Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 41, No. 7.

LIFE OF WILLIAM MILLER
Earlier text: A YEAR OF EVENTS
Oct. 25. Georgiana Lovering, a young girl outraged and killed at Northwood, N. H., by Franklin B. Evans.
Nov. 18. Ambrose F. O'Neill murdered by J. C. King in New York.

EVENTS, SENSATIONAL AND OTHERWISE.

Dec. 30. News of the Florida matters; the steamer fired into and laid under the guns of the Spanish man-of-war, Vasco Nunez de Balboa.
Jan. 22. Another revolution reported in San Domingo, against Baez, headed by Pimental, which is finally suppressed.
Jan. 24. The proposition to confiscate the property of Napoleon made in the French Assembly and received with derision.
Feb. 25. Publication of the report of the Bribery Committee of the Kansas Legislature, showing gross corruption in the election of Senator Pomeroy and on the part of his opponent, Clark.
March 11. Ejection of Jay Gould from the presidency of the Erie Railroad, which results on Dec. 15, in the surrender by Gould to President Watson of the Erie Company of $9,000,000 worth of property belonging to the road.
April 1. A report (suggestive of the day) of stupendous frauds, amounting to $160,000,000, upon the Government, by revenue officers, distillers and others, 700 being implicated.
May 1 to 29. Session of the Methodist General Conference at Brooklyn, N. Y.; lay delegates admitted for the first time.
June 8. First news of Livingstone's safety.
Aug. 8. Seizure of the Cuban privateer Pioneer at Newport, R. I., by the U. S. cutter Mocasson.
Nov. 22. Culmination of the corner in North-western corn stock, and a general panic in financial circles in New York.
Besides these we have had enacted the farce of investigating the alleged frauds in the New York Custom House, and the whitewashed report thereon; the famous sales of arms investigation in Congressional Committee, resulting in nothing; the settlement of the San Juan boundary question, favorable to the United States, and the final and peaceful settlement by arbitration of the Alabama Claims, by the Geneva Conference, during whose sittings there was so much denunciation of the claim for consequential damages on the part of America by the British Parliament and press, that they were withdrawn by the United States; the agitation of the question of civil service reform, with small results thus far; as well as the consideration and disposal of some other questions of national or international importance, among which is the pending one concerning the Credit Mobilier of America, concerning which Congressmen are striving through a private investigation to create a public impression that they were not bribed by gifts of its stock to vote in favor of the legislation asked for it.
During the year there has been a vast amount of agitation of the labor problem. Conventions have resolved, leagues have talked, societies have striven, and many of the trades have inaugurated strikes. In May, strikes became popular, the demand of the workmen being a recognition of the eight-hour principle. This began in New York, where some 20,000 or more were out at one time, and extended to some degree throughout the country, the demonstrations being most prominent at Boston, Pittsburg, Pa., and Providence, R. I. During the excitement the General Government aided the movement by declaring that all labor on Government works should be on the basis of eight hours a day, whether done directly for the Government or for Government contractors. The labor question has also received considerable attention, and has been the cause of several riots and strikes in the Old World, particularly in Austria, Germany, France and Denmark.
(Continued on Page 56.)
(Continued from page 51.)

RAILROAD ACCIDENTS,

during the year, have been a prolific source of newspaper comment. The causes have been as numerous as the accidents themselves, and may be epitomized as follows: Obstructions, malicious or accidental; misplaced switches, broken wheels and broken rails, collisions, boiler explosions and broken bridges. Without particularizing in regard to them we may copy a recapitulation of their number for nine months of the year, omitting those of November and December, which are still fresh in the memory of all, and not seeking to make a complete record:—
No. of Accidents. Killed. Injured.
February 21 18
March 27 3
April 22 13
May 27 9
June 44 63
July 31 35
August 53 14
September 71 24
October 90 29
Totals 386 208

AMERICAN POLITICS.

