn oxiat. Etornity eonld not
l,ane ono end cnt olf Tho theoioginn argued
a1,nr 1vf,nt ,yna fr,a ~ n norsomai Go1 was
rr,a -, n'attcr Ma,tor wn. fntnrI,n1 and co,id
MT bo abolislled.
rha thooiooian insistod tbat mnttor ,yas cro.
ntod : to croato VAS to act to oct was tc
arort soTco II tborc wns no mnttor to " nnnis
force to- to whut waa It appiad :? If tue
thnntorinn sait to nothing. tho1l yo must rotccI
FIAT nynnos;,inns TAnnl5nRc1 n ns thn tGoo.
logian insiated, there was no henyen nnd nj
/ III. Y.
atnto Of mes;crly inactivity? WGnt was ho tthiult
;nr % of2 Tho theolorian safl It was q, nrofou1t
m5atery. ny; So II certainly was. Ho had to roice
Tia theologicnl conception of a God existluf
from aIl aternity, with The Intent possibitics D
this CT exquisite nl,iyoran buried in lin, VIII
! nwa,tonei from, ll;s P;D Pan Finkie slcen fov
tLousand years years m $40. and called out tic bonn
t' it'll univerae af q word, ~ was ~ untiiu}ablo
; What annliad to mnttcr, applIod to force. til,
r. cvc1ns of matter oorrosponIiuc with those Of
force. force. Eyon tho Nowtoniau theory supposed
! fhnt tho 1lonnts must Lnyo received priu,a
ns, ~ :" aet thom "nnr Thero was no nbenom
e anon that W was % not attributable to forco. For
,, lonr time scientific mon boliovad thero wa
annfhor olomont. vitality, but Tyndall has Bhowt
q lint Vitality was force. Tho yarious forfns 0
= force fore were only different in molecular, arrange
,. mont. All forces could be resolved into inor
i ganio mnttcr. Tho inaousato forces Of an eg
Gould be converted into thought aud intolligenc
i by external heat tho unconscious forces 1u
0 boeu converted into conscious forcoA.
: Put oxygen AMI hydrogen together with
g spark Of electricity passed through them. wha
i Toaultcd Water lie did not say the principl
r NJ :. n1unaity ~ Ind nasscti into tho e]oments &