1 10 4 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/930287db88e8ca77edbb60dcda3f6fe6.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=anYM90dRpu8slXCK--3Hy%7E4K9N45YwYaRU8fSPZu8VMxHgIncw5-XfB%7EbIvr%7ESkcfV0hkRnFK45DrJPQsO1oSKiTbuEe0QYBxZhxABUS4P-Ub2Co6OptYUjvDVtjUbgCzIvCOLhcvkkxqznPwZ9zBqvXEMDz%7E7sLh9unXx1eYDqo-HhwhD6PgP56KzVeiyX9nC2X642yOGaB0iVxR38zk4xOcLzLqzL4PmNaAnaj%7EzLBmlENp-1AWMFxXLVTyifo-6yK-ClUlduwDU%7EDZTvhX1IOGVZnmq3%7EJs6Tq5eJNpd0A42jKGUqCM8ns3SGHxM42xwrxS8%7E6lHy7wIS0636NA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c92da0312d9e19449d22e0e3dcd68c3d PDF Text Text BIBLE HORRORS; OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. BY ARTHUR B. MOSS. LASPHEMY is a peculiar offence : only a believer in the being whose reputation is attacked can commit it, even then time and circumstance have to be taken into account. The Jew cannot blaspheme the Christian God, because he does not believe in him ; the Christian may say what he likes against the gods of the Brahmin and Buddhist; and the Mohammedan may speak disrespectfully of all the gods of the nations of the earth save his own. All, how­ ever, must be careful that they give utterance to their blas­ phemous expressions at the proper time and place. The Jew must not attack the Christian Deity in an English church, nor the Christian sneer at Jehovah in a Jewish synagogue, nor either of them ridicule the Mohammedan Deity in a moslern in Turkey ; but in their own city, and at the proper season, each may blacken the deity of the other. Ridicule has always been considered a powerful weapon in eradicating false impressions from the human mind, though some pious persons now declare it to be a crime when it is used to show the fallacy of their own belief. Do not the religious ridicule the opinions and cherished beliefs of Freethinkers ? Did they not laugh immoderately at what seemed to them the monstrously absurd notion of the late Charles Darwin, that man had evolved from a lower for-m of being? Did they not ridicule the Materialist when he declared that he believed that the laws of nature were sufficient to account for “all phenomena without the meddling of the gods”? Then why should Freethinkers abstain from using a weapon which has proved effectual in many a controversial encounter ? The statesman uses it, Band �2 BIBLE HORRORS; the historian wields it, the social reformer does not disdain to employ it, and the popular orator knows its wonderful power in exploding false notions. But real blasphemy is an attack by a believer upon the reputation of his deity. It matters not that he does it to flatter the power or vanity or the capriciousness of his god : the blasphemy is none the less real. Did it never occur to the Christian that his Bible teems with such blasphemy— indeed, is as filled with it as some of the numbers of a blasphemous publication (in the eyes of Freethinkers) called the War Cry. The cry of the Christians was always a cry for blood : their appetite for it is much stronger than that of the general occupants of the gallery at third-rate theatres during the representation of a drama in which several murders occur in each act and a frightful slaughter at the end of the play. Look into the Bible, my readers, for the record of human bloodshed. In early times the earth was a slaughter-house and Jehovah a mighty butcher. Take the merciless slaughter of the Egyptians, and see if it finds its parallel in profane history. Not content with depriving the Egyptians of water by causing Moses to turn it into blood ; not satisfied with afflicting an unoffending people with plagues of frogs, lice, and flies ; not satisfied with destroying harmless cattle with a grievous murrain ; not content with supplementing these with frightful plagues of hail, locusts, darkness, and the slaughter of the first-born, this Bible God allowed the Israelites to utterly “ spoil the Egyptians,” robbing them of jewels and other valuable pro­ perty, and ultimately bringing them to the Red Sea to perish in the waves, that the Israelites might exult over their death. And what was the cause of all this ? What had the Egyptians done ? That God had hardened “ Pharoah’s heart ” is the only explanation vouchsafed to us respecting this Bible horror. And so the poor Egyptians had to suffer, not through any fault of theirs or of Pharoah’s, but through a fault attributable to God alone. Barbarous deeds recorded in the Bible are of two kinds —those perpetrated by the bloody hand of Deity himself and those to which he gave explicit sanction. The slaughter of the Amalekites by Joshua had the approval of the Deity; the uplifted hands of Moses, tightly clutching the “ rod of the Lord,” was enough to win the support of Jehovah, who was always on the side of injustice and tyranny. This, in �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 3 all conscience, was frightful enough. But mark what soon follows. Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders have had an interview with the Lord. From the summit of an exceed­ ingly high mountain they are witnesses of his great glory. They behold the feet of the Infinite God ! Moses even receives the Commandments, written by the finger of God upon great tablets of stone. While Moses is thus “ inter viewing ” the great God of the Jews, Aaron is among the people seeking to satisfy their craving for a real god—one they could see and handle, and who could assist them in time of trouble; for their minds were sorely disturbed by great doubts and misgivings concerning the God whom Moses had spoken of so often, but who appeared to be so far above the clouds that nobody could get at him. Aaron, with Jewish simplicity, thought that a golden god was the most appropriate for the children of Israel; he, therefore, beset himself the task of making a Golden Calf. Retribu­ tion came quickly ; but, as is usual in Biblical matters, it fell on the wrong shoulders. No sooner did Moses discover that the “ God in the skies ” was doubted than he took a most effective way of removing all scepticism—a method which has often been imitated since his day. “ Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side ? Let him come unto me. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel : ‘ Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men” (Exodus xxxii. 26 — 28). Well might Jehovah, in his Commandments, say: “I am a jealous God, who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children.” And might he not have added, “ The sins of the priests upon the people ” ? But this is not all— “ On horror’s head horrors accumulate.” Turn over the leaves of your Bible, and read how God com­ manded Moses to war against the Midianites, slaying them without mercy, and preserving only the maidens, that they might satisfy the lustful craving of a brutal horde of soldiers Numbers xxxi. 7—18). Read this for yourselves ; con �4 BIBLE HORRORS ; template these wicked horrors, and say if it is not a libel upon a wise and good God to allege that he ever com­ manded such wanton barbarity ! And let me abjure you not to pollute your lips with Bible obscenities; do not allow your children to read them either at home or at school. They were written in a barbarous age by an ignorant people, and they are fit only for brutal barbarians grovelling in a very atmosphere of licentiousness. lhe books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are filled with stories of murders and aggressive wars, to which Jehovah always gave his approving smile. Percy Bysshe Shelley was an Atheist: Atheists are all supposed to be wicked, heartless men ; yet Shelley, in his “ Declaration of Rights,” says : “ Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform—he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.” Was Shelley a greater lover of humanity than the God who is alleged to have made us all? Is the Atheist more deeply touched by human sorrow and pain than the Christian God ? Or are these records of bloodshed and crime, said to have been committed at the express will of the “ Heavenly Father,” but a long tissue of falsehoods, written in the dark nights of ignorance and superstition ? Among Bible horrors the second class of crime is to give sanction to the perpetration of barbarous deeds. This the Christian God has frequently done, so that in all ages the Bible has served as a text-book to which the believer could refer to find justification for the committal of all sorts of horrible crimes. In Leviticus xxiv. 16 we find these words: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord he shall surely be put to death ; and all the congregation shall cer­ tainly stone him, as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death.” This passage has incited fathers to destroy their own children ; it has induced men to break their fellow creatures upon the rack ; to stone, to imprison, to crucify, or consume them at the stake. No suffering has been too intense for the blasphemer. And yet blasphemy is a priest-invented crime, which no unbeliever ever has, or ever can, commit. Again, in Deuteronomy xiii. 6—io we read: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 5 own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers —namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth—thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him ; neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shalt be first upon him to put him to death, and after­ wards the hands of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Could wickedness go farther? Under this injunction the bravest thinkers, the most heroic men that have adorned the world, have suffered inexpressible torture. Socrates despised the gods of his time. That noble philosopher suffered death like a hero and martyr rather than be false to conviction. Even though he was broken with age, he had courage enough to bear without a murmur all the tortures to which his enemies subjected him. Bruno, Vanini, and a multitude of men and women less known to fame, have perished under this wicked command. No wonder that human progress was slow while a passage like this could be effectively appealed to ; no wonder that while religion was strong science was weak. As long as the Church had power the people were steeped in ignorance. Every martyr and every hero have made the path smoother for subsequent pioneers of progress. Let us remember this, and let the heroism of our tortured and persecuted ancestors give inspiration to our every thought and deed to-day. Probably the two passages which have wrought the most evil in the world are these : “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ” (Exodus xxi. 18); “ Both thy bondmen and bond­ women which thou hast with thee shalt be of the heathen round about you, and they shalt serve thee for ever ” (Levi­ ticus xxv. 44, 45, 46). The first passage was the court of appeal in all cases of alleged witchcraft. Learned judges, whose common sense in most matters was keen enough, were, nevertheless, led to believe—upon no other authority than this infamous passage from the alleged inspired word of God—that witches had a real existence, and entered into the bodies of men for evil purposes. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries more than a hundred thousand persons were put to death in Germany alone as witches. In the first year of the reign of James I. in England an Act was �6 BIBLE HORRORS; passed defining the crime of witchcraft with wonderful minuteness. It says : “ Any one that shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation of any evil or wicked spirit, or con­ sult or covenant with, entertain or employ, feed or reward, any evil or wicked spirit to or for any purpose, or take up any dead man, etc., etc., such offenders, duly and lawfully convicted and attainted, shall suffer death.” Soon after the passing of this Act the popular delusion spread like an epidemic, devastating many parts of England ; and under this statute hundreds of men, women, and children were mercilessly murdered with the full sanction of the people, who were completely saturated with superstition. But if the people were ignorant, if the judges’ minds were warped by theological prejudice, can it be said that the Infinite Ruler of the Universe was no better able to discriminate between prevailing delusions and eternal truth? Is the wisdom of God the same as the ignorance of man ? Did a “ God of love ” look down upon this earth, and compla­ cently watch the transactions of Matthew Hopkins, the “ witch finder,” and his cowardly set of colleagues? Did “ our Father who art in heaven ” give these deeds of blood his warm approval, as though he had heartily declared “my expressed will is being done”? If he did not sanction these atrocious crimes, done in his name for his glorification, why did he not stretch forth his almighty arm, and thwart the wickedness of his followers ? What shall we say of slavery ? What of a God who describes one class of men as the “ money ” of another (Exodus 20, 21)? There are no words in the English lan­ guage strong enough with which to characterise him if it were true ; but it is not true—it is all a libel : it is the believer’s blasphemy of a God he pretends to worship. The Christian has yet to learn that his highest conception of Deity is but a reflection of himself; that no God has ever possessed loftier sentiments or grander characteristics than the people out of whose fertile imagination he grew. Indeed, men have in all ages been god-makers, giving to “airy nothing a local habitation and a name.” rl he New Testament is not exempt from the charge that is here made against the other fragmentary essays which go to make up what in this country is called the “Holy Bible.” Jesus, who is elevated by the priests to the position of an Infinite Deity, is recorded to have said: “ If any man come �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 7 unto me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters—yea, and his own life also—he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26). Can it be true that a God of wisdom and goodness