The presidential campaign, which has been the central feature of the political history of the year, exercised a controlling influence upon the events which preceded it, and the abortive attempts at investigating charges of corruption and malfeasance were as truly designed to affect the coming elections as was the course of the majority in stifling them at birth or shutting their eyes to the unpleasant disclosures which were made.
The first elections of the year, those in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island, all resulted in victories for the Administration party after warm contests. It became evident at an early day that the renomination of Gen. Grant was certain, and also that a number of the ablest and most respected leaders of the Republican party would not support him—the strength of their adherents remaining an unknown quantity. The two great parties called their conventions, paying no heed to the action of the so-called Temperance and Labor Reform parties, each put tickets into the field at an early day, but failed to make their influence felt in the slightest appreciable degree, or to obtain a single electoral vote. Another convention, called by the Liberal republicans of Missouri was, however, the object of great interest from the ability and character of those interested, the unaccustomed course of their action and the doubt felt as to its possible effect on the other parties. It assembled at Cincinnati on the 1st of May. On the next day a permanent organization was effected with Carl Schurz as President, and on the third day a platform and address were reported and adopted. Then the balloting for President, before. On the first, Charles Francis Adams led, followed in order by Horace Greeley, Lyman Trumbull B. Gratz Brown, David Davis and Andrew G. Curtin. On the second, Brown and Curtin were withdrawn, but Adams led until the sixth, which gave Greeley a slight preponderance, upon which State after State went over to him and he was unanimously nominated. On the second ballot for Vice-President Gov. B. Gratz Brown of Missouri was nominated, and the convention then adjourned. Its action did not give satisfaction to a portion of those interested in the movement and after unsuccessful attempts to get a candidate of their own they gave their support to Gen. Grant.
The Republican convention met at Philadelphia on the 5th of June, and after adopting a platform intended to contain a bid for the support of every class of voters, no matter how diverse their opinions and sympathies, and renominating Gen. Grant, selected Henry Wilson for the second place on his ticket, instead of the willing Mr. Colfax, who withdrew his numerous declinations to be a candidate only to find the convention could get along without him.
The public now waited the action of the Democracy. From day to day the movement for accepting the Cincinnati nominees gained strength, and when the day came there was no doubt that a large majority of the party favored the course. The convention, although resistance was made, yielded to the will of the constituents and nominated Mr. Greeley on the first ballot, by a vote of 686 to 38 for all others, and Gov. Brown with like unanimity. Squarely placing itself on the broad and liberal platform of the Liberals Republicans it cut clear from the obstructive policy which had been its ruin, and set out on a new career. Certain members of the old party, some unwilling to give up its name and traditions, and others eager for the notoriety to be gained, called a new convention, which met at Louisville, Ky., Sept. 3, and put Charles O'Connor and John Quincy Adams in nomination. For the next month the contest was warmly waged. The unexpected reverses in Vermont and Maine did not dishearten the Liberals, but the October elections showed the great central States to be lost to the coalition, hope was abandoned and the defeat became a rout. The incidents of the campaign, its scandals and slanders, its fabrications and follies, are still fresh in our minds, and need no recounting. Of the electoral votes, Gen. Grant received five-sixths. The death of Mr. Greeley between the day of election and that on which the electors cast their votes compelled his supporters to divide their ballots, the larger majority being thrown for Thos A Hendricks of Indiana, and the remainder being divided between B. Gratz Brown, C. J. Jenkins of Georgia and David Davis.
Beyond the presidential campaign and its issues the political history of the country for the year will be chiefly marked by the disgraceful condition into which unscrupulous and corrupt State officials on the one side, and reckless Federal appointees on the other, have been allowed to place the State of Louisiana—a condition without precedent and long to remain, let us hope, without parallel.

ENGLAND.

In England the year has been comparatively uneventful. The dangerous illness of the Prince of Wales, from which his recovery for a long time seemed doubtful and the grand thanksgiving pageant by which his restoration to health was marked, were, perhaps, the most prominent topics of the early year. The farm laborers' strike for increased wages, the yet unfinished discussion of the new school system, the temporary and probably final overthrow of the pretensions of the Tichborne claimant and by no means stronger term, arising from the adverse decisions in the Alabama and San Juan controversies by the referees, were also fertile subjects of newspaper comment. Parliament was prorogued early in Au- gust, having accomplished nothing of notable interest, unless it be the passage of the ballot bill and the crushing defeat of woman suffrage. The republican agitation, led by Sir Charles Dilke, which was a feature of the spring debates, ended in words. The position of Mr. Gladstone's ministry, the most important change in which has been the accession of Sir Roundell Palmer to the woolsack, is at least as strong as at the beginning of 1872.

