No. III.

BY REV. THOMAS HENSON.

WE have said that "Darwinism entirely subverts the Bible story of man's original creation in the image of God, and of his ruin by the transgression and fall." We feel that that is a grave charge, and it is only right that we should substantiate it, so that we may not seem to bear false witness.

First, then, Mr. Darwin entirely ignores the account of man's origin given in Genesis. He does not accept the Bible as a fact, and then proceeds to disprove its statement; he cuts it-calmly and deliberately leaves it out. Now whatever may be thought of Genesis as an authority in this question, we cannot burke the fact that for many centuries good and intelligent men have respected it, and still believe it to be of divine veracity.

Secondly, as we have seen in the first paper, Mr. Darwin's account of the origin of man is utterly irreconcilable with Genesis. If his showing be right, man was not created, or made at all by God (a point at which he rejoices in "having aided to destroy the dogma of separate creations"), and he was not, in any sense, produced in "the image of God." He was slowly and fortuitously evolved; not as a flower is evolved from its bud under the influence of sunshine only, but rather as if a thistle should accidentally produce grapes. From Genesis we conceive of man's creation as one of those grand works of divine power and wisdom requiring but little time; but Mr. Darwin's theory is as far as possible from such a creation, and according to his own geological estimate of time, may have required at least 300,000,000 of years to work in.

Thirdly, according to Genesis, man, as he is now, is a ruin; a ruin from some original form of greatness and goodness, i.e., from the image of God. But, according to Mr. Darwin, man is what he is by nature, and has reached his present position as a glorious attainment in his progressive evolutionary changes by the survival of the fittest, under the law of natural selection. Instead of his having fallen from the highest Godlike image, he has gradually risen from the lowest mindless form of life, from a worm. If Genesis be correct, being in the image of God was man's glory, and he lost it. If Mr. Darwin be correct, he never had that image, and so never could lose it; and his present position is the greatest glory he ever had. According to Genesis we believe that mind, moral faculties, and religious susceptibilities were created within man; but, according to Mr. Darwin, man gradually evolved all of them; nay, the human idea of God Himself is not God's revelation of Himself in man, but an idea gradually evolved out of the "soul's dreams of surrounding spirits." Mr. Darwin's book knows nothing whatever of primeval man living in holy fellowship and daily communion with God; knows nothing of primeval man delighting in righteousness, holiness, and divine love; it knows nothing whatever of the catastrophe of sin which desolated Eden and shut away the tree of life. It knows only of man struggling his way up through every form of animal brutishness to

* Cf. pp. 172, 211.

DARWIN v. GENESIS.

373

something which he calls "semi-human;" struggling his way through countless ages out of the semi-human, in which state the males fought and tore each other with ferocious canine teeth in order to gain possession of the more beautiful females; struggling on until he passed out of the semi-human and became a human savage, and began to develop finer instincts into conscience, etc., as noted in previous papers.

But the statement of Genesis is objected to as being dogmatic. Certainly it does not apologize for its abrupt entrance, nor justify its existence by ratiocination. Now what is the case on the part of evolution? does it establish its case by solid reasons, or does it rather insinuate on superficial grounds? We ought to expect that a truly scientific writer, dealing with such a momentous question, which assails and involves the integrity of the biblical record, and the hoary beliefs which rest upon it, would not merely hypothecate, but at least try to demonstrate. Now Mr. Darwin sometimes dogmatizes; but he is very great in the use of probabilities, possibilities, and assumptions. From beginning to end his book assumes the descent of man from "semihuman progenitors" of "arborial habits," having tails, and ass-like ears. We say that these are assertions and assumptions, of which Mr. Darwin gives no proof. The following remarks from the British Quarterly Review* will corroborate our statement. "Mr. Darwin has, however, been careful so to express himself as to lead his readers to adopt the inference he desires, without laying himself open to the charge of undue persuasion, while professing only to be laying facts before their unbiassed judgment. . . . . And yet it is not possible for any one who has studied anatomical structure to assent to many of the statements in the very first chapter of Mr. Darwin's book."

