m iiiiiimmnH
468
KELiaiON AOAINTBT INFIDELITY.
VOIi. vir,
1 1
1 1
i1
i
m -,
No rules can bo laid down in the mat
tors of neck-wear for every man should
suit his own tastes; suffice it to say, that
differences in the length of necks make
a great difference in the style of collar a
man may wear; and that, oxtromos in
collars and tics, as in other things, are
foppish or eccentric. A Chinese wall of
glassy linen reaching to the ears, or a
rumpled hand with ravelled edges, are
equally objectionable. He "neat, but
not gaudy !"
RELIGION AGAINST INFIDELITY.
It cannot be denied, that at the present
day infidelity and atheism are making
strong efforts to become popular, and to
spread their vile contagion, especially
among lite inquiring, iniuiolity ooasts
of being the prime mover of the wheels of
progress. To substantiate this, we are
asked to compare the time when man wor
shiped snakes and bats witli the present
condition of society; wo are asked, more,
ovor, to ignore the influence of a purer
religion on this progress for the better,
and to grade the same progress solely by
advancing science, as though infidelity
alone has given us science. Now we ad.
mit that diverse opinions are always ncc
cssary to solve a complicated problem;
different methods will thus be suggested;
the thoughts am1, energies will be directed
into different channels, and the labor
being thus divided, inquiry is facilitated
and the results Dually established. Intl.
dolity has thus far exortcd a powerful in
fluence, but beyond this point lies dis
puted territory. It is unfair to omit relig.
ions progress in seeking for the causos of
our present civilization. The religion of
to-day so fur transcends that of former
ages, as the manners, customs and gener
al condition of society at the present time
excel thos" of the past. Now we mus
citlier iiuCiibo to religion the power of ele1
vating mankind, or admit that general in
telligence accepted this system as best
adapted to human wants. Which of
these views is the more likely, wo aro
to determine.
It is a remarkable fact that the nations
professing Christianity arc the most pros,
porous and the most intelligent. They
are foiomost in science, and when in addi.
lion to tills, we consider tlio riso and
progress of other principles, till the results
wore everywhere apparent as being eleva
ting and good, wo cannot doubt that relig.
iou lias been the most important agency
for ameliorating the condition of man
kind. Under her caro, scionco prospered dur
ing the middle ages when the cloister
was the only safe retreat for science.
There the feeble lamp was kept from
total extinction, when threatened by the
furious blasts of ignorance, superstition
and endless turmoil. Since then, science
lias assumed stately proportions, and
some of her votaries, with base ingratitude,
deny the obligations science owes to relig
ion. Hut we find exceptions.
Prof. Huxley in a recent lecture said;
"True science and true religion are sis
ters, and the separation of either is sure
to prove tht' death of both. Science pros
pers exactly in proportion as it is relig
ious. The great deeds of philosophers
have been less the fruit of their intellect
than of the direction of that intellect
by an eminently religious turn of mind.
Truth has yielded herself rather to their
patience, their love, and their self-denial
than to this logical acumen."
But what is the inlldel's position to-day ?
Does he, in espousing the cause of science,
pay due homage to religion, or does he
rather arrogate to himself tho supremacy
over tho minds of men ? Does lie not seek
to destroy the faith in u great First Cause,
anil thereby faith in humanity V To ties,
troy the institutions based upon that ho
lief? This is exactly what the infidel at
tempts to do. Very likely ho would not
restoro paganism, nor would he substitute
any form of natural religion, such as
characterized tho period of the French
devolution. Displacement, not substitu-
m
-:'ft.
?!:&&
m