FRANCE.

The Government of France, which calls itself, for good reasons, undoubtedly, difficult as they are for us to understand, a Republic, has maintained itself through the year, and seems as reluctant as ever to give up its powers. The venerable Thiers, always on the point of resigning in disgust at the ingratitude of his countrymen, grasps the symbols of power with a firmer hand than ever, and has succeeded, in spite of his numerous conflicts with the Assembly, in keeping the upper hand. Discussions on financial questions, such as would naturally arise from a deficit of eighteen million dollars in the revenue for the first half of the year, have been long and bitter; but the popular loan, offered in the summer, met with an astonishing success. With the outer world the Republic has been at peace, and its critical relations with Germany have been so managed as to avoid any serious difficulty. The process of recovery from the wounds of the great struggle of 1871 is as rapid as could be looked for. That a struggle will sooner or later ensue between the various political factions is not unlikely, but for this year, at any rate, it has been skillfully avoided.

SPAIN.

Spain has been a field for unhappy excitements at different periods throughout the whole year. Amadeus, of the royal house of Savoy, having ascended to the throne, Don Carlos, a descendant of the legitimate rulers of Spain, early in the year entered his protest against the election, and succeeding these there have been numerous uprisings of his followers, which have been suppressed after somewhat well-contested battles. The Carlist insurgents have not, however, been quieted, and although Don Carlos himself has been obliged to flee the country, they are liable to inaugurate another outbreak at any moment.

RUSSIA'S SOUTH-WESTERN MOVEMENT.

Russia has been extending her southern and western borders, so that she will have two good commercial ports and a naval station on the Persian Gulf. This she has done by treaties with Tartar tribes, mostly of a commercial nature. England, alarmed at the prospect of Russia's coming naval power, utters her protest against any conquest in the direction of Affghanistan, but it is hardly possible that she will risk a war for the independence of the latter.

MEXICO.

Mexico is now in a state of comparative quiet, for that country. President Juarez dying early in the year, he was succeeded by Lerdo, then Chief Justice, to whom Dias and the other chiefs who had opposed Juarez gave in their adherence. Since then the country has enjoyed a degree of tranquility, with the exception of a revolutionary movement which was defeated near Matamoras by troops under the command of Cortina.

FAITH

By Gettie W. Davis

Faith lifts the cloud that vails our mortal sight, And bids us look beyond this land of tears, This weary pilgrimage of pain and woe, E'en to the peaceful realms of paradise. And as we upward gaze with faith's clear eye, We feel upon our brows the cooling breeze; We bask in fields of living green, beside The crystal stream that flows by life's fair tree. Sweet strains of music fall upon the ear, And waken in our hearts a glad response, And earthly cares and sorrows fade away Before the glorious antepast of Heaven. Less cruel seem the thorns that pierce our feet, And lighter are the burdens that we bear; Gladly we bow beneath the cross, and walk The straight and narrow way that leads to God, Cheering our hearts with songs of holy joy. Christian, arise, and gird thine armor on, Let faith thy guiding pole-star be, put thou Thy trust in God, and in his living word, And safely thou shalt ride above the flood, The tempest, and the storm, and when at last Life's battles all are o'er, and victory Is thine, serenely then thy bark shall glide Into the haven of eternal rest.
GETTIE W. DAVIS.
Battle Creek, Mich.

Piety, Clear Spiritual Conceptions, and a Heavenly Name

The Christian whose piety is deep toned, and whose spiritual conceptions are clear, looks over the world and exclaims, “How much there is here that I do not want! I have what is far better. My name is in Heaven.”—Dr. Tyng.

True Glory: Writing and Living for Others

True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written, in writing what deserves to be read, and in so living as to make the world happier and better for our living in it.

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

SECOND OBJECTION.

