attended his lecture? We think not; and the lecturer himself seems to
have felt that his words fell on sceptical ears and failed to work on
the brains or touch the hearts of his hearers. Towards the end of his
lecture he exclaims: “My friends, let me plead with you. Don’t reject
the theory of evolution!” It is manifest from this exhortation that the
audience, in the opinion of the lecturer himself, was still reluctant
to accept the theory. Had the lecturer thought otherwise, he would have
said: “My friends, I need not plead with you. You have heard my
arguments. I leave it to you to decide whether the theory of evolution
can be rejected by intelligent men.” This language would have shown the
earnest conviction of the lecturer that he was right, and that his
reasonings were duly appreciated and approved. But to say, “Don’t
reject the theory,” is to acknowledge that the arguments had not
commanded the assent of the intellect, and that no other resource
remained than a warm appeal to the good-will of the hearers. Such an
appeal, in a scientific lecture, may seem out of place; but it is
instructive, for it leads us to the conclusion that even Dr. Draper was
convinced of the futility of his attempt.
The only argument which we could find in his lecture in support of the
Darwinian theory is so puerile that we believe not one of the assembled
ministers can have been tempted to give it his adhesion. After pointing
out that “each of the geological periods has its dominating
representative type of life,” the lecturer introduces his argument in
the following form:
“Perhaps it may be asked: ‘How can we be satisfied that the
members of this long series are strictly the successive
descendants by evolution from older forms, and in their turn
the progenitors of the latter? How do we know that they have
not been introduced by sudden creations and removed by sudden
extinctions?’ Simply for this reason: The new groups make their
appearance while yet their predecessors are in full vigor. They
come under an imperfect model which very gradually improves.
Evolution implies such lapses of time. Creation is a sudden
affair.”
O admirable philosophy! The predecessors were still vigorous when the
successors made their appearance; _therefore_ the former were the
progenitors of the latter! And why so? Because “evolution implies lapse
of time,” whilst “creation is a sudden affair”! Even a child, we think,
would see that such reasoning is deceptive. But, since Dr. Draper is
bold enough to take his stand upon it, we must be allowed to ask him
two questions.
First, admitting that “creation is a sudden affair,” does he believe
that God could not create the successors before the disappearance of
their predecessors? If God could do this, what matters it that creation
is “a sudden affair”? And if God could not do this, what insuperable
obstacle impeded the free exertion of his power?
Secondly, is there no alternative between genetic evolution and
creation strictly so-called? If between these two modes of origination
a third can be introduced, the doctor’s argument falls to pieces. Now,
“production” from pre-existing materials (earth, water, etc.) in
obedience to God’s command is neither genetic evolution nor creation
strictly so-called, and need not be “a sudden affair.” And this mode of
origination is just the one which seems more clearly pointed out by the
Sacred Scriptures;[181] and therefore it should not have been ignored
by the lecturer, if he wished to argue against the Scriptural record.
Why did he, then, keep out of view this excellent explanation of the
origin of species? Is it because it was convenient to conceal a truth
which could not be refuted?
Thus the only reason by which Dr. Draper attempts to prove the theory
of evolution is a demonstrated fallacy, and the theory falls to the
ground, in this sense, at least: that it remains unproved. But if every
attempt at proving it involves some logical blunder, if it implies
contradictories, if it is based on unscientific assumptions, as is
evident from the argumentations of Darwin, Huxley, Youmans, and other
advanced writers on evolution, and if history, geology, and philosophy
unitedly oppose the theory with arguments which admit of no reply, as
is known to be the case, then we must be allowed to conclude that the
theory, besides being unproved, is fabulous and absurd.
Dr. Draper, after citing some controvertible facts, of which he gives a
yet more controvertible explanation from the Darwinian assumptions,
says:
“Now I have answered, and I know how imperfectly, your
question, ‘How does the hypothesis of evolution force itself
upon the student of modern science?’ by relating how it has
forced itself upon me; for my life has been spent in such
studies, and it is by meditating on facts like those I have
here exposed that this hypothesis now stands before me as one
of the verities of Nature.”
Yes. The student of modern science, if he is unwilling to admit
creation, must appeal to evolution, and call it “one of the verities of
Nature”; but, though he may call it a “verity,” he also admits that it
is a mere “hypothesis,” by which the origin of organisms cannot be
accounted for and against which a host of facts and reasons are daily
objected by science and philosophy.
