Class .B D7Q 1 
 Boole , / (- 
 
 GopyrigtoK?.^ 
 
 C6EXRIGHT DEPOSm 
 

Cije €temal Artier 
 
 Copyright 1922 
 G. T. Bond 
 
 n 
 
 Crane & Company 
 
 Topeka, Kansas 
 
 1922 
 
Wnoi 
 
 3 b 
 
 NOV 20 \h22 
 
 ©CU691 263 
 
A 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 "The Truth shall make you free". 
 
 Delusions, however pleasant, or of however long 
 standing, should be discarded, as they are inimical 
 to Truth, which is the basis of all real progress ; there- 
 fore, pray not for faith to believe that which your 
 mind rejects as false, but use that mind in an earnest 
 effort to learn that which is true. 
 
 The Author. 
 
EARLY TRAINING AND BELIEF. 
 
 My parents were members of an orthodox Chris- 
 tian church. I was reared in the same faith. I be- 
 lieved the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, 
 written by men inspired; that to question, or doubt, 
 any statement contained therein was a sin; that all 
 other religious beliefs were false, and the followers 
 thereof were pagan. 
 
 I believed in a personal God, who created the heav- 
 ens and earth and all contained therein; in a personal 
 devil, who had once been an angel, but had become 
 evil through an avaricious ambition; in a literal 
 heaven, and hell ; that at death one went to one or the 
 other of those places, eternally. 
 
 I believed that all mankind were born in sin 
 through the transgression of Adam; that atonement 
 for that transgression had been made by the cruci- 
 fixion of Christ; that any one could receive the bene- 
 fit of that atonement by conviction of sin, repent- 
 ance, and faith; thereby securing, at death, an eter- 
 nal life of happiness; that failure to comply with 
 those requirements would condemn one to an eter- 
 nity of misery. 
 
 I so believed, not through a process of investigation 
 and analysis, but simply because I was so taught; 
 taught by good men and women, who so believed, 
 and so believed because they had been so taught. 
 
 Had I been born in other than a Christian land; 
 
been taught other faith, I would, no doubt, have ac- 
 cepted as readily, and believed as unquestioningly, 
 whatever I might have been taught, because my mind 
 was plastic and receptive to the teaching of my 
 elders. 
 
 As I grew older I began to question, to doubt, and 
 then to disbelieve some, but by no means all, of those 
 teachings. (I cannot conceive of a higher moral pre- 
 cept than, "To do unto others, as we would have 
 others do unto us." I cannot conceive of a higher rule 
 of conduct than that of one giving his life for an- 
 other.) 
 
 ACQUISITION OF BELIEF. 
 
 Religious beliefs, like political, ethical, artistic, or 
 any other, were first acquired by observation and 
 reflection. Now, they are, principally, acquired, in 
 youth, as a result of the teaching of those whose wis- 
 dom we assume, and whose instruction we accept as 
 unquestionable truth. 
 
 As we grow older those beliefs are modified by 
 various influences; but, in youth, if we had been 
 taught that black were white, then, to us, black 
 would have been white. If we had been taught that 
 low were high, then, to us, low would have been 
 high. If we had been taught that wrong were right, 
 then, to us, wrong would have been right, and we 
 could have committed the most atrocious deeds with 
 as clear a conscience as was Abraham's, when he was 
 about to slay his beloved son. 
 
 6 
 
EARLY CAUSES OF DOUBT. 
 
 Living, as I did, in a small community where the 
 environments were restrictive of any liberalism in 
 religion, and believing in the rigid doctrines of the 
 church, of which I was a member, I assumed that all 
 the other members believed as I did; therefore, I 
 could not reconcile the action of some members to 
 our common belief. Many had intimate friends and 
 relatives who were not members of any church, nor 
 had they made any apparent attempt to comply with 
 what we regarded as necessary conditions to secure 
 their eternal happiness. 
 
 If the members, having those friends and relatives, 
 really believed that unless one were converted that 
 one would suffer eternal misery, why did they not 
 make a greater effort, if need be a very strenuous 
 effort, to secure the conversion of those friends and 
 relatives? 
 
 After thinking this Over, I came to the conclusion 
 that they did not so believe; and this conclusion 
 opened the way to many questions. 
 
 FALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 One of the first questions as to the infallibility of 
 the Bible was in regard to a statement in the book of 
 Genesis, to the effect that God repented of having 
 made man. If God repented of having done a certain 
 thing, was it not evident that He lhad done a delib- 
 erate wrong, or had made a mistake? 
 
My pastor assured me that God could neither do a 
 wrong act, nor make a mistake; and he conceded 
 that the statement was undoubtedly erroneous. 
 
 The admission of the possibility of there being an 
 error in the Bible was a shock to my narrowly trained 
 mind; for I perceived that if one mistake existed 
 there might be others, and that whether the errors 
 originated in authorship, or in translation, one would 
 have to weigh the evidence to determine the truth or 
 falsity of all the statements. 
 
 Another question was in regard to the recorded 
 Flood. Whence could have come all the water nec- 
 essary to entirely submerge the entire earth's sur- 
 face at one time? Had all the moisture in the atmos- 
 phere been condensed and precipitated upon the 
 earth there would not have been sufficient water to 
 cover all the mountains. Again appealing to my pas- 
 tor, he could only account therefor by assuming that 
 it had required a miracle to provide the amount nec- 
 essary to cover the whole surface, and another mir- 
 acle to dispose of it at the subsidance of the flood. 
 
 His explanation of this, and many other questions 
 satisfied my mind at that time, nor have they seri- 
 ously disturbed me since; as I have regarded most of 
 them as non-essentials, without invalidating any of 
 the great fundamental precepts taught. 
 
 ORIGIN OF EVIL. 
 
 One question that did seriously disturb me arose 
 in a Young People's Meeting. There was a discus- 
 
sion in relation to a statement in the book of Revela- 
 tions, about a "war in heaven/' in which one of the 
 angels led a revolt. As the discussion proceeded I 
 asked the minister how it was possible for an avari- 
 cious ambition to be conceived in a place where there 
 was not, had never been, anything whatever to sug- 
 gest such a thought ? The minister said that was One 
 of the questions that had never been aswered in a 
 satisfactory manner, and involved the whole doctrine 
 of the Origin of Evil. 
 
 After many years I have answered that perplexing 
 question to my own satisfaction, reference thereto 
 being made under the caption of Polarity. 
 
 Various other questions arose from time to time, 
 and were explained; but still others arose for which 
 I have never seen any satisfactory explanation, and 
 the principal object of this article is an attempt to 
 offer an explanation therefor, by means of certain 
 questions, so arranged that the answers will be ob- 
 vious. 
 
 VALUE OF A STATEMENT. 
 
 The value of a statement depends, not upon the 
 author, however wise, however sincere, however 
 much he believes he is right, or by whosesoever au- 
 thority he claims the statement is made; but, solely, 
 upon its relation to the facts in the case. 
 
 If the statement is made by one who has a repu- 
 tation for wisdom, truthfulness and carefulness in 
 his assertions, it is entitled to more ready credence 
 
 9 
 
than if made by one not so favorably known; but, if 
 the statement is erroneous, then, because of the au- 
 thor's good reputation, the damage that might result 
 from the error could be more far reaching in its 
 effects than if it had been made by the one less favor- 
 ably known. 
 
 Investigation has revealed that statements do not 
 make facts, not even if prefaced by, "Thus saith the 
 Lord." 
 
 The statement that the Jews were the chosen peo- 
 ple of God does not prove that they were indeed so 
 chosen. The assertion of an author, that God told 
 him to say, or write, a certain thing, does not prove 
 that he was so instructed; even though he might so 
 believe, and be perfectly sincere in his assertion. 
 
 Age does not prove a statement is true. The Ptole- 
 maic theory of our planetary system endured a thou- 
 sand years; until Copernicus thought, and thinking, 
 perceived the falsity of that long established, and 
 supposedly scientific theory; thereby paving the way 
 for Galileo and Newton to establish the present one. 
 
 Impressive ceremonies do not prove the truth of a 
 statement, though they might, by their very impres- 
 siveness, long continue a passive acceptance thereof. 
 
 THE QUESTION MARK. 
 
 The Question Mark is a guide to progress, in reli- 
 gion, as in all other achievements. Paul said : "Prove 
 all things; hold fast that which is good". Why should 
 we not apply this test to scriptural statements, as well 
 
 10 
 
as to secular? Truth is eternal. Questions cannot 
 harm it. Questions can harm only that which is false, 
 and the false should be destroyed; because it some- 
 times obscures and retards the perception of the 
 truth. 
 
 CREATION. 
 
 A writer, in book of Genesis, states that, "In the 
 beginning God created the heavens and the earth 
 * * * and all the hosts of heaven", 
 
 A writer, in the Vedas, of the Hindus, states that, 
 "Other than Him, nothing existed, which since has 
 been * * * who knows exactly, and who shall 
 in this world declare, whence, and why, this Creation 
 took place?" 
 
 ORIGIN OF RELIGIONS. 
 
 Most religions, if not all, are born of the phenom- 
 ena of Nature. They are the products of attempts to 
 explain, or interpret, the tangible objects, and the 
 intangible forces in operation among those objects 
 as they are manifested throughout the universe. 
 
 The writers, in Genesis and the Vedas, seem to 
 have considered these manifestations, and to have 
 assumed that God, or a spiritual Intelligence, existed 
 prior to the material universe. That He had always 
 so existed, without there ever having been such a 
 reality as material substance; then, at some period 
 He began and created the heavens and all therein. 
 
 They appear not to have realized that if God, a 
 
 11 
 
spiritual Intelligence, had always existed, but there 
 had never been such a reality as material substance, 
 there would have been nothing whatever to have 
 suggested the thought of such a substance. 
 
