ially saved Noah in order that the seeds of
tyranny and falsehoods might be perpetuated in the new world. When you
once begin your work of destruction, and when the floods of enslaved
masses of the people rise and engulph temples and palaces, then take heed
that no ark be allowed to rescue any atom of this old world which we
consecrate to destruction."

_A representative of the kingdom of darkness._

"Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they know
not."

WHAT IS TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.

"Brahmanism has avoided the fatal mistake of Catholic and Protestant
philosophy by assuming an impersonal deity in three modes of
manifestation, while Christian thinkers have played around the logical
contradiction of one personality in three equal persons for fifteen
hundred years. We must utterly break with the idea of a personal God, and
accept that of one impersonal essence behind all phenomena." [Hartmann's
future religion.]

Must we do this? Is there any necessity for it? What have we to do with
"the fatal mistake of Catholic and Protestant philosophy?" It was a
_mistake_, that's all! "Christian thinkers have played around the logical
contradiction of one personality in three equal persons for fifteen
hundred years." _Have they? 'Tis well!_ Christianity requires no man to
step into logical contradiction and stand there. They have done this "for
fifteen hundred years." Well, it has been about that long since men, in
the prelude of the dark ages, began to speculate foolishly about the
subject of the Divine existence. There was a purer atmosphere in the first
centuries of the Christian era, in which primitive Christians enjoyed
better conceptions of the Divine Being, to which it is the privilege of
Christians to return. Is it the _only alternative_ "to break with the idea
of a personal God, and accept that of one impersonal essence behind all
phenomena?" _No!_ We Christians affirm nothing that can necessarily be
construed with the Catholic and Protestant "mistake" concerning the
_Trinity_, nor anything that can be construed with ultra Unitarianism,
which treats of our Lord and Savior simply as an extraordinarily inspired
man. Neither are we under any logical necessity to "break with the idea of
a personal God," and form an alliance with Atheistic philosophy through
the adoption of the idea of a Pantheistic "essence behind all phenomena."
Such speculative _nonsense_ may be the best tha