THE 'NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 195, 22 December 1876, Page 12

THE 'NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.'

This magazine is conducted by a learned committee, consisting of one clergyman, three professors, and one captain — a geological expert. Ido nofc suppose they are jointly responsible for the doctrines, religious, political, or scientific, -which it inculcates. One of its conductors, however, being a clergyman, we might naturally suppose that it would contain nothing contrary to revealed religion, or even dangerous to it. Yet, to me, it does seem that the two articles on "The Doctrine of Evolution," one by Captain Hatton, and the other by Mr. Fraser, indirectly tend to -unsettle a belief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, though both writers repudiate any such intention. " There is direct evidence given by the anatomy and embryology of man to prove," says Captain Hutton,. " that he is physically descended from the beasts." The descent of man from the beasts that perish may, according to Huxley and Hutton, be consistent with sound philosophy, but how does ib tally with the Mosaic history of man's creation? Indeed, ProfessorHuxley, Hutton's preceptor and guide, does not even pretend that the doctrine of Evolution is agreeable to the Mosaic account of the creation, but the contrary. In his " Lay Sermons," at page 366, Huxley says, " Looking back through the long vista of the past, find no record, of the commencement of life." Again, " I have nobelief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life haveoriginated." This is rather startling. But stronger still is HuxLey'slanguage, when he positively asserts that "all theologies, based on the assumption of the truth of the account of the origin of things given in the Boole of Genesis, is utterly irreconcilable with thadoctrine of Evolution." Captain Hutton and Mr. Frazer then cannot be true disciples of Huxley, unless they discard a belief in " the account of the origin of things given in the Book of Genesis."' But, of course, they may understand " Evolution" better' than Huxley does. They may be able to do what their master professescannot be done, namely, reconcile with the Mosaic account of theorigin of man, "the doctrine of Evolution," which teaches that"he is descended from the brutes." The disciples of Huxley and. the believers of the Bible seem both placed in a fix. Either Huxley and Captain Hutbon or Moses must go. Both cannot stand. Mr. Frazer makes a remark, which may be philosophical enough, but which is hardly compatible with respect for revealed religion. Hesays, " The derivation of man from a highly developed organised being (a brute, of course), seems to us quite as respectable as that from an inert lump of clay." This looks like a grave and temperate sneer at those words in the Mosaic record of the origin of things, in which it is said that the Almighty formed man out of the dust or slime of the earth. This mode of creating man, Mr.. Frazer ventures to think and to say, was not " respectable/ at least, not so respectable as making or "developing" him from a monkey or some other organised being would be. There was a time, if I understand, Mr. Frazer, when the genus Homo, man, adult man, existed without the ability to think, reason, or talk right from wrong. How is this again to be reconciled with theMosaic account of the creation of man ? I cannot but think that these speculations, given to the public in this popular form, and mixed up with a crude theology, are very dangerous, and may upset the religious creed of many who fancy themselves capable of dealing with such difficult and abstruse subjects. You gave us- " an awful warning" when you told us of the manner in which the venerable Earl Russell's eldest son had been led into infidelity of the worst kind by the modern philosophy of the schools. This 'New Zealand Magazine' is issued under the auspices of gentlemen of high standing in the literary and scientific world, and will, nodoubt, have a powerful influence on the " highly educated" portion of society in the colony. It maybe said to represent the NewZealand " advanced school of thought," and it would be much to be deplored were it found that the tendency of any of its articles was to weaken the authority of revealed religion. I rememberreading in the evidence of one of the Cambridge professors, who was examined before a committee of the House of Lords about theTJniversity affairs, the following anecdote. Speaking of the bestbooks used, now in the 'University, the professor said he had known a young gentleman come up from the country perfectly sound in his religious belief, but he left the university a confirmed infidel. Whether Professor Huxley's books were admitted into the university I cannot tell. The Roman Catholic Church has often been accused,, and falsely accused, of discountenancing innovations or new views in physical science. The old story of Galileo is continually held up as proof of this false charge. But this story, like every thing of the kind, has been much misrepresented. The great innovator in. astronomy, Copernicus, dedicated his grand work on " The Revolution of the Heavenly Bodies" to Pope Paul 111., as a person thebest qualified from his own mathematical attainments to judge of its real merits, as a pure work of physical science. Galileo waspatronised by the Church authorities for years as an astronomer, so long as he kept clear of theology, and. a Pope turned the new system of astronomy to a most valuable practical purpose, by making it the basis of a more correct computation of time. He gave us the present or Gregorian calender. It is thus the Church discountenances new discoveries in science. It is almost amusing to notice the confident and dictatorial tone in which Captain Hutton writes on this abstruse and difficult subject of Evolution. He says, "Ihe doctrine of Evolution must be accepted as true." The doctrine is not probably true, but must be so. Talk of Papal Infallibality after that. Again, he says, "It furnishes the only scientific proof of the existence of God." Indeed, then, those who reject the Huxleyan and Huttonian doctrine of "Evolution" must plunge into Atheism, so far as science is concerned. My reading on these subjects is not very extensive, but I have an impression, that. Galileo's great fault, in Pope TJrban's eyes, lay in his representing -his astronomical system as infallibly true, rather than highly probable, and that it was not till long after his day tbat all the necessary proofs of the truth of bis system were fully brought

to light. If Captain Hutton had lived in Galileo's day, I strongly suspect Pope Urban VUL would have taken him through hands tor saying that "the doctrine of Evolution" must be accepted as true, and is the sole scientific proof of the existence of God. We might suppose his Holiness addressing the Captain when brought up in some such terms as these— Sir, I greatly respect you, and admire your abilities and zeal for science, and have no doubt of the rectitude of your intentions as a Christian. I cannot, however, approve of the confident manner in which you propound a doctrine ~ ot science as infallibly true when it may be quite the reverse ; seeing that it tends in its present shape to endanger the religious principles of many of the people, I, therefore, dismiss you with a caution. Human science may be abused to the most dangerous of purposes, as well as used for the best. Prosecute your scientific enquiries as much as you please, the Church commends you for douig so. But in publishing the result of your enquiries and speculating upon them, do it with diffidence and prudent caution, so that the interests of revealed religion may not suffer, and avoid mixing your speculations up with questions of theology. The doctrines of revealed religion stand upon an entirely different footing from those of physical science. Christ has appointed his Church to be the sole teacher and judge of religious truth. In questions which are kept entirely within the domain of physical science, the Church does not desire to interfere " Auckland, November. ' j^.