 In the second verse of Genesis this statement is 
 made: "And the earth was without form and void; 
 and darkness was upon the face of the deep". 
 
 Because of that statement, it might be claimed 
 that the writer realized that there could not be any 
 power capable of creating a something from a noth- 
 ing; that he realized, as nearly all philosophic writ- 
 ers now do, that the substance of all the material 
 universe had always existed; but, that it was dif- 
 fused throughout space in a nebulous condition — 
 without orderly arrangement. 
 
 NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 That the Nebular Hypothesis might be true as to 
 the formation of a planetary system, such as ours, I 
 readily concede ; but, to assume that all material sub- 
 stance had always existed, without form and void, or 
 in a nebulous condition, then, at some stated period, 
 was evolved into a perfectly harmonious system of 
 moving planets, with all their multiform varieties of 
 living beings, I cannot concede. 
 
 The question naturally arises, that if such a sub- 
 stance had always existed, in a nebulous condition, 
 "what could have suggested the thought of any other 
 arrangement ?" 
 
 12 
 
THOUGHT AND KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 To think, there must be something about which to 
 think. To will, there must be something about which 
 to will. To choose, there must be something about 
 which to make choice. To perceive, there must 
 be something to induce the perception. To remem- 
 ber, there must be a subject of remembrance. To 
 understand, there must be a something to understand. 
 
 What constitutes knowledge? Is it not an idea, or 
 an aggregation of ideas inducted into the mind 
 through the perception of the senses? 
 
 If one were born blind, deaf, had no sense of feel- 
 ing, smelling or tasting, would it be possible for such 
 one to acquire any knowledge ? 
 
 Or, if one had all the senses, yet nothing existed 
 to impress those senses, would it be possible for such 
 one to acquire any knowledge beyond himself? 
 Knowledge of what? Could there be knowledge of 
 nothing ? 
 
 If one were born blind, would it be possible for 
 such one to acquire sight knowledge? He might ac- 
 quire a knowledge that certain objects were round 
 or square, long or short, beautiful or ugly, but the 
 knowledge so gained would not be that of sight, but 
 would be due to some other sense; for if sight came 
 to him, he would not know, by it, whether the object 
 were round or square, long or short, beautiful or 
 ugly. He would have to rely upon some other sense 
 to determine one from the other. 
 
 13 
 
This is true of all the senses. In order to have taste 
 knowledge, one would have to taste; and all his 
 knowledge of taste would be limited to the things 
 actually tasted. His hearing knowledge would be 
 limited to the sounds heard. His feeling knowledge, 
 to the things felt. His smelling knowledge, to the 
 things smelled. 
 
 Then, if none of the actualities enumerated in the 
 story of Creation had ever existed, how could there 
 have been any thought or knowledge of them? If a 
 statement were made that the Plan of an orderly 
 universe had always been in the mind of God, but 
 had never been executed; then, the question natur- 
 ally arises as to what could have suggested the idea, 
 or supplied the impulse and power to execute the 
 plan? 
 
 EFFECTIVE POWER. 
 
 Power to be effective must be applied. Power can- 
 not be applied to nothing. Power must be applied to 
 something. All applied power exactly equals the 
 resistance overcome. The initial power required to 
 start moving a body at rest must be greater than the 
 resistance, but the power is transferred and con- 
 served in the moving body as momentum, or energy 
 of movement, so that, when the body comes to rest, 
 the resistance overcome has exactly equalled the 
 power applied. 
 
 If there did not exist, had never existed, anything 
 to offer resistance, how could there have been the 
 application of any power? 
 
 14 
 
NON-ENTITY. 
 
 We know that if there had never been anything, 
 anywhere, there could never be anything. Nothing- 
 ness could not transform into Something. That is 
 self-evident. 
 
 SPIRITUALITY. 
 
 If God, a spiritual Intelligence, had always existed 
 alone, not another being or object in existence, of 
 what could He have thought, or of what would His 
 intelligence have consisted? 
 
 Do we not know that to think, there must be some- 
 thing about which to think; that thought cannot be 
 about nothing? Do we not know that power, to be 
 applied, must be applied to something; that power 
 cannot be applied to nothing? 
 
 Then, if God existed alone, would not all His 
 thoughts have been limited to Himself alone? How 
 could He think about anything else, if nothing else 
 existed? How could He have consciousness about 
 anything else, if nothing else existed? How could 
 He plan about anything else, if nothing else existed ? 
 How could He will about anything else, if nothing 
 else existed? How could He choose about anything 
 else, if nothing else existed? How could He have 
 affection for anyone else, if no other existed ? How 
 could He have perception, or remembrance, or un- 
 derstanding about anything else, if nothing else ex- 
 isted? How could He apply power to anything else, 
 
 15 
 
if nothing else existed ? How could He be a Creator, 
 if He had never created? How could He create a 
 material universe, if there did not exist, had never 
 existed, any material substance with which to create 
 such an actuality? 
 
 Do we not know there is not, never was, nor ever 
 will be, any power that can, ever could, or ever will 
 be able to create a Some-Thing from No-Thing? 
 
 Do we not know there is not, never was, nor ever 
 will be any power able to annihilate a Some-Thing to 
 No-Thing? 
 
 Are we not compelled to conclude that if God had 
 always existed alone, He would always so continue 
 to exist; that if He had always been a spirit, He 
 would always so continue to be a spirit; that if there 
 had never been such an actuality as material sub- 
 stance, there could never be such a substance; that 
 if such a substance does exist, it has always existed ; 
 that if it has always existed, it was never created ? 
 
 EXISTENCE. 
 
 It is conceivable there could have existed a spirit- 
 ual being, or a multitude of spiritual being, without 
 there ever having been such a reality as material 
 substance; but, is it conceivable that if they had 
 always so existed, they could ever have created such 
 a substance, transformed themselves, or been trans- 
 formed into such a substance? 
 
 It is conceivable that both spiritual and material 
 
 16 
 
entities could have existed, absolutely apart from, 
 and independent of each other; but, is it conceivable 
 that if they had always so existed, they could ever 
 have any association or connection with each other? 
 
 As they had always existed, would they not always 
 so continue to exist? What could suggest, or insti- 
 tute, any alteration in an eternal relationship? 
 
 LIMITATIONS. 
 
 Before proceeding further, there are two truths 
 that must be recognized, or our perceptions will be 
 imperfect, and our conclusions be erroneous. 
 
 First: That as there is not any power capable of 
 creating a something from nothing, there must be a 
 limit to the extent of the material universe ; that how- 
 ever great that extent, there must be a fixed number 
 of indivisible particles composing it; that there has 
 never been any addition to, nor subtraction from, 
 that number, nor ever will be; that those particles 
 are eternal, uncreatable and indestructible actuali- 
 ties — real things ; that all things are limited in extent. 
 Is it conceivable that any thing can fill a limitless 
 expanse? Is that not a supposition analogous to an 
 'irresistable force meeting an immovable object?' Is 
 it not a self-evident impossibility? 
 
 Second: That all power is limited. That power is 
 not an abstract entity, but a concrete property, or 
 manifestation of an actuality; and that whether the 
 power be vested solely in a Supreme Being, or that it 
 is an inherent property of material substance, it is 
 
 17 
 
limited in amount to that which it has always been. 
 
 If all power is vested in a Supreme Being, could 
 He acquire more power, if no more existed? From 
 whence ? 
 
 All power is limited to the possible, and, as pre- 
 viously stated, all power cannot, could not, will not 
 do the impossible by bringing into existence a Some 
 Thing from No Thing; therefore, if God controls all 
 the movements and changes in the material universe, 
 His control is over a fixed number of indivisible 
 particles, and that whatever the forms into which the 
 particles are combined, or however many of the par- 
 ticles are required to assemble the completed wholes, 
 the total number of the indivisible particles always 
 remain the same. 
 
 Is this not true? If so, then are the present forms, 
 movements and changes occurring throughout the 
 universe new and different from any that have pre- 
 viously occurred, or are they exact repetitions of 
 forms and changes that have always been occurring ? 
 
 If God had always existed; if all existing power 
 had been vested in Him; and if all material sub- 
 stance had always existed as indivisible particles; 
 yet He had never employed that power to effect any 
 changes in their disposition, what could have sug- 
 gested the thought, or supplied the impulse to insti- 
 tute any other arrangement of the particles? 
 
 SIMPLE FUNDAMENTALS. 
 
 If we would understand complex subjects, we 
 
 18 
 
musty first, master simple fundamentals. All the com- 
 plexities of mathematics lie open to the one who 
 learns the Arabic numerals. The world of literature, 
 to the master of the alphabet. If we knew all about 
 the indivisible, ultimate particle, we might be on the 
 highway toward comprehending the complexities of 
 the universe. 
 
 Therefore, let us begin by assuming simple suppo- 
 sitions in an effort to comprehend some of those com- 
 plexities. 
 
 If all power were vested in a Supreme Being, and 
 His only control over the material particles had al- 
 ways been to simply unite the particles into pairs, and 
 separate the pairs, what could have suggested the 
 thought of any other action? 
 
 It is well to remember that we are considering, 
 not a few million years, but Eternity, and if God had 
 been employing those particles in that simple man- 
 ner, to produce those simple forms, but no other, 
 there would not have seen anything to suggest any 
 other action, or produce any other forms. 
 
 ACTION AND REACTION. 
 
 It is clearly evident, that if God had always been 
 uniting the particles into pairs, there would, neces- 
 sarily, have been a corresponding and equal sepa- 
 rating of the pairs; otherwise, however many the 
 total number of particles, they would, in a compara- 
 tively short time, have all been united into pairs, and 
 the process Would have had to stop. But, if the uniting 
 
 19 
 
had always been in operation, there could not be a 
 stopping; because there could not be a stopping of 
 an eternal process, and the only alternative would 
 have been a corresponding and equal separating. 
 
