Manology and soulogy...

Front matter

Shelf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

JACOB CASSEL,

Preface

I have no apology to make for writing this book, but I desire to give my reasons for doing so.

I was over seventy years old before I conceived the notion of attempting a work of this kind; but the fact that no book had yet appeared, so far as I was able to learn, which was devoted to the exposition of the soul and its characteristics and constituent elements, as I understood them, impelled me :o undertake this work, for which I was in many respects not fitted. And more especially, because I saw such a general interest manifested in these subjects, on which there were so many erroneous ideas and conflicting opinions. Both the religious and the infidel world have been interested in the investigation of the soul, yet both seemed not to comprehend it. I have listened to arguments and explanations all my life and have read much that has been written on this subject, yet I have found nothing satisfactory. I began to be interested in this question when a boy not over eighteen years of age. A preacher was asked, in my presence, what the soul is. He replied by saying that he could not give a better answer than was given by a little girl, who said it was her think. She meant, of course, her mind. I was astonished at such a reply from a preacher as I supposed everybody, as a matter of course, knew what the soul is 1 soon found, however, that no one seemed to know what it is. The infidel world denied its existence entirely. Hume, Gibbon, Voltaire, Tom Pain and Bob Ingersoli all say they have no such thing. On the other hand» the religious world all believe in its existence, but cannot tell what it is. In this last respect the latter are no better than the former, and yet these two parties are combatants on this as well as on nrjany other subjects. I early began to try solve the problem. I listened to arguments pro and con and read every thing I found written on the subject but I was unable to reach any definite conclusions until I was about sixty years old, v^hen I arrived at what I regard a correct solution of the problem.

I can now assure the infidel that he has a soul and explain to the religionist what it is.

A careful perusal of these pages will fully inform any one on this very difificult but most interesting subject.

^ This bock shows in the most positive terms that Darwinism, and the so called science of evolution is not a science at all. It also shows positively that true science and the Bible, when rightfully understood, do not conflict in the least, as the infidels try to make it appear. Instead it shows that they do harmonize exactly when rightly understood.

It also gives many scientific and logical reasons why the Bible is not better understood than it generally is. It also tells why it is that we do not have a more exact translation of the Bible than we have.

I have written this book with the sincere desire that it will benefit the human family.

Jacob Cassel.

Bos well, Ind., May 20, 1 890.

IIWJIWJF

Mb.t\©I©5y b.t\d 6©tiI©I©^y.

Chapter I

Commencement of a book by Jacob Cassel on Manology. What man is, and what he is composed of, his condition and future destiny, without certain conditions be complied with. Now what man is. To tell what man is, I want to tell what man was made out of. Scripture says that he was formed out of the dust of the earth. Well what was the dust of the earth made out of? You will say out of matter, but I s iy no; the dust of the earth is matter. What was matter made out of? Some say matter always existed, but I siy no. We have no account of matter by man or God until after the separation of light and darkness. God says darkness covered the face of the deep and this darkness by astronomers is called ethereal darkness, and ethereal substance which properly miay be called inertia; for there was no motion in all the realms of nature, until God's spirit, motionality moved on the face of the deep, and con-

8 ^

densed a part of the thicker part of this ethereal darkness and made nnatter; this ethereal substance is not called matter by any scientist, but God attenuated the thinner part of this darkness and made light, which was called cosmical light; that was before the sun was made to give light. In all the realms of nature there were just two spaces and no more: One where the incorporial substance called ethereal dark ness, inertia, existed; existed there before time and was as eternal as God, as far as we know, and it is supposable that it was. For there can be no other idea of it. And that space where this substance exists is called the face of the deep. That ethereal darkness, inertia, incorporial substance fills that space completely; so there was no room for motion within that space until there was some displacement. And, if this be correct, and undoubtedly it is, where is Professor Haecock's complicated motion to come from? Motions of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied form in a manner so as to produce life and mind in moneron where all life and mind come from in the universe, according to Haecael's theory, by that comphcated motion of rubbing together. Since matter of itself has no power of motion within itself. And if it had it could not move without displacement of substance to make a vacuum. For vacuum in space gives room for m )- tion when there is cause for motion. Excuse me for my digressioi.. Now I will speak of the other space, where an incorporial substance of a different kind of a different nature entirely. God, life, mind a spirit substance fills that space and is where God dwells. God with this spirit substance fill that space entirely.