Nine of the ten commandments are brought over into the New Testament; but the Sabbath, or fourth commandment, is not.
Answer. This means that nine of the ten commandments are either repeated, re-enacted, or referred to in the New Testament, while the fourth is not. We will examine each point. The ten commandments as given by God may be found in Ex 20:1-17. I often meet with persons so ignorant of the Bible as not to know whether these are in the New Testament or not. With them an assertion that they are all there but the Sabbath, is received as the truth; and many religious teachers seem willing to take advantage of this, and to carry the impression that all the commandments except the Sabbath are repeated word for word in the New Testament.
But such is not the case. Neither the first, second, third, nor fourth commandments, are anywhere repeated in the New Testament. A large reward is frequently offered to any one to find either of these there; but they are not to be found. They are not there. This is an important fact, as it shows that the New Testament does not propose to give a new code of laws, but simply refers to that already existing.
The other six commandments are quoted in the following passages in the New Testament: Matt. 5:21, 27; 15:4; 19:18, 19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; Eph. 6:2, 3; James 2:11. If, then, the Sabbath is not now obligatory because that commandment is not directly quoted in the New Testament, then also the first three are not now binding, and it is no sin to have other gods, worship images, or profane God's name! What a monstrous conclusion this theory drives its advocates to! So it always will be found that every argument framed against the Sabbath comes with equal force against other of the commandments.
But our opponents, yielding the point that there are several other of the ten commandments as well as the Sabbath, not quoted at all in the New Testament, next claim that there were nine of the ten commandments re-enacted in the New Testament, not indeed in the very words of the old law, but in substance the same. It is painfully amusing to see them try to find these commandments as thus re-enacted. Here is the mode generally adopted. First commandment, 1 John 5:21: “Keep yourselves from idols.” How plain! But stop! When was this written? Not till A. D. 90, or about sixty years after the resurrection. Here, then, were sixty years before the first commandment was re-enacted—sixty years in which there was no law against idolatry! If to evade this terrible conclusion, it is admitted that this passage is not the place and time where this commandment was re-enacted, but only a quotation of it as already existing, then the whole point is given up. For thereby they admit that they have no record of the time when, or place where, this was re-enacted. It only shows that there was a law against idolatry, and this is simply a reference to it as previously existing. Here they are compelled to admit the whole truth, and come squarely upon our ground. That commandment with the time and place of its enactment is nowhere to be found in the New Testament; but is found in the decalogue, Ex 20:3.
But it puzzles them very much to find the second commandment re-enacted in the New Testament. Matt. 22:37, is generally quoted as the nearest to the point—“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” If a man loves God with all his heart, he will not worship any image. But try that a little further. Would he have other gods? No. Then this includes the first commandment. Would he profane God's name? Certainly not. Would he violate God's holy rest-day? No. This then includes the fourth commandment as well as the first three, and so proves too much for our opponents.