 Is it not obvious, that a fixed number of particles 
 could not be united indefinitely, except by a corre- 
 sponding and equal separating thereof? 
 
 The law of action and re-action is immutable; 
 every uniting necessitates a corresponding separat- 
 ing; every separating necessitates a corresponding 
 uniting; every union is self -evidence that the mem- 
 bers comprising that union have been separated; 
 otherwise, there would not be union, but unit. 
 
 If God had always been uniting the particles into 
 pairs, and separating the pairs, would He not always 
 continue so to do ? Would He not always continue to 
 do that which He had always been doing? What 
 would suggest stopping, if He had never stopped? 
 
 Would not there be just as many particles sepa- 
 rating, as there would be uniting? Would not there 
 be just as many uniting, as separating? Would not 
 the reaction be equal to the action? Would not the 
 balance be maintained? 
 
 If God had always existed as a separate entity, 
 and material substance had always existed as a sep- 
 arate entity, in multitude of indivisible particles that 
 had never been united into a form like an earth, a 
 sun, or solar system, is it conceivable there could 
 ever have been such forms? 
 
 20 
 
If God had always existed; if He had always pos- 
 sessed the power, hut had never employed that 
 power to construct such forms, is it conceivable that 
 He would ever have so employed that power? As 
 He had always existed; as He had always acted, 
 would He not always so continue to exist and act? 
 
 If He had never thought of so employing that 
 power, what could have suggested the thought of so 
 employing it? If He had always thought of so em- 
 ploying it, but had always lacked the impulse to do 
 so, what could have supplied the impulse to do so? 
 If He had always had the thought, the power, and 
 the impulse; then, would not the execution have 
 always been in effect? 
 
 CONTINUITY. 
 
 If this be true; then, have not earths, suns, and 
 solar systems always been in existence ? If they have 
 always been in existence, will they not always con- 
 tinue to exist? 
 
 If God had always been employing His power in 
 combining the indivisible particles into the forms 
 indicated, is it not obvious there must have been a 
 corresponding separating of the particles from the 
 forms; otherwise, there must have been the stopping 
 of an eternal process? An impossibility, as exempli- 
 fied when considering the uniting and separating of 
 the pairs. 
 
 Could there have been combined a vast number of 
 particles into such forms in one part of the universe, 
 
 21 
 
without there having been a corresponding decrease 
 in number in some other part? 
 
 Can a quantity of liquid be taken from one vessel 
 and put into another, without decreasing the quan- 
 tity in the one from which it is taken? 
 
 Then, if there be a beginning and increasing, there 
 must be a diminishing and ending; if there be a 
 diminishing and ending, there must be a beginning 
 and increasing; the balance is maintained; the law 
 is immutable. 
 
 If an earth, a sun, or system of planets begins, in- 
 creases, and develops in one part of the universe, it 
 is absolutely necessary that there be a corresponding 
 diminishing, disintegrating, and ending of like forms 
 in some other part. 
 
 CYCLICAL PROGRESSION. 
 
 If God had always been employing His power to 
 effect cyclical progression among the particles, 
 whereby there would be periods in which some of 
 the particles would be violently agitated, while oth- 
 ers were quiescent; then, those which had been vio- 
 lently agitated would, in turn, become quiescent 
 while the others would become violently active, 
 would not this process always continue? Would not 
 the cyclical progression continue as it had always 
 been? Would not the movements, the changes, and 
 the forms that had always been produced always 
 continue to be produced? What could have sug- 
 gested any variation from that which had always 
 existed ? 
 
 22 
 
COMPOUND WHOLES. 
 
 If God's power had always been necessary to 
 effect the movements, uniting the particles into the 
 various forms produced, and in separating them 
 from the forms, had He not always been an essen- 
 tial part of the movement? 
 
 If the material particles had always been neces- 
 sary to complete the movements, and produce the 
 forms, had it not always been an essential part of 
 the production? 
 
 If both God and material substance had always 
 been necessary to complete the movement and pro- 
 duce the forms, had not that association, or relation- 
 ship, always existed? If that relationship had al- 
 ways existed, would it not always continue to exist? 
 If that relationship had always existed, were they 
 separate entities, or indissoluble components of a 
 compound whole? 
 
 SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 If God had always been combining the particles of 
 material substance into various forms ; but had never, 
 in all eternity, endowed any of the forms, so com- 
 bined, with the faculty of self -consciousness, and self- 
 movement, would He ever have done so? If He had 
 never thought of doing so, what could have sug- 
 gested the thought; supplied the impulse and power; 
 and initiated the process of transferring the power 
 of self-consciousness and self-movement from Him- 
 self to the material particles? 
 
 23 
 
Is it not clearly evident that if the particles had 
 never possessed such power, it would have had to be 
 derived from some source; and as God would have 
 been the only source, would it not, necessarily, have 
 had to be transferred from Him? 
 
 If God had always possessed all the power of self- 
 consciousness and self-movement, could He have 
 transferred any of that power away from himself to 
 another, without His power being diminished by 
 exactly the same amount as transferred? 
 
 If God alone had always possessed all the power 
 that had ever existed, is it conceivable that He could 
 have transferred any of that power away, yet main- 
 tained His full power, except by the return of the 
 power from the forms to which it had been trans- 
 formed ? From what other source could His depleted 
 power have been restored, if no other source existed ? 
 
 If God had always possessed all the power of self- 
 consciousness and self -movement ; the power to 
 think; to choose; to will; to actuate; to vitalize; to 
 love; to perceive; to remember; to understand; but, 
 had never transf ered any of that power to any of the 
 material forms that He had always been combin- 
 ing and separating, what could have suggested the 
 thought, or supplied the impulse to divide His power, 
 in reality Himself, with another, or a multiplicity of 
 others, each endowed with a portion of the power so 
 divided ? 
 
 24 
 
VITALIZED BEINGS. 
 
 If God had always existed ; if He had always been 
 combining material substance into forms, but had 
 never combined the particles into the form of Man, 
 nor, "breathed into him the breath of life; so that 
 he became a living soul"; having all the man facul- 
 ties, what could have suggested the thought of such a 
 radical being? 
 
 Biblical writers might state, that "Man was made 
 in the image of God" ; therefore, a perfect model for 
 man had always existed. 
 
 But, again the question arises, if God had always 
 been the only vitalized being in existence, what could 
 have suggested the thought of another being? 
 
 Are we not compelled to conclude, that if God does 
 combine the particles of material substance into the 
 forms of sentiment beings, and endows, or transfers 
 to such forms the power of self-conscious individual- 
 ity during a period of vitality that we call life, and 
 removes that vitality, that power, that spirit, or that 
 soul, at what we call death; then, He has always 
 been so combining and endowing such beings, and 
 that He 'will always continue to so combine and en- 
 dow such beings; that whatever power He has al- 
 ways used to effect the combining and energizing, 
 He has always used ; that the particles used have al- 
 ways been used; that the number so combined and 
 endowed have always been the same; that there can- 
 not have been either increase, nor decrease in the 
 number; just as there cannot have been increase, nor 
 
 25 
 
decrease in the power that has always existed; just 
 as there cannot have been increase, nor decrease in 
 the sum total of the particles of material substance 
 always in existence? 
 
 CO-ORDINATES. 
 
 If God's power had always been necessary to com- 
 bine the particles of material substance into the man 
 forms, and a portion of that power had always been 
 employed in vitalizing those forms, had not that por- 
 tion always been an essential part of the man mani- 
 festation ? 
 
 If the groups of material substances had always 
 been necessary to produce the man forms, had they 
 not also been an essential part of the man manifesta- 
 tion? 
 
 If both God and material substance had always 
 been necessary to produce such a man being, and 
 those beings had always existed, as there has been 
 an attempt to show they must have, is it not evident 
 that relationship had always existed; and if it had 
 always existed, it would always continue to exist; 
 that if the relationship had always existed, the power 
 and the particles had always been indissolubly asso- 
 ciated together; that if they had always been indis- 
 solubly associated together, one being the controller, 
 the other the controlled ; then, both had always been 
 co-ordinate essentials to produce the manifested 
 whole ? 
 
 Further than this: That it really does not make 
 any difference whether the power combining and 
 
 26 
 
vitalizing the particles is a distinct entity, spirit, or 
 soul, eternally employed in effecting the transforma- 
 tions among the particles ; or, that the power is an in- 
 herent attribute of the particles, which joins and vi- 
 talizes them into the man manifestations, the mani- 
 festations have always been in existence, and will al- 
 ways continue; and that the manifestations are exact 
 repetitions of the same forms under identical condi- 
 tions in the cyclical processes of the evolutionary pro- 
 gression existing throughout the universe. 
 
 DISSOLUTION. 
 
 The manner of the combining of the particles into 
 the man forms, beginning with the simple proto- 
 plasmic mass, and the continuous and gradual incre- 
 ment of the combining particles to the full form of 
 man, in which the vital energy is continuously mani- 
 fested until there is a cessation of the combining pro- 
 cess at death, when there is an apparent departure, 
 or withdrawal of the vital power, spirit, or soul ; but, 
 leaving the particles in the form as combined, would 
 seem to indicate that the vital power was, indeed, a 
 distinct entity. 
 
 However, it will be noted, that the cessation of the 
 combining of the particles at death, and the appar- 
 ent withdrawal of the vital power, does not prove 
 that it is a distinct entity; or, that it is completely 
 withdrawn, for while the combining of the particles 
 ceases there is some power that immediately begins 
 the dissolution of the particles from the form back 
 into their indivisible condition. 
 