It is objected that "religion is always in conflict with science." If by "religion" Romanism and its kindred forms are intended, it must be confessed that there is apparent truth in the objection; still, in its naked form, it covers a great fallacy. It is true that ecclesiastical bigotry and general deficiency of scientific knowledge-ignorance if you will-have opposed the clearest_discoveries of science; but it is unfair to charge this upon religion. It is equally true that, of late, scientific men have too often put forth their materialistic speculations as if they were scientific truths; and then what wonder if Christian faith object to surrender its cherished convictions at the mere bidding of science falsely so called? There need be, there can be, no antagonism between sincere faith and true science. Nature and the Bible are two volumes of divine revelation to man: both are by the same author, and there cannot be any contradiction between them. Science, or that which calls itself such, through vain conceits, pride of intellect, deficiency of light, and carnal enmity, is as likely to misinterpret nature as simple credulity is to misinterpret the Bible. Religion is the monarch of the soul; and science, true and genuine, is her beloved and honoured handmaid. Religion believes in the creation of man in holy estate, and in his grievous fall therefrom by transgression, and in his redemption from that fall by the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Science, as represented by Mr. Darwin, denies this, and denies it without proof; and charges us with "arrogance and pride" because, in the name of

* October, 1871, p. 465.

religion and common sense, we refuse to surrender.

Mr. Darwin says, page 25 of his book, "It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion." Cool and modest that, isn't it?

Looking at Man as he is now, it is impossible not to see that he is a wonderful compound of good and bad: of much that is beautiful, great, and grand; and also of much that is ugly, little, and base. His mental and moral powers and faculties must excite admiration; but his grossly sensual habits and base passions, when he throws off all moral restraint, and gives himself up to vices and practices unworthy of brute beasts, and such as are never seen in them, is most appalling, especially as we remember his mind and moral nature. For him to have evolved his mind and moral nature out of a material constitution and material surroundings by a fortuitous process of natural selection, is impossible; and possessing these, as he does, if we suppose him to be evolved from the lower animals, we may well say, how has he fallen! Yet Mr. Darwin says, "To believe that man was aboriginally civilised, and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably low view of human nature." Aye, it is indeed, but if it were possible to believe Mr. Darwin's theory of man's origin, and his evolved mind and moral nature, but concerning which he gives us no evidence, no proof whatever, we should be compelled by the evidence of every sense we have to see that man, on his baser side, notwithstanding these fine, noble, powers, is fallen, yes-fallen, lamentably below the brutes. Even Mr. Darwin's erroneous way of originating man as he is, compels us to take a pitiably low view of human nature Into the origin of evil we are not trying to pry; we know how the darkness of that mystery baffles all human penetration; but we turn to the book of Genesis, and we read its earlier chapters as a divine record; and though there are in them mysteries which we fain would fathom, our faith is abundantly satisfied with the Mosaic story of man's creation in the image of God, and of his fall through temptation and transgression. But Mr. Darwin utterly ignores Genesis, and writes as if no such account of man had ever been written. On his ground, then, we want to know what is the standard of righteousness? What is the tribunal of human responsibility? If man has ever been rising, and never fallen, how is he to be regarded as a transgressor? What law has he trangressed? How can his inward thoughts and his outward conduct be treated as sin? How is it possible to hold him amenable to the judgment day and to future punishment? If through millions of ages man has been gradually evolving out of the sexless, invertebrate worm-the ascidian-through fishes, birds, reptiles, and apes, into what he is, having risen to his present condition of "mind, knowledge, morals, and religion," and never fallen from some high standard of rectitude and righteousness, where is the necessity for atonement? What wrong has been done to be atoned for? How can he be regenerated? From what, and to what does he need regeneration? Mr. Darwin says, "The highest form of religion-the grand idea of God hating sin, and loving righteousness, was unknown in primeval times." The boldness of that assertion is equalled only by Mr. Darwin's total indifference to evidence in support

Utterly unmindful of the evidence of biblical history to the

DARWIN v. GENESIS.