“In doing this I have opened before you a page of the book of
Nature—that book which dates from eternity and embraces infinity.” Is
this a “verity,” a hypothesis, or an imposture?
“No council of Laodicea, no Tridentine Council, is wanted to endorse
its authenticity, nothing to assure us that it has never been tampered
with by any guild of men.” This is an allusion to the declarations of
councils regarding the authenticity of the Bible. Does, then, modern
science transform educated men into sorry jesters? If so, why does not
Mr. Draper derive the monkey from the gentleman?
“Then it is for us to study it as best we may, and to obey its
guidance, no matter whither it may lead us.” Yes, it is for us to study
the book of nature as best we may; but we must not forget that the
author of this book is God, and that God does not contradict in the
book of nature what he teaches in the book of Genesis. It is for us “to
obey its guidance.” Yes; and therefore it is not for us to pervert its
evidences, as Dr. Draper does, in order to exclude “the intervention of
the divine power.”
As to “whither it may lead us” we have no doubts; but the lecturer
seems to believe that it may lead in two opposite directions. Here are
his words:
“I have spoken of the origin and the progress of the hypothesis
of evolution, and would now consider the consequences of
accepting it. Here it is only a word or two that time permits,
and very few words must suffice. I must bear in mind that it is
the consequences from your point of view to which I must
allude. Should I speak of the manner in which scientific
thought is affected ... I should be carried altogether beyond
the limits of the present hour. The consequences! What are
they, then, to you? Nobler views of this grand universe of
which we form a part, nobler views of the manner in which it
has been developed in past times to its present state, nobler
views of the laws by which it is now maintained, nobler
expectations as to its future. We stand in presence of the
unshackled, as to Force; of the immeasurable, as to Space; of
the unlimited, as to Time. Above all, our conceptions of the
unchangeable purposes, the awful majesty of the Supreme Being
become more vivid. We realize what is meant when it is said:
‘With him there is no variableness, no shadow of turning.’ Need
I say anything more in commending the doctrine of evolution to
you?”
These are, then, the consequences “from the point of view” of the
Unitarian ministers, as the lecturer very explicitly declares As to the
consequences “from the point of view” of advanced scientists, the
lecturer gives only a hint, because, had he spoken of the manner in
which scientific thought is affected, the lecture would have proved
rather too long. It is apparent, however, that the “verity” or the
“hypothesis” which leads the Unitarians to a “Supreme Being” can lead
Dr. Draper and the scientific mind to something different, according to
the manner in which scientific thought is affected. We may well say,
although Dr. Draper preferred not to say it, that it leads to atheism
or to pantheism; for the new “verity” was invented with the aim of
escaping “the intervention of the divine power” and of subjecting
everything in the world to the “universal reign” of an abstraction
called “Law.” Dr. Draper himself tells us, as we have just seen, that
the book of Nature (with a capital N) “dates from eternity and embraces
infinity”; and surely, if the world is eternal and infinite, Nature is
everything, and a personal God becomes an embarrassing superfluity. It
seems, then, that Dr. Draper, when he mentions the divine power or the
Supreme Being, does not speak the language of his “scientific”
conscience, but the language which he considers to express the
convictions of the Unitarian body. Perhaps it would have been more in
keeping with the requirement of the subject, if he had frankly stated
the “consequences” which he, as a scientist, would draw from the
“verity” he had proclaimed; but, as he may have feared that a frank
statement would have created a little scandal, we are inclined to
acquit him of the charge of “scientific” dishonesty—the more so as the
consequences which he deduces, taken in connection with the rest of the
lecture, give a sufficient clue to the private views of the speaker.
It is difficult, however, to understand how the acceptance of the
theory of evolution can lead to “nobler views of this grand universe,”
or to “nobler views of the manner in which it has been developed,” or
to “nobler views of the laws by which it is now maintained.” To us
these “consequences” are incomprehensible; for is it nobler to view
this grand universe as a mere mass of matter than to view it as full of
the divine power of which it is the work? or is it nobler to derive man
from the brute than to view him as the son of God and the image of his
Creator? On the other hand, the laws by which the universe is now
maintained are in direct opposition to the theory of evolution, as all
men of science confess; hence a view of such laws suggested by the
theory of evolution must be a false and contradictory view, and Dr.