 27 
 
Not only is it true that some power dissolves the 
 form after death; but, it is also true that all during 
 the combining process there is a process of dissolu- 
 tion in operation. That while there has been a con- 
 stant combining of the particles, and a constant in- 
 crement of the form to the full stature of man, there 
 has also been a constant disintegrating of almost the 
 same number of particles from the form; so that 
 there has been a constant change among the parti- 
 cles composing the form. 
 
 It is also true that the vital power has been under- 
 going continuous changes. Increasing as the parti- 
 cles have increased, to the apex of the man power; 
 and then, except in the event of sudden death, grad- 
 ually subsiding towards the dissolution at death. 
 
 Whether or not the power effecting the disinte- 
 gration of the particles after death is the same power 
 that combined them, it is evident that the reproduc- 
 tion of the forms necessitates the return of both the 
 power and the particles; otherwise, there could not 
 be a continuation of the process. 
 
 Is it not evident that if a certain number of parti- 
 cles had always been combined into the man forms, 
 and endowed with the man faculties, there would al- 
 ways be a certain number so combined and endowed ; 
 and that the number of the forms so combined and 
 endowed could neither increase nor decrease from 
 the number that had always been; that as the power 
 had always been employed, so would it always be 
 employed ? 
 
 28 
 
Is it not also evident that if there had always been 
 a process of combining and endowing a certain num- 
 ber of the particles into the man forms, there would, 
 necessarily, have been a corresponding de-energiz- 
 ing and dissolution of the forms ; otherwise, as in the 
 case of the combining and separating of the pairs, 
 previously cited, there must have been the cessation 
 of an eternal process? 
 
 "If a man die, shall he live again?" The answer to 
 that question is as certain as to this: "If a man live, 
 shall he die?" 
 
 ETERNALITY. 
 
 We know that material substance is indistructible. 
 That indistructibility is one of the properties of mat- 
 ter. That it will always continue without the quan- 
 tity diminishing by a single atom; and that it is 
 equally certain it has always existed without the ad- 
 dition of a single atom; therefore, we know that all 
 the atoms composing the man forms have always ex- 
 isted; will always continue to exist. 
 
 May we not be equally certain that the energizing 
 power, spirit, or soul, that animates the particles, 
 has always existed without increasing or decreasing; 
 that as the particles could not increase from non-en- 
 tity, or non-existence, nor decrease to non-entity, or 
 non-existence ; neither could the power increase from 
 non-existence, nor decrease to non-existence? 
 
 May we not be equally certain, that if the parti- 
 
 29 
 
cles had never been combined into the man forms, 
 they would never be so combined; that as they had 
 always existed, so would they always continue to ex- 
 ist; that if they had never been energized with the 
 vital power, they would never be so energized; that 
 if the particles are being combined into the man 
 forms, they have always been so combined; that if 
 the forms so combined are being energized, they 
 have always been so energized ; that if the combining 
 and energizing at the inception to birth, and in- 
 creases in both the number of the particles and in the 
 energizing power, there must be an apex to both the 
 forms and the power, from which there must be a cor- 
 responding diminishing and dissipation at death and 
 dissolution ? 
 
 Is it not just as evident, that if a man die, he shall 
 live again, as it is that if he lived he shall die? As it 
 is that if the sun sets, it shall rise again; as it is that 
 if the tide goes out, it shall come back ; that low tide 
 and high tide simply mark stages around the circle 
 of an endless continuing ; that if the sun is setting at 
 some point, it is rising at some other point; that if 
 the tide falls here, it must rise there; that there is 
 neither increase nor decrease in the volume of sun- 
 light; that there is neither increase nor decrease in 
 the volume of water in the tides; that there is neither 
 increase nor decrease in the power effecting those 
 movements; that beginning and ending simply mark 
 stages around the cycle of an endless progression; 
 that life and death are analogous to those move- 
 ments; that every death is but the portal to a re- 
 
 30 
 
newed birth; that every birth is but a progression 
 along the pathway to a death? 
 
 IMMORTALITY. 
 
 If a mortal, transitory, changeable being die, shall 
 he ever be re-born into an immortal, unchangeable 
 eternal being? 
 
 Never in all eternity. Such a belief is untenable 
 because every birth necessitates a death. Because 
 of the very fact of being re-born necessitating re- 
 death. Because every action necessitates re-action. 
 Because every re-newing necessitates re-ending. Be- 
 cause we know, that if there had never been such 
 transitory being, there could never be such beings; 
 because we know that if such beings do exist, they 
 have always existed; that if they have always ex- 
 isted, they will always continue to exist, for there is 
 no possibility of stopping an eternal process. 
 
 Why should any one desire to be re-born into an 
 unchanging condition, or into an unchanging place? 
 
 Would one want to merely exist, without any pos- 
 sibility of development? 
 
 Would one want to remain eternally where there 
 were no changing days; no budding flowers; no rip- 
 ening fruit or grain; no nesting birds, or playful 
 young of field and mountainside ; no growing chil- 
 dren to watch as their lives unfolded ? 
 
 Does not bur pleasure come from being a part of, 
 and in watching all the manifold changes on the 
 earth? 
 
 31 
 
However perfect a child might be, would its par- 
 ents want it to remain a child forever? Would they 
 not feel afflicted, if it ceased to grow? If a loved 
 child died, would its parents want it to go to a place 
 where there would be no further development? 
 
 If there be growth and development, there must 
 be decline and disintegration. It is the law of Nature, 
 and Nature makes no mistakes. 
 
 EVOLUTION. 
 
 The conclusion, that man has always existed, and 
 will always continue to exist, does not conflict with 
 the evolutionary theory, because every movement in 
 the universe is an evolutionary progression, from the 
 lifting of a drop of water out of the ocean, and its 
 return thereto, to the combining of a planetary sys- 
 tem from a multitude of indivisible particles and its 
 dissolution back into nebular particles again. 
 
 If this earth was evolved from a nebulous condi- 
 tion, if, in ages past, the particles were separated 
 into indivisible substance and a power began to com- 
 bine the particles into a compact mass which grad- 
 ually cooled until the vapors surrounding it con- 
 densed into the waters that form the oceans; and that 
 to some of the particles there was added a vital 
 power and protoplasm began; and the process con- 
 tinued and there were further additions of power, 
 until the evolutionary progression had produced 
 among the Flora all the variations of phanerogams 
 and cryptogams; and among the Fauna all the vari- 
 
 32 
 
ations of vertebrates and invertebrates; that there 
 were still further additions of the combining and vi- 
 talizing power until the vertebrates crawled out of 
 the water and stood erect upon the land ; and yet fur- 
 ther additions of power to the vitalized being until 
 he became a self-conscious constructive man and de- 
 veloped a civilization; then, all of those movements 
 were but an evolutionary growth as natural as the de- 
 velopment of a flower, and exact repetitions of mil- 
 lions of preceeding earths. 
 
 Is it not equally evident that if this evolutionary 
 progression has always been in operation, there must 
 have been a corresponding and equal retrogression 
 always in operation; that if there has always been a 
 combining of the material particles, and the incep- 
 tion and increasing in the number of the vitalized 
 forms, there must have been a corresponding and 
 equal de-vitalizing and dissolution of the forms; that 
 it is impossible to continue an eternal process of com- 
 bining among a limited number of particles, without 
 a corresponding and equal separating among a like 
 number of particles ; and that it is impossible to eter- 
 nally expend power, without a corresponding and 
 equal restoration of the power expended; that this 
 is almost as self-evident as it is that a reservoir can- 
 not be drawn from continuously, without replenish- 
 ing the supply? 
 
 Is it not evident there could not have been a be- 
 ginning and progressing of those evolutionary proc- 
 esses both in the earth, and in the vitalized forms on 
 the earth, except there had been a corresponding 
 
 33 
 
retrogressing and ending of a like process in and on 
 some other earth ? 
 
 Is it not also evident that if the power effecting 
 the combining and vitalizing had always been so 
 employed, yet there was a period when the particles 
 of this earth were in a nebulous, or uncombined con- 
 dition, and a later period when the particles were 
 combined but no forms were yet vitalized; then, dur- 
 ing such period, must not that power have been em- 
 ployed in producing a like progression in and on 
 some other earth? 
 
 Is it conceivable there could have been the begin- 
 ning and developing of a planetary system in one 
 part of the universe, without a corresponding de- 
 creasing and disintegrating of a like system in some 
 other part? Whence could have come the material 
 and the power for the reconstruction; except from 
 the dissolution of an equal quantity of material, and 
 the recovery of an equal amount of power to re-new 
 the operation? 
 
 Is it conceivable there could have been the begin- 
 ning and increasing in the number of the vitalized 
 beings manifested in an evolutionary progression on 
 an earth, without a corresponding retrogression and 
 ending on some other earth? 
 
 Is it not evident that if there be a diminishing and 
 disappearing of all the vitalized beings from this 
 earth, there must be a corresponding appearing and 
 increasing of like being on some other earth; that 
 identical conditions always produce identical forms? 
 
 34 
 
 
THE UNIVERSE. 
 
