PROGRESS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 111, 12 June 1875, Page 10

PROGRESS.

In our issue last week we published an article on thisBubject ; and we resume the subject to-day in order to let our readers see still more clearly what it means, and how irrational are all the claims of the gentlemen who have usurped the name of great thinkers, and of men of modern progress. These gentry of deep thought and modem progress would have us give up our faith at their bidding. They have acquired a little knowledge in reference to physical science, and forthwith they set themselves up as infallible. Some of them know a little chemistry, and immediately, they tell us there is no personal God, no soul no heaven, no hell ! Others have penetrated the crust of the earth here and there, seen a few strange facts, and at once they begin to form theories about creation, the duration of matter, &c, and then jump at the conclusion that the account of creation given in Genesis is altogether false. But the fun of the thing is, no two of them can. agree, and yet they are nearly, all infallible in pronouncing Christianity to be talse. We may well say to them--"First agree among yourselves what truth is, and then come and teach us."

Here is what one of the luminaries of science Dr. Cabpenteb— says, in his inaugural address to the British Association, in 1872:—" When science, passing beyond its limits, assumes to take the place of theology, and sets up its own conception of the order of nature as a sufficient account of its cause, it is invading a province of thought to which it has no claim, and not unreasonably provokes the hostility of those who ought to be its best friends." If any theologian said this he would be called a " noble savage." But why may not a Christian say what one af the great luminaries of science says P Dakwdt has a multitude of juvenile disciples who have more confidence in his scientific infallibility than h&

nas "himself. Tet M. I?louren-s, and the whole school of Irench physiologists, ridicule both his doctrine and language. Even Huxley says it is only a theory. "Why is it unscientific savagery in a Christian to say so, too? M. Viax, in his observations on Le Darwinisme, not only ridicules the gasconade of M. Darwin, but adds, " Ge pauvre Huxley riest pas plus Hettreux avec la tete des signes qu'avce leurs pieds." M. De Quatbefages denies that Dabwin's theory has even the merit of originality, " Since it was clearly put forth by M. Naudin, prior to its pnblication in England." (Unity of the Human Bace, eh. XII., p. 199.) Professor Owen-, whose supremacy in his own sphere of science is undisputed, (Pales ontology, p. 443, second edition), laughs at Darwin's hypothetical transmuting saying, " Past experience of the chance aims of human fancy, unchecked and unguided by observed facts, shows how widely they have ever glanced away from the gold centre of truth." What if a noble savage said the following, taken from the Pall Mall Gazette, August 13, 1872 :—": — " The teaching of natural science, even if it were carried out on a really satisfactory system, can never fill the place of letters ;" or this from' Hebbert Spencer (First Principles, eh. 1., p. 17), " Every addition to its surface does but bring it into wider contact with surrounding nescience" By the way, the mention of Hebbebt Spencer's name reminds us of what Brownson, the great American reviewer, says of him. Bbownson's estimate of Spencer as a powerful and original thinker, differs very materially from that formed in reference to him by a gentleman who lately delivered a lecture on Evolution in this city. Speaking of evolution, Brownson says, vol. ill., No. 2, p 159: — "But your doctrine of evolution is not science ; it is only an unverified hypothesis, an unproved theory, and a very absurd theory at that. Even that prince of modern English humbugs, Herbert Spencer, did not originate it, but plagiarised it from the old Greek sophists refuted both by Plato and Aristotle, and laughed out of countenance by old Hermias The advanced thinkers of the age, called thinkers, because they do not think, and are incapable, through their own fault of thinking, if they are not avowed materialists, restrict all our /knowledge to the material order, and exclude from the domain of science the whole supersensible world. Matter and its laws constitute for them the whole field of science. Because the Church insists on the recognition, partly by science, and partly by faith, of not only a'supersensible, but a supernatural and superintelligible 'world, they cry out against her as the enemy of science." Humboldt ridiculed the " superficial omniescence" of of scientists, and professes slight esteem for what he calls the " pretended conquests of our age " and its " superficial self-knowledge." — Preface to Cosmos. " "When I want to know," says Euskin (The Queen of the Air, p.p. 70, 72), " why a leaf is green, they teJl me that it is colored by chlorophyll,' which at first sounds very instructive ; but if they would only say plainly that a leaf is colored by a thing called • green-leaf,' we should see morejprecisely how far we have got." Mr. Leckey (Bationalism,vol.l., eh. XI., p. 187), says — " It has long been a truism that we are passing through a. state of chaos of anarchy, and of transition. During the past century the elements of dissolution have been multiplying all around us." There does not appear, then, that there has been much progress, or that modern thought has led to much that is useful by way of result. And in his treatise on European Morals, vol. L, eh. XI., p. 276, this aYe writer remarks : — " Sincerely Catholic nations are distinguished for their reverence, for their habitual and vivid perception of religious things, for the warmth of their emotions, for a certain aimability of disposition, and a certain natural courtesy and refinement of manner, thtt are inexpressibly winning" On the other hand, Mr. Euskin (The Queen of the Air,v. 145), says :— M England is chiefly remarkable now for the multiplication of crimes more ghastly than ever yet disgraced a nominal civilization." And Mr. Wilkie Collins (Man and Wife, preface, p. 9), says : — " We have been so shamelessly familiar with violence and outrage, that we recognise them as a necessary ingredient in . our social sytem, and class our savages as a representative part of our population." This much must suffice for to-day, our breath is fairly taken away. Here we see the result of modern thought and progress described, by theirrepresentative men, who nolens voletu, are compelled to bear evidence in favor of the grand old Church, and the

result of her teaching. The more' we read the writings of/ modern thinkers, and their descriptions of modern progress, ; the more we dislike both, and the less are we tempted to desert the noble old institution t to which Christendom owes all it has of faith, piety, grace, of all that is noble in art, grand in architecture, pure in morals, sublime in literature, ' true in religion, winning in'manners, honorable in politics, humane in the relations of man to man, and truthful in social relations. To the Eoman Church it is due that in • Christendom there is a liberty that prevails nowhere else, even in theory ; that real progress has been made. The only advance that modern thought and modern progress can claim, is an advance backwards. To these is due the tendency now manifesting itself in the direction of paganism, and universal enslavement.