Draper, when calling it a “nobler view,” amuses himself at the expense
of his audience. Fancy an assembly of grave men listening in silence to
such rhetoric! and fancy a professor of materialism seriously engaged
in the highly scientific business of beguiling such a grave audience!
It is no less difficult to understand how the theory of evolution makes
us “stand in presence of the unshackled, of the immeasurable, and of
the unlimited.” These epithets do not designate God, for it is manifest
that the theory of evolution has no claim to the honor of showing God
as present in his creatures; nor can they be applied to the universe,
for it is not true that the universe is “unshackled as to Force,
immeasurable as to Space, and unlimited as to Time”; and, even were it
true, it would not be a “consequence” of evolution. What do they mean,
then?
But the most unintelligible of all such “consequences” is that by the
acceptance of the theory of evolution “our conceptions of the
unchangeable purposes, the awful majesty of the Supreme Being become
more vivid.” What “purposes” can the Supreme Being have formed with
reference to a universe which is not subject to “the intervention of
the divine power”? Is it wise to entertain purposes which one has no
power to carry out? Or is the “Supreme Being” of Dr. Draper so unwise
as to cherish purposes which must be defeated by “universal,
irreversible law”? We strongly suspect that his “Supreme Being” is
nothing but the universe itself, and that it is for this reason that he
writes _Force_, _Space_, and _Time_ with capital letters, thus forming
a mock Trinity “unshackled, immeasurable, and unlimited,” but
consisting of material parts and controlled by the laws of matter, with
which “there is no variableness, no shadow of turning.” If so, then Dr.
Draper has no God but the universe, the sun, the moon, and the stars,
light, heat and electricity, gravitation, affinity, and motion; and
this is “the awful majesty” before which he bends his knee in
scientific adoration.
Having drawn these devout “consequences” for the edification of the
meeting, the lecturer, with a happy stroke of audacity, asks his
hearers: “Need I say anything more in commending the doctrine of
evolution to you?” As if he said: “Do you expect that an infidel has
anything more to say in favor of _your_ Supreme Being? Have I not given
you a sufficient proof of deference and self-abnegation by putting
together a few equivocal phrases in honor of _your_ divinity? Need I
torture my brain any longer for the sake of a view which is not mine?”
But, fortunately for Dr. Draper, a sudden recollection of the fact that
Unitarianism and infidelity agree in rejecting the authority of the
_Index Expurgatorius_ suggested to him the following words:
“Let us bear in mind the warning of history. The heaviest blow
the Holy Scriptures have ever received was inflicted by no
infidel, but by ecclesiastical authority itself. When the works
of Copernicus and of Kepler were put in the Index of prohibited
books the system of the former was declared, by what called
itself the Christian Church, to be ‘the false Pythagorean
system, utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.’ But the truth
of the Copernican system is now established. There are persons
who declare of the hypothesis of evolution, as was formerly
declared of the hypothesis of Copernicus, ‘It is utterly
contrary to the Holy Scriptures.’ It is for you to examine
whether this be so, and, if so, to find a means of
reconciliation.”
We do not doubt that the lecturer honestly believes what he says about
the “heaviest blow” inflicted on the Holy Scriptures. But we would
inform him that the Congregation of the Index does not make definitions
of faith, and that its authority, however respectable, is disciplinary,
not dogmatic. If he consulted our theologians, he would learn that not
even œcumenical councils are considered infallible as to the _reasons_
by which they support their decisions, but only as to the decisions
themselves. Much less can the theologians of the Index bind our
judgment by giving expression to their theological views. The books
which they forbid are forbidden; but the _reasons_ for which they are
forbidden are not all necessarily incontrovertible, and this suffices
to show that it is not “the Christian Church” that declared the
Copernican system contrary to the Holy Scriptures, for the church never
defined such a point; such a declaration was the expression of a
theological view which was then common, but which had no dogmatic
consequences and could give no “blow” to the Holy Scriptures. Dr.
Draper remarks that evolution, too, has been declared to be “contrary
to the Holy Scriptures.” The fact is true; but he should have added
that the same hypothesis has been refuted by philosophy as a logical
blunder, and rejected by science as a monstrous falsehood. Hence the
two cases are not similar.
