« PreviousContinue »
of, the mound-builders. The second part is a memoir on the archæology of Butler County, O., giving descriptions and plans of all the earth-works therein found. This is accompanied with a map of the county, locating both the mounds and the enclosures.
The last work, up to this date,31 we have to mention is “ The North Americans of Antiquity,” 32 by Rev. Jolin T. Short, published near the close of 1879. This work is a compilation and condensation of facts searched out from many volumes, and in various languages, and given in a readable and acceptable form. It should be acceptable to all Ameri. can readers, even though they should not be interested in antiquities. On some points he is quite conservative, and on others appears to be waiting for more evidence. The volume clearly shows the differences in the ancient remains on our continent, such as the mounds of the Mississippi, the Pueblos of Arizona, the Cliff-Dwellings of Colorado, and the ruins of Mexico and Yucatan.
It should be noticed that the Davenport Academy of Science, the Peabody Academy of Science, and other learned bodies, from time to time, publish original papers relating to prehistoric remains. The Geological Surveys of some of the States have paid attention to this branch. Notably so is the survey of Indiana. While the successive volumes (1869– 1878) reflect no credit on that great State, yet they contain some very interesting accounts of antiquities, especially in the Report for 1878. As the word “cheap” is indelibly impressed upon almost every page of these reports, the only thing to be wondered at is, How did they accomplish so much in the line of antiquities?
As the name implies it might be well supposed that “ The American Naturalist” occasionally publishes valuable articles on archæology. In this journal there is a department devoted to this subject. 81 June 16th, 1880.
82 The North Americans of Antiquity; their Origin, Migrations, and Type of Civisization Considered. By John T. Short. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880. pp.
544. Wood-cuts 115.
In closing this article it cannot be more appropriately done than by calling attention to the “ American Antiquarian.” This journal was started during the month of April, 1878. It is a wonder that the first number did not kill the enterprise. However it had sufficient vitality to survive the shock, and ever since has continually improved, and now it reflects great credit on American journalism. It has surmounted many obstacles, and is now worthy the patronage of every one interested in one or more of the departments of anthropology. It is designed as a medium of correspondence between scientific gentlemen on questions pertaining to early American liistory, native American races, and prehistoric remains.
Revelations of God.
There are four ways in which God reveals Himself to man, and there are no more. Four revelations constituie all there are or can be of Deity. These may be reduced to three, perhaps, they cannot be extended beyond four. God reveals Himself to us in the physical universe, in the records of humanity, in the nature of man, and in his actual and possible character. Let us consider each one of these revelations
sep arately, beginning with the one in human nature.
1. We read, “ So God created man in His own image.” This suggests a revelation of God in man. If man was created in the image of God, then he must reveal something of God. If I have a photograph of an absent friend, that photograph must reveal something of that friend, and by looking into it I can tell what that something is. So if in man we have a photograph of God, this man must reveal something of God, and by studying him,- by studying his nature, we can find out what that something is.
What, then, is that something? Man being the image of
God, what of God can we see hy looking at that image? Of course we cannot answer this question in full WC cin indicate only one or two things tiiat we fcel certain we see most clearly.
First of all we see that God is. And this not merely because we accept the truth of the statement that God crcated man in His own image, and argue from that the existence of God, but because that existence is made out from the very nature of the image. We do not say that God is merely because the Bible says that man was created in His image, but because the very nature of man is such as to necessitate His existence. God is, because man is. The Creator is in the very nature of the creature. The existence of the Infinite is pointed out in the very make-up of the finite.
So surely as we know, when looking at a portrait, that there is, or must have been, an original, just so surely do we know by looking into buman nature that there is a God. There is something in that nature which necessitates the existence of God, which cannot be accounted for save in the supposition that God is. There is that instinct of Deity, that feeling after the lufinite, that impulse to search for the Almighty, that disposition to look up and adore, that cannot be explained on any rational grounds save those that affirm the existence of a Gud.
Every demand argues a supply. Every legitimate want of our being necessitates the existence of a provision for it. This is the law of the universe. Hence the fact that in our nature there is a demand for God, argues moist conclusively that God is. This instinct that is ever gcing out after God, and which is the source and fountain of all worship, puts His existence beyond all question.
Every effect must have a cause adequate to its production. And there is no cause adequate to produce this effect save the Great First Cause. To suppose that this instinct exists, as we know it does, and that it flowers out into all the vast and multifarious forms of worship, as we know it bas, without there being any God to worship, is an absurdity too mon
strous for human credulity. Whoerer believes that has surely lost the power for rational thought ; for it is to assert that an effect can exist without a cause, that there is that in this universe for which there is no reason.
These facts can be accounted for only on the ground that there is a God towards whom this instinct points, and whom it moves men to worship. The God-idea, therefore, is rooted in the very nature of man. It has its foundativni in the very
up of the human soul. If there be such a thing as human nature, there is such a thing as Divine nature, after which the human is patterned. The revelation of God, therefore, in human nature, makes His existence certain. We know that God is, when we look into human nature, just as certainly as we know that man is, for there is that in man which cannot be accounted for if God is not. This, then, we set down as the first great revelation of Gud in human nature, the revelation of His existence.
The second revelation, given in the soul of man, is that of God's personality. God is revealed in man as a person, not as a mere abstraction, a force, principle or power, but as an intelligent, provident and governing Will. For whatever else man is, he is mind, a thinking, feeli!ig, acting personality. He is not merely a material machine, - lie is a sell-determining will, an individuality that acts according to his own clioice.
His God, therefore, must be like himself. He must be an intelligent will, a thinking, feeling, self-conscious individuality. No other God is possible to man. His nature is such that no other God can fit into or satisfy that nature. We camiot worship an abstraction. We cannot adore a mere force, or law, or principle. Everything we worship must be clothed with the attributes of personality. If we pray to a stick or stone we must first convert that stick or stone into an intelligent will, that can lear and answer our prayer.
God, therefore, must possess the attribute of personality. He must be a Being like ourselves,- one who thinks and
feels, wlio can sympathize with us, answer onr prayers,
and speak to our souls, only as soul can speak to soul.
We do not mean now that God has a body or form like man. It is a “trick of the imagination ” to make person synonymous with form, to make personality inhere in the body. We know very well that personality inheres in the soul, when we stop to think. The soul is the entirety, the individuality; the body, the material form, is only its clothing. That may change, be put on or off, but the individuality remains the same. Personality, therefore, is not in the body but in the soul.
Hence when we speak of God's personality, we do not mean that He has a body, and is under material limitations like man ; but that He is a soul, a moral and spiritual entity that thinks and feels and lives, as man thinks and feels and lives. In fine, we mean — confessing, of course, the inadequacy of all human conceptions of the Infinite- that God is to the plıysical universe somewhat as the human soul is to its physical body. As Dr. Hedge says, 1
" What the soul is to the individual, that God is to the universe of things,- its central soul, the supreme Personality, regent in all and present in all hy diffused consciousness, as the human soul is present by diffiised consciousness in every part of the human organism. The human organism is a wcrld in little, of which the soul is its God. The organic Whole, the world in its entireness, is a body of which God is the soul,- not identical with the body in form, and not separated from it in spirit.”
Some such is the idea of God which we mean to express when we speak of his personality. We mean that He is not a mere abstraction, an unthinking force, an unfoeling power; but that he is a conscious living soul, absolutely a Divine Being, wlio thinks and feels and loves, and right against whom we can place our own souls and be at rest. This is the God we see when we look into the nature of Human nature reveals the personality of God. And
1 Ways of the Spirit. p. 216.