Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-04-07

Dr. John p D. John, ex-president of
the De Paw University, gave an ex-
cellent and argumentative lecture upon
the subject, did Man Make God, or
Did God Make Man?" to large and
cultured audience at the Chapline
Street M. E. church last evening. 1t
was a reply to the agnosticism as pre-
scented by Robert G. Ingersoll, and his
remarks were listened to with rapt
attention by those attending.
In beginning his address, the lee
turer said: Il have not come to abuse
the agnostics. Abuse is not argu-
ment. He has proposed some difficult
questions to the defenders of the
Christian faith. 1t is not a sufficient
answer to say that he is blasphemer.
That is to beg the question. Let man
be a good man; that will not make his
logic limp if it is sound. Truth is in
a sorry plight. if it must rest on cpl
thets. It is old enough to stand alone.
The truth is worth it's face, though ut
tered by the devil, and sophistry does
not become logic in the mouth Of the
saint. The agnostic claims that the
Christian religion and it's reputed
author, are both man-made, and there
fore no better than the man who made
them. He objects to the reputed
author of the Bible on the ground that
like the man who made him, he is
ignorant, cruel, savage, unjust, i'm
moral, inconsistent, unfaithful, and
that he is opposed to art, science, edu-
cation, progress and liberty. He OBJ
jects to the Christian scheme on the
broad ground that it is unscientilic,
that is, having been made by unscien-
tific men, the Christian scheme is
contrary to fact, unnatural, supersti-
tious and not adapted to the task it
proposes. s.
The lecturer further said: "The Bible
must be judged by the manner in
which it does what it proposes to do,
and not by a foreign standard. 1t
came to teach men of duty and destiny,
not to teach art, science or literature.
If the Bible is opposed to these things,
because it is not good text book on
these subjects, the agnostic must be
opposed to the public schools, because
he does not make a plea for them in
his eloquent Grafton at his brothers
grave. Judge funeral Grafton by
what it says of death and the dead,
rather than by what it fails to say Of
an uneducational system. Judge the
Bible by what it says of duty and
destiny and not by what it omits, say
ing of the things that it did not come
to teach"
Then taking up the question of ag-
Mysticism more fully, he said: Il will
put all the agnostic's charges under
two heads, namely: moral objections
against the character of God, and in
tellectual objections against his reve-
lation. First, the objections against
his character for ordering in ancient
times, and permitting in both ancient
and modern, acts which men cannot
commit against their fellows without
being guilty of robbery, oppression
and murder. l will put these in two
classes. First, those instances in
which God destroyed life by natural
agents, such as flood, fire and the like,
and second, those instances in which
infiiction of pain and confscation of
property and destruction of life occur
red through human agency, under his
order or by his permission.
First, natural agency. The answer
is short Life is the gift of God in
trust. The most refined ideals of JUS
must be surrendered according to the
terms, and that the bestower of such
a trust may of right determine the
conditions of the bestowed But the
agnostic replies that he was not con-
suited about the trust and that it is
unjust to make him a compulsory party
to the transaction. He has, however,
accepted the terms of the trust and he
stoutly claims all the advantages
arising therefrom."
In referring to the Christian re-
ligion the speaker remarked that "all
the intellectual objections against the
Bible may be put under the one gem
eral charge, that it is unscientific; that
is. it is contrary to fact, unnatural,
superstitious and not adapted to it's
work. Does the Bible conflict with
any known fact in modern science? If
so, then much of it is not inspired; if
not, it must have been inspired, for the