ld. Question the men who fly to theology
for happiness, and they will tell you that the most learned of the
theologians sum up their knowledge in the word "incomprehensible." Is it
wonderful that their happiness is somewhat marred "here" by quarrels
as to the true definition of "hereafter?" G. H. Lewes says, of the
Epicurean philosophy, "that the attempt failed because the basis was
not broad enough. The Epicureans are therefore to be regarded as men who
ventured on a great problem, and failed because they only saw part
of the truth." And we might add that Christianity, and every other
religious "anity," fails, because the professors expect to obtain
happiness in the next life, and neglect to work for it in the present
one.

Epicurus says, no life can be pleasant except a virtuous life; and he
charges you to avoid whatever maybe calculated to create disquiet in the
mind, or give pain to the body. The Rev. Habbakuk Smilenot, of little
Bethel, says that all pleasure here, is vanity and vexation in the
hereafter; and he charges you to continually worry and harass your mind
with fears that you may be condemned to hell, and doubts whether you
will be permitted to enter heaven. Which is the best, the philosophy of
Epicurus, or the theology of Smilenof?

G. H. Lewes says:--"Epicureanism, in leading man to a correct
appreciation of the moral end of his existence, in showing him how to
be truly happy, has to combat with many obstructions which hide from
him the real road of life. These obstructions are his illusions, his
prejudices, his errors, his ignorance. This ignorance is of two kinds,
as Victor Cousin points out; ignorance of the laws of the external
world, which creates absurd superstitions, and troubles the mind with
false fears and false hopes. Hence the necessity of some knowledge of
physics." (We can scarcely blame Epicurus that he was not in advance of
his time, as far as the physical sciences are concerned, and therefore
imparted an imperfect system of physics. We must, with our improved
knowledge, ourselves remove the obstruction.) "The second kind of
ignorance is that of the nature of man. Socrates had taught men to
regard their own nature as the great object of investigation; and this
lesson Epicurus willingly gave ear to.--But man does not interrogate his
own nature out of simple curiosity, or simple erudition; he studies
his nature in order that he may improve it; he learns the extent of
his capacities, in or