And all those incorporial substances are intelligent and have power. Life gives vitality to all; life, force, power; spirit, motion power^ mind controlling power. Lifej force; spirit motionality actor; mind controller. And when God saw fit to make the solar system and all things therein the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep, upon this ethereal darkness and condensed as it went a part of the thicker part and materialized and made corporial substance, called matter. And out of the thinner part of that etherial darkness he made light, called cosmical light. iVnd that matter is still an inertia, it cannot move itself nor stop itself when moved; and out of that matter God made the solar system, with all its heavenly bodies and our earth. He systemized and systemized and gave these corporial bodies, corporial substance the law of adhesiveness, attraction, repulsion and gravitation. And the spirit motionality motion power of God moved upon it and set it in motion; and it has been in motion ever since. Because it was inertia, had no power within itself, no life, mind or spirit. Right here I want to drop an idea, which I ask you to remember for I shall have use for it, occasionally. The first motion that we have any account of was done by the spirit, the power of motion, motion power, by the spirit of God moving upon the face of the deep. Then' the prophets^ as they were moved by the Holy spirit, we see that the spirit is the moving or motion power. Mind is the controlling power; is the controller. Lite is the lorce power and is the vitalizer and gives vitality to mind and spirit. There are several kinds of spirits. Good spirits and bad spirits; also animal spirits and human spirits and a personal spirit or called spirit itself. There are said to be three persons in the God head: The Father, Son and Spirit. The Father one person, the Son another person and the Spirit another person, all in the God head. Taking all three persons to make the God h?ad or Deity. And it is the personal spirit itself that gives the motion power to all kinds of spirits, when they are vitalized with life power, and are controlled by mind power. I want to stop right here and speak a little more about this ethereal darkness that I have mentioned and about the solar system. I want to show that some of the greatest modern scientists agree with with my idea of the solar system being made out of ethereal darkness. Mr. Bancroft, the author of 'The Footprints of Time," one of the greatest modern philosophers and astronomers, says God only consumed one-third part or hardly that much to make the solar system and the other two-third parts remain undisturbed, as far as any body knows. But how Mr. Ban-

1 2

croft could tell what portion of this ethereal darkness it took to make the solar system; we may form some idea from the enormous appearance ot its size, for the astronomers can not with their largest telescopes explore into it a mile and it must be milHons of miles in circumference, according to Bancroft's idea of the immense quantity of it. But he has another data by which he may draw some indefinite conclusions. From the length of time it takes one of the comets after it passes the orbit out of the solar system into the unknown region of space, for it takes this comet a little over five hundred years to make its final revolution. So we see that the diameter of the space must be great. But other scientists who are philosophers and astronomers say the solar system was made out of matter. Well, with my definition and explanation, how matter came they both are right. For the spirit of God moved upon this incorporial substance called ethereal darkness condensed it, materialized, corporialized and made corporial substance, and that substance is called matter. So with my explanation they are both right. Mr. Bancroft saying the solar system was made out of ethereal darkness does not conflict with others who say it was made out of matter; for so it was. But it was after thi^ incorporial substance called ethereal darkness was corporial'zed and m\de into coroorial substance that it was called matter. And out of th it matter the solar system was made. So our scientists all agree on that head.

Out of this corporiil substance the corporial man was made; out of smaU particles of that matter called in scripture the dust of the earth So out of that substance God made the corporial man, called in scripture the outer man or body, which was inertia; had n ) power of motion nor any power within itself, only the power of a-ihesiveness, and God had given it that power. But God had not done for that body yet like he hid done for that body — the s >lar system. When I siid God had not done for that body yet I meant that . corporial body before he had given it that incorporial substance which is called soul or fnner man. For he systemized and sy^te ni^zed and gave that body the law of the power of adhesiveness, gravitation, re pulsion and rittraction, God gave those laws to govern it. And the spirit of God the motion power set it in motion, and it has been in motion ever since. And here you see again that it was the spirit that set it in motion. It has no intelligence of itself. It cannot govern stself, but is governed by those laws God made for it. And it can not do any other way than the way it does do; and it will do that way, I suppose, while time lasts, for it is governed by law, the law which God gave it. But when God organized that ' corporial body called the outer man he gave it an incorporal substance called soul or inner man; so man is duality, has a double organism; the corporal substance called the body or ^ outer man, and an incorporial substance the soul or inner man. So the inner man and the outer man are combined and are called soul and body; and that is all there is of man.