“Let us not be led astray,” continues Dr. Draper, “by the
clamors of those who, not seeking the truth and not caring
about it, are only championing their sect or attempting the
perpetuation of their profits. My friends, let me plead with
you. Don’t reject the theory of evolution. There is no thought
of modern times that more magnifies the unutterable glory of
Almighty God!”
How edifying! how pathetic! but how ludicrous on the lips of an
unbeliever! For the God of the lecturer is no creator, as creation is
inconsistent with the pretended eternity of matter; he is not
omnipotent, for he cannot work miracles; he is not provident, for Dr.
Draper rejects all intervention of the divine power in the government
of the universe, and says that “the capricious intrusion of a
supernatural agency has never yet occurred”; whence we see that God,
according to him, would be an intruder, and even a capricious one, if
he dared to meddle with the affairs of the material, moral, or
intellectual world. Such being the God of the evolutionist, who does
not see that the only meaning which can be legitimately attached to Dr.
Draper’s words is that the theory of evolution “magnifies the
unutterable glory of almighty matter” and does its best to suppress
Almighty God?
He gives another grave warning to his clerical hearers:
“Remember, I beseech you, what was said by one of old times:
‘Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to
do. And now I say unto you, if this counsel be of men it will
come to naught; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it,
lest haply ye be found to be fighting against God.’ Shall I
continue the quotation?—‘And to him they all agreed.’”
This quotation from a speech of Gamaliel in the Jewish council would be
appropriate, if the evolutionists, like the apostles, had wrought
public miracles to prove their divine mission. In the case of the
apostles all tended to prove that they were right, and that God was on
their side. They spoke languages that they had never learned, they
cured the sick without medicine, by a word or by their shadow, and
filled the city with wonders which their enemies could not deny. When
Mr. Darwin or Dr. Draper shall give us like evidences of their divine
mission, we will “take heed to ourselves what we intend to do” with
their doctrine; but, as things are now, everything compels us to look
on them as emissaries and ministers of the kingdom of darkness. We
cannot put in the same balance evolution and creation; for all the
weight would be on the side of the latter. A dream, a nonentity, an
unscientific fiction, a paralogism, have no weight; whilst effects
without causes, conclusions without premises, phrases without meaning,
weigh only on the conscience of modern thinkers, but without affecting
in the least the balance of truth. Thus we are not afraid that we “be
found fighting against God” while fighting for creation against
evolution. The matter is too evident to need further explanation.
We are tired of following Dr. Draper through his tortuous reasonings,
and the reader is probably equally tired. On the other hand, there is
little need of exposing the mischievous glorification of modern science
in which the lecturer indulges in the interest of his materialistic
views. When we are told that “profound changes are taking place in our
conceptions of the Supreme Being,” or that “the doctrine of evolution
has for its foundation not the admission of incessant divine
intervention, but a recognition of the original, the immutable _fiat_
of God”—of a God, however, who did not create matter, and who must
respect the dominion of universal and irreversible law under pain of
being stigmatized as a “capricious intruder”—or when we are told that
“the establishment of the theory of evolution has been due to the
conjoint movement of all the sciences,” and that “Knowledge, fresh from
so many triumphs, unfalteringly continues her movement on the works of
Superstition and Ignorance,” we need no great acumen to understand the
meaning of this “scientific” slang. Declamation is the great resource
of demagogues and charlatans. Unfortunately, there are charlatans and
demagogues even among the doctors of science, and their number, though
small, is apt to increase in the same proportion as their vagaries are
diffused among the rising generation. Catholics, thank God! are less
exposed to seduction than sectaries who have no guide but their
inconsistent theories; but even Catholics should be on their guard lest
they, too, be poisoned by the foul and infectious atmosphere in which
they live. Indeed, all the modern errors have been refuted; but when a
taste for error becomes predominant, and such fables as evolution are
styled “science,” then human weakness and human pride are easily drawn
into the vortex of scepticism; and then we must be watchful and pray,
for the time is at hand when _even the elect_, as the Gospel warns us,
shall be in danger of seduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER CASTEL-FIDARDO.
A SOLDIER’S LETTER.
FROM THE ITALIAN.
