Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1877-02-22
Review of Elder Reeds Lecture.
Continued from last week.

Review of Elder Reeds Lecture.
Continued from last week.
The church has been accustomed
from time immemorial to assume a
position as being true and then ar
que from that; and because OF the
sacredness Of the ministry which al
lows no back talk, erroneous posi-
tons are sometimes conceded to be
true. There is no reason why this
rule should be applied to religious
teaching more than to politics or sci
once, hence this criticism.
/ closed last week with a no.
tice OF a change Of species during the
present century. the lecturer after
allowing for an indefinite period, in
which the earth was being prepared
for man, and placing the date at
about 5000 years ago, says: Now
comes the last grand act IL the or
der of creation. Man appears at the
head OF finished world. We behold
him made in the image of God. The
sceptre of dominion is placed in his
hand and he rules the whole EARTH"
Now will make few interroga-
tories right here. Did God close up
the work OF creation 5000 years ago,
at the time that Adam was put in
charge? Which one OF the innumera-
BILE races of men are the descendants
of the man denominated the crown
ing glory OF creation?" III all the ra-
ees are descendants OF Adam, will
the lecturer inform US whether the
Fuegians, as referred to by Prof.
Clarke, have refrigerated from their
original condition, or have the Anglo
Saxon race improved on Gods work,
and without his aid? If the latter
race has been so immensely improv-
ed, does it not give evidence that the
creation was not closed up 5000 years
ago, nor even at the time the lecturer
was speaking? Scientists differ with
che lecturer on this point. They do
not count time. They do not believe
that the work OF creation ever had a
beginning or that IL will have an end
ing; that every breeze that sweeps
over the earth witnesses the creation
of new forms, and the destruction or
old ones.
"There is not one we'll grounded
proof upon which to base an argu-
ment for mans great antiquity
Here the speaker agrees with OAR
win and Huxley. Man as he actually
is to-day cannot be traced back seven
years, and as the time increases the
difference in appearance. customs,
habits and development are the more
apparent. We have no means OF trac-
ing man back further than 5000
years, that being the extent to which
writing as q means OF communicating
thought can be traced. The only
plan OF carrying down a history
was by system OF signs, hierogly-
phics and pictures. Pictures OF the
the ancients are deceptive, and it
would be as easy TO recognize FORM
er citizen by his obituary notice or
resolutions Of respect; as to recog-
nize Adam by one OF his historical
pictures. There Is no man OF judg-
ment that will look on one OF his pic
lures, and observe that high forehead,
classical cut brow, splendid physique,
and his divine look of artless inno-
cence as he receives the apple from
his loving partner. and believe that
the artist has been "true to life."
For the purpose OF calculation l
will admit the pre-creation OF species
and man as separate species. But
here comes the same trouble. We
look over the world and find six sep
arate and distinct races OF men and
each OF these races is divided and
subdivided into nearlyas many class
es as there are individuals. We can
begin with the intellect of Webster
and pass gradually down, ranking by
intellect and physical development.
until we are absolutely lost in the
labyrinths OF the vegetable world, and
no one has yet been able to point out
the line Of demarciation which separ-
ates man from the inferior animals.
Will the lecturer undertake the task?
The nations OF the earth are before us;
we can distinguish the one from the
other at a glance, each claims
superiority over his fellow, but an in
telligent mind, will at once notice the
minute graduation, and when we at
tempt to draw the line we find the
work requires such an acute percep-
tion that it has heretofore been aban-
doned, and the more the subject is in
vestigated the more intricate will it
appear. That we cannot notice any
particular change in the short life
time allotted TO man Is no argument
and the fact that man can be i'm
proved and developed, and the
very fact, OF change is evidence that
creation was not finished 5000 years
ago. Prof. Swing says $50 endless
seems this empire that now the chief
inquiry as to man is whether he has
not not been gradually wrought out
in the shops of nature, God having
him, not in the Garden OF Eden a few
years since, but in some humble
form millions OF years ago."
When we take into consideration
the high Importance OF the subject;
that every moment OF a mans
life he is undergoing constant decay;
that by nutrition he undergoes
constant renewal and change, we
should expect more than mere theat-