But this language was spoken by Christ some time before his crucifixion, at which time they claim the old law was abolished. So they have a part of the law re-enacted before it is abolished! But the simple fact is, this is only a quotation by Christ from the Old Testament. The lawyer asked him which was the great commandment in “the law”—the law already existing, not a new law which Christ should give. In answer to this, Jesus quotes verbatim from Deut. 6:5, the great commandment, to love God with all the heart, and from Lev. 19:18, the second, to love your neighbor as yourself. If, therefore, the giving of these two great commandments was to supersede the decalogue, then it must have passed away in the days of Moses, B. C. 1500!
Look at the places where the other commandments are claimed to be re-given. In Matt. 19:16-19, Jesus, in answer to the young man, quotes the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments just as found in the decalogue.
This was no re-enactment of them; but simply a quotation from the law as already existing. This, too, was before they claimed the law abolished so that Christ re-enacted these before he abolished them, if this be a re-giving of them! So Paul, in Rom. 13:9, quotes five of the ten commandments. This also is seized on as a re-enactment of those commandments. But were they re-enacted both by Jesus and by Paul, and then again by James? Chap. 2:8-12. Such a position is so manifestly absurd that it is strange how a candid man can for a moment maintain it. How much more easy and natural is the simple fact that both Christ and the apostles were only quoting from the law before given by the Father, than whom there could be no higher authority. On this point, then, we conclude that there is no evidence that any of the commandments were ever re-enacted in the New Testament.
If it is claimed that nine are referred to while the fourth is not, this is false. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament oftener than any other of the ten commandments, being not less than fifty-nine times in all. It is worthy of notice that in all these numerous references not one word is spoken as derogatory to the honor and sacredness it had always possessed. Notice some facts:
Jesus says it was made for man: Mark 2:27, as a mercy to him, Matt. 12:7. He himself was its Lord, Mark 2:28, and carefully observed it all his life, being always found in the house of the Lord on that day. Luke 4:16. He taught that it should be devoted to deeds of mercy and benevolence, Matt. 12:1-12, and instructed his disciples not to break it after his resurrection. Matt. 24:20. The holy women carefully kept it after his crucifixion. Luke 23:54-56. Thirty years after the resurrection, inspiration calls it “the Sabbath day,” the same as it always had before. Acts 13:14. Paul often preached on that day and called it “the Sabbath day.” Acts 13:27. The Gentiles kept it, and called it “the Sabbath day,” and wished Paul to preach to them on that day, which he did. Acts 13:42-44. James, A. D. 51, in that first great Christian council at Jerusalem, calls it the “Sabbath day.” Acts 15:21. Paul and Timothy held a prayer-meeting on that day. Acts 16:13. John, A. D. 96 calls it the Lord's day. Rev. 1:10. Compare Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28.
And, finally, nowhere in the New Testament is any license given for men to work on that day; it is not said that the blessing has been removed from it; it is not said that it is no longer to be kept; there is not a single instance where a Christian ever worked upon it; there was no dispute between the Jews and Christians about the Sabbath, showing that both kept the same day. In short, the Sabbath stands in the New Testament just where it stood in the Old.
Was circumcision abolished? How plainly it is said so. 1 Cor. 7:19; Acts 15:5, 24. Were sacrifices no longer to be offered? How expressly this is declared. Heb. 10:1-9. Was the observance of meats, drinks, new moons, feasts, and yearly sabbaths no longer to be regarded? How unequivocally this is stated. Col. 2:14-18. But not so of God's holy Sabbath day. D. M. CANRIGHT.
Sigonier, Iowa.

