Back of all science - I might say back of all demonstrated truth - there was a record man was taught to reverence. Between man and that record in the early ages there was a priesthood claiming to be solely responsible for the interpreting of it. I do not think I offend any in this age of enlightenment when I state the fact, that that interpretation has fettered the ascent of man. To imply there might be error in the interpretation exposed man to punishment - to prison and death. One looks back at that period of history; and noting man's power now, almost wonders that he evolved so slowly, and that the revival of learning or the ascent of individualism was so long held in check. A little reflection, however, makes it evident that man was enslaved by those who honestly thought they were laboring for his improvement and growth. Ages ago there was a mental awakening, but the unfoldment of man only by degrees started forward on its persistent upward trend.

As we review history, and exult that man has progressed to independent thinking, let us not lose sight of the fact that on every side even today, when a bold statement is made claiming a new demonstration of truth, one is met with a quotation from the Bible asking how he can reconcile the conclusion with that record. When in college over thirty years ago Professor Alexander Winchell, LL. D., gave us a series of lectures against the Darwinian theory of evolution, I remember he prefaced his first lecture somewhat as follows: "If my great-grandfather was an oyster, a mollusk, I simply want to know it. If this is proven, and it does not conform to the present interpretation of the biblical record, why I must find a new interpretation. I will not stop my investigations, because they seemingly lead to conflict with the Mosiac record." Then, in spite of this strong declaration, through all these lectures he practically claimed that Darwin suggested in reasoning from the known to the unknown what might possibly be inferred, but he emphatically argued that Darwin failed to furnish us with the satisfactory proofs. Fifteen years later I picked up a book of his, entitled "Sparks from a Geologist's Hammer," and read "Evolution is now a finality of science." I cite this incident merely to give at least one example to illustrate that in our own age, man is not free from dogmas that still are reverenced even though they may be questioned. Dr. Winchell was from boyhood deeply religious, but he was an able scientist, an indefatigable student, and an honest man. His honesty cost him, a few years later, dismissal from a professorship in a sectarian college, his special act for disfavor there being a course of lectures showing the days of creation mentioned in Genesis could not be taken as twenty-four hours each, but that each represented an age, a series of years. To-day, we say what ignorance and prejudice this! And yet this incident occurred less than thirty years ago.

When religious bodies meet from year to year, the convention is not called to inquire if any have learned a new truth; and if so he be asked to bring forward his proofs. Rather, it seems to me, these conventions, beyond the routine of the details of elections and the providing for the administration and the holding together of the members of the body, are to inquire if some of their members have dared to utter publicly statements which may be construed as not being sanctioned by the ritual or dogmas of the organization. If complaint is filed against any, then there may be a trial, and later judgment and probably expulsion. It may be this is the only way to protect and promote the society or church. I do not pretend to answer to that; but I feel while such conditions exist that the growth and ascent of man will not be promoted by any such organization. In the scientific world, there is no real scholar or scientist to-day who will not turn down any formula or accepted finality of the past, if demonstration is brought forward proving it error.

Back in this old record we were told that threescore and ten years were allotted to man - if, perchance, he should reach fourscore, then was there labor and sorrow. A literal interpretation of that passage has found lodgment in human minds generally. History it is claimed has shown the average man at his best from forty to sixty-five, and that usually about or shortly after the age of sixty-five, deterioration starts in. With this conclusion written in bold letters almost like a placard to attract attention, man has been confronted since that record was made. Many other conclusions, once equally as firmly held to be truth, man, through his own inventions aided by the mathematical tables he has made and the laboratory demonstrations he has brought forward, has set aside as fictions of a past age. Man at that period of history, as now, looked about him, and found in plant, tree and animal life, the age of development for production, and from that time he observed a steady growth till the maximum of power and resistance were reached, then followed gradually deterioration, and the infirmities of age and death. He compared himself to the life about him, read the record, and accepted it as true. He built machinery and used it, and proved it had a life; with use and time it wore out and crumbled, why not man?

It is clear that man, reasoning from the limited range of knowledge he possessed at the dawn of history, could come to no other conclusion than he did. The proofs about him were convincing and seemingly absolute to his dawning intelligence. With this conviction firmly established, the generations began. Like begat like in form and in thought. How long a period of time passed before the human lifted itself to original thought we may not know. That such a time did arrive we do know, and there was found the individual, asserting and claiming the advancement of man to a higher plane his birthright, and there too were found the multitude decrying upliftment. In such an age, at least, it is most evident that Matthew Arnold's "majorities are unsound" would apply.