Wounded, my friend, and dying,
Waiting the end, I lie—
A sword-cut in my right leg,
A ball in my left thigh;
Dying, and ever hoping—
And in that hope I die—
One day—not here—to see you,
But in our home on high.
Of this our earth all thought now
For me has useless grown,
All its bright days are ended,
Its last dark shadow thrown.
For my dear faith so freely
My blood with joy I gave,
And for the Holy Father,
His earthly realm to save.
Content am I, and fortunate,
My duty to have done;
And valorous too, as truly
Became the church’s son.
Yet now our dear Lord calleth,
And in his hands I leave
My cause so dearly cherished:
May he all loss retrieve
Who will not me abandon,
Nor valiant comrades mine,
Nor yet his church, nor Vicar
Who guards his spouse divine!
Dear friend, to me be pitiful;
Pray unto God for me;
Leaving the world, this charity
I beg so earnestly.
This world I leave untroubled,
Save by this one regret:
That none of mine are near me—
Kind eyes that would be wet
With tears of long-tried loving.
My friends, in mercy pray
For my poor soul, that draweth
So near eternal day!
A kiss my blood has tinted
I beg each one receive
That now I send you, waiting
From life a last reprieve;
Hoping one day to give you
The blessed kiss of peace
In our dear, common country—
Fair-shining Paradise.
E’en as I am, earth leaving,
Your true and loving friend,
So shall I be in heaven
With love that knows no end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL THE SOMBRE.
AN EPISODE IN THE POLISH INSURRECTION, 1863–1864.
CONCLUSION.
On my arrival at the camp I found Father Benvenuto already installed as
head chaplain and everything prepared for my reception. The poor
general had died only two hours after my departure. He had been buried
at Gory; but his soldiers, having heard that the Russians intended to
dig up his body in order to mutilate it in their barbarous fashion, dug
up the coffin and carried it to Koniec-Pol.
The Russians, furious at finding the grave empty, hanged the parish
priest of the village for having given permission for the removal of
the body. The mother of the priest, who was seventy-five years of age,
was dragged to the foot of the gibbet, and, like the Mother of Dolors,
was made to assist at the execution of her only son. When they tried to
remove her she fell down dead. Her soul had flown to heaven after that
of her boy.
No sooner had I entered on my new duties than I determined to start
immediately with my squadron to protect Countess L——’s flight. But
General C——, at the head of the Russian garrison from Kielce, never
ceased pursuing and attacking us, harassing our march day and night; so
that it was not for fifteen days after my departure from the castle
that I was enabled to carry out my plan. My troops, who always saw me
with a frown, which I had adopted to keep them at a greater distance,
had nicknamed me “Michael the Sombre,” and I signed all orders in that
name.
After repeated marches and counter-marches we managed at last to escape
from our enemies, and arrived one evening at Syez after a forced march
of ten hours, I encamped my men in a field about twenty minutes from
the castle, whither I galloped, accompanied only by my orderly, whom I
left at the outer gates to keep watch, while I asked an audience of
Countess L—— for “Michael the Sombre.” A footman admitted me directly
without recognizing me in the least, and took me into a room where a
lamp with a dark-green globe prevented any object from being easily
distinguished. Overcome with fatigue, I threw myself into an arm-chair.
I was full, however, of thankful emotion. God had indeed heard my
prayer and brought me back in safety to be the preserver of those whom
I held so dear. The door opened; the countess and her sister appeared,
and began by the usual formal words of welcome and courtesy, asking me
to be seated—for I had, of course, risen on their entrance. As I did
not answer, and continued looking at them with my eyes full of tears,
they suddenly looked up too, and, with a joint cry, threw themselves
into my arms. I had suffered terribly from hunger, cold, and fatigue
during the past fortnight; but that moment of intense joy made me
forget everything. Five minutes after I was surrounded by all the
children; the youngest had scrambled up on my knees and thrown her arms
tightly around my neck; Sophia had seized my helmet, and, putting it on
before the glass, compared herself to Minerva. Stanislas had unhooked
my sword, and Stephen was trying to take off my spurs. Half the night
was spent in telling one another all that had passed in that eventful
fortnight; and although I made light of my difficulties and position,
yet I saw that the poor countess could hardly bear to realize what I
must still go through before I was released from my command.