would have us hate those who are near and dear to us, and sever ourselves for ever from them, in order that we might render service or pay homage to one of whom no man has the smallest know­ ledge ? Is it not blasphemy to suppose that a loving God would say to his children : “ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth ; I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (Matt. x. 24) ? The mission of a Devil could not be more evil in intention. It must never be forgotten that it is in the New Testament where the appalling doctrine of everlasting burning in hell for unbelievers is first announced as the distinct teaching of Jesus. Vindictive women, stirred by the irresistible passion of jealousy, have conceived the wicked idea of torturing and disfiguring their enemies or rivals by throwing over them a quantity of sulphuric acid ; fiendish men have, in a moment of madness, pushed a fellow-creature into a vat of boiling oil; and a drunken parent has been known to hold his child’s hand in a fire for some moments. These fearful agonies have been endured long enough in all conscience, though only for a few brief hours; yet the New Testament tells us that there is a loving father in heaven who will suffer some of his children to pass an eternity in hell, ceaselessly tormented by the flames, but never consumed. I will not, I cannot, believe it; and, though my countrymen may punish me for my unbelief, though they may fine and imprison me, I shall still main­ tain that a God of goodness could never be guilty of such infinite wickedness. To say that God will punish men endlessly in hell has always been considered man’s feeble way of expressing his admiration of God’s justice; to deny that he would perpetrate such a gigantic and unpardonable crime has ever been considered the greatest blasphemy. Number me with blasphemers, from Socrates downwards : it is an honour to be in such company ; and with them I am prepared to stand or fall. That the Bible teems with records of immorality and obscenity, which it is a criminal offence to print in all their naked ugliness, everybody knows full well: and yet this book is read in our national schools, and there are good men and women who declare that they would sooner �;\z BIBLE HORRORS; 8 OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. have their children remain in the direst ignorance than have them brought up without a full knowledge of the contents of the Bible. Let us charitably suppose that they speak in ignorance—that they really have not diligently perused the Bible themselves. It is readily acknowledged that the Bible is not an altogether bad book, that it contains passages of rare beauty, of lofty sentiment, and profound wisdom ; but it can never be taken as a text-book, because it abounds in contradictions and absurdities ; and it were far better that man should thrust it aside for ever than that he should accept it as containing “the beginning and end of all wisdom ”—as a book written at the special command of a wise and good God. Let the Christians improve their Bible ; let them eliminate these barbarous things from its pages ; let them proclaim their belief in a nobler God and a loftier creed. The pure, the good, the just, and the beautiful the Freethinker will never attack ; but all that is cruel, wicked, impure, and unjust he will always condemn, whether it be said to come from God or from man. ' 1 - THE SECULAR REVIEW. A JOURNAL OF DAILY LIFE. Edited by ... Charles Watts & Saladin. The Secular Review is strictly a Freethought Journal, representing all phases of Advanced Thought. It also con­ tains authentic information as to the progress of liberal views in America and oil the Continent. To order, of Newsagents, or direct from 84, Fleet Street, London. Published every Thursday, price Twopence. WATTS & CO., 84, FLEET STREET, LONDON. —PRICE ONE PENNY. mJ- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Moss, Arthur B. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Two marginal marks in pencil. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Watts & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1885] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5780 Subject The topic of the resource Blasphemy Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible Blasphemy https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/afa985da2330e68a6d1f1619725f8e68.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=if7ocwyQXWVPkGOcMV1z9TrAkEeXiyVznlzH7oBioVc2c2lY3TjHy%7EYx09jnv9P9oJsTqY6KaKM9MwKmMqERHlbKPt-pa9pRn4cF7xAAb2juB4AZsnmnmL4LU8C%7E2jZSGret17rS1z3pKSmSGY57AQUY2htT60X59O8yAnYaHy9FHZm-oDW7WE7VVqfpQjCCw2oIlm3Q0Z1Ep4LfEQF2C8kL3t77NHIyiDk3RWaFgfo8C1W7AkXwn2DFt7dE43q0pd604SCqXXWmn2swIw0ftpS7vM%7Ec7qU2zoUH%7E7vGQx2XYnqNptxk38QkqNMH%7EmcLPbjnNJYJPKJ4C2UESVsfIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 2b8ce9dee50eb1f1f81101296d7af8f3 PDF Text Text EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. Taking a retrospective view of the dark and unenlightened past, when the mighty forces of nature were almost entirely hidden from the human gaze ; contemplating the sad spec­ tacle of our forefathers being sunken in gross superstition, ere the light of to-day had arisen above the horizon of mental ignorance, and contrasting the then limitation of knowledge with the extensive educational acquirements now existing, what a pleasing contrast the intellectual advance­ ment presents to the modern observer! Recognising the glories of nature, and finding ourselves possessed of an amazing amount of information respecting the laws of nature and the phenomena with which these laws are con­ nected—such information being for ages unknown to the great masses of the people—we are prompted to inquire what has produced this marvellous transformation, and to what agency we are indebted for this grand and stupendous revolution of the nineteenth century. Whatever may be the reply of the theologian, whose intellect is too often clouded with dreamy imaginations, the answer of the patient and unfettered student of nature will be that it is to science we owe the magic power which has substituted for the dense darkness of the past the brilliant light of the present. The marvels of astronomy, the revelations of geology, the splendours of botany, the varieties of zoology, the wonders of anatomy, the useful discoveries of physiology, and the rapid strides which have been made in the development of the mental sciences, all combine to unravel the once myste­ rious operations of mind and matter. While each of the modern sciences has corrected long-cherished errors and �2 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. opened new paths of investigation, one or two of them have especially tended to unfold to our view the nature, affinity, and development of man, and the wonderful universe to which he belongs. For instance, without the science of geology we should, in all probability, forever have remained in ignorance of the various changes which had taken place on the earth previous to the appearance of man, and the different forms of animal and vegetable life that were then distributed over its surface. We now examine the various strata of the earth, and there discover the fossil remains of animals and plants which existed in the ages that rolled by when no historian lived to pen the mighty transactions of nature and hand them down to future generations. The science of electricity, too, still only in its infancy, pro­ mises to confer an amount of benefit upon mankind too vast to be conceived. We hear the thunder roar, and behold the vivid flash of lightning darting before our eyes like an arrow from the bow of the archer ; but while we regard this phenomenon we have learned not to look upon it with dread as the vengeance of an angry God, but as a natural result of the operation of known forces. It was for Dr. Watts to sing:— “ There all his stores of lightning lie Till vengeance darts them down.” But it remained for a Franklin and a Priestley to inform us that tempests were not to be beheld as indicating the wrath of an offended God, but as the effect of an unequal diffusion of the electric fluid. Thus science has been, and is, our benefactor, our enlightener, our improver, and our redeemer. Without its aid we should still have been in a state of mental darkness and physical degradation. Deprived of its discoveries, we should still have been bound down with the ties of superstition, ignorance, and fanaticism. As Pope observes :— “ Lo ! the poor Indian, whose untutored mind Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind; His soul proud Science never taught to stray Far as the solar walk or milky way.” Perhaps there is no domain of human thought where the advantages of scientific investigation are more clear and pronounced than in connection with what is termed “ Evo­ lution ”—a word which, within the last few years, has �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 3 become very popular as representing a theory of man and the universe opposed to the old orthodox notion of special creation and supernatural government. There are, of course, some professedly religious people who avow their belief in Evolution, and who maintain that it is what they call God’s mode of working; and there are those who even go so far as to say that the power and wisdom of God are seen more thoroughly displayed in the process of Evolution than in the method, so long believed in, of special and supernatural creation. But the number of these is comparatively small, and, consequently, the great mass of those who accept the word in its legitimate signification may be looked upon as of a sceptical turn of mind. It will not be difficult to demonstrate that the popular theological idea of creation finds no support in the theory of Evolution, which, if not a demonstrated thesis, has, at least, in its favour the “ science of probabilities ”—an advantage that cannot fairly be claimed for the Biblical account of the origin of phenomena. The term “evolution” may be defined as an unfolding, opening out, or unwinding; a disclosure of something which was not previously known, but which existed before in a more condensed or hidden form. There is no new exist­ ence called into being, but a making conspicuous to our eyes that which was previously concealed. “ Evolution teaches that the universe and man did not always exist in their present form ; neither are they the product of a sudden creative act, but rather the result of innumerable changes from the lower to the higher, each step in advance being an evolution from a pre-existing condition.” On the other hand, the special creation doctrine teaches that, during a limited period, God created the universe and man, and that the various phenomena are not the result simply of natural law, but the outcome of supernatural design. According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the whole theory of Evolution is based upon three principles—namely, that matter is indestructible, motion continuous, and force per­ sistent. Two contending processes will be seen everywhere in operation in the physical universe, the one antagonistic to the other, each one for a time triumphing over its oppo­ site. These are termed “evolution” and “dissolution.” Spencer remarks that “ Evolution, under its simplest aspect, is the integration of matter and the dissipation of motion, �4 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. while dissolution is the absorption of motion and the con­ comitant disintegration of matter.” Thus it will be seen that Herbert Spencer regards evolution as the concentration or transition of matter from a diffused to a more condensed and perceptible form. This change he traces in the systems of the stars ; in the geological history of the earth; in the growth and development of plants and animals; in the history of language and the fine arts, and in the condition of civilised states. Briefly, the theory is that the matter of which the universe is composed has progressed from a vague, incoherent, and, perhaps, all but homogeneous nebula of tremendous extent, to complete systems of suns, worlds, comets, sea, and land, and countless varieties of living things, each composed of many very different parts, and of complex organisations. Coming to the organic bodies, there may be included under the term “evolution” many different laws, some of which we may not even know as yet, and a great number of processes, acting sometimes in unison and often in an­ tagonism, the one to the other. This, however, in no way weakens the theory of evolution, which, beyond doubt, is the process by which things have been brought to their present condition. It will tend, perhaps, to elucidate this truth the more readily and clearly if a brief exposition of the theory be given under the chief divisions of this exten­ sive subject. The Formation of Worlds.