The Claims of Philosophy.

AFTER the Bible, what next? When the word of God pronounces upon a question, what further evidence is needed to sustain the position, or what evidence is strong enough to break its decision? What can human reason, science, and philosophy, do for a theory upon which the Scriptures have written, “Ichabod”?
We have in previous articles examined the teaching of the Bible on the whole subject of man’s creation, nature, death, intermediate state, and final doom. We have found that man was not created absolutely mortal or immortal, but relatively both: immortality was within his reach, and mortality lay as a danger in his path. He sinned and became absolutely mortal. Then death becomes an unconscious sleep in the grave, and his destiny beyond the tomb, if he does not secure through Christ, eternal life, is an utter loss of existence. But there are some who think that reason, science, and philosophy, are sufficient to disprove these conclusions; or, at least, that they are so strong that the Bible record must be made to harmonize with the claims drawn from these sources. But they forget that much that we call reason is in the sight of God “foolishness,” that there is a philosophy which the Bible pronounces “vain,” and some kinds of science which it says are “falsely so called.”
We are willing to grant philosophy the privilege of trying to substantiate its claims. It may boast like Goliath, but it will be found weaker than Belshazzar before the handwriting on the wall.
It is claimed that the soul is immaterial, and cannot therefore be destroyed, and hence must be immortal. Luther Lee says:—
“If God himself has made the soul immaterial, he cannot destroy it by bringing material agents to act upon it.”
This claim is good if whatever is indestructible is immortal. But this is a manifest error. The elements of the human body are indestructible, but the body is not therefore immortal. It is subject to change, death, and decay. But if it is claimed that the soul, being immaterial, is without elements, then perhaps it might follow that it is indestructible; for that which is nothing can never be made less than nothing.
But if the soul of man, being immaterial, is thus proved to be immortal, what shall we say of the souls of the lower orders of animals? for they manifest the phenomena of mind as well as men. They remember, fear, imagine, compare, manifest gratitude, anger, sorrow, desire, &c. Bishop Warburton says:—
“I think it may be strictly demonstrated that man has an immaterial soul; but then, the same arguments which prove that, prove likewise, that the souls of all living animals are immaterial.”
Whoever, therefore, affirms the immortality of man from the immateriality of his soul, is bound to affirm the same, not only of the nobler animals, but also of all the lower orders of the brute creation. Here, believers in natural immortality are crushed beneath the weight of their own arguments. If it be said that God can, if he choose, blot from existence the immaterial soul of the beetle and the titmouse, we reply, so can he that of man; and then its immortality is at an end, and the whole argument is abandoned.
“Matter cannot think.” This is the fundamental proposition on which the airy phantom of the immortality of the soul relies for its support. Since man does think, and matter cannot think, the mind or soul must be immaterial and immortal. It is one thing to make such an assertion; it is quite another thing to prove it; and the proof lies not within the power of man. That mind like electricity may be a property of matter, or result from material causes, Sidney Smith, in his Principles of Phrenology, 1838, very clearly states as follows:—
“The existence of matter must be conceded, in an argument which has for its object the proof that there is something besides, and when that is admitted, the proof rests with the skeptic, who conceives that the intervention of some other principle is necessary to account for the phenomena presented to our experience. The hidden qualities of this substance must be detected, and its whole attributes known, before we can be warranted in assuming the existence of something else as necessary to the production of what is presented to our consciousness. And when such a principle as that of galvanism or electricity, confessedly a property of matter, can be present in or absent from a body, attract, repel, and move, without adding to or subtracting from the weight, heat, size, color, or any other quality of a corpuscle, it will require some better species of logic than any hitherto presented to establish the impossibility of mind being a certain form, quality, or accessory of matter, inherent in and never separated from it. We do not argue thus because we are confident that there exists nothing but matter; for, in truth our feeling is that the question is involved in too much mystery to entitle us to speak with the boldness of settled conviction on either side. But we assume this position, because we think the burden of proof falls on the spiritualists, and that they have not established the necessity of inferring the existence of another entity besides matter to account for all the phenomena of mind, by having failed to exhaust all the possible qualities or probable capacities of that substance which they labor so assiduously to degrade and despise.”
“But while they have altogether failed to establish this necessity, whereon depends their entire proposition, they have recourse to the usual expedients of unsuccessful logicians, by exciting the ignorant prejudices of bigotry and intolerance, against all that is dignified with the name of dispassionate philosophy.
“The truth is, it is time that all this fudge and cant about the doctrine of materialism, which affects the theory of immortality in no shape whatever—as the God who appointed the end could as easily ordain that the means might be either through the medium of matter or spirit—should be fairly put down by men of common sense and metaphysical discrimination.”
On the same point Mr. W. G. Mocrieff says:—
