criminal classes: they fasten upon the succeeding generation a lot of lazy, diseased, incompetent, and too often vicious descendants; and such live upon the industry of their own species, and become parasites upon the substance of their

own race.

From such views of nature and of life, the statement has been confidently made that the Creator cannot be an infinitely wise and benevolent being if He designed that the world of organic life should be as we now find it. The statement is also made, that if animals were created for the purpose of being destroyed to furnish food to other animals, this shows a cruel, instead of a benevolent, design. But this is by no means a logical conclusion. Even if one animal loses its life to give food to another, it by no means necessarily follows that there was no kindness in the creation of the animal thus destroyed; for we must remember that death, in some way, is a necessity, or the production of life must be stopped, else, as stated above, no sufficient amount of food could be produced by the earth to feed the animals which would be brought into existence. But why could not the Creator have so formed His creatures that they could exist without food? We may ask a dozen other similar questions; but, before we can convict the Creator of cruelty in creating animals, we must consider another fact which relates to the balance of existing happiness and unhappiness. If there is much more happiness than unhappiness enjoyed by animals as a whole, was not their creation a benevolent act? It is evident that most animals generally live without fear, and most, if not all, appear to enjoy themselves well, and the short fear that may exist previous to being destroyed cannot be an equivalent or offset to their comparatively long time of enjoyment.

ENJOYMENTS AND SUFFERINGS.

47

who

Take even insects which are devoured by the birds, knows that in their brief lives they may not enjoy all that their natures are capable of? There must be suitable food for plants, animals, and men, or these cannot continue to exist. Until the objector can show that the animal creation in general does not enjoy more than it suffers, in consequence of its existence, then a balance of benevolence instead of malevolence must be credited to the creating or originating power.

But I assume, even in the case of men, who are gifted with the power of reason, and also of reflection upon both their sorrows and their joys, that in general they enjoy more than they suffer. A great proportion of the sufferings of men, however, is caused by unnecessary violations of the laws of nature, though many of these violations may be committed ignorantly. The laws of nature however do not suspend their regular operations to favor one who has ignorantly transgressed them. And the very fact that the laws of nature are invariable in their operations is a blessing; for, if they were not so, how could we with certainty calculate anything in regard to the results of our own or others' acts?

Even with men natural death is a benevolent reality; for, if no one ever died a natural death, murders would be the rule, since, as above stated, the earth would be so crowded that food enough to feed the human race could not be produced, and hunger would drive to madness, and madness to murder, to get those out of the way who were consuming the food which others needed.

But again, in regard to the assertion that an infinitely wise and benevolent power never could have originated the present order of nature, those making these assertions refer especially to the sufferings of men; but even in the case of

men, if, as a general rule, they did not enjoy more than they suffer, suicides would be more common. Instead of suicides being one in five hundred, more or less according to the condition of the people, they would be the rule rather than the rare exception. It may be said, in answer, that fear of death or fear of an unknown future existence may so restrain men that many of the unhappy who otherwise might commit suicide now refrain from doing so.

Here arise two considerations: First, a man must have a conviction that there may be a future life, in which he may be less happy than here, otherwise such a fear would not restrain him. Second, why this fear, if there is not some ground for apprehension on this point? Those who do not believe in a creative power do not believe in a conscious future life; so if the atheist thinks he has more unhappiness than happiness in consequence of his existence, why does he not put an end to his existence? The very fact that he does not argues one of two things: first, he either has some fears in regard to a future existence, or he is conscious that he enjoys more than he suffers in consequence of his existence. But some who claim to be very wise, and to see farther into natural causes than others, assert that blind, unconscious causes could produce all that we see of life; and, further, they seem to think that they have relieved an intelligent designer of a great stigma by attempting to show that an intelligent being could not possibly have formed nature as it is. Such may be wise, but I cannot comprehend such wisdom.

I now call attention to another characteristic of life, viz., its uncertainty.

With ordinary machines, like watches, or mill-machinery, we can calculate very nearly how long they will last. Liv

UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE.

49

ing organisms, however, have a recuperative or repairing power in case of injuries (unless they are of a fatal character), while mere mill-machinery has within itself no recuperative power; and in this respect the living machine is far above the merely mechanical; yet in the plant bearing the fairest flowers there may be an unseen worm gnawing its vitals. "Thou must decay!" is stamped on all living things.

While the presence of life lifts inorganic matter into organic, and thence up through plant into animal life, the departure of life sends this same matter back to its elements; and thus ever the ceaseless round goes on from death to life and from life to death again.

The sunlight acting on the elements causes the grass to grow, and the grass feeds the cattle, producing milk and flesh, and these in turn become food for men and other animals. Then again these higher organisms return to the elements, constantly going from lowest to highest, and back again to lower forms of matter.

How like are these changes to the emotions and feelings of living, loving, and intelligent creatures! Byron wrote,

"Man! thou pendulum between a smile and a tear."

So hearts exuberant and full of joy to-day may be sad or bursting with anguish to-morrow. Nothing on earth is stationary.

CHAPTER III.

WHENCE IS LIFE?

PROBLEMS which arise in connection with the origin of life and conscious existence are numerous and interesting. For more than two thousand years human intellects have wrestled with these questions, and, as history is said to repeat itself, so the theories advocated and taught by Zeno two thousand two hundred years ago find advocates to-day among highly intelligent men. Inasmuch as some prominent writers are now disposed to ridicule and treat as chimerical, ideas, which, for all that they have ever shown to the contrary, may be founded in truth, I will, before proceeding to the direct consideration of questions concerning the origin of life, give a short historical sketch of discussions, and also inquire whether all that is now declared to be scientific has just claims to that proud distinction.

Zeno contended that the vital force filled all things, and was ever ready to burst into animated existence whenever favorable conditions existed, and that this vital force controlled all things, but that it was an invisible principle, and not a personal God. Thus to worship this was simply an absurdity, which ignorant or illiterate men might indulge in without special harm.

So certain moderns contend that everything, even to our conscious existence, springs from eternal and unalterable laws of nature. While many are silent on the question of belief in the existence of a personal Deity, others, like the