Now when God made that corporial body, Adam or man, God breathed into his nxstrils the breath of life; Kin^ James' translation says life, but all Hebrew scholars that I h ive talked with, and I have talked with many, says the word mack ciyum is plural and should have been translated lives

And I found that Adam must have had two or more lives long before I knew that the word was improperly translated; or Adam could not have lost life the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, for he lived about nine hundred years afterwards. So he must have had more than one life as the Hebrew word shows. He had divine life, divine connection with God which perpetuated or immortalized his physical body, corporial body

He had another lite of a different nature as well as divine life and divine connection with God, When he ate of the forbidden fruit he sinned and lost that divine con nection with God; and when he lost that, he lost his real life and had nothing to perpetuate his physical or corporial body. And when that body lost divine connection with God there was nothing in it to keep it imortnlized and that body became mortal and had to die; had to lose vitality, the other life and the body returned to dust. Buc now I want to speak of the life that is of a different nature altogther from the divine life; though it emenated from God and is as eternal as God, it does^not perpetuate or immortah'ze the physical or corporial body hke the divine life. But it gives vitaUty, force power to the physical, corporial body; also to the incorporial substance called soul; and in fact it is one component part of the soul, and gives vitality to spirit and mind as well as it does to the physical bod)', and it is called physic il life by the most of people, both the learned and unlearned; but I do not know vvhy for life is not physical hut is spiritual in its nature for it is eternal and might be called life or vitalizer for it gives vitality to soul and body while they are both together but the other life is called divine life yet both lives are eternal as far as that is concerned. For all life that is in the world emanates from God and is as eternal as God and cannot die or go out of existence, for this spirit substance is the fountain head of ail life. There is no life only with God and that which is derived from God out of the spirit substance.

Chapter II

Right here I want to digress a little from my main subject and ask a few questions of evolutionists and atheists and Prof. Haecaels himself.

Where did these complicated motions come from? For matter itself is inertia, cannot move itself or stop itself when it is moved. So I ask again, where did these complicated motions come from?

Prof. Haecael distinctly tells us time and again that life and mind is nothing but the complicated motion of the molecules of the brain and nerves, placed together in a most varied manner. Prof. Haecael tells us this in his * 'History of Creation," Vol. i, page 199 Now I want to ask Prof. Haecael, or any other evolutionist or deist, who is trying to tell how something came into existence out of nothing, absolutely nothing, and that without a cause, since they say there was no life, no mind, no intelligence and no God. I want to ask what produced these complicated motions of the molecules of the brain and nerves, placed together in a most varied manner without mind or intelligence to do it. Yet Prof. Haecael says all this is accomplished in the most simple of all species of organism, the moUusk or monera whose entire bodywhen completely developed consists of nothing but a semi-fluid, an albunimous lump, and they are organisms of the most importance, for the first origin of lite and mind.

Now where does this life and mind come from?

He tells us the first origin is in the monera, and that the monera when fully developed consists of nothing but a semi-fluid, an albuminous lump, so life and mind must have come from nothing. For life and mind comes from the monera which, when fully developed, consists of nothing but a semi-fluid, an albuminous lump. It would be out of the question according to Prof. Haecael's own position; yet he says they are organisms of the utmost importance for the theory of the origin of life and mind.

Yet he tells us the monera has no organism, for he distincty says that this living animal has neither organs or parts, neither brain or nerves. Then I ask where are the cerebial molecules to be placed together in a most varied manner; yet all this has to be done to produce life and mind in the monera; still they tell us all life and mind originated in the monera; he tells us the monera when fully developed has no organs or parts, brain or nerves.

