Tombstone epitaph., 1890-03-01
A Word of Defense.

previous article, appearing February Ist,
 the writer asserted that he had given
 1t some" attention. The word some"
 in this case means very little. This
 view is demonstrated from the fact that
 the critic wholly fails to touch rhe spirit
 oi the article criticised. He launched
 out by asserting tha' there no need Of
 searching ancient history in order to dis
 cover that people have always been su-
 perstitious, and that superstition clings
 to them yet. The meaning of such a
 statement IS somewh 't vague, but if he
 means that all religions are the product
 of superstition, and that all religious
 professors are superstitious, It Is start
 Ing piece of information. If this were
 true we should be thankful that one So-
 ion is out of the f,g.
 It must awaken train of melancholy
 thought in the mind of the writer to re-
 member that to-day so great a number
 of lhe worlds most brilliant thinkers,
 ablest logicians and keenest writers are
 groping in these awful damps of error.
 Poor. superstitious college Presidents,
 among whom we call to mind President
 Elliot of Harvard, Porter of Yale, See
 lye of Amherst, Low of Columbia, Ad
 ans of Cornell and Angell ot Michigan
 To these m1ght be added great host Of ColiegianS, among whom are 10 be found many of the brightest metaphysicians
 and thinkers this nation ha, ever pro duced. The leading of these poor, ig- nOrant fellows into the clear atmosphere, where the scintillations of the brain of of the leader has forever dispelled the gloom, will be sight worthy the atten- ton of both men and angels. The writer proceeds farther to make an at tack upon the idea of the union of church and state. He draws his his toric illustrations from the history of a time when there was blending of civil law with a creed. It is a domineering church that he fears. In this heartily agree with him. Our early fathers were surely building for the ages when they decreed that in Amerlca the church and the state should flow down the centuries in different channels. Scarcely a greater insult could be offered to our national ideal, as we'll as to the spirit of liberty in the christian faith, than the attempt to invade the sanctum of the conscience and 10 make men righteous by law. In the article, "The State and Religion" this expression occurs: eve desire to reassert our belief that the state should not ally itself with any creed ritual or hierarchy" There can never be the outward union which the writer 50 much fears, unless the state recog- nzes some creed. The moment a relig- ious test should be required some de6ni- ton of Christianity would become nec- essary, and that definition would instantly become creed or tenet of belief
 Liberty of conscience cannot be in- vaded except by force. Men must be to believe something before the principle of free thought is touched. The critic speaks Of sticklers for Sunday laws. Well, if that means standing for national permanency, 1 suppose 1 am a stickler, as 1T occurs to me that the keep ing of one day in seven can be defended on the basis of self preservation. en- tirely indepen'ent of any religious grounds. l am under the impression that thls view is supported by many of high authority in the medical world am sorry that in a little article, twice as long as ones finger, the writer had to devote one-fourth of the space to sheer at Joshua and the contribution box. | see nothing alarming in this, from the 1 fact that sneers at what others hold in reverence are exceeding cheap affairs, and are like the Irishman's gun--loaded l at the wrong end, the one using them i being in the greatest danger. Any fool | may find fault with the Bible, but it re- 4uires some thought to demonstrate its 1 falsity. A perscn might leave behind ! him worse example than that of Joshua, and might not in the future be poorer by having given penny to Chris lanity. C F. SPRAY