—According to Evolution, the present cosmos began its development at an immeasurably remote date, and any attempt to comprehend the periods that have rolled by since would paralyse our highest intel­ lectual powers. When the matter which is now seen shaped into suns and stars of vast magnitude, and of incompresible number, was diffused over the whole of the space in which those bodies are now seen moving—of extreme variety, and, perhaps, of nearly homogeneous character— the human mind is unable to comprehend. This matter, by virtue of the very laws now seen in operation in the physical universe, would in time shape itself into bodies with which the heavens are strewed, shining with a glory that awes while it charms. What is called in these days the nebular cosmogony may be said to have arisen with Sir �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 5 William Herschel, who discovered with his telescope what seemed to be worlds and systems in course of formation— that is, they were in various states which appeared to mark different degrees of condensation. M. Laplace, without any knowledge of Herschel’s specu­ lations, arrived at a similar idea upon a totally different ground—namely, the uniformity of the heavenly bodies. He showed that, if matter existed in such a different state as the nebular theory assumed, and if nuclei existed in it, they would become centres of aggregation in which a rotary motion would increase as the agglomeration proceeded. Further, Laplace urged that at certain intervals the centri­ fugal force acting in the rotating mass would overcome the force of agglomeration, and the result would be a series of rings existing apart from the mass to which they originally adhered, each of which would retain the motion which it possessed at the moment of separation. These rings would again break up into spherical bodies, and hence come what are termed primary bodies and their satellites. This La­ place showed to be at least possible, and the results, in the case of our solar system, are just what would have been expected from the operations of this Jaw. For example, everyone knows that the rapidity of the motions in the planets is in the ratio of their nearness to the sun. Many facts seem to support this theory, such as the existence of the hundred and more small bodies, called asteroids, observed between Mars and Jupiter, which doubt­ less indicate a zone of agglomeration at several points, and the rings of Saturn give an example of zones still preserved intact. This theory has been held by some of the most eminent astronomers, and is most ably advocated by the late Professor Nicol in his “Architecture of the Heavens.” Some experiments have also been tried—as, for example, that of Plateau on a rotating globe of oil—which showed the operation of the law by which the suns, planets, and their moons were formed. Such is the evolution of worlds, and it is unnecessary to point out how diametrically it is opposed to the special creation described in Genesis, where the heavens and the earth are called suddenly into being by the fiat of God, and the sun stated to be created four days afterwards. Which theory should, in these days of thought, commend itself to a rational mind ? �6 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. The Beginning of Life upon the Earth.—Evolution has been subjected to many severe attacks at this point. Those who contend for special creation have maintained, with a dogmatism which but ill accords with the knowledge they possess upon the subject, that nothing but the hypothesis of the supernatural origin of things is sufficient to account for the first appearance of life upon the earth, that evolution completely breaks down here, and that all the experiments which have been conducted with a view to lend it support have turned out positive failures. Such is the allegation of orthodox opponents. Let us see what grounds they have for these reckless and dogmatic statements. The two views of the origin of living beings have been called respectively Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, the first meaning that life can spring only from prior life, and the latter that life may sometimes have its origin in dead matter. Dr. Charlton Bastian, whose experiments will be hereafter referred to, substitutes for Abiogenesis another word, Archebiosis. Now, it is well known and admitted on all hands that there was a time when no life existed on the earth. Not the most minute animal, or the most insignificant plant, found a place on the surface of what was probably at that time a globe heated up to a temperature at which no living thing could exist. The life, therefore, that did afterwards appear could not have sprung from germs of prior living bodies. True, the whimsical theory was put forward by an eminent scientific man, some years ago, that the first germs that found their way to the earth were probably thrown off with meteoric matter from some other planet. But on the face of it this is absurd, because such matter would be of too high a temperature to admit of the existence upon it of living bodies of any kind ; and, besides, were it otherwise, it would explain nothing. It would only transfer the diffi­ culty from this world to some other. For life must have had a beginning somewhere, and the question is as to that beginning somewhere. The supernaturalist seeks to get out of the difficulty rather by cutting the Gordian knot than by untying it, and falls back upon a special creation, thereby avoiding any further trouble about the matter. But the evolutionist thinks that he can see his way clearly in what must necessarily be to some extent a labyrinth, because no one lived at that time to observe and record what was taking �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 7 place. One thing is plain, which is, that living things were made or came into existence—whatever the mode may have been, or the power by which it occurred—out of non-living matter. Even the believers in special creation will not deny this. The only question is, therefore, whether the process occurred in accordance with natural law, and whether the forces by which it was brought about were those which exist, or, at all events, which did exist, in material nature. For it does not follow that, if such phenomena do not occur to-day, they could never have taken place in the past. The conditions of the earth were different then from what they are now, and forces may have been in operation that are now quiescent. Professor Huxley, who thinks that no instance has occurred in modern times of the evolution of a living organism from dead matter, and that the experiments which have been conducted on the subject are inconclusive—who, in fact, ranks himself on the side of the advocates of Bio­ genesis—yet says that, if we could go back millions of years to the dawn of life, we should, no doubt, behold living bodies springing from non-living matter. But, of course, it will be argued that, if it happened then, it might take place now; and although, as I have said, this is not conclusive, yet to some it has much weight. What Nature has done once, it is insisted, she can do again. Quite so ; but, then, all the conditions must be the same. Dr. Bastian himself asks the question : “If such synthetic processes took place then, why should they not take place now? Why should the inherent molecular properties of various kinds of matter have undergone so much altera­ tion ?” (“ Beginnings of Life ”). And the question is likely to be repeated, with, to say the least of it, some show of reason. It must never be forgotten, as Tyndall has very ably pointed out, that the matter of which the organic body is built up “ is that of inorganic nature. There is no substance in the animal tissues that is not primarily derived from the rocks, the water, and the air.” And the forces operating in the one are those which we see working in the other, vitality only excepted, which is probably but another manifestation of the one great force of the universe. Indeed, Professor Huxley does not make an exception even in the case of vitality, which, he maintains, has no more actual existence �8 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. than the imaginary aqueosity of water. Mr. Herbert Spencer thinks that life, under all its forms, has arisen by an unbroken evolution, and through natural causes alone; and this view accords with the highest reason and philo­ sophy. Nor have the experiments performed with a view to solve the problem been so conclusive as would appear to some. At all events, the question is an open one as to whether the origin of living things in non-living matter has not been experimentally demonstrated. The old doctrine of “ spon­ taneous generation ” can, in its new form and under its recent name of Abiogenesis, or Archebiosis, claim the sup­ port of men of great eminence in the scientific world at the present time. Pouchet, a very illustrious Frenchman, per­ formed a large number of experiments, and in all or most of them he succeeded, according to his own opinion, in pro­ ducing living things. The objection that there were germs in the air, or water, or the materials that he employed, he met by manufacturing artificial water out of oxygen and hydrogen, and submitting the whole of the material employed to a temperature above boiling-water point, which would certainly destroy any living germ, either of an animal or vegetable character. Then, in England a series of experiments have been performed by Dr. Bastian, one of the leading scientists of our time; and the results have been given to the world in some voluminous and masterly books. “ These volumes,” says an opponent—Dr. Elam—“ are full of the records of arduous, thoughtful, and conscientious work, and must ever retain a conspicuous place in the literature of biological science.” Dr. Bastian maintains that he has succeeded, in innumerable instances, in producing living organisms from non-living matter. Hence the doctrine of Evolution, which is in accordance with true philosophy, finds its support in that physical science where we should expect to meet with it, and to which it really belongs. The Origin of Man.—It has already been stated that the remains of man are met with only in the most recent geological deposits. On this point there will be no dispute. No doubt human beings have been in existence for a much longer period than is generally sup­ posed ; the short term of six thousand years, which our �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 9 fathers considered to cover man’s entire history, pales into insignificance before the vast periods which we know to have rolled their course since human life began. But that fact in no way affects the question before us. Man was certainly the last animal that appeared, as he was the highest. If it be asked, Why highest as well as last ? the answer is, Because, by the process of evolution, the highest must come last. This is the law that we have seen operating all through the physical universe, so far as that universe has disclosed to us its mighty secrets, hidden for ages, but now revealed to scientific observation and experiment. Man came, as other organic bodies came, by no special creation, but by the great forces of nature, which move always in the same direction, and work to the same end. As far as the physical powers are concerned, it will not be difficult to conceive the same laws operating in his pro­ duction as originated the various other forms of organic beings. His body is built up of the same materials, upon precisely the same plan : during life he is subject to the same growth and decay, the same building up and pulling down of tissues; and it is but reasonable to suppose that the same forces originated his beginning, as we know they will some day terminate his existence. Mr. Darwin made a bold stroke when he gave the world his “Descent of Man.” In 1859 he had published the first edition of his work on “ The Origin of Species,” which fell like a thunderbolt into the religious camp. The commo­ tion it caused was tremendous, and the effect can to-day hardly be imagined; so tolerant have we grown of late, and such a change has passed over the scene within the past quarter of a century. The most violent opposition raged against the new views ; ridicule, denunciation, and abuse were hurled at the head of the man who had propounded so preposterous a theory as that all organic things had sprung from a few simple living forms very low down in the scale of being. Then came a larger work, entitled “ Animals and Plants under Domestication,” brimful of facts of a most startling character, supporting the theory advanced in the previous book, and challenging refutation on all hands. In the face of these facts, the public mind cooled down a little, opposition became milder, some adver­ saries were converted, and others manifested indifference. �IO EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. The major part of those who still adhered to the super­ natural and special creations held that, even if the theory of Evolution turned out to be true, it would not apply to man, who was a being possessed of an immortal soul, and, there­ fore, belonged to a different order of creatures from any other animals, and that Mr. Darwin never intended to include human beings in the organic structures thus origi­ nated. In this state the controversy remained until 1872, when Mr. Darwin took the bull by the horns, and at one stroke swept away the last stronghold of special creation by showing that humanity was no exception to the great law of evolu­ tion ; for man, like other animals, had originated in natural selection. The facts given in the book on “The Descent of Man ” are both powerful and pertinent. This, however, is not the place to dwell upon natural selection, and it is only referred to so far as it supports evolution. The diffi­ culties that have been placed in the way of the application of this principle to man have not had much reference to his bodily organs, but mainly to his mental and moral powers, his social faculties, and the emotional side of his nature. True, a controversy raged for a short time between Huxley and Owen as to whether there was a special structure in the human brain not to be found in the next animals lower in the scale of being ; but this contention has long since died out, and to-day no anatomist of any note will be found contending for the existence of any such organ. That the human brain differs considerably from the brain of any lower animal no one who is at all acquainted with the subject will deny; but this is difference in degree, and not arising from the presence of any special structure in the one which is absent in the other. Man, therefore, must look for his origin just where he seeks for that of the inferior creatures. The science of embryology, which is now much more carefully studied, and, consequently, much better known than at any period in the past, lends very powerful support to evolution, though, perhaps, little to natural selection. “ The primordial germs,” says Huxley, “ of a man, a dog, a bird, a fish, a beetle, a snail, and a polyp are in no essential structural respects distinguishable” (“Lay Sermons”). Each organism, in fact, commences its individual career at the �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 11 same point—that is, in a single cell. These cells are of the same chemical composition, approximately of the same size, and appear to be in all respects identical. Yet the one developes into a fish, another into a reptile, a third into a bird, a fourth into a dog, and a fifth into a man. The pro­ cess is the same in all up to a certain point. First, the cell divides into two, then into four, eight, sixteen, and so on, until a particular condition is reached, called by Haeckel morula, when a totally different set of changes occur. In the case of the higher animals the development of the embryo exhibits, up to a very late period, a remarkable resemblance to that of man. The Diversity of Living Things.