Yet Prof. Haecael tells us time and again that life and mind is nothing in the world but the complicated motion of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied form. So those complicated motions ot the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied manner is all those atheistic evolutionists mean, when they speak of life and mind; they only mean those complicated motions of the brain and nerves of the monera. And they distinctly tell us that this living animal has neither organs or parts, brain or nerves; so two nothings must be placed together to produce two somethings, that for convenience may be called life and mind. Prof. Haecael says that life and

20_^

mind is nothing in the world but comphcated motion of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied manner; so you see he gets two somethings out of two nothings, which would be a scientific impossibility. Yet Prof. Haecael makes very light of the religionists that say that God made the world and all things therein out of nothing; for he says it would be a scientific impossibility, and so it would be, to make something out of nothing which would be equal to taking something from nothing which would be an impossibility. But the Bible does not say God made all things out of nothing; it says God nfiade the things that do appear out of things that did not appear. For all Prof. Haecael makes so very light of the universe or world being made out of nothmg and says it is a scientific impossibility even if there was an all wise and all powerful God to do it It is an axiom in logic that you can not get something from nothing, for to takes nothing from nothing, and nothing remaing. So it is contrary to the scientific laws of logic. Prof. Haecael, that great and learned scientific evolutionists one of the mo^t learned and scientific men among the qaistic evolutionists is able for the t.\sk; as all say of geeting two great somethings out of two great nothings; also of getting two great nothings out of two great somethings, which would certainly be more of a scientific impossibility than for the all wise and all powerful God to make the world out of nothing. But Prof Haecael is able for the task of doing it, for he tells us how some thing can be made out of nothing and how nothing can come out of something, for he distinctly tells us that mind and life is nothing in the world but the complicated motion of the molecules of the brain and nerves put together in a most varied manner, and that all has to be done in the monera, the small living animal which is without organs or parts, brain or nerves or any such thing as he says. But yet Prof. Haecael tells time and again that life and mind is nothing but complicated mo tion of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied manner.

When speaking of the monera I want

^ 22

you to take notice. He says this living animal has neither organs or parts, neither brain or nerves; then I ask where are the cerebial molecules placed together in a most varied manner, by which to keep up these peculiar motions. I ask again how can those complicated motions take place in an animal that has neither organs or parts; and how could the molecules of the brain and nerves be placed together in a most varied manner. Yet he tells us that this little animal has no brain or nerves or any such thing. I ask again how could nothing be placed together in a most varied manner or any other way? And all this has to take place in this little animal called monera that has no organs or parts, brain or nerves. Still he tells us that all life and mind originated and started in this little animal, and all the life and mind that there is in the world evolved from that, and that life and mind was nothing but the complicated motion of the molecules of brain and nerves placed together in a most varied form. Well I will tell you what I think about it. I think it would have to be a very complicated motion to operate on something that actually was nothing and I think that the brain and nerves would have to be placed tog^ether in a most varied way to produce life and mind in the monera where there were no bniin or nerves to be placed together in a varied or any other v/ay; so you can not help but see that he gets two somethings out of two nothings and vice versa.

But I declare it is enough to make a man's head swim to try to understand or comprehend a man that does not understand or comprehend himself nor what he is trying to explain. Yet Prof. Haecaelis the man, that great so-called scientific evolutionist; he is the man that did not understand himself nor what he was trying to explain, or certainly he would not have stultified himself like he did in making so many absurd contradictory statements in trying to make two of the most important things in the world out of nothing, out of actually nothing; that was to get life and mind out of the brain and nerves of the monera and then stated in the most positive terms that the monera had no brain or nerves, organs or parts. He had better been like the father of evolutionists, Darwin and admitted that there might have been a God that give Hfe and mind to the monera and all life and mind evolved from that, then he would not have made himself half so ridiculous as he certainly did in trying to make it appear that life came into existence out of nothing. He certainly made himself look a thousand times more ridiculous than the religionist did in saying God made the world and all things out of nothing, for it would look more reasonable for an all-wise and all-powerful God to make the world and all things out of nothing than for all there is of life and mind to come into existence by complicated motion, of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied manner, when there is nothing in the monera to start thia complicated motion of the brain and nerves. And there was no intelligence in aU the realms of nature to place them together in a most varied manner nor no ©ther way. And worse yet, no brain or nerve to be placed together, for the same man tells us they were without organs or parts. To show you that I have not been misrepresenting or misquoting his saying, I will give you his history: Prof. Haecael's History of Creation, Vol. I, pages 185, 186, 187, 199. 330, 332. 334 and 345.