 Are we not compelled to conclude that the Uni- 
 verse, as a whole, is unchanged and unchangeable; 
 that as it is, so has it always been; that as it is, so 
 will it always be; that there has been neither in- 
 crease nor decrease in the number of the material 
 particles composing it; that there has been neither 
 increase nor decrease in the power effecting the 
 movements and changes among the particles; that 
 every change among the particles is but a repetition 
 of a previous change; that they have always been in 
 operation, and will always continue; that whatever 
 forms are being produced throughout the universe, 
 those same forms have always been produced; that 
 whatever power is being employed in the production 
 of those forms has always been so employed; that 
 every form of planet, or system of planets, is an 
 eternity old; that all the forms of life on this earth, 
 or any other earth, have always been, will always 
 be; that every action necessitates a re-action; that 
 every beginning necessitates an ending; that every 
 ending necessitates a re-newed beginning ; that every 
 birth necessitates a death; that every death necessi- 
 tates a re-birth ; that if there be a gathering together 
 at one place, there must be a separating apart at 
 some other place; that if a new heavens and earth 
 begin and develop into an orderly system, with all 
 their multiform varieties of living beings, an old 
 heavens and earth must disintegrate and dissolve, in 
 order to provide the necessary material for the re- 
 forming of the new; that, "There is nothing new 
 
 35 
 
under the sun," or in the sun, or around the sun; that 
 history repeats itself, not only in human affairs, but 
 in everything that exists; that however long it takes 
 to complete the cycles of the evolutionary processes, 
 or whatever the variations in the forms of the vital- 
 ized beings, they are exact repetition of endlessly 
 repeated processes and forms, in time, and place, and 
 circumstances ? 
 
 End of Article One. 
 
 36 
 
 
ARTICLE TWO 
 
 ATTRIBUTES 
 
 If there be a mind, are we not compelled to con- 
 clude there must be a something in which that mind 
 dwells ? If there be thought, must there not be a sub- 
 ject of that thought? If there be life, must there not 
 be something to live? If there be vibration, must 
 there not be something to vibrate? If there be ema- 
 nations, must there not be a source from which those 
 emanations proceed? If there be heat, must there 
 not be a something to contain that heat ? If there be 
 radiation, must there not be something to project that 
 radiation? If there be energy, must there not be 
 something to manifest that energy ? If there be con- 
 sciousness, must not that consciousness be of some- 
 thing ? If there be love, must there not be something 
 to feel, and something to inspire that love? Is this 
 not true of all the intangibles? 
 
 Are we not compelled to conclude that the in- 
 tangibles are subjective, not objective; that they are 
 attributes, not abstract realities? That it is incon- 
 ceivable there could be a manifestation of a material 
 reality, if that reality had never existed? 
 
 MAN 
 
 If it takes millions of years for the evolutionary 
 processes of an earth to bring about the right condi- 
 tions for the production of man, and this earth was 
 uninhabited by man for millions of years, is it not ab- 
 
 37 
 
solutely certain there have always been some other 
 earths on which the proper conditions existed, and 
 that he lived there, as he lives here; that he died 
 there, as he dies here ; that he loved there, as he loves 
 here; that he hated there, as he hates here; that he 
 hoped and despaired there, as he hopes and despairs 
 here ; that he was first a savage there, as he was first 
 a savage here; that something was added to his fac- 
 ulties there, until he became a constructive being, 
 and developed a civilization, just as something was 
 added to his faculties here, until he became construc- 
 tive and developed a civilization here; and if still 
 further additions were made to his faculties there, 
 and he became a being superior to man, so too will 
 something be added to his faculties here, until he be- 
 comes a being superior to man; but, if the evolution- 
 ary processes do evolve a being superior to man, that 
 being will not be man? 
 
 The lower form of vertebrate that preceded man 
 on the earth was not man, but a lower form of being. 
 
 The lower form might have had nearly all the man 
 faculties; but, until all the man faculties were added, 
 that form was not man. It was something lower. A 
 thing may be circular; but is not a circle, until it is 
 complete. The chrysalis is not the butterfly; some- 
 thing must be added to produce the butterfly. The 
 bud is not the flower; something must be added to 
 produce the flower. A being is not man, until he has 
 all the man faculties; therefore, man did not appear 
 on the earth until he had all the man faculties. He 
 
 38 
 
did not appear until the condition in the evolution- 
 ary progression of the earth had reached the iden- 
 tical condition under which he has always appeared 
 on other earths. He will not continue on this earth 
 any longer than he has always continued on other 
 earths. There will be no variation in the forms, nor 
 in the number of the forms, from those that have 
 always appeared under identical conditions. 
 
 UNIFORMITY. 
 
 Can there be any variations in the cyclical pro- 
 gressions and manifestations continuing throughout 
 the universe, from those that have always existed? 
 
 If it took millions of years to bring about the right 
 conditions, on this earth, for the production of the 
 most simple organism of vitality, will it not take the 
 same number of years to re-produce that same kind 
 of an organism on another earth, passing through a 
 like progression? And, if only on® such organism 
 had been produced on an earth, and it had continued 
 along its way and been dissolved at the completion 
 of its cycle without there having been the produc- 
 tion of another one; then, could an identical condi- 
 tion, in a like progression, on another earth, have 
 produced any other form, or any other number? 
 
 Would not the organisms, and the number of the 
 organisms, produced in the Paleozoic period of the 
 earth's progression be re-produced in a like period in 
 the progression of another earth? Would not this 
 apply to the Mesozoic, the Ceneozoic, or any other 
 
 39 
 
periods that may follow? Would not this apply to 
 any of the innumerable earths preceding this? Do 
 not like causes always produce like effects? 
 
 If, in the further progression of the processes on 
 the earth, something more is added to the man forms 
 that will produce a being superior to man, will that 
 being longer be man? Will he not be a being supe- 
 rior to man? Have not the man manifestations al- 
 ways been man? Will they not always be man? 
 
 If, in the further progression of the earth, man 
 can no longer be produced here; then, will not the 
 power that has always been employed in his produc- 
 tion, be re-producing him on some other earth where 
 the season for his production, and the conditions, are 
 identical to the season and conditions now existing on 
 this earth? 
 
 Has not man always existed? Will he not always 
 continue to exist? 
 
 GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 As one of those man forms is combined and group 
 consciousness begins at the inception to birth, another 
 form is losing that consciousness at death; but, at 
 birth, nothing is added to the whole of conscious- 
 ness; nor, at death, is anything subtracted therefrom. 
 
 Shall man retain remembrance of this group con- 
 sciousness, in any subsequent re-grouping of the par- 
 ticles into a re-newed form? 
 
 As the individual particles are eternal, it would 
 
 40 
 
be a reasonable assumption to believe in their eter- 
 nality of consciousness; but, if the grouped form is 
 dissolved back into indivisible particles, thereby los- 
 ing their group characteristics, why should there be 
 a continuation of the group consciousness, or remem- 
 brance of the dissolved form, in the re-grouping of a 
 re-newed form? 
 
 A community, a state, a nation is a group of many 
 individuals, all performing certain functions; some 
 mental, some physical; some elected to rule, some 
 being ruled. When the individuals are harmonious, 
 a great nation is expressed. Sometimes, because of 
 divergent interests among the individuals, there is 
 discord, and the group is dissolved, the individuals 
 being absorbed into other groups; or there is a re- 
 newed grouping into a new nation. 
 
 That the individuals would retain remembrance 
 of the old group is conceded; but the former Na- 
 tional consciousness would have passed away, and in 
 its place a new nationality would be expressed. 
 
 In a nation where the individuals are bound to- 
 gether by common interests it has been found advis- 
 able to delegate the various individuals to the duties 
 for which they are deemed best fitted ; certain mem- 
 bers being delegated to look after the welfare of the 
 nation as a whole. When distress, calamity, or any 
 need of any section of the nation is required, the 
 individuals of that section, by some means notify the 
 central, or ruling delegates, who provide means to 
 render the aid required. 
 
 41 
 
A nation, however complex, but expresses the 
 characteristics of the individuals composing it. 
 
 Man is comparable to such a nation. He is a com- 
 plex expression of many individual components. 
 Some performing mental functions; others, physical. 
 Some ruling; others being ruled. Some being dele- 
 gated to look after the welfare of the whole. When 
 there is distress or need of any kind aid is rushed 
 thereto; but, the need must be made manifest to the 
 ruling members by the members of the affected por- 
 tion, else there would not be either assistance ren- 
 derd or knowledge thereof. 
 
 When there is harmony among all the members a 
 great character is likely to be expressed. When there 
 is discord, due to the craving of acquired appetite, or 
 habits detrimental to the best interests of the whole, 
 mediocrity or failure results. 
 
 Whatever the character expressed, the group is 
 passing along an orderly process to dissolution, and a 
 re-newed grouping. 
 
 The writer knows that the particles composing his 
 body have always existed, and that the vitalizing 
 power, spirit, soul, or consciousness has always ex- 
 isted; yet he has no recollections from any previous 
 groups. Nor does he desire to have any remembrance 
 of this group, in any subsequent re-grouping. "Suffi- 
 cient unto the day, is the evil thereof". Also, the 
 good. We know that existence is eternal, in both 
 directions, so why should we want to remember the 
 troubles of yesterday, when we can look forward 
 toward the pleasures of tomorrow? 
 
 42 
 
Enjoyment consists, very largely, in progressing; 
 in developing; in learning; and in new, or re-newed 
 experiences. To retain remembrance of all the expe- 
 riences around cycle after cycle of existence, would 
 deaden all the pleasures of anticipation. Let us trust 
 we shall not remember, too long, lest we become 
 satiated by the endless repetitions. 
 
 ERRONEOUS BELIEF. 
 
 The fear of death has been caused, partly, by an 
 erroneous belief that man must, by his Will and 
 Choice determine, in this life, his eternal future con- 
 dition. That this decision will procure for him a con- 
 dition of eternal bliss; or condemn him to a condi- 
 tion of eternal misery. 
 
 That such belief has inspired many benif icent acts, 
 heroic sacrifices, and exalted martyrdoms, cannot be 
 denied; but it is also true that it has been the cause 
 of much anguish of mind, and misery of body. It 
 bred the Inquisition, with all its attendant horrors. 
 It caused massacres, relentless persecutions, and 
 bloody wars. It is causing much misery among many 
 good men and women today, through the fear that 
 some loved one will be condemned to endless tor- 
 ment. It is an evil belief, because erroneous, and its 
 dissipation will be a palpable benefit to humanity. 
 
