The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1890-01-15
Ghn,tpltta by the 311nu.

We do not know very many things per-
fectly. but we can see a few things clear
ly. We can see that there are at least
two essential entities in the universe.
mind and matter. Which is superior.
mind or matter: Which Is logically
first: Can you think of matter max
ing or producing mind? Can you
think of matter existing without the ex-
istence of mind? If so, did matter pro-
duce mind: Did matter. the lesser. pro-
duce mind. the greater? Can the great
er come from the less? Matter has not
intelligence; mind alone is intelligent.
If matter be not intelligent. can you get
out of ii what was not in it? Is it rea-
sOnable, is it common sense. to say mat
ter is first, mind afterwards. when every
thing we know of the two indicates the
superiority of mind over matter?
Suppose matter is eternal. Can you
by any process get mind out of it. unless
mind is also eternal and in matter? But
we do not find mind in matter, except in
that which is highly organized. What
organized it? When matter was unor-
ganized did it begin to organize? If so
what made it begin? When it was with
out intelligence. did it begin to be intel
ligent: If so, what caused the intelli-
gence to manifest itself? If matter be in
feriOr to mind now, when did it begin to
be superior to it? Nay, if mind be supe-
rior rfOw is it not highly probable and
reasonable that it was always superior to
matter? The instant cOmmOn-sense
answer to these questions shows the abb
surdity of assuming the eternity of mat
ter without the eternity of mind. But
to assume the eternity of both is to say
that mind and matter are equal. which
is also absurd. If mind is eternal it is
infinite; if matter is eternal it is also in
finite; thus we have the absurdity of two
infinites occupying the same space at the
same time. Hence in the nature of
things and according to the laws of
thought and logic, mind must be first
The common sense of the race insists on
this. But some one will say, ''the opin-
ion or judgment of the race proves moth
ing. The common sense of mankind is
unreliable" And the same one affirms
that, ''in the realm of thought majorities
do not determine. Each brain is a
kingdom, each mind is a sovereign"
Each brain may be a kingdom. but one
alone is very small one compared with
the race; and each mind may be SOW
ereign, but many of them are only petty
tyrants, swaying wooden scepter in
diminutive kingdom. And no better evil
dence of attempted tyranny could well
be given than the fact that few set
themselves against the universal consent
of intelligent, civilized mankind. What
is Kepler's opinion against such an ego
fist? What do Newton's thoughts weigh |
against such wOuld-be philosopher?
Where would the devout Agassiz appear in
such a comparison as the agnostic makes?
And because these are Christian men
their opinions, reasoning, conclusions are
worth nothing. If their minds were
sound and worthy to be followed in ma
terial things, are they any the less sound
in spiritual things? If they reasoned
we'll upon physical questions which they
have studied, is it not reasonable to pre-
sumo that they reasoned well on meta
physical questions which they had like
wise studied? How absurd the idea that
men who have devoted all their lives to
The study of the grave problems of God,
life, man, sin, redemption, eternal life,
ETC., are not proper ones to
give an opinion upon those subjects be-
cause, forsooth, ''each brain is kingdom,
Zach mind sovereign" and one asnos-
ic 'kingdom and sovereign" can out
weigh, out-rule. out-do a host of ten
along the ages, who have hum ,
,ly discovered few facts, and have
had sense enough to put them together
n their true relation. Was there ever
uch egotism? The opinion of one ag- =
lostic worth more than thousand sane
hens opinions upon the same question, S
About the only thing the agnostic knows ,
s that he knows he don't know and he
ssumes that nobody else knows. S
ttt
Col. INGERSOLL has been called 'sthe
champion Blasphemer," but David
Iume was the champion doubter. He E
oubted everything, even his own ex-
stence, and his logic drove him to this
, the doubter. doubt that am doubling.
MACAULAY'S review Of Lord MahOn's
istory of the war of the ''Spanish Sue
ession." is a vigorous, clear, courteous
riticism. Spain under Charles V, was G
ne of the greatest of monarchies, from
5O7 to 1855 A. D. But under Phillip, D.,
luke of Anjou, 100 to ITO, the govern
rent was reduced to the greatest extrem- A
les by previous bad government, by in
.rnal discussions, by imbecility and by