“Often do we hear the words, ‘matter cannot think,’ and the trumpet of orthodoxy summons us to attend. In our simplicity we have been led to reason thus: Matter cannot think—God made man of the dust of the ground—then of course man cannot think! He may grow like a palm tree, but can reason no more than it. Now this argumentation seems really valid, and yet every human being in his senses laughs it to scorn. I do think is the protest of each child of humanity. Then if you do, we respond, in your case, matter must perform the function of reflection and kindred operations. More than living organization you are not, and if you declare living organized matter incapable of thought, we are bound to infer that you have no thought at all. Accepting your premises, we must hand you the conclusion. The logic is good, but we are generous enough to allow that we cannot subscribe to it. It has often occurred to us as a fair procedure, just for the sake of bringing orthodoxy to a stand, to assert that spirit cannot think; of course, we are only referring to created beings, on this occasion. We have often tried to understand the popular idea of a spirit; and we must confess that it defies our apprehension. It is something, nothing; a substance, an essence; everything by turns, and nothing long. To believe that such a production could evolve thought, is an inordinate demand on human credulity. How the expedient was resorted to we cannot tell: was it because thought is invisible, that this invisible parent was sought for it? Then why not trace heat beyond the fire, perfume beyond the rose, attraction beyond the sun, and vitality beyond the branchy oak? Of all insane fancies, this popular idea of the human spirit is the most complete; we have no wish to give offense, but the truth must be spoken.”
We arraign this theory also before the majesty of the brute creation. What about the immaterial minds of the lower animals? Does matter think in their cases? or have they also immortal souls? Dogs, horses, monkeys, elephants, &c., have been taught to perform different acts, imitate various movements, and even to dance the same tune over and over again, to accompanying strains of music: acts which involve the exercise of memory, will, reason, and judgment.
The exercise of high mental powers is shown in the intelligence and sagacity of the horse and elephant, in the manifold cunning of the fox, in the beaver and bee, who construct their houses with such mechanical ingenuity, in the mules of the Andes which thread with so sure a foot, the gloomy gorges and craggy heights of the mountains, and in the dogs of St. Bernard, as they rescue benighted and half frozen travelers in the passes of the Alps. Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, speaking of the sagacity of one of his dogs says:—
“He had never turned sheep in his life; but as soon as he discovered that it was his duty to do so, and that it obliged me, I can never forget with what anxiety and eagerness he learned his different evolutions; he would try every way, deliberately, till he found out what I wanted him to do; and when once I made him understand a direction, he never mistook or forgot it. Well as I knew him, he often astonished me, for when hard pressed, in accomplishing the task which was set him, he had expedients of the moment, that bespoke a great share of the reasoning faculty.”
John Locke, the distinguished writer on metaphysical questions, says:—
“Birds’ learning of tunes, and the endeavors one may observe in them to hit the notes right, put it past doubt with me that they have perception, and retain ideas in their memories, and use them for patterns. . . . It seems as evident to me that they [brutes] do reason as that they have sense.”
Pritchard, On the Vital Principle, says:—
“Sensation is an attribute of the mind, and the possession of mind certainly extends as far as its phenomena. Whatever beings have conscious feeling, have, unless the preceding arguments amount to nothing, souls, or immaterial minds, distinct from the substance of which they appear to us to be composed. If all animals feel, all animals have souls.”
H. H. Dobney, Future Punishment, p. 101, says:—
“While consciousness, reason, and the sense of right and wrong, are among the highest attributes of man, these in a degree are allowed to be possessed by some at least of the brute creation. Dr. Brown, according to his biographer, Dr. Welsh, ‘believed that many of the lower animals have the sense of right and wrong; and that the metaphysical argument which proves the immortality of man, extends with equal force to the other orders of earthly existence.’”
Similar views are attributed to Coleridge and Cudworth.
Dalton in his treatise on Human Physiology, p. 428, says:—
“The possession of this kind of intelligence and reasoning power, is not confined to the human species. We have already seen that there are many instinctive actions in man as well as in animals. It is no less true that, in the higher animals, there is often the same exercise of reasoning power as in man. The degree of this power is much less in them than in him, but its nature is the same. Whenever, in an animal, we see any action performed, with the evident intention of accomplishing a particular object, such an act is plainly the result of reasoning power, not essentially different from our own.
“The establishment of sentinels by gregarious animals to warn the herd of the approach of danger; the recollection of punishment inflicted, for a particular action, and the subsequent avoidance or concealment of that action; the teachability of many animals, and their capacity of forming new habits, or improving the old ones, are instances of the same kind of intellectual power, and are quite different from instinct, strictly speaking. It is this faculty which especially predominates over the other in the higher classes of animals, and which finally attains its maximum of development in the human species.”
With these testimonies from such eminent witnesses, we leave the friends of the rational argument inextricably mixed up with the brute creation. The legitimate result of their theory is to confer immortality upon all orders of animated existence. We are sometimes accused of degrading man to the level of the brute. But if our friends of the other side elevate all brutes up to the level of man, how does that practically differ from what they accuse us of doing? The result is the same. If all come at last upon the same level, it matters not whether brutes come up or man goes down.
But our view is not open to this objection. While we deny that immortality is proved for either man or beast by any vital or mental powers which they may exhibit, our theory finds a superior position for man in his more refined mental and physical organization, whereby he becomes possessed of a higher mental and moral nature, and is the proper recipient of the hope of immortality.
(To be Continued.)
Continue reading: System in the Work of the Lord