375

contrary, he leaves his assertion bold, bald, and naked, without a tittle of support, save his own authority. On the other hand, we see in Genesis that the primeval pair knew in close and sweet intimacy the "God who hates sin and loves righteousness." And so soon after the fall, as it is recorded, we see Abel, so closely related to them, offering an acceptable sacrifice to the same God. We prefer the words of the Duke of Argyle: "The conclusion is that, as man must have had a divine Creator, it seems equally certain that, to some extent also, he must have had a divine Instructor."*

Mr. Darwin says, "I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction"— p. 613. Now this is a fair specimen of Mr. Darwin's mode of reasoning. We denounce his views of man's origin as irreligious because they flatly contradict what we believe to be a divine record of his creation in the image of God; because by describing man as having persistently risen to his present position of morals and religion, partly "through the advancement of his reasoning powers," aided by "a just public opinion;" and partly by his mind being "elevated by long continued culture," he not only ignores the scriptural statement of man's fall, and his recovery by grace through redemption, but he contradicts it. And when Mr. Darwin says that because we denounce his view as irreligious we are bound to show, etc., as above, we are astounded! We know— Mr. Darwin knows-that a child is born according to the known laws of nature; we do not know, he does not know, that man has descended from some lower form of life, ever ascending in the scale of mind and moral power; and until we know this latter as well as we do know the former, we are not bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the one, than to explain (or declare) the other. This is an illustration of the facility with which Mr. Darwin can set up a flimsy theory, as if it were of equal value with established and irrefragable fact. To declare the fact of a child's birth according to the laws of nature is in religious harmony with all that we know of truth and right; to explain man's origin and progress as Mr. Darwin has done, in utter disregard of his alleged primeval rectitude—his subsequent fall and redemption, and so utterly contradictory of such facts-seems to us to be in irreligious discord with all the teachings of the Bible. Many of Mr. Darwin's disciples tell us that his views are not inconsistent with religion. Perhaps not. Religion' is a wide and vague term. With what religion they are consistent, we have not yet been informed. What we affirm is, that they are altogether opposed to the revelation and religion of the Bible; they cannot harmonise with the scripture doctrines of man's disobedient departure from God; of his reconciliation to God; of his being forgiven and justified through grace; of his regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and return as a penitent prodigal to God, the merciful Father.

* Primeval Man. p. 3.

ar

Chester and its Memories.

BY REV. J. BUCKLEY, D.D.

ATTENDING the Mission services at Tarporley, in October, 1875, a longcherished desire of seeing Chester was, through the kindness of friends, gratified. My visit was necessarily a hasty one; but it is remembered with much lively interest, and I shall rejoice if this paper renders the reader a sharer in the benefit. My companions were Mrs. Buckley and Rev. R. F. Griffiths. Chester, the reader knows, is one of the oldest cities in the kingdom, and I was anxious to look on its antiquities. Persecution for Christ's sake once prevailed here; and one of Christ's faithful martyrs here stedfastly resisted unto blood. Philip Henry was imprisoned for truth's sake in the Castle here ("behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison"); and his famous son, Matthew Henry, the great commentator, spent the best years of his life and ministry in this ancient city.

Approaching Chester, as we did, by rail, the visitor is not at first impressed with the evidence of its antiquity; but when he leaves the vicinity of the station, the evidence multiplies as he goes on, and it is impossible for a true patriot or an intelligent Christian to examine the walls or walk in the streets of this old city without being profoundly impressed by the changes made in the lapse of ages, as well as devoutly thankful for all that the gospel of the grace of God has effected in our beloved country. Chester was, at a very early period, subdued by the Romans. Claudius Cæsar-mentioned Acts xi. 28, and xviii. 2-invaded Britain, at the head of a military expedition, about A.D. 44: this was, so far as can be ascertained, three or four years after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus; but the Emperor did not long remain, and it is not clear that he came to this part of England; but several years before the destruction of Jerusalem, Chester was the head quarters of the well-known 20th legion, described by Matthew Henry in one of his notes as "the invincible legion." How great the change between the England of that day and of this! Our barbarous ancestors were at that time as low in the scale of civilization as the Khonds and other wild tribes that inhabit the hilly tracts and mountain fastnesses of Orissa. Imagination pictures them with their painted bodies-covered with skins-offering human victims at the altars of their bloody gods. Let none of us forget that the Bible and the gospel have made the difference between us and them; and let the remembrance stir us up to send the priceless treasure to the uttermost parts of the earth.

We were much interested with our visit to the Cathedral. It stands on the site of a heathen temple dedicated to Apollo. A Roman altar and gravestone have been discovered in the vicinity. I felt peculiar emotions as I stood where idolatrous rites had once been performed in England, and thought that I would tell our native Christians of the interesting circumstance, assured that it would strengthen their confidence in the utter destruction of idolatry in India. The inscriptions on the monuments in the Cathedral did not favourably impress