 WILL AND CHOICE. 
 
 Superficially, we think we change our mind. Do 
 
 43 
 
we change our mind, or does our mind change? Are 
 Willing and Choosing causes, or effects? To will 
 and choose, must there not be a something in which 
 the faculty of willing and choosing resides? To will 
 and choose must there not be a something about 
 which to make decision? If there were not a sub- 
 ject to impress the mind, what could induce the deci- 
 sion to act? 
 
 We will to acquire a certain object. Is not the 
 object the cause; the willing to acquire the effect? 
 Does not the object initiate the impulse to will? If 
 the object had always been present to the percep- 
 tion of the mind, but had never induced the mind to 
 act, could it ever do so. If the mind had always per- 
 ceived the object, but had never been inclined to act, 
 could it ever do so? The mind wills and chooses; 
 but never, until it is impressed by an objective. 
 
 The impression produced is the action ; the willing 
 and choosing, the re-action. They are corellative 
 parts of a complete whole. 
 
 We choose between two objects. A third, and 
 more desirable one appears. The more desirable ob- 
 ject causes a change in choice. The third object is 
 the cause; the change in choice, the effect. 
 
 We will to picnic. We choose the day, and make 
 our preparation. The day arrives, but the sky is 
 overcast by heavy clouds and the rain descends in 
 torrents. Our will and choice are changed by cir- 
 cumstances beyond our control. 
 
 44 
 
If we could mold our lives by will choice, would 
 we grow old, and die? 
 
 Moses chose to watch the flocks of Jethro; the 
 plight of the Hebrews caused him to go to Egypt. 
 Saul, of Tarsus, chose to go to Damascus and perse- 
 cute the Christians; but circumstances caused him to 
 become an apostle to the Christians. 
 
 We do not change our mind. Our mind changes in 
 accordance to an immutable law of the universe. 
 
 To think we change our mind is as unreasonable 
 as to think a flower changes its shape and color. We 
 know the shape and color of the flower are changed 
 by the circumstances of the environment in which it 
 grows. The changes, small as they may be, are due 
 to the combined influences of the earth, sun, wind, 
 rain, in fact, to all the elements of Nature. 
 
 We recognize that all the changes in the physical 
 world are due to elemental causes, governed by the 
 laws of development; yet, we seem to think the vari- 
 ations in the development of the mental processes 
 are the result of choice, chance, or caprice. 
 
 We recognize that law regulates the germination, 
 development, decline, and dissolution of the things 
 Of the material world ; yet, we are slow to recognize, 
 or reluctant to admit, that law regulates the incep- 
 tion, development, decline, and disintegration of the 
 manifestations of the mental world. 
 
 Flowers, fruit, all vegetable and animal life ger- 
 minate, develop, decline and disintegrate, because 
 
 45 
 
they cannot do otherwise; but, not a single particle 
 is added to, or taken from the whole. 
 
 Ideas germinate, develop, decline, and disintegrate 
 just as naturally as the flowers; but not a single idea 
 is added to, or taken from the Universal Mind. 
 
 NEW THINGS. 
 
 Are there any new things? Botanists tell us there 
 are no two leaves of the forest exactly alike ; but that 
 is not proven. There might be many exactly alike, 
 as far as we actually know. The assumption, that 
 there are no two just alike, is based, no doubt, upon 
 what seems to be reasonable evidence; but is not 
 conclusive. The earth is not exactly alike from one 
 day to another. It is just a little different today from 
 the earth of yesterday. It will be just a little differ- 
 ent tomorrow from the earth today; but, is it any 
 different from that which another earth was under 
 identical conditions during a corresponding progres- 
 sion in the distant past? 
 
 The roses of today may be different from any pre- 
 viously existing on this earth; but they are exact re- 
 productions of the same kind of roses that grew on 
 another earth under exactly identical conditions. 
 There is a little progression from day to day. 
 
 If a rose had never previously existed, its produc- 
 tion would necessitate a distortion of all the orderly 
 processes of eternity to produce the freak. Freaks, 
 so called, are orderly products of orderly causes, end- 
 lessly repeated in time and place. 
 
 46 
 
The developments of life on this earth, today, are 
 very different from life millions of years ago, and it 
 is very likely there will be many changes in the years 
 to follow; but, what is this earth? A grain of dust 
 in the universe, and all the various changes and de- 
 velopments, in both the physical and mental mani- 
 festations, are but as the ripening fruit, and have 
 been experienced on millions of other earths preced- 
 ing this one. 
 
 The earth is ripening, and whether it is in the 
 Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter of its progres- 
 sion, it will pursue its way unalterably to its dissolu- 
 tion and re-newing in accordance to the eternal law. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 In the preceding pages there has been an attempt 
 to show that if there be a spiritual Supreme Being, 
 who controls all movements and changes in opera- 
 tion throughout the material universe, that control, 
 and those movements and changes have always been 
 in operation, and will always continue. 
 
 The arguments have been: That if such Supreme 
 Being controls all power, that power could not have 
 been employed, nor could there have been any mani- 
 festation of it, as it is manifested in the universe, 
 except by the co-existence of the material substance. 
 
 That if the material were necessary for the em- 
 ployment of the power, and the power were neces- 
 sary for the movements and changes; then, both 
 were necessary parts in the production of whatever 
 
 47 
 
forms appeared, and whatever changes took place in 
 the forms. 
 
 It was further argued that if there had never been 
 any material substance in existence there could not 
 have been any power applied, nor any material forms 
 produced. 
 
 The attempt was made to show that all power is 
 limited in amount to that which has always existed; 
 that there is no possibility of increasing that amount ; 
 and that whether the power is vested in, or returned 
 to, a supreme being, who continues to expend it as 
 it is returned in continuing the movements and 
 changes; or that it is an inherent property of the 
 material particles and is simply transferred from one 
 group to another in the actions and re-actions, it is 
 evident the power must be recovered from the par- 
 ticles, because that is the the only source from which 
 it can be recovered. 
 
 We know that if a vitalized being does not con- 
 tinually restore the energy expended, that vitality 
 will cease, and death will ensue. That vitality ap- 
 pears to be restored, and even increased, by the con- 
 sumption and absorption of de-vitalized or dead or- 
 ganic matter in the form of food. Whether or not 
 all the vital force is derived from the apparently 
 dead organism we do know that if there be a com- 
 plete cessation of their consumption death will ensue. 
 
 Are those dead organisms completely de-vitalized, 
 or is the energy derived from their consumption and 
 absorbtion simply stored therein in a static condi- 
 
 48 
 
tion, which under proper conditions is released in 
 amount equal to the energy expended? Are atoms 
 ever entirely de-vitalized? Are not the electrons in 
 continuous motion around the nucleus in every atom ? 
 
 If the power of movement and change must be re- 
 covered from the material particles why would it be 
 necessary for it to pass into the control of a supreme 
 being, if he could only expend it in continuing move- 
 ments and changes that he could not initiate; that 
 were unalterable ; and that had always existed ? 
 
 Why could not the actions and re-actions continue 
 among the particles without the intervention of an 
 intermediary who could not start, alter; nor stop a 
 single action? 
 
 MATERIALITY. 
 
 We contemplate the material universe, and agree 
 with the writer of Genesis, 'that it was good.' We 
 also concede that it could not create itself; but, we 
 cannot concede that it could have been conceived 
 where there was nothing to suggest the conception; 
 planned where there was nothing to suggest the 
 plan; built where there was nothing with which to 
 build. 
 
 It appears not only more reasonable, but inevit- 
 able, to conclude that as it does exist, so must it al- 
 ways have existed; so must it always continue to 
 exist; that even if none of the intangibles, such as 
 consciousness, love, will, perception or any of the 
 faculties of the senses, ever did exist, there could be 
 
 49 
 
no possibility of its movements and changes ever 
 ceasing or diminishing 
 
 CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. 
 
 "If a material body is moving onward, in absolute 
 space, it will forever so continue to move, because of 
 its inertia." Almost every high school student is 
 familiar with that supposition. 
 
 If a body were rotating on its axis, like the earth, 
 in absolute space, it is equally true that it would for- 
 ever so continue to rotate. 
 
 If a body were at rest it would require the appli- 
 cation of an amount of energy greater than the initial 
 resistance offered to start it in motion; but the ex- 
 cess energy would be transferred and conserved in 
 the moving body as momentum, energy of movement, 
 or persistence of force, and would be expended in 
 overcoming the resistance encountered by the mov- 
 ing body, so that, when it had again come to rest, the 
 total energy expended would have exactly equaled 
 the resistance overcome. 
 
 Conversly, if a body were in motion would it not 
 require a resistance exactly equal to its energy of 
 movement in order to stop, or bring it to rest ? Would 
 not that resistance exactly equal the total amount of 
 energy expended to produce the motion? If a re- 
 sistance were applied sufficient to stop the motion, 
 would not that energy of movement be conserved in 
 the resisting medium? 
 
 50 
 
If the body plunged into a medium of resistance, 
 like our atmosphere and the friction of contact not 
 only brought it to rest, but dissolved it into indivisible 
 particles, would there not be developed a friction, or 
 heat energy, exactly equal to that energy of move- 
 ment? 
 
 A portion of the energy so developed would be 
 transferred to the substance into which it plunged, 
 and a portion would remain among the dissolved 
 particles; but there could not be any diminution in 
 the sum total of the energy. 
 
 There could not have been any diminution through 
 radiation; because heat cannot radiate, except there 
 be a something into which it can pass. It cannot 
 radiate into, or through non-entity. There must be 
 some medium to receive it. 
 
