The times., 1899-04-15

comes science. Religion is not intellectual
it is emotional. 1t does not appeal to
reason. Theories to be of value must be in
accord with all the facts that are known
otherwise they are worthless. We need
not try TO get back of facts or behind the
truth. The Why will ever elude u.s. You
cannot move your hand quickly enough to
grasp your image back of the mirror"
Answering these and other arguments OF
| Ingersoll in the April number of Mind
Rev. Henry Frank says:
'1ngersoll is always grand when he is
philosophic; he is weak only when he be-
comes dogmatic. When Colonel Ipgersou
dilates on the distinction between religion
and theology he scarcely goes far enough
,, He does not take sufficient credit 10 him
self, for he has undoubtedly been one of the
most potent factors in effecting the great
intellectual advance of the church during
the last lew decades. Jonathan Edwards
with all his commanding eloquence, would
be hooted from the chancel were he TO re-
turn and once more paint his fayorite pict-
ure of hell in lurid hues of fire and brim-
stone. Dante and Milton are sought no
more except as literary curios and not A
Sunday school child of today could under
stand the doctrines of Thomas Auuinas or
John Calvin. The creed still exists. but il
ls never read Should one undertake now
to preach the literal doctrines which were
household words fifty years ago he would
De laughed down as the harlequin of the
public.
When lngersoll says there can be no
such thing as scientific religion | must
once more take issue. This is the realm
wherein his eyes seem still to be partly
closed. He seems TO conceive of no re-
ligion save one that is peopled with intel
lectual bugaboos and NEUROLOGICAL scare
crows Religion is that system of thought
which kindles the noblest emotions in the
human breast and inspires TO Ioftiest deeds
! OF virtue. Why, then. cannot religion find
It's inspiration in science and science be-
come profoundly religious? Must religion
always be owl-eyed?
Even agnostics may misinterpret error
for truth. They may insist upon retain
ing what they think even when nature
proves that their thoughts are contrary
to her facts. Colonel Ingersoll saws: Il
have no confidence in spiritual manifesto
tions, and do not believe that any mes
sage has ever been received from the dead
The testimony coming even from men of
science has not the slightest weight with
me. This is the attitude that scientists a
/ Few centuries ago. assumed toward Har-
/ Vey when he discovered a new law of ma
| ture; II was the same spirit that ridiculed
Morse when he Brought out his telegraph
that revolutioniZed the commerce of the
world. To say that no ones testimony has
any weight with him. even from men of
/ cultivated, scientific habits of thought is
certainly going as far as any dogmatist
could wish Why should not such testi-
mony rather whet the colonel's eagerness
to learn whether a new law of nature had
been discovered, and, if SO, arouse him TO
decipher its full force and meaning?
The attitude of the new religion fear
lessly faces every possibility of knowledge.
from whatever source it may come; it be-
iieves that many new forces, of which the
world has now but slight foresight, will
| be discovered, and that what appears to
the purblind TO be miraculous will then be
but commonplace. It believes that he who
fears is foolish for nothing can be re-
vealed that is not in nature 1t remem-
bers that every new force was at first re-
ceived with blinking eyes and dubious at
titude"