The evolution of man and Christianity

Front matter

Cornell University Library BL263 .M17 1891

Evolution of man and Christ anity / by H olin

3 1924 029 074 841

Preface To The Secoihd Edition

The criticisms of this book haye, of course, been both favorable and nnfayorable ; but the faTorable, I am glad to be able to say, have greatly outnumbered the unfavorable notices. The secular press — especially the Boston press — has, with few exceptions, been not only just but most flattering in its notices of the book ; the religious press, as was anticipated, has not only denounced the book as " dangerous," but it has greatly misrepresented its teaching. Three notable exceptions are "All Souls' Monthly," the parish paper of Rev. R. Heber Newton's church ; the "Wyoming and Idaho Mission," the diocesan paper of that jurisdiction ; and the "Christian Register,^' of Boston, all of which have been very kind and fair in their notices of the book. Of course, the fact that the last-named paper is a Unitarian organ will, in the opinion of Trinitarians, weaken the weight and influence of its estimate; but it is a great pity that the Episcopal Church has no paper of the same depth and breadth of view and Christian charity as the " Register." To these and the secular papers, as well as to individuals who have kindly noticed this book, I would express my sincere gratitude. To the unjust criticisms and misrepresentations of other papers I now make the following answers :

First. It has been repeatedly asserted that I reject the Incarnation or the Divinity of Christ. This is false.

Vlll

EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRI8TIANITT.

I accept the Catholic doctrine of the rncarnation as set forth in our Second Article of Religion. As more fully explained in the chapter on Miracles, the hirth and character of our Lord are two distinct questions, and one may accept His divinity even if he believe that He had an earthly father— Joseph. Further : One may believe His birth to have beeu truly miraculous— that is, the result of a special operation of the Divine Will— and yet hold that this birth occurred along the lines of natural generation. In other words, the divinity of Christ depends upon the essential relation of the human and divine spiritual elements in Him, not upon the mode of His birth. He may have been born in the ordinary way, while His (human) spirit was specially begotten of "God. the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life," working through the media of a man and woman. At any rate, I believe that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col., ii, 9), which influx of Deity into Humanity was due to a special operation of God's Will acting along the line of ordinary generation. ■ It has also been asserted that I reject the resurrection of Christ. I do attach little importance to the details of His lodily resurrection as given in the Gospels, because I consider these documents of too uncertain authorship to allow of attaching much importance to their details ; but I accept the resurrection or manifestation of Christ after death in a "spiritual body," as spoken of by St. Paul in First Corinthians, xv ; and this is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, as set forth in her burial service.

Second. It has been said that I " accept the evolution of man, body and soul, from the lower animals, but decline to give my reasons for this acceptance." This, also, is false. The whole of Chapters II and III of Part I — fifty of the one hundred pages devoted to man's

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. j^

origin — are a summary of the arguments based on the facts of paleontology, morphology, variability, and embryology, which prove. man's origin from a lower animal form, and disprove the popular theological view of his origin.

The only shadow of justification which can be offered for this criticism is my statement, at the end of Chapter II, that, for want of space and its non-necessity, I could not give the facts and reasons proving man's spiritual evolution as I had done to show his physical development. But I refer to Spencer's "Psychology" and Romanes's " Mental Evolution " for proofs of the derivative origin of man's spirit. The mistake I made was in supposing that critics of the book would be candid enough to admit that these facts and authorities could not be lightly set aside.

Third. It has been said that I accept the results of "destructive criticism" at second hand, and without any reconstructive thought of my own. This, too, is false. A reference to the introductory chapter of Part II, on the Documents, will show that I have studied the early Christian literature itself, and quote directly from the "Fathers," and urge my readers to use all modern writers " simply as guides to the discovery of the facts for themselves." A comparison, too, of my conclusions with those of the so-called "destructive critics" will show suBBcient divergence in our views to justify my claim to independent thought of my own. To mention only one or two points of difference': I accept ten of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul as genuine works of the apostle; whereas, the radical skeptics accept only four or six. I believe. in. and defend the miraculous, albeit in a more refined and spiritual form than popular theology does ; whereas, the radical critics (Strauss, Eenan, Wellhausen, etc.) reject miracles in toto. I refer to as many books

X EVOLUTION OF MAN AND OHRISTIAmTY.

on the traditional as on the " destructive " side of the questions discussed.

Again : It has been said that I am not learned or original. I make no pretensions to either erudition or originality. The book was not intended to he exhaustive, even of my own knowledge, but it was designed simply as a popular summary of scientifico-theological opinions from the evolution point of view ; and hence, by its very nature, it could not be either exhaustive or original. The following words from Emerson's essay on " Quotation and Originality " are instructive : " In a large sense, one would say there is no pure originality. All minds quote. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. We quote not only books and proverbs, but arts, sciences, religion, customs, and laws; nay, we quote temples and houses, tables and chairs, by imitation. There is imitation, model, and suggestion to the very archangels, if we knew their history." I do not pretend to be an archangel (many seem to consider me an arch-fiend rather !), and hence quotation and imitation on my part are surely pardonable. It is something to be able to appreciate the brilliant thoughts of others ; and if this little volume points to the gems of philosophical J;hought which lie imbedded in the Spencerian system and in German Biblical criticism, it will have accomplished its purpose. It should be remembered that the distinctive feature of "orthodox theology" itself is not origiuality.

The function of criticism is twofold — ^to specify errors and to suggest truth. The critic owes something to the author reviewed, and the public that reads his criticism. He should protect the latter as far as possible from errors, and help the former to correct them. Unfortunately, in the present case neither has heen done except in one or two instances; and my correction of these mistakes shows my readiness to accept fair criti-

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xi

cism. In the chapter on "Inspiration," it was pointed out, I apparently questioned the infallibility of our Lord. This I did not intend to do, as the context would show to a thoughtful, unprejudiced reader. I simply meant that, owing to the uncertain authorship of the Gospels, which contain all that we know of His teaching, we could not prove His absolute infallibility. For my own part, I accept this, because He seems to me, despite the