—A mere glance at the geological records will show at once that the order in which animals and plants have appeared on the earth is that which accords with evolution. The lowest came first, the highest last, and a regular gradation between the two extremes. In the early rocks in which life appears we meet with polyps, coral, sea-worms, etc., and no trace of land animals or plants. Then, passing upwards, we come upon fishes, then reptiles, afterwards birds, subsequently mammals, and, last of all, man. These are undisputed facts, as the most elementary works on geology, whether written by a professing Christian or an unbeliever, will clearly show. The only objection, perhaps, of any weight that can be urged against the changes which evolution asserts to have taken place, is the fact that we do not see them occur. But this, in the first place, is hardly correct, since we see the tadpole—which is a fish breathing through gills, and living in the water—pass up into a reptile, the frog, which is a land animal breathing through lungs, and inhaling its oxygen from the atmosphere. Secondly, the fact that we do not see a change actually occur, which took millions of years to become effected, can surely amount to little. An ephemeral insect, whose life only lasts for a day, might object, if able to reason, that an a corn could not grow into an oak tree, because it had not seen it occur. But the evidence would be there still in the numerous gradations that might be seen between the acorn and the sturdy old tree that had weathered the storms of a century. And in �12 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. this case we see all the gradations between a monad and a man in the rocks which furnish us with the history of the past, although, as our lives are so short, we are not able to see the whole change effected. Plants were not all suddenly called into existence at one particular period, and then animals at another and later time. This we know, because the remains of plants and animals are found side by side throughout all the rocks. If there be an exception, it is an unfortunate one for the Christian supernaturalist, since it shows that animals were first; for certain it is that animal remains are met with in the oldest rocks. The objection to evolution, that no transformation of one species into another has been seen within recorded history, is entirely groundless, and betrays utter carelessness on the part of the objectors. The truth is, such trans­ formations have taken place, as mentioned above in reference to the tadpole. Professor Huxley and other scientists have proved this to be the case. It should, however, be remem­ bered that in most instances these great changes are the work of time. As Dr. David Page observes : “ It is true that, to whatever process we ascribe the introduction of new species, its operation is so slow and gradual that centuries may pass away before its results become discernible. But, no matter how slow, time is without limit; and, if we can trace a process of variation at work, it is sure to widen in the long run into what are regarded as specific distinctions. It is no invalidation of this argument that science cannot point to the introduction of any new species within the historic era; for till within a century or so science took no notice of either the introduction or extinction of species, nor was it sufficiently acquainted with the flora and fauna of the globe to determine the amount of variation that was taking place among their respective families. Indeed, in­ fluenced by the belief that the life of the globe was the result of one creative act, men were unwilling to look at the long past which the infant science of palaeontology was be­ ginning to reveal, and never deigned to doubt that the future would be otherwise than the present. Even still there are certain minds who ignore all that geology has taught concerning the extinction of old races and the intro­ duction of newer ones, and who, shutting their eyes to the continuity of nature, cannot perceive that the same course �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. IS of extinction and creation must ever be in progress ” (“ Man : Where, Whence, and Whither ?”). Let us now apply a test to the creative theory with a similar demand, and what will be the result ? An utter failure on the part of the creationists to substantiate their dogmatic preten­ sions. Suppose we exclaimed, “ Show us a single creative act of bne species within recorded history.” It would be impos­ sible for them to do so, for there is not a shadow of evidence drawn from human experience in favour of what theologians call creation. “ We perceive a certain order and certain method in nature ; we see that under new conditions certain variations do take place in vegetable and animal structures, and by an irresistible law of our intellect we associate the variations with the conditions in the way of cause and effect. Of such a method we can form some notion, and bring if within the realm of reason ; of any other plan, how­ ever it may be received, we can form no rational conception.” “ The whole analogy of natural operations,” says Professor Huxley, “ furnishes so complete and crushing an argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary causes in the production of all the phenomena of the universe that, in view of the intimate relations between man and the rest of the living world, and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can see no excuse for doubt­ ing that all are co-ordinated terms of nature’s great progres­ sion, from the formless to the formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will.” The most that can be said of the creative theory is that it is a question of belief; but of knowledge never. Dr. Page observes : “We may believe in a direct act of creation; but we cannot make it a subject of research. Faith may accept, but reason cannot grasp it. On the other hand, a process of derivation by descent is a thing we can trace as of a kind with other processes; and, though unable to explain, we can follow it as an indication, at least, of the method which Nature has adopted in conformity with her ordinary and normal course of procedure. We can admit possibilities, but must reason from probabilities, and the probable can only be judged of from what is already known. Than this there is clearly no other course for philosophy. Everywhere in nature it sees nothing but processes, means, and results, causes and effects, and it �14 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. cannot conceive, even if it wished, of anything being brought about unless through the instrumentality of means and pro­ cesses.” To me it has always been a difficulty to understand how an infinite being could possibly have been the creator of all things. For this reason : if he is infinite, he is everywhere ; if everywhere, he is in the universe ; if in the universe now, he was always there. If he were always in the universe, there never was a time when the universe was not; there­ fore, it could never have been created. If it be said that this being was not always in the universe, then there must have been a period when he occupied less space than he did subsequently. But “ lesser ” and “ greater ” cannot be applied to that which is eternally infinite. Further, before we can recognise the soundness of the position taken by the advocates of special creation, we have to think of a time when there was no time—of a place where there was no place. Is this possible ? If it were, it would be interest­ ing to learn where an infinite God was at that particular period, and how, in “no time,” he could perform his creative act. Besides, if a being really exists who created all things, the obvious question at once is, “ Where was this being before anything else existed ?” “ Was there a time when God over all was God over nothing ? Can we believe that a God over nothing began to be out of nothing, and to create all things when there was nothing ?” Moreover, if the universe was created, from what did it emanate ? From nothing? But “ from nothing, nothing can come.” Was it created from something that already was ? If so, it was no creation at all, but only a continuation of that which was in existence. Further, “ creation needs action ; to act is to use force; to use force implies the existence of something upon which that force can be used. But if that ‘ something ’ were there before creation, the act of creating was simply the re-forming of pre-existing materials.” Here three ques­ tions may be put to the opponents of evolution who affirm the idea of special creation :—(i) Is it logical to affirm the existence of that of which nothing is known, either of itself or by analogy ? Now, it cannot be alleged that anything is known of the supposed supernatural power of creation. On the other hand, sufficient is known of the facts of evolution to prevent the careful student of Nature from attempting to �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 15 rob her of that force and life-giving principle which un­ doubtedly belongs to her. (2) Is it logical to ascribe events to causes the existence of which is unknown, and more particularly when such events can be reasonably explained upon natural principles with the aid of “ the science of probabilities ” ? Dr. Page forcibly remarks : “ Man has his natural history relations—of that there can be no gainsaying —and we merely seek to apply to the determination of these the same methods of research which by common consent are applied to the determination of the relations of other creatures............. Scientific research must abide by scientific methods; scientific convictions must rest on scientific in­ vestigations.” To assert that life is associated with some­ thing that is immaterial and immortal, and that this force could only have been brought into existence by a special act of “the one great creator,” is to prostrate reason and ex­ perience before the assumptions of an over-satisfied theology. To once more use the words of Dr. Page : “ Science knows nothing of life save through its manifestations. With the growth of physical organisation it comes ; with the decay of organisation it disappears. While life endures, mind is its accompaniment; when life ceases, mental activity comes to a close. Thus far we can trace; beyond this science is utterly helpless. No observation from the external world ; no analogy, however plausible ; no analysis, however minute, can solve the problem of an immaterial and immortal exist­ ence.” (3) Is it logical to urge the theory of special creation when science proclaims the stability of natural law, and its sufficiency for the production of all phenomena ? Professor Tyndall, in his lecture on “ Sound,” remarks that, if there is one thing that science has demonstrated more clearly than another, it is the stability of the operations of the laws of nature. We feel assured from experience that this is so, and we act upon such assurance in our daily life. The same errtinent scientist, in his Belfast address, says : “ Now, as science demands the radical extirpation of caprice, and the absolute reliance upon law in nature, there grew with the growth of scientific notions a desire and determination to sweep from the field of theory this mob of gods and demons, and to place natural phenomena on a basis more congruent with themselves.” Again: “ Is there not a temptation to close to some extent with Lucretius when he �i6 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. affirms that ‘ Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods,’ or with Bruno when he declares that Matter is not ‘that mere empty capacity which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb....... By an intellectual necessity I cross the boundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in that matter which we, in our ignorance of its latent powers, and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its creator, have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of all terrestrial life.” Psychical Powers.