But is certainly one of the strangest things in the world that a man of Prof Haecael's ability and learning and scien tific research would make so many contradictory statements to try to do away with the idea of there being and all-wise and all-powerful God, who was able to give life and mind or instinct to all animate beings and did do it for He had it to give without originating it; for life and mind is as eternal as God or any thing else in the realms of nature, and if they are not there is no man or set of men with all their intelligence that can tell of their origin or existence. But it is certain that Prof. Haecael with all his ability and learning has not been able to grasp the true idea of what life and mind is nor their nature or importance or he would certainly not have stultified himself as he did in making so many absurd contradictory statements in trying to make it appear that the origin of life and mind commenced in the mollusk or monera, the most insignificant animal in the universe and when it was fully developed consisted of nothing but a semi-fluid, an albumious lump. And by complicated motion of the molecules of the brain and nerves is all there is of life and mind.

That is Prof. Haecael's highest conception of life and min J and where it came from; and he and all the other atheistic evolutionists say there is no ^ ther mind or life in the universe, only what evolved from these things just spoken of. So you can not help but see that I am correct in saying Prof. Haecael did not understand himself nor what he was trying to explain; and the evolutionists say his theory or system of evolution is a science; and atheistic evolutionists say science and the Bible conflict; that science conflicts with the idea of there being a God. And if their theory or system of evolution is a science, I grant it does conflict with the Bible and with the idea of their being an all wise God. But I deny evolution being a science at all and call for proof. I expect to show by logical argument that it is not a science at all;

for two theories or systems under one head, under the head of evolution that conflict can not be a science or even scientific. So I expect to be able to show that evolutionist has not only t»vo, but three conflicting systems and forms of that doctrine. The theist, atheistic and agnostic doctrines all differing from one another. Darwin holds to the theistic doctrine of their being a God, who gave evolution its first start by a miraculous intervention by infusing or getting life into that small being called mollusk or monera; that was all God did for it, or interfere with it; but let that little creature have its own way and v/ork its own way by natural selection and the survival of the fittest until that little creature that had no organs or parts, brain or nerves and no life until God infused into it life according to the theistic; then letting it alone to have its own way and working its own way until it has worked wonders. It has brought all life that there is in the world only the life that it had to commence with; all life, all mind, all instict; all animals and last of all but not least of all, far the greatest, man.

That is the first system of theistic evolutionists. I say the first for that was Darwin's system and those that believed with him. Then the second cl iss is the religions, theistic evolutionist. Their system is about the same as the first, but after God infused into the little creature life, he takes the supervision of it. And the general principles are entirely different, for all evolution goes on by intelligence and by natural selection and survival of the fittest and the transmutation of species. Always evolving upwards and never downward and never "haphazzard" nor blindly, but is all done by intelligence and a designer; this evolving and transmutating process goes on through all the animal kingdom until it comes to man, and then they falter and say the link to the chain is too long.

There has to be a great leap for a man to be a descendent from the ape or monkey for a man's brain is three or four times as large as the apes or any kind of the monkey race, and therefore the leap would be too great.

The third class of evolution is the atheistic form or system. They say there is no such thing as life or mind and they try to tell us where life and mind first started and how it started. When I say they, I mean Profs. Heacael and Hucle\', for they are in the lead of the atheistic evolution system. They say we are acquainted with the most simple of all or ganisms, the monera, whose entire body, when fully developed, consists of nothing but a semi-fluid, albumious lump and say they are organisms of the utmost importance for the theory of the first origin of life and mind. Then the first life and mind t )ok place and began in that little thing called monera. And Prof. Haecael tells us it had neither organs or parts, brain cr nerves and all there is of life and mind is this complicated motion of the molecules, invisible particles of the brain and nerves placed togethtr in a most varied m.\nner — Prof. Haecael's History of Creation, Vo^ i, pa^^e 399. Now Prof. Haecael tells us that is all that is meant by what we call life and mind, those complicated motiors of the molecules of the brain and nerves placed together in a most varied manner; yet he distinctly states that this little hving animal has neither organs or parts, brain or nerves or any such thing, but still has Hfe and mental powers. That certainly contradicts his definition of life and mind, being the motion of cerebial molecules of the brain and nerves; thus proving life and mind to be a substance, a something, to be indef>endent of each molecular motion and thereby overturns his own reasoning, his entire materiaHstic philosophy.