 Therefore, while the energy might be diffused 
 among a greater number of particles to such an ex- 
 tent as to seem to diminish, there could not be any 
 diminution whatever. The full power of the energy 
 of movement would have been conserved into what- 
 ever it might have been transferred, whether the 
 energy were heat, electricity, or whatever its nature. 
 
 If we place our hand upon a coiled spring and 
 exert a certain energy of movement to compress it 
 a certain distance, is not an equal energy conserved 
 in the compressed spring and in the heat developed 
 by the friction of the molecules during the compres- 
 sion? 
 
 51 
 
If we remove our hand will not the conserved 
 energy recoil the spring an almost equal distance? 
 The infinitesimal difference in distance being due to 
 the dissemination of a portion of the energy by the 
 molecular friction into heat energy, which passes 
 into adjacent substances where it is conserved. 
 
 Repeated compression of the spring will finally 
 transfer all the energy of movement through the 
 molecular friction into heat energy and the spring 
 will fail to recoil, and it will seem that there has been 
 a loss of energy; but there has been no loss — it is 
 simply transferred into other substances in full meas- 
 ure to whatever energy of movement has been ap- 
 plied. 
 
 Suppose a body, in absolute space, had a certain 
 temperature, would there be any possible way in 
 which that tempraeture could be reduced ? Heat is a 
 manifestation of energy. Energy cannot exist in the 
 abstract. It is a property of something; therefore, 
 heat cannot radiate, except there be a medium to 
 absorb it. If nothing existed except that body, how 
 could the heat radiate? Is it not obvious the body 
 would always retain the same temperature it always 
 had? 
 
 If a body existed, in absolute space, nothing any- 
 where else, to what conclusions would we be com- 
 pelled to come regarding it? Would we not be com- 
 pelled to conclude that it had always existed, just as 
 it was? Nothing could have been added thereto, be- 
 cause there would not have been anything, anywhere, 
 
 52 
 
to add to it. Nothing could have been taken away 
 from it, because if anything had been taken away 
 there would have been something elsewhere. If it 
 were stationary, it had always been so ; would always 
 be so. If it were moving onward in space, it had al- 
 ways been moving; would always be moving. If it 
 were rotating on an axis, it had always been so rotat- 
 ing; would always be so rotating. If it were com- 
 posed of many parts and the parts were fixed in their 
 relation to one another that relationship had always 
 obtained. If the parts were changing in their rela- 
 tion to one another those changes had always been 
 occurring, and had always been occurring in regular 
 order. If the parts were changing in their relation to 
 one another they all had an energy of movement pro- 
 portioned to their weight and speed. If one, moving 
 faster than another contacted thereagainst the 
 slower moving one Would act as a resistance and re- 
 tard the speed of the faster one; but, at the same 
 time, the energy of movement of the faster one would 
 accelerate the speed of the slower, so that the aver- 
 age speed of both would be exactly the same as the 
 average speed of both before the union, and the 
 energy of movement would be retained exactly as it 
 was. 
 
 If one contacted against another with sufficient 
 force to completely stop it, the energy of movement 
 of the one stopped would be transferred to the one 
 against which it contacted, and its speed would be 
 accelerated proportionate to the energy transferred 
 from the one stopped; therefore, while one might be 
 
 53 
 
stopped by contact, by friction, or by some other 
 means, it could not be stopped, or even retarded, ex- 
 cept by the absorb t ion of its energy by some other, 
 or by all the others, and the total energy would al- 
 ways remain exactly the same. 
 
 If two bodies, equal in size and weight and acted 
 upon by the same law of gravity, were revolving 
 around a common center of gravity their velocity and 
 orbits would be exactly the same. If it were possible 
 to start one revolving around one stationary the at- 
 traction of the one moving would gradually induce 
 the other to moving in an orbit like an ever increas- 
 ing coil, until the orbit became the same as the other 
 and they would both move in the same orbit and at 
 the same velocity. The energy of one would decrease, 
 while the energy of the other would increase; but 
 their combined energy would be constant all through 
 the process. 
 
 If two, of unequal size, were revolving around a 
 common center of gravity, the velocity and orbit of 
 the smaller would be proportionately faster and 
 larger than the other. If many were in motion there 
 would be many variations due to their influence upon 
 one another; but there could not be a stopping of 
 any without the transferring of its energy to some 
 other in full measure. 
 
 If the law of gravitation were attracting all toward 
 a central place, the compression induced would de- 
 velop a heat so intense as to vaporize and eject them 
 back toward the periphery, there to condense and 
 start the process over again. 
 
 54 
 
Is not the universe comparable to such a form? Is 
 there anything beyond it? Is it not just as evident 
 there cannot be any increase or decrease in the 
 amount of energy within it, as it is there cannot be 
 any increase or decrease in the amount of the sub- 
 stance of which it is composed ? 
 
 Do we not know that if this whole universe were 
 dissolved into indivisible particles there would al- 
 ways be the same number; that it is impossible for 
 any to be annihilated ? Do we not know it is equally 
 impossible that there can be any decrease in the 
 amount of energy; that however it might be dissem- 
 inated, or whatever the variations in the forms ef- 
 fected, it will exist, and will exist in that upon which 
 its existence depends? 
 
 Is it not evident there cannot be the stopping of a 
 single movement in all the universe without the con- 
 servation of an exactly equal amount of energy as 
 that required to effect the stopping; that every ac- 
 tion necessitates an equal re-action; that it is almost 
 self-evident that all the power existing among the 
 changing particles throughout the universe has al- 
 ways existed; that there is no possibility of either 
 increasing, or decreasing it; that the movements and 
 changes have always been in operation, and will 
 always continue; that it is impossible to separate the 
 power from the material ; and that if it is impossible 
 to separate the power from the material, it must be a 
 property of the material and the movements and 
 changes would go on forever, even if there were no 
 consciousness of them? 
 
 55 
 
If material substances had never possessed the 
 faculty of self -consciousness, self -movement, percep- 
 tion, love, or any of the intangible properties, could 
 those substances ever have acquired them? 
 
 Never. It is just as evident they could not have 
 done so, as it is that if there had never been any- 
 thing, any where, there could ever be anything; or, 
 that if there had never been anything except spirit- 
 uality there could never be anything else. 
 
 In either supposition, spiritual or material, are we 
 not compelled to conclude that if material substances 
 do possess the intangible faculties they have always 
 possessed them, and will always continue to possess 
 them; that if they have always possessed, and will 
 always continue to possess them, they are constitu- 
 ent attributes of those substances? 
 
 Is it not evident that a consciousness that has 
 always been an indissoluble attribute of a material 
 substance cannot be a separate and distinct entity? 
 
 Could there be a material substance, if there were 
 not a consciousness of it? Yes, if it had always so 
 existed. 
 
 Could there be a consciousness of being, if there 
 were not a being to feel that consciousness? If not, 
 then is not consciousness an attribute of the being? 
 
 Is not the consciousness of the material being su- 
 perior to the material? Of what value would mate- 
 rial be, if there were no consciousness of its exist- 
 ence? 
 
 56 
 
Is the love of a mother superior to the mother who 
 feels that love? Is it not the love that which exalts 
 the mother? Could there be such an affection, as 
 mother love, if there were not a mother to feel that 
 affection? If not, then is not the love of a mother an 
 attribute of the mother? 
 
 Could the mother feel that love, if there were not 
 a child to induce the affection? If not, then is not 
 the love an effect; the child, the cause? Could there 
 be a child, if there were not a mother? Could there 
 be a mother, if there were not a child? Are they 
 not interdependent; if one exists, must not the other? 
 Which leads to Polarity. 
 
 POLARITY. 
 
 In Magnetism there are two poles, the positive and 
 the negative. The energy of the positive exactly bal- 
 ancs the energy of the negative; the energy of the 
 negative, that of the positive. One pole is just as 
 essential as the other. If one exists, so must the other. 
 Both must exist, or neither could. However near to 
 each other the extremeties, there must be a differ- 
 ence between them, or they could not be. This dif- 
 ference comprises the intermediate zones of the mag- 
 netic energy. Midway between the extremities the 
 energy is neutralized. This is the pivotal point. All 
 on one side is positive energy. All on the other side, 
 negative. These two poles and their intermediate 
 influences are essential constituents of the one actu- 
 ality, called Magnetism. 
 
 57 
 
This polarity exists throughout the universe. With- 
 out it, there is nothing. It is the measuring rod of 
 being. The scale by which all variations are deter- 
 mined. It matters not how long or short the scale, 
 there is the one extremity, the other extremity, and 
 the intermediate portions. 
 
 It matters not how thick or thin an object, there is 
 the one side, the other side, and the connecting inter- 
 mediate. 
 
 In the Earth there is the North pole, the South, 
 and the intermediate zones. In Quality, there is the 
 best, the worst, and all the gradations along the 
 scale. In Quantity, there is the largest, the smallest, 
 and the varying dimensions between. In Tempera- 
 ture, heat and cold. In Electricity, positive and neg- 
 ative; attraction and repulsion. In Music, harmony 
 and discord. In Aspect, beautiful and ugly. In Cir- 
 cumstances, rich and poor. In Distance, near and 
 far. In Emotion, love and hatred; joy and sorrow. 
 In Change, beginning and ending. In Movement, 
 action and re-action; cause and effect. In Morality, 
 good and evil. In Mortality, life and death. In Con- 
 dition, heaven and hell. In Being, mind and matter. 
 In Theology, God and devil. 
 
 If there were no variations, could there be any 
 basis by which comparisons could be made? 
 
 If everything were of the same size, could there 
 be large, or small? If everything were on the same 
 level, could there be high, or low? If everything 
 moved at the same speed, could there be fast, or 
 
 58 
 
slow? If everything had the same temperature, could 
 there be hot, or cold? If there were no beginning 
 could there be an ending? If there were no action, 
 could there be re-action? If there were not a cause, 
 could there be an effect? If there were no birth, 
 could there be a death? If there were no sorrow, 
 could there be any joy? If the conduct of all were 
 exactly alike, could there be good, or evil? If there 
 were not a condition of hell, how could there be, of 
 heaven? How would one ascertain if one were good, 
 if there were no evil, or less good? 
 
