The Bolivar bulletin. (Bolivar, Tenn.) 1888-1946, 1893-09-22

| But our antagonists 60 on and say
that Christianity is falling back, In
the fact that infidelity is bolder now
and more blatant than it ever was. I
deny the statement. Infidelity is not
near so bold now as it was in the days
of our fathers and grandfathers.
| There were times in this country when
men who were openly and above-board
infidel and antagonistic to Christianity
could be elected to high Office. Now
let some man wishing high position in
the state proclaim himself the foe of
Christianity and an infdel, how many
states of the Union would he carry?
How many counties? How many wards
in Brooklyn? Not one.
ALL my friends, infidelity to this day
is not half SO bold as it used to be. If
it comes now, it is apt to come under
the disguise of rhetoric or fantastic
sentimentality. i know if a man with
great intelligence does become an in
fidel, and begins an attack on Christi
anity, it makes great excitement-of
course it does, and people come to the
conclusion, weak-minded Christians
come 10 the conclusion, that every
man of strong intellect assails Christi
anity.
If man jumps overheard from a
Cunard steamer he makes more excite
ment than the five hundred sane pas
sengers who continue in the berths or
on the decks; but does that stop the
ship? Does that wreck all the five
hundred passengers? 1t makes great
excitement when a man leaps from a
platform or pulpit into infdelity;
but does that hinder our glorious
Bible from taking its millions into the
skies? / tell you infidelity is not half
so bold now as it used to be.
Doyou suppose such things could be
enacted now as were enacted in the
days of Robespierre, when shameless
woman was elected to be goddess, and
she was carried ,on a golden chair to a
cathedral, and the people bowed down
to her as Divine being, and burned
incense before her-she to take the
place of the Bible, and of Christianity,
and of the Lord Almighty? And while
that ceremony was going on in the
cathedral, in the chapels, and in the
corridors adjoining the cathedral,
scenes of drunkenness and debauchery
and obscenity enacted such as the
world had never seen. Could such a
thing as that transpire now? No, sir.
The police would swoop on it, whether
in Paris or New York Infidelity is
not half as bold now as it used to be.
But" say our antagonists, Christi
anity is falling back because science,
its chief enemy, is triumphing over it. -
Now, | deny that there is any war be-
tween science and revelation. There
is not fact in science that may not be
made to harmonic with the state
ments of the Bible. So said Hugh
Prof. Hitchcock, so said Prof Silliman,
so said Prof. Mitchell.
Joseph Henry, the leading scientist
of America, better known and honored
in the royal societies transatlantic than
any other American, lived and died a
believer in the religion of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Henry knew all the facts of ge-
ology, and yet believed the Book of
Genesis. He knew all the facts of as
tronomy, and yet believed the Book
of Joshua, the sun and moon standing
still. Joseph Henry knew all the
anatomy of man and fish, and yet be-
lieved the Book of Jonah.
If the scientists of the day were
all agreed, and they came up with
solid front to attack our Christianity,
perhaps they might make some i'm
preston upon it; but they are not
agreed. 1t is often said that we reli
gionists are failing in our advocacy of
Christianity because we differ in our
theology. / tell you we do not differ
inside the church in theology half as
much as they differ outside the church
in science. If they reject our religion
because we differ on some minor points,
we might just as well reject science
because the scientists differ; but as far
as | can tell, the war of intidel science
against Christianity is not SO severe as
it used to be, because these men are
antagoniStic to each other; and as far
as / can tell, it is going to be war be-
tween telescope and telescope. Legion
jar and Legion jar, chemical appa-
ratus and chemical apparatus. They
do not agree on anything.
DO you suppose that this Bible
theory about the origin of life is going
to be overthrown by men who have
different theories-ffty different theo-
ries-about the origin of life? And
when Agassiz comes out and puts both
feet on the doctrine of evolution, and
says in regard to many scientists, II
notice that these young naturalists arc
adopting as theories in science things
which have not passed under observa-
ton" Agassiz saw what we all see
that there are men who talk very
wisely who know but very little, and
that just as soon as n young scientist
finds out the difference between the
feelers of a wasp and the horns of a
beatle, he begins to patronize the AL
mighty, and going about talking about
cul ture as though it were spelled Gull
c-h-a-r-culchar!
1t makes me sick to see these literary
fobs going down the street with copy
of Darwin under one arm and case of
transfixed grasshoppers and butterflies
under the other arm, talking about
the Survival of the Fittest,'' and
''Huxley's Protoplasm, and the ''Nebu-
lar Hypothesis" and talking to us com
mon men as though we were fools! If
they agreed in their theories and came
up with solid front against Christiani-
ty, / say perhaps they might make
some impression; but they do not agree.
Darwin charges upon Lamrack, Wal
lace upon Cope, Herschel even charged
upon Ferguson. They do not agree
about the gradition of the species;
they do not agree about embryology.
What do they agree about?
Herschel wrote a whole chapter on