The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, Volume 1, January, 1880

Transcriber's Note
Spelling, punctuation and inconsistencies in the original journal have been retained.

The pyramids, temples and palaces of Thebes are monuments of the ancient intellects of our race. Great thinkers only were capable of giving to the world the Vedas, the Apollo Belvidere and the Parthenon. The arts and astronomy of Egypt harmonize very poorly with the idea that modern scientists have all the wisdom and intelligence known in the history of the ages. Among the wonderful characters of olden times we find Epictetus, Josephus, Strabo, Pliny, Seneca, Virgil, Aristotle, Plato, Tacitus, Thucydides and Herodotus.
The Speculation of Evolution of Species was advocated among the Greeks six hundred years before the birth of Christ. Two thousand and three hundred years ago the entire system of German philosophy, along with modern pantheism, was advocated by the Buddhists and Brahmins.
In many very important respects the ancients were in advance of us, especially in the arts, and we can not boast of superiority in either letters or philosophy. The gentlemen of modern materialistic schools do not compare favorably with Plato and Cicero in the elevation and reverence of their opinions. Science has certainly made some advancement, but where is the warrant for the boasting of sciolists of modern times?

Buddhists taught the most perfect outline of materialism in general. They believed in a supreme force, but denied the existence of a Supreme Being. They rejected inquiry into first causes as unscientific, maintaining that facts alone were to be dealt with in all our investigations.
The Brahmin contemplated the moment when his spirit would flow back into the great Pantheistic Being.
Modern materialists say, We deal only with facts. We never speculate. The Buddhists, and the unbelievers who figure so boastingly upon the rostrum in modern times, speak alike. They say: As many facts and second causes as you please, but ask no questions about first causes; that is unscientific. We should ask no questions (?) about the invisible. They have been very true (?) to their own principles.