 While it is conceivable a number of objects could 
 have existed without any variation whatever, there 
 could not have been any intelligent conception con- 
 cerning them, except as to numbers, space, and time. 
 There could not have been any conception as to 
 whether or not they were large or small, long or 
 short, heavy or light, round or square, hot or cold, 
 good or bad ; for, without any variations there would 
 not have been anything to which they could have 
 been compared to ascertain those qualities or quan- 
 tities. 
 
 In order to make comparisons, there must be some 
 variations between the things compared; otherwise, 
 there would be no basis upon which to found any 
 knowledge concerning them. It matters not how 
 small the variations, they afford the necessary basis 
 for the comparison, upon which their relativity is 
 determined. This basis must exist, or there could not 
 be any possible conception with which to ascertain 
 their quality or quantity. 
 
 59 
 
Then, if there were no small, how could there be 
 a large ? If there were no near, how could there be a 
 far? If there were no low, how could there be a 
 high? If there were no cold, how could there be a 
 hot; or if no ugly, a beautiful; or if no sorrow, a joy; 
 or if no evil, a good? 
 
 How could there be a basis of comparison, without 
 the opposite poles ? If one exists, must not the other ? 
 Are not both essential constituents of the One? 
 
 Are not the poles exactly balanced? Are not the 
 extremities of all measuring scales the same distance 
 apart? Is not the near just as great a distance from 
 the far, as the far is from the near? Is not the cold 
 just as much colder than the hot, as the hot is hotter 
 than the cold? Is there not a pivotal point between 
 all joy and sorrow? If good is at one extremity of 
 the scale of Morality, and evil at the other, is there 
 not a center of gravity between, and does not all on 
 one side exactly balance all on the other side? If 
 there were no evil to contrast against the good, how 
 could there be any determination as to what consti- 
 tutes good? Is not one just as essential as the other? 
 If one has always existed, has not the other ? If both 
 have always existed, then how could there have been 
 an "Origin of Evil"? 
 
 It matters not how good the character and life of 
 one, this polarity exists in the greater good, and the 
 lesser good. 
 
 It matters not how evil the character and life of 
 one, there is the greater evil, and the lesser evil, 
 
 60 
 
which is really the good as compared to the greater 
 evil. 
 
 We are all a complexity of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. 
 Hyde. 
 
 Could there be any physical development, if the 
 muscles were not employed in overcoming some re- 
 sistance? 
 
 Could there be any moral development, if there 
 were no evil temptations to resist? 
 
 If there be a positive energy for good, is there not, 
 also, a negative energy for evil ? 
 
 If there be a condition of heaven, is there not, also, 
 a condition of hell? 
 
 "Nature does not make half -hinges". 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 The Universe is eternal. 
 
 It never had beginning. It has always existed. 
 
 It will never have ending. It will exist forever. 
 
 To it nothing has been added. 
 
 From it nothing has been subtracted. 
 
 It is a complex Whole, consisting of myriads of 
 various parts and properties, evident to all our 
 Senses. 
 
 As a Whole, it is a Constant; never changing. 
 
 The parts that are changing, have always been 
 changing, will ever be changing; yet every change 
 is but a repetition of a previous change. 
 
 61 
 
Every repetition is a re-newing; yet the re-newing 
 is but the re-assembling of an eternal Substance, into 
 an eternal Form, in accordance to an eternal Plan, 
 executed by an eternal Impulse. 
 
 Within the universe there is no more Mind, nor 
 less, than there has always been. 
 
 There is no more Matter, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There is no more Power, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There are no more Changes, nor less, than there 
 have always been. 
 
 There are no more Plans, nor less, than there have 
 always been. 
 
 There are no more Forms, nor less, than there have 
 always been. 
 
 There are no more Impulses, nor less, than there 
 have always been. 
 
 There are no more indivisible Particles, nor less, 
 than there have always been. 
 
 There are no more Earths, nor less, than there 
 have always been. 
 
 There are no more Suns, nor less, than there have 
 always been. 
 
 There are no more Systems of planets, nor less, 
 than there have always been. 
 
 There is no more Heat, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 62 
 
There is no more Light, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There is no more Electricity, nor less, than there 
 has always been. 
 
 There is no more Life, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There are no more Varieties in the Mineral king- 
 dom, nor less, than there have always been. 
 
 There are no more Varieties in the Vegetable king- 
 dom, nor less, than there have always been. 
 
 There are no more Varieties in the Animal king- 
 dom, nor less, than there have always been. 
 
 There is no more Consciousness, nor less, than 
 there has always been. 
 
 There is no more Love, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There is no more Knowledge, nor less, than there 
 has always been. 
 
 There is no more Wisdom, nor less, than there has 
 always been. 
 
 There is no more Righteousness, nor less, than 
 there has always been. 
 
 There is no more Happiness, nor less, than there 
 has always been. 
 
 There is no more Morality, nor less, than there 
 has always been. 
 
 Consciousness is measured on the Scale of Rela- 
 tivity by its opposite, Unconsciousness. 
 
 63 
 
Love, by its opposite, Hate. 
 Knowledge, by its opposite, Ignorance. 
 Wisdom, by its opposite, Folly. 
 Righteousness, by its opposite, Unrighteousness* 
 Happiness, by its opposite, Sorrow. 
 Morality, by its opposite, Immorality. 
 Without both we could know neither. 
 Without both there could be neither. 
 
 CIRCUITS. 
 
 If the raindrops come from the ocean, must not the 
 raindrops return to the ocean? 
 
 If the blood comes from the heart, must not the 
 blood return to the heart? 
 
 If the grass comes from the soil must not the grass 
 return to the soil ? 
 
 If the earth came from nebula, must not the earth 
 return to nebula? If it once came from nebula, and 
 returns to nebula, will it not again come therefrom? 
 
 "If life comes not from death, would not death 
 exhaust life?" 
 
 Is not the Buddhist belief, that the Individual can 
 forever lose that individuality in the All, entirely 
 erroneous? If the Individual comes from the All, the 
 process has always been in existence, and will always 
 continue. 
 
 It might have taken millions of years for the earth 
 
 64 
 
to cool sufficiently to condense the surrounding va- 
 pors into the seas. 
 
 How many drops of water are added thereto in 
 a century? Yet the vaporizing and condensing goes 
 on continuously. The rains descend in torrents. The 
 vapors ascend in clouds. But, is not the volume of 
 moisture almost the same from century to century? 
 
 It might have taken millions of years for the ero- 
 sion of the wind and rain to disintegrate and pulver- 
 ize the rocks sufficiently to produce the most simple 
 algae. 
 
 How many grains of humus are added to the earth 
 in a century? Yet the earth is covered continuously 
 with vegetables and animal life. Is not the volume of 
 such life almost the same from century to century ? 
 
 Could the waters continue to descend into the seas, 
 if there were not a corresponding ascension from the 
 seas? 
 
 Could the various forms of life continue to come 
 from the earth, if the elements of such life did not 
 return to the earth? How many such forms are 
 added thereto in a century? 
 
 We know that under the same conditions a certain 
 amount of heat will evaporate a certain quantity of 
 water, not just occasionally, but repeatedly. 
 
 Year after year and century after century the 
 earth receives the same amount of heat from the sun. 
 Will not this certain heat evaporate the same amount 
 of water from the earth, year after year and century 
 
 65 
 
after century, and will not the same amount of mois- 
 ture be condensed and precipitated back upon the 
 earth? 
 
 If the rainfalls, which seem to be so variable, re- 
 main constant year after year, and century after 
 century, why should not other seemingly variable 
 occurrences also remain constant? 
 
 Why is it that vital statistics record an increase in 
 the percentage of male births during a period of 
 great wars? 
 
 We think. 
 
 We think of that which is. 
 
 We choose. 
 
 Our choice is but a repetition of a previous choice. 
 
 We plan. 
 
 The plan has been in mind always; will be in mind 
 forever. 
 
 We execute the plan. 
 
 The power to execute is drawn from the everlast- 
 ing reservoir, the inflow of which is exactly equal to 
 the outflow. 
 
 Life cannot die. 
 
 It cannot increase. 
 
 It cannot decrease. 
 
 It proceeds continuously. 
 
 In man we see its manifestation. 
 
 It is manifested in man as an individual. 
 
 66 
 
It is manifested in many individual forms. 
 
 Whatever the forms, they are exact repetitions of 
 previous ones. 
 
 As they are, we know they have been before. 
 
 As they are, we know they shall be again, end- 
 lessly. 
 
 The circle is complete, whether the cycle be one 
 life, or millions. 
 
 Whether on this earth, or on some other earth. 
 
 "Is there anything whereof it may be said; see, 
 this is new? It hath been already of old time, which 
 was before us". 
 
 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall 
 be; and that which is done, is that which shall be 
 done; and there is no new thing under the sun". 
 
 "One generation passeth away, and another gen- 
 eration cometh; but the earth abideth forever." 
 
 "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and 
 hasteth to the place where he arose". 
 
 "The wind goeth toward the South, and turneth 
 about unto the North; it whirleth about continually, 
 and the wind returneth again according to his cir- 
 cuits". 
 
 "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not 
 full; unto the place from whence the rivers came, 
 thither they return again". 
 
 67 
 
"There is no remembrance of former things; 
 neither shall there be any remembrance of things 
 that are to come, with those that shall come after". 
 
 The End. 
 
 68 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Oct. 2004 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Pe 
 
 Crantv 
 
 J