—This is the great stronghold of the opponents of evolution. They maintain that, whatever may have taken place with regard to physical powers and bodily organs, it is clear that the higher intellectual faculties of man could not so have originated ; that those, at least, must be the result of a special creation, and must have been called into existence by some supernatural power when human beings first appeared upon the stage of life. Such persons further urge that, even if it could be shown beyond doubt that the marvellously constructed body of man, with its beautifully adjusted parts of bone and muscle, nerve and brain, skin and mucous membrane, had its origin in evolu­ tion, yet no light whatever would be thrown upon the source of the wondrous powers of judgment and memory, understanding and will, perception and conception. This argument, no doubt, to some at first appears specious; but the question is, Is it sound ? The assumption seems to be that we meet with these powers now for the first time, and that, therefore, it is here that a special creation must be called in to account for their origin, their character being so different from anything that has previously crossed our path in this investigation. But assuredly this is not correct. Some of these powers are certainly to be met with in the lower animals—a few of them low down in the scale—and for the rest the difference will be one of degree more than of quality. It will not surely be maintained that perception is pecu­ liar to man; it must exist wherever there are organs of sense, and these extend in some form or other to the lowest phase of animal life. Volition is also met with in all �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 17 the higher animals; and memory may be observed in the dog, horse, elephant, cat, camel, and numerous other mammals, with whose habits every-day life makes us familiar. Even judgment in the form of comparison is often displayed by the domestic animals, the dog in particular. Dr. H. Bischoff, in his “Essay on the Difference between Man and Brutes,” says : “ It is impossible to deny the animals, qualitatively and quantitatively, as many mental faculties as we find in man. They possess consciousness. They feel, think, and judge; they possess a will which determines their actions and motions. Animals possess attachment; they are grateful, obedient, good-natured; and, again, false treacherous, disobedient, revengeful, jealous, etc. Their actions frequently evince deliberation and memory. It is in vain to derive such actions from so-called instinct, which unconsciously compels them so to act.” Max Muller also, in his “ Science of Language,” admits that brutes have five senses like ourselves ; that they have sensations of pain and pleasure; that they have memory; that they are able to compare and distinguish ; have a will of their own, show signs of shame and pride, and are guided by intellect as well as by instinct. With such facts as these before us, what reason have we for supposing that these psychical powers are not as likely to have been evolved as the bodily organs ? There is no break whatever to be seen in the chain at the point of their appear­ ance in man. If the mental powers of the lower animals have come by evolution, there is not a shadow of reason for supposing that those of man arose in any other way, for they are all of the same quality, differing only in degree. No doubt, as Mr. Darwin says, “the difference between the mind of man and that of the highest ape is immense.” And yet, as he also remarks, “great as it is, it is certainly one of degree, and not of kind.” The highest powers of which man can boast—memory, judgment, love, attention, curiosity, imitation, emotion—may all be met with in an incipient form in lower animals. Let any man analyse his mental faculties one by one—-not look at them in a state of com­ bination, for that will be calculated to mislead—and then say which of them is peculiar to man as man, and not to be found in a smaller degree much lower in the scale of being. Even the capacity for improvement—in other words, for pro­ �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. gress—is not peculiar to man, as Mr. Darwin has shown by innumerable examples of great force and beauty. The emotions have often been spoken of as being pecu­ liar to man, but evidently with no regard to accuracy. Terror exists in all the highest of the lower animals as surely as it does in man, and shows itself in the same way. It causes the heart to palpitate, a tremor to pass along the muscles, and even the hair to undergo that change which is called “ standing on end,” in the horse, the dog, and other animals, as in the human species. “ Courage and timidity,” observes Darwin, “are extremely variable qualities in the individuals of the same species, as is plainly seen in our dogs. Some dogs and horses are ill-tempered and easily turn sulky; others are good-tempered; and these qualities are certainly inherited. Everyone knows how liable animals are to furious rage, and how plainly they show it.” The love of the dog for his master is proverbial; indeed, this noble animal has been known to lick the hand of the vivisector while undergoing at his hands the severest torture. And revenge is often manifested by the lowest animals—not simply the sudden impulse which revenges itself at the moment for pain inflicted or wrongs done, but long, brooding feeling, which may smoulder for months, waiting for the opportunity for manifesting itself, and, when that comes, bursting out into a flame violent and hateful. There are thousands of cases on record in which this has happened, especially in the case of monkeys which have been kept tame. And, perhaps, the personal experience of most persons can furnish an example of the truth of this allegation. The social instincts are plainly seen in many of the lower animals; not, of course, in that perfect form in which they are met with in man ; but the difference here again is one of degree only. Many animals experience pleasure in the company of their fellows, and are unhappy at a separation being effected. They will show sympathy one for another, and even perform services for each other’s benefit. Some animals lie together in large numbers, and never separate except for a very short time, and then only for a purpose which they clearly understand. This is the case with sheep, rats, American monkeys, and also with rooks, jackdaws, and starlings. Darwin observes : “ Everyone must have noticed -how miserable horses, dogs, sheep, etc., are when separated �EVOLUTION and special creation. J9 from their companions, and what affection the two former kind will show on their re-union. It is curious to speculate upon the feelings of a dog who will rest peacefully for hours in a room with his master or any of the family without the least notice being taken of him, but who, if left for a short time by himself, barks and howls dismally.” Here we find the origin of the social faculty in man. It is very easy to imagine the course of development which this must have taken in order to have culminated in the highest form as we see it in the human species. The psychical powers appear first in an incipient form, and then gradually develop through a long course of ages, until they attain their height in humanity. Other influences, such as the power of language, further the development, these powers themselves being the result of the process of evolution. The question how far language is confined to man is one of great interest to the student of evolution. In replying to the inquiry, “ What is the difference between the brute and man ?” Max Muller says : “ Man speaks, and no brute has ever uttered a word. Language is our Rubicon, and no brute has ever crossed it.” Referring to this statement, Dr. Page remarks : “Are not these powers of abstraction and language a matter of degree rather than of kind ? Do not the actions of many of the lower animals sufficiently indicate that they reason from the particular to the general ? And have they not the power of communicating their thoughts to one another by vocal sounds which cannot be otherwise regarded than as lan­ guage? No one who has sufficiently studied the conduct of our domestic animals but must be convinced of this power of generalisation ; no one who has listened attentively to the various calls of mammals and birds can doubt they have the power of expressing their mental emotions in language. Their powers of abstraction may be limited, and the range of their language restricted; but what shall we say of the mental capacity of the now extinct Tasmanian, which could not carry him beyond individual conceptions, or of the monosyllabic click-cluck of the Bushman, as compared with the intellectual grasp and the inflectional languages of modern Europe ? If it shall be said that these are matters merely of degree, then are the mental processes and languages of the lower animals, as compared with those of man, also matters of degree—things that manifest �20 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. themselves in the same way and by the same organs, but differing in power according to the perfection of the organs through which they are manifested.” The Doctor's view of this matter receives a striking corro­ boration from the following excerpt from the introduction to Agassiz’s “ Contributions to the Natural History of the United States ” : “ The intelligibility of the voice of animals to one another, and all their actions connected with such calls, are also a strong argument of their perceptive power, and of their ability to act spontaneously and with logical sequence in accordance with these perceptions. There is a vast field open for investigation in the relations between the voice and the actions of animals, and a still more in­ teresting subject of inquiry in the relationship between the cycle of intonations which different species of animals of the same family are capable of uttering, and which, so far as I have yet been able to trace them, stand to one another in the same relations as the different, so-called, families of languages.” The moral powers of man have been evolved in a manner similar to that in which the other forces belonging to the human race were evolved. All that we see in the evolution of human conduct is the result of the great and potent law of evolution. “ It is said,” writes M. J. Savage in his sug­ gestive book, “ The Morals of Evolution,” “ that there can be no permanent and eternal law of morality unless we believe in a God and a future life. But I believe that this moral law stands by virtue of its own right, and would stand just the same without any regard to the question of immortality or the discussion between Theism and Atheism. If there be no God at all, am I not living ? Are there not laws according to which my body is constructed— laws of health, laws of life, laws that I must keep in order to live and in order to be well ? If there be no God at all, are you not existing ? Have I right to steal your property, to injure you, to render you unhappy, because, forsooth, I choose to doubt whether there is a God, or because you choose to doubt whether there is a God ? Are not the laws of society existing in themselves, and by their own nature ? Suppose all the world should suddenly lose its regard for truth and become false through and through, so that no man could depend upon his brother, would �EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 21 not society become disintegrated, disorganised? Would not all commercial and social life suddenly become im­ possible? Would not humanity become a chaos and a wreck, and that without any sort of regard to the question as to whether men believed in a God or did not believe in one ? These laws are essential in the nature of things ; and they stand, and you live by keeping them, and die by breaking them, whether there is a God or not. These are the accurate and ennobling views of existence born of minds which evolution has raised from the ignorant depths of the past to the intellectual heights of the present. On all sides the candid and impartial observer may be­ hold undoubted evidence in favour of the doctrine of evolu­ tion. We see it in the various changes of the solar system. There are (i) fire mists; (2) globes of gas; (3) condensed oceans; (4) crust formation; (5) mountains and rivers, and (6) its present phenomena. What is this but evolution ? Is it not a manifestation of changes from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, and from the chaotic to the consolidated ? The same principle is illus­ trated, as before indicated, by the science of embryology, with its clearly-marked stages of development—the fish, reptile, bird, quadruped, and, finally, the human form. The relationship of the species gives its proof in favour of the evolution theory. The different types of to-day had their one starting point, the variations now seen having been pro­ duced by altered conditions. Moreover, we find that in the process of evolution some organs in animals become useless, while others change their use, thus proving that the animal kingdom possess structural affinities, and that the subsequent differentiation depends upon the opportunity afforded for evolution. Then, again, man’s ability, to divert animal instincts and intelligence from their original sphere, as shown in the training of certain of the lower animals; of improving the eye as an optical instrument; of rendering less antagonistic the natures and instincts we discover in different species constantly at war with each other, all point to one process—that of evolution. There is the old sentimental objection to this theory, that it is humiliating to think that we have evolved from forms lower down in the scale of animal life. But, as Dr. Page points out, there is nothing in this view necessarily degrading �22 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 11 If, in virtue of some yet unexplained process, man has derived his descent from any of the lower orders, he is clearly not of them—his higher structural adaptations and improvable reason defining at once the specialty of his place, and the responsibility of his functions. It can be no degradation to have descended from some antecedent form of life, any more than it can be an exaltation to have been fashioned directly from the dust of the earth. There can be nothing degrading or disgusting in the connection which nature has obviously established between all that lives, and those who employ such phrases must have but a poor and by no means very reverent conception of the scheme of creation. The truth is, there is nothing degrading in nature save that which, forgetful of its own functions, debases and degrades itself. The jibing and jeering at the idea of an ‘ape-ancestry,’ so often resorted to by the ignorant, has in reality no significance to the mind of the philosophic naturalist. There is evidently one structural plan running throughout the whole of vitality, after which its myriad members have been ascensively developed, just as there is one great material plan pervading the planetary system; and science merely seeks to unfold that plan, and to deter­ mine the principles upon which it is constructed. If there be no generic connection between man and the order that stands next beneath him, there is at all events a marvellous similarity in structural organisation, and this similarity is surely suggestive of something more intimate than mere coincidence.” Evolution, therefore, although unable to supply the solution to every problem presented to the student of nature, is, so far as can be discovered at the present day, the truest theory of man and the universe, and is sufficient for all practical purposes. Further, it satisfies the intellect as no other theory does, and is assuredly more reasonable than that of special creation. One question of great importance will probably suggest itself to those who have given the theory of evolution much consideration. It is this : What is to be the position of things, and especially of man, in the future ? Will there be evolved higher beings after him, as he is higher than those who preceded him ? He stands now as the lord of crea­ tion ; but so stood many mighty reptiles of the past in their day and generation. Could they have reasoned, would they �'7" ' EVOLUTION1 AND SPECIAL CREATION. 23 not have concluded that they were the final end of creation, and that all that had gone before was simply to prepare for their entrance into the world? In that they would have erred ; and it may be asked, Shall we not equally err if we hastily decide that no higher being than man can ever come on earth—that he is, and will ever remain, the highest of organic existences ? Now, the cases are not quite analogous, as a little reflection will show. The earlier animals were entirely the creatures of evolution j man is largely the director of the process. He can, by his intellect, control the law itself, just as he bends gravitation to his will, though, in a sense, he is as much subject to its power as the earth on which he treads. Before man arose, the animals and plants then existing were moulded by the great power operating upon them from within and without; hence the form they took and the functions they performed. When they had to con­ tend with an unfortunate environment they became modi­ fied ; or, failing that, they disappeared. Now man, by his mental resource, can supply natural deficiencies, and thus not defeat evolution, but direct its current into a new channel. He can bring his food from a distance, and thus avoid scarcity in the country where he dwells ; he can successfully contend against climate, disease, and a thousand other destructive agencies which might otherwise sweep him away. It is, therefore, no longer a contest between physical powers, but between physical and mental. No higher physical development is likely to occur, because it would not meet the case, since, however perfect it might be, it could not hold its own in the struggle for existence against man with his intellect. The development in the future must be one of mind, not of body. We do not, consequently, look for­ ward to the time when organised beings, higher and more perfect physically than man, shall take his place on the earth; but we do believe that a period will arrive when the intellectual powers shall be refined, expanded, and exalted beyond anything of which at present we can form a con­ ception. The future of man is a topic of all-absorbing interest, and it needs no prophetic insight to enable us to form some dim and vague idea of what it will be. Mind will grapple with the great forces of nature, making them subservient to man’s comfort and convenience. Virtue shall array herself more resolutely than ever against vice, �24 EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. and rid the world of its malignant power. Brother shall cease slaying brother at the command of kingly despots, and thus the world shall be crowned with the laurels of peace. Priestcraft shall lose its power over humanity, and mental liberty shall have a new birth. The barriers of social caste shall be broken down, and the brotherhood of man thereby consolidated. Woman shall no longer be a slave, but free in her own right. Capital and labour shall cease to be antagonistic, and shall be harmoniously employed to enrich the comforts and to augment the happiness of the race. Education shall supplant ignorance, and justice take the place of oppression. Then the era shall have arrived of which the philosopher has written and the poet has sung. Freedom shall be the watchword of man, reason shall reign supreme, and happiness prevail throughout the earth. “ When from the lips of Truth one mighty breath Shall, like a whirlwind, scatter in its breeze The whole dark pile of human miseries, Then shall the reign of mind commence on earth ; And, starting forth as from a second birth, Man, in the sunrise of the world’s new spring, Shall walk transparent like some holy thing.” � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Evolution and special creation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Lacking a title page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Watts & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1893] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA1574 N667 Subject The topic of the resource Evolution Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Evolution and special creation), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Charles Darwin Creationism Darwinism Evolution NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/15e85a09e7cda077d4c970a804e9a086.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=e6uxQxziur2V-297EriRLNFBukN1e%7EFm1RxyuKfa0DkwROPPXKdt54k3SFLV1rFzf2z3QIcSutsM9V-LJp3tDfs2-eIZnVO-E5EpcNmOHoOQEHpW5jLbmDCS6uxTF32OC0i2pkjnGkD8a3TdsQ%7ElpHIE7d03SGvr8wMiwggDpy8IwwSRH6nNW3TgTfXaEMMZ%7EMmZq6E71l4S6R4MdgqPLQ8ULpHpsLVMUVy6Iapjj6PmpDylGXFiWZ5ZuiJ3%7ETuVLVvrTpo%7ELYXSUb1EcMxHU%7E03ZL4FFllZKw-oAG8PjoXgcjqMFSPBT%7EuoFRgDjCcXEBWQ1iLKsnmenEnU7ip9og__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 694099ca75120bd6897bd8c20ee25575 PDF Text Text THE ENGLISH CHURCH A FAILURE AS A REFORMING AGENCY. BY CHARLES WATTS, The Anglican Church is regarded as the representative of England’s national religion and the exponent of the country’s State-protected theology. It will, therefore, be interesting to consider the two following questions :— i. What is the attitude of this institution towards the thought of the present time ? 2. What value has it been as a reforming agency ? An impartial examination of the position of this ecclesiasticism will show that it is unchanged, and, in all prob­ ability, so it will remain so long as it is an Erastiart or an Established Church. Under a Protestant name— which, however, many of its clergy do not acknowledge, professing to consider themselves a true branch of the Catholic Church, a claim which Rome contemptuously repudiates—the Establishment has retained the essential spirit of'Popery. The consequence of this has been, of course, distraction and annoyance to the State, division to the Church, formality and “ worldly-mindedness ” to the clergy. Common sense stigmatises it as an absurdity when political leaders and secular judges are asked and compelled to administer the chief judicial and govern­ mental functions and appointments of an ecclesiasticism with any other intention than that of promoting their own secular temporal interests. Of course, it is not denied that the Established Church has produced many ■eminent and learned men, and that she has occasionally attempted to deal with the great social questions of the day. Her failure, however, is an acknowledged fact. Possessing unexampled facilities for improving the social �2 THE ENGLISH CHURCH. condition of the people, with great wealth at her freecommand, with no powerful competitor in the field, shehas wilfully neglected all these advantages. So far as religion and thought are concerned, this Church is most incongruously and anomalously placed. She is like a man between two stools, clinging to a bend­ ing plank overhead. Such a very unreliable support for the Church, the only guarantee for its position, is the State. Let this plank give way—and it must be sawn asunder ere long—and the Church of England will lapse into chaotic confusion. Her inconsistency in this particular is manifest. Here we have a Church pro­ fessedly based on a Divine faith ; yet it has to rely for support upon the protection of the State. Were its assumed divinity a reality, Secular aid for its existence should be unnecessary. Besides, the functions of the two—the Church and the State—are very different: the one claims the right of spiritual direction; the business of the other is to concern itself with the secular affairs of society. The Anglican Church is, moreover, equivocally placed with respect to her doctrines. She half receives the Reformation dogma of private interpretation of the Scriptures, and half rejects it by affirming that the true sense of Scripture is its interpretation by the Church. She thus professes to bow to reason, while, in fact, she denies its right. How painfully inconsistent is this with what should be the distinguishing feature in a body which calls itself Catholic, and which should, consequently^ know its own mind ! It has been said : “ Ye cannot serve two masters : ye cannot serve God and Mammon.>r Alas for this dictum, however, the Church of England has ever been more remarkable for her solicitude to possess riches than for her “ spiritual ” devotion or regard for consistency 1 In this respect she is much inferior to the Church of Rome. The Romish Church, at least,, does not play fast and loose with beliefs and dogmas. She finds herself opposed by the progressive march of intellect. Does she, therefore, “ hark back ” ? Does she retract or explain away any of her previous utter­ ances ? No; but, on the contrary, she nails her colours to the mast, and refuses to move in obedience to what she terms misguided, erring reason. Her prelates,. �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 3 .assembled in Rome, proclaimed that “not only can faith and reason never be opposed, but they lend to each other a mutual support, since right reason demonstrates the foundations of faith, and, illuminated by its light, -cultivates the science of Divine things ; whereas faith liberates and defends reason from error, and enriches it with increased knowledge.” In the same resolute spirit of utter opposition to what .•science may reveal or a wider exegesis require, Rome says: “ That interpretation of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared; neither ever at any time may that interpretation be departed from under the form or name of a higher understanding thereof.” And at the end of the Decrees, given on the 18th of July, 1870, the prelates of this Church affirm that, “ if any one presume to con­ tradict this our definition—which may God avert—let him be accursed 1” All this is easily enough understood, however much we may and do condemn it. The Church of England, however, has neither the boldness of affirmation nor of ■denial. Should a heresy arise in its midst—as in the case of Bishop Colenso—the odium theologicum is bitterly .aroused, the land is troubled with the dissensions of angry polemics, the ecclesiastical dignitaries and mis­ sionary societies appoint a new Bishop, but the .Church has not power to remove the heretic from his office. Again, certain State laws, such as Earl Beaconsfield’s Public Worship Regulation Act, are directed against specified modes of conducting the public services of the Church. Certain zealous priests, or ministers, treat these with contempt, and the Church has to request the State to put a cumbrous machinery of justice into opera­ tion against the offenders. The peculiar spectacle is then presented of the civil power deciding' as to what are religious necessities. Need we marvel that .nobody really knows, or cares, what this strange body thinks, or what attitude it assumes with regard to modern thought ? This, then, is the true state -of affairs on this matter : the Church, as a Church, does not enter into the question, which is merely one of the individual opinions of ministers with respect to the higher thought of the age. Briefly stated, the clergy of the �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 4 Church of England may be ranked under three heads:— 1. The High Churchmen, who look upon science and Freethought with ill-concealed aversion. Clergymen of this class pander to credulity, and thrive upon the weak­ ness of women and the uncontrolled emotions of men. Theatrical display enchants where reason fails to com­ mand. 2. The Evangelicals, who are at heart more intolerant than the Papacy. They seldom encourage modern scien­ tific revelation, clinging to the old notion that the twostandard revelations contain all that is necessary for man’s salvation. 3. The Broad Churchmen, who are comparatively tolerant, liberal, and disposed to welcome all that the scientific method of investigation may reveal. These men are useful, because their principal deeds are secular. Their Church religion sits but loosely upon them. Their concern is to teach people how to live well as the best preparation to die happily. The Bishop of Manchester^ Dean Stanley, and Dr. Colenso are noble types of this school. As Freethinkers, we need not be apprehensive either of Conformity or Nonconformity. The latter, as Dr. Maclagan, the Bishop of Lichfield, observed in his charge to the clergy (early in 1880), is now more political than re­ ligious : the former is more religious than political in spirit, but its connection with the State—which is now tolerant perforce—deprives it of much of its original power to wound. It will be a bright future wherein man the free and unfettered shall have cast off the swathing-bands of fetichism and ecclesiasticism, and shall have learned to rely solely upon human effort, and his own knowledge of his necessities and potentialities. The assumption that the English Church is the national exponent of the religious thought of the age is entirely unsupported by facts. The union of the Church with the State is the main ground upon which the assertion is made. But only a slight reflection is necessary to demonstrate that such a connection cannot make the Church national, using that term in its proper sense. Before it can consistently deserve that designation it �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. • 5 must be shown that the Establishment represents the religious ideas and aspirations of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom. Such, however, is not the case, inasmuch as the bulk of the Protestants of Great Britain do not subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles, and will not be bound by the priestly dogmas of the Established Church. The religious faith of Christendom outside the domain of Roman Catholicism day by day grows broader and less inclined to be fettered by the creeds and ecclesiastical teachings of priests and councils. Even numerically the Church is behind its rival, Dissent. The Statistical Society, a few years ago, published figures showing that Dissenters were far more numerous than Churchmen; and a recent Parliamentary return states that in 7,369 English and Welsh parishes, having an aggregate population of 20,500,000, there were 11,267 churches and 14,000 chapels. A great absurdity in connection with the claim set up for the English Church is that its devotees regard it as the depository of the only true religion. By them it is supposed to be the genuine article, bearing the Govern­ ment stamp; while the various Dissenting faiths are condemned as spurious, being without the necessary authority. This is the view taken by the Rev. F. A. Grace, M.A., who has published a work entitled “ Some Questions of the Church Catechism and Doctrines In­ volved, briefly Explained.” from which the following extract is taken :— “We have among us various sects and denominations who go by the general name of Dissenters : in what light are we to consider them?—A. As heretics; and in our Litany we expressly pray to be delivered from the sins of ‘ false doctrine, heresy, and schism.’ “Is, then, their worship a laudable service?—A. No; because they worship God according to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not according to his revealed will, and therefore their worship is idolatrous. “ Is Dissent a great sin ?—A. Yes ; it is in direct opposi­ tion to our duty towards God. “Is it wicked, then, to enter a meeting-house at all?— A. Most assuredly, because, as was said above, it is a house where God is worshipped otherwise than he has commanded, and therefore it is not dedicated to his honour and glory.” After reading this exhibition of that charity which �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. thinketh no evil, can there be any doubt as to the har­ mony and loving kindness existing among the different religious denominations ? Associated with the English Church is a system of patronage, which acts injuriously alike upon the moral and the intellectual character of its exponents. From the eighteenth century to the present time the “ spiritual pastors” have been too frequently selected for their office through favouritism rather than on account of their moral and intellectual ability. In addressing his clergymen, many of whom were said to be fox-hunters and excessive drinkers, Bishop Kenn thus described them :— “ Alas ! alas ! for your debauched courses ! An holy calling and an unholy life ! Spiritual persons, and yet live after the flesh ! A clean garment, and an unclean heart ! Servants of God, and yet slaves of sin ! Reverend in your function, and yet shameful in your practice 1 A minister, and yet given to wine ! A priest, and yet las­ civious 1 Tnq reader will find these words in “ Kenn’s Expostulatoria; or, the Complaints of the Church of England.” Although this description was penned during the last century, in many cases it is equally as applicable to-day. To an impartial observer, what appear to be the chief moving considerations on the part of those who desire to purchase Church livings ? Are they not, apparently —does a particular living possess such attractions as a good fishing stream, a pleasant riding course, and a con­ gregation composed of persons who are free from Scep­ ticism, being contented to open their mouths and shut their eyes, and accept with implicit faith what their pastors tell them. Of course, it would be unfair to place all the clergy of the Church of England under this category. In this order, as among all bodies of men, are to be found those whose lives are strictly pure, earnest, and useful. Nevertheless, ft cannot be denied that throughout the rural districts the clergy ate not remarkable for displaying that mental activity so desir­ able in those who essay to guide the conduct of others. Moreover, even as Church patronage is now bestowed, personal influence is much more potent than intellectual ability in the selection of occupants of pulpits. The �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 7 late Lord John Russell, in his “Essay on the English Constitution,” puts this fact very clearly. He says :— “ In the Church the immense and valuable patronage of Government is uniformly bestowed on their political adhe­ rents. No talent, no learning, no piety, can advance the fortunes of a clergyman whose political opinions are adverse to those of the governing powers.” As a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither can the impure patronage system foster ethical purity and general usefulness. The Church of England is not only surrounded by impure conditions, but it is equally as significant that it has failed as a reforming agency. During the Church Congress held at Plymouth some years since, the Times, in a leading article, preferred the following severe indict­ ment against thenational religion. It says :— “ As a fact, expressed in popular language, and understood by the people of this country, the c Church,’ or the ‘ Church of England,’ was in favour of the alliance of Continental Absolutists against constitutional government; it was against the amelioration of the criminal code, and in favour of the principles of vengeance and prevention as against that of reformation ; it was in favour of hanging for almost any offence a man is now fined for at the assizes; it was in favour of the slave trade, and afterwards of slavery; it was against the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act; it was against Catholic emancipation ; it was against Parliamentary reform and municipal reform ; it was against the commutation of tithes, though it has since had to acknowledge the Act a great benefit; it was against the repeal of the corn laws and the navigation laws ; it was against free trade generally ; it was against all education beyond the simplest elements.” Unfortunately, there are too many facts in history to justify this tremendous indictment. At one period the Church had every opportunity of proving its power and intention in the field of education. With vast wealth and influence it had for a long period the direction of the youthful mind. How did this religious institution use its advantages ? Simply by thrusting its theological doc­ trines upon the people, rather than teaching them the practical duties of life. So palpable was the failure of the Church as an educational medium that the State was at length compelled to intervene, and do what the Church had failed to accomplish. Unable to achieve �THE ENGLISH CHURCH. the work themselves, the members of this wealthiest of all religious establishments became the most determined opponents of those who were able and willing to pro­ mote the secular education of the people. From the *> time when Lord Brougham pleaded for a national scheme of education, to the present, when bigotry manifests itself . on the Board Schools, it can be truly said that the policy of the Church has been to thwart all instruction not in accordance with its own narrow creeds and dogmas. Similar antagonism has been offered by the Church to political reform. The bishops, with few exceptions, in the. House of Lords are as adverse to real Liberal legislation in 1880 as they were in 1832. Macaulay, in the first volume of his Essays, says :— “ The Church of England continued to be for more than a hundred and fifty years the servile handmaid of Monarchy, the steady enemy of public liberty.” Lecky, too, in his “ History of Rationalism in Europe,” vol. ii., writes :— “No other Church so uniformly betrayed and trampled on the liberties of her country...... she invariably cast her influence into the scale of tyranny.” From these historical facts it is too evident that the English Church has failed in its duty as a progres­ sive agent, and made itself a stumbling block to Liberal advancement. Indeed, the condition of our rural popu­ lation affords ample proof of this. This portion of the people was for years directly indoctrinated with the Church’s teachings; but with what results?—the lack of practical education and personal independence. It is only since secular instruction has supplanted theological teaching in our agricultural districts, that self-reliance and united action among the labourers have commenced. The .Anglican Ctjurch has really been tried and found wanting as a progressive institution ; it must, therefore, no longer be relied upon, nor must we trust to its power, but rather seek that material unsacerdotal aid which is . alone capable of adding dignity to man, and of con­ ferring benefits upon mankind. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by Watts & Co , 84, Fleet Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The English Church : a failure as a reforming agency Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Watts & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N666 Subject The topic of the resource Church of England Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The English Church : a failure as a reforming agency), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Church of England NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/52fce24e8ada60b2834dc619764d9266.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=g91qZRxSsXY5FZt-x8i4eZ2%7Es6xBLWOcuWhZ821wDi4Jt5MtCMMbIMSfpXDlmVJo0xtYNTQRUE41tl91jrrs5OYcltC3hr7OIAqTpdeNauLx1afKFDJ%7EcuzRQpGJhgzfniBMWURO5m%7E7QHl%7ETV5ABrj59plrw4WA4G%7EOu-lFrqiqCXMN3%7EGBDGLN5CTS4a2phwCt244U%7EQnjUwwu4o6AUKqtUG4Toor4TT4EpkwGAuU5MKxsGFMzFxTbt8PNPpx0NOKxIoZT17WBNmsqxpyQ7hD-GOhhEbuENuQxHdIW-sNQYOGDJ9ssuMfYQvNDn40r5oDc9t69q5-cvMmDcGB2Zw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6c41b6f193f4509669edb3f83704d5ee PDF Text Text ß 2 WH5 NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY: A CHANGE OF ’ FRONT. BY CHARLES WATTS. Christian advocates frequently adduce, as a proof of the Divine origin of Christianity, what they term “ the con­ tinuity of the Christian Church.” If by this phrase is meant that for nearly two thousand years Associations have existed called “ Christian,” it is unnecessary to take exception to the allegation. In what way, however, can the existence of such Organisations prove that Chris­ tianity is aught else but the outcome of the human mind ? To make the argument sound from a Christian standpoint, it would not be sufficient to prove the con­ tinuity of the Church; the continuity of its teachings must also be demonstrated. Christian exponents have not hitherto done this. The fact is that what is called Christianity has at different times appeared in various forms, according to the general conditions of the period. First, it is said there was “primitive Christianity,” which, we are told, meant worshipping God and endeavouring to emulate Christ irrespective of creeds and dogmas. By and bye this form of Christianity gave way to the age of ceremonies, the worshipping of images, and the introduction of formularies which supplanted the “ pri­ mitive purity ” of the new faith. In course of time the ceremonies were changed and the formularies altered to suit the miraculous period and the doctrine of implicit belief, which, in their turn, had to give way to “rational Christianity ” and emotional adoration for Christ. During this variety of changes diversified, indeed, have been the doctrines professed, such as the divinity of the Virgin Mary, purgatory, infant damnation, the person­ ality of the Devil, hell and its material fire, verbal inspi­ ration of the Bible, predestination, special providence, etc. The general lines of departure from pre-existing ✓ �2 THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANI1Y. forms are associated with the rise and formation of the Latin, the Greek, and the Reformed or Protestant Churches, followed by the establishment of Nonconfor­ mity and Unitarianism. Even the views supposed to have been held of the nature and attributes of God—of the birth, mission, and death of Christ—have not escaped the law of change and modification which has always governed the Church. The only “ continuity ” in the history of the Christian Church has really been its name and its determined opposition to and persecution of those outside its pale. A similar change has taken place in modern days in the mode of advocating and defending orthodox Chris­ tianity. The controversies once prevalent as to images, saints, the Pope, the Trinity, prayer, miracles, prophecy, and verbal inspiration, are seldom heard of now. The line of defence adopted by Paley, Watson, Wardlaw, Butler, and Pearson is in many respects superseded by the policy of Colenso, Dr. Irons, Professor Jowett, and the late Dean Alford. It may here be asked, Where is primitive Christianity to be found to-day ? and where can be discovered the consistent successors of the old Christian defenders ? The Moravians and the Peculiar People are the two sects which practically endorse, more than any others, the earlier views of the teachings of the New Testament. But these believers are comparatively so few in number that they cannot be said to represent the modern Chris­ tian Church. Where at the present time can clergymen or ministers be found who will defend in debate with a Freethought advocate such questions as the character of the Christian Deity, as given in the Old Testament; the existence of the Devil; the Trinity; that the Bible is the very word of the very God ; and the doctrine of endless torments ? These subjects are preached upon from the pulpit by gentlemen who dare not discuss them on the platform. Even the so-called Christian Evidence Society, with all its wealth and boasted influence, refuses to put forward one man to defend Christianity in public debate. Why is this? One would suppose, if the Christian faith were built upon a rock, no Scepti­ cism could prevail against it. If Christian advocates really thought their religion invulnerable, why should �THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 3 they hesitate to submit it to criticism ? The fact is, Orthodoxy will not stand the thought-test of the nine­ teenth century; the old mode of expounding its claims and defending its positions has proved inadequate to meet the reasoning requirements of the present time. The rapid progress of general education and scientific knowledge has compelled Christian exponents to change their front. In former times the Bible, “ every word and every letter,” according to the old-fashioned theory of the Dean of Chichester, was thrown into the teeth of Coper­ nicus, Kepler, Galileo, and other investigators and dis­ coverers of natural truths. Now, however, Christians proclaim : “ Oh ! the Bible was not intended to teach physical science.” So much the worse, then, for the Bible. No sane person will deny that science has been the greatest benefactor to the world. To it are we in­ debted for the marvellous improvements so manifest in the present century. If the Bible is “God’s word,” containing rules for man’s guidance, it should teach that which is undoubtedly the guiding principle of his life. We readily grant that the Bible does not teach science, although its defenders once claimed that it did. It pro­ fesses to do so, however, and much of its space is devoted to such scientific questions as the origin of man, disease and death, and the solar system ; only upon all these subjects the Bible writers evidently wrote nothing that we can now accept as scientifically accurate. Is it not strange that Christian instructors did not recognise this fact until the nineteenth century ? Why did they continue to inculcate a theory of creation which was thoroughly erroneous, and which is now rejected by every scholar whose intellect is not prostrated before the shrine of blind belief? A noteworthy feature of the modern defence of Chris­ tianity is that it attempts, not really to defend, but to explain away, the plain teachings of the Bible. For example, Christian apologists now maintain that a very long world-period, a geological and biological era, elapsed between the time spoken of in the first and second verses of Genesis. If this wise discovery had any foundation, how is it that we can discern no reference to it in the book? Why is it that the writer of the first chapter of �4 the MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. Genesis said not a syllable about previously existing forms of life ? God, who is said to be omniscient, must have foreseen the geological discoveries of later times, and that those discoveries would conflict with his inspired revelation. Why, therefore, did he not have a clause introduced that would have reconciled the Bible with modern science ? Another example of the Christian method of “ explain­ ing away ” may be seen in their mode of defending the Bible account of the Deluge. We are now told that this was only a partial cataclysm or inundation. Strange to say, however, while adopting this change of front the theologians are illogical enough to attempt to prove that every race of men has its traditions of a deluge. How can these two directly antagonistic theories be consis­ tently held? If the Deluge had been partial, no wise man would urge a general tradition, which, from the orthodox standpoint, would seem to show that it was universal. But it is not to be marvelled at that we find numerous traditions of a great devastation caused by water. In most countries inundations, floods, abnormally-high tides, periodically occur. These fasten themselves in­ delibly upon the imagination of the terrified people, and are sure to be transmitted from father to son for thou­ sands of years. There can be no doubt that the Bible teaches the universality of its Flood, and that, great as the difficulty is to believe its statements thereon, the difficulty is not lessened by introducing the explaining-away theory of a partial Flood. (For facts in support of these two alle­ gations the reader is referred to my pamphlet on “ The Bible and Science.”) Failing to reconcile the Bible with science, Christians seek to depreciate science by calling its doctrines “specu­ lative theories.” It is quite true that some portion of the theory of scientific men is allowed to be speculative— i.e., it is not yet demonstrated; but the scientific facts already established are sufficient to prove—(a) that the earth could not have been created within six days ; (b) that the beginning—if beginning there could be in an infinite chain of nature-action—must have been countless ages ago, before ever the Jews were thought of; (c) that the Bible story of the Deluge is a self- �THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 5 evident absurdity; (d) that the Fall, Atonement, universal relapse into sin, and the consequent necessity for a redemption, are _opposed to history, justice, and humanity, and cannot, therefore, be defended by reason and experience Christian advocates are just now very ready to answer in the affirmative the old philosophical puzzle of “ Is there a first cause ?” Supposing they could prove their affirmation, it would effect nothing in their favour unless they could also show that this “ first cause ” is identical with the Deity of the Book of Genesis and with Jesus Christ. The “ first cause ” argument is one of Theism, not merely Christianity, whose “first cause” Christian advocates of the present generation decline to defend. Christian apologists, finding it difficult, in this critical age, to defend successfully any one doctrine of orthodoxy against the attacks of Rationalists, fall back for refuge upon the assertion that the “ Christian evidences are cumulative.” They urge that the Christian faith must be judged as a whole—a complete system. To this we answer, that if the “ evidences ” are cumulative, so also are our objections to them. What are the alleged “ cumulative evidences ” as set forth in the Bible ? Prac­ tically, they are these. God having the power to make man perfect, formed him out of such inferior materials, and organised him so badly that his weakness was mani­ fested at the first test to which he was subjected. The result was that he fell, and although God is supposed to be omnipotent, he did not improve the work of his own hand, but, by a cold-water process, actually destroyed the whole of mankind, one family excepted. By and by the human race again multiplied; but wickedness and misfortune still marked their fallen condition. There­ fore, God then decided to send his son, who was of the same age as himself, to correct the errors of the original creation, with the injunction that those who did not believe in the Son should perish everlastingly. Notwith­ standing that this belief was necessary to salvation, no provision was made to impart a universal knowledge of this plan of redemption. The consequence is that at the present time, after it has existed nearly two thousand years, only about one-third of mankind know anything about it; and among those the first portion do not un­ �6 THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. derstand it, the second portion find its application per­ sonally impracticable, and the third portion reject it altogether. Thus the weakness, cruelty, and total failure of this orthodox scheme are so apparent that the “cumulative” objections to it are so numerous and powerful as to destroy the force of any supposed “ cumulative evidence.” Another feature of the modern defence of Christianity is to be seen in the attempt to prove that morality and progress have always been identified with some form of supernatural religion. Hence it is said that a society that did not reverence and worship God after the manner of either the Mosaic or Christian dispensation would sooner or later revert into semi-brutality. Let us apply the test of history to this position. First, then, we notice the morality and culture of the Jews of the Exodus. Led by Moses, under God’s guidance, we yet find them manifesting the lowest possible moral qualities, the most utter forgetfulness of virtue, the least self-reliance and energy. They resort to falsehood, theft, and murder, and ultimately, without any rational ground for so doing, forsake their God and worship a golden calf. Where at this period do we find their works of art, their philosophers, and their advanced in­ stitutions ? Under the succeeding “ dispensation ” what do we behold ? The Christian Church overturning old litera­ ture, opposing the extension of knowledge, destroying teachers, banishing learning, and doing its best to ex­ tinguish the light of reason. From the reign of the first Christian monarch to the partial renunciation of the then “ national ” faith in the sixteenth century, the state of society earned for that period the name of the Dark Ages. We are told by modern Christians that God’s revela­ tion was a continuous development; first an illumination to Adam and Eve, then to Abraham, then to Mioses, and then by Jesus Christ to the world. A mere glance at the Bible and history will show the folly of such a position. How many of the earth’s population were the better for Adam’s revelation ? We have the decided answer to this in the story of the destruction of the race by the Flood. How many were improved through �THE MODERN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 7 Abraham’s call ? But few indeed outside his own family, and even within that circle the revelation failed to in­ spire the members with either truth, honour, or honesty. How many benefited from Moses’ dispensation? Simply the Jewish people—a mere handful of the human race. Lastly, how many have received the alleged advantages of the revelation of Jesus? After nearly nineteen cen­ turies have passed since he came, how stands the case? Let the following figures, representing the number of the adherents of the various religions of the world, serve as an emphatic reply :—Parsees, 150,000 ; Sikhs, 1,200,000; Jews, 7,000,000; Greek Catholics, 75,000,000; Roman Catholics, 152,000,000; other Christians, 100,000,000; Hindoos, 160,000,000; Mohammedans, 155,000,000; Buddhists, 500,000,000. It must here be understood that 327 millions of nominal Christians include Atheists, Secularists, Deists, and Rationalists. Deduct all these from the sum total of professing Christians, together with the indifferent class, and how few, indeed, compara­ tively speaking, bow to the name of Jesus ! In many instances the modern mode of defending orthodoxy is a system of casuistry. It does not openly contradict science and criticism, but it will base an argu­ ment upon incidental coincidences. Thus recent re­ searches in the East have shown that the Bible contains the real names of Assyrian and Chaldean monarchs. Hence the inferences are at once drawn that because a King called Sennacherib once really lived, therefore, says the Christian Evidentialist, Isaiah and God turned back the time of day. Because there was once really a King of Egypt named Shishak, therefore Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, Elisha made iron float on water, and Joshua stopped the earth’s motion. Truly the times are altered since Watson, in reply to Paine, endeavoured to represent the Christian religion as the perfection of rationalism. All along the line the contending forces have changed their very nature. Now, the Christian defence is nothing more than an endeavour to depreciate the logical inferences deducible from all scientific investigation. As proof of this, reference need only be made to the labours of Colenso and of the German Rationalists. The principal object of certain �THE MODERN ¿{DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. theologians now appears to be, not what they can refute, but how much they can retain by explaining away and by pruning down. The moral of this is easily drawn. Of all systems orthodoxy is dying the most easy but certain death. Other systems, like Paganism, have had to be extirpated by the sword, or have been pro­ scribed by the State; but Christian orthodoxy is declin­ ing from its own inherent weakness—its inability to with­ stand the test of modern thought. Of course, it is not here meant that the whole of Christianity will disappear. It will be its errors, its creeds, and its dogmas that will fade before man’s cultured intellect; but its truths, like all verities, will remain and become allied with systems more practicable, and with principles more in accordance with the requirements of an advanced civilisation. Weekly, price Twopence, THE SECULAR REVIEW. A JOURNAL OF DAILY LIFE. EDITED BY CHARLES WATTS. The REVIEW contains Articles weekly upon Social, Political, and Theological subjects, and advocates Positive Secularism. Among its contributors are— G. J. HOLYOAKE H. V. MAYER J. P. ADAMS CHARLES C. CATTELL H. G. ATKINSON FRANCIS NEALE G. W. FOOTE Dr. TRAVIS W. MACCALL Can be ordered through any Bookseller, or obtained direct from the Office—84 Fleet Street, London Printed and Published by Watts & Co., 84, Fleet Street, Ltnd*>n. Price One Penny. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The modern defence of Christianity : a change of front Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Watts & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [188-?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N673 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The modern defence of Christianity : a change of front), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Christianity NSS