Stoics, declare that matter is eternal, and that it has in itself the power of originating life, and thus that the idea of a selfexistent and omniscient Creator is a delusion, a mere figment of the imagination.

The Stoics contended that life in animals and men is only a part of this everywhere-present vital flame, which simply bursts into a new development in the individual; and, as matter goes its ceaseless round, through inorganic to organic, and from organic back again, so life is simply a phenomenon, an emanation, followed by absorption through death, and thus this vital flame or emanation goes back and forth eternally from death to life and from life to death again.

We of the present age consider ourselves wonderfully favored with knowledge of a great number of accurately known facts; but in this matter of life and its origin, if we throw aside the reasonings of Plato, who taught before the Stoics existed, and who acknowledged a Supreme intelligence or intelligences, and build our knowledge, as Zeno did, simply upon known facts, and pursue our inductive reasonings only from known facts, we may well come to the conclusion, from the paucity of such facts to build upon, that in regard to the origin of our existence we can never know the truth with any considerable degree of certainty.

Also in many other matters we can never know the absolute truth, and thus well may we ask, as Pilate did, "What is truth?" It is very certain that those who are most confident that they hold the truth in its genuineness and purity as the only absolute truth are quite as likely to be in error as those who modestly and sincerely ask, "What is truth?

So the decidedly positive writers of the present time, when speculating in regard to life's origin, are searching in

regions where no positive demonstrations exist in our present state of knowledge; and they may well moderate their pretension to positive knowledge. They will be wise if they admit that men who are not scientific, but who base their opinions concerning these points on simple statements of what they regard as a direct revelation from God, may really be as philosophical as the positive writers who reject all ideas of revelation, and attempt to reason not from known facts but from premises which have their bases in simple assump

tions.

It is quite important that we be able to separate the known from the unknown, and ascertain what is fact, in opposition to what is assumed.

Examples are not wanting of men confessedly of high scientific attainments who have adopted theories to account for physical phenomena, and reasoned from premises of which neither they nor any other men ever had experimental knowledge. Sometimes such theories have been generally accepted; but subsequent experiments or observations have shown conclusively that these assumed premises could not be true, and not till then have these theories been abandoned. Take, for instance, the kinetic theory of the gases (which may or may not be true), and also that of a luminiferous ether, with which space is (very properly) supposed to be filled; how scientific men have theorized about them, when in neither case have these philosophers ever shown that anything actually demonstrable is known of the supposed facts on which these theories have been built.

Who ever saw the ultimate atoms of gases going in straight lines with inconceivable velocities, and either dodging or striking against each other when they happen to meet? Who knows whether these supposed atoms are

elastic or non-elastic? Able scientists disagree here; yet men supporting such theories, while the question whether the atoms are elastic or non-elastic, or, in fact, whether they actually exist under the conditions supposed, is uncertain, have been called scientific. But when some unscientific speculator suggests that facts which no human philosophy has ever explained may possibly be explained by divine revelation, he is (by these philosophers) set down as victim of credulity, and no philosopher. Of course no man who bases his belief on things demonstrably untrue can be a philosopher. Let it also be fully understood that no intelligent man has a moral right to put confidence in any theory or doctrine which contradicts well-ascertained and demonstrable facts.

a

Without attempting to decide whether or not this belief in divine revelation is justified by fact from a scientific point of view, I do assert that it may be as philosophical to resort to revelation for an explanation of some things which have never been otherwise explained as it is for a scientist to assume that the theory of the kinetic action of the gases is true, or that an all-pervading ether must exist, simply because he cannot otherwise explain certain phenomena, when, in fact, neither has any certain knowledge as to whether his theories are based on facts or not. I say this: that consistency may be considered in argument; and I also ask, how it happens that one speculator who reasons from supposed facts is a philosopher, and another, reasoning from premises also uncertain, is no philosopher?

It matters not, so far as real philosophy is concerned, whether these supposed revelations are found in the Koran, or Book of Mormon, or in the Christian or Jewish Scriptures, the believer in either (until the contrary can be shown)

has just as good a claim to be considered a philosopher as the scientist who founds his theory of the origin of life on suppositions which he cannot prove to be facts; e. g. spontaneous generation."

Thus the men who take their opinions from and build theories of life's origin on statements made by men eighteen hundred, or even three thousand, years ago, who claimed to get their facts through direct revelation from the original Creator of all things, are as justly entitled to respectful consideration as Dr. Hæckel in his "Natural History of the Creation;" for he draws his conclusions in many cases as largely from the mysterious and the unknown as do the most credulous supporters of the supernatural or miraculous origin of life. Granted that neither knows for a certainty what the truth is in regard to questions at issue: it may be well to remind these over-positive writers, who ridicule the idea of direct revelation, that they do not hold all the wisdom or intelligence of this world, and that truths may possibly exist which they do not comprehend, and hence refuse to acknowledge.

I am well aware that to certain men this language will be offensive; but no man has a moral right to throw aside supposed revelation from the Supreme Being as worthless without first fairly and intelligently considering whether such supposed revelation is really what it purports to be. It is quite popular with some to scout the idea that the statements of the Bible in regard to the origin of life are of any value, and point to the utter unreliability of the Bible when quoted on any ordinary scientific question. Granted that the Bible is of little value in regard to the common scientific questions (since it is not a scientific book): that by no means shows that in matters beyond the domain of

WHENCE IS LIFE?

55

positive sciences its utterances may not be of great value. Of course there can be no need of any revelation concerning matters of which men can obtain full knowledge by study; for to make a divine revelation in such a case would not only be unnecessary, but it would be a direct encouragement to slothful mental habits.

Many who reject revelation, and throw it aside as unworthy of notice, have never sufficiently studied its teachings to comprehend what it professes to reveal. What would be thought of a man, who, by learning that, two hundred and fifty years ago, astronomers thought that the sun was not over five millions of miles distant from the earth, should now reject all present calculations of astronomers because they teach that the sun is over ninety millions of miles away?

This would be entirely parallel with the acts of those who throw the idea of revelation aside without proper consideration because three hundred years ago, or even in later years, ignorant men have claimed meanings for its teachings which were never intended by its writers.

If one receives the Bible as a revelation from God, or the Supreme Ruler of the universe, he should expect to find many statements which the present generation will but imperfectly understand; and many of its teachings will not be thoroughly understood until, through the evolution of events, or by the progress of scientific knowledge, light bursts upon our imperfectly informed students of its mysteries.

No man has a right to throw aside such a book as worthless until he has first candidly studied it with the purpose of harmonizing its apparent discrepancies, supposing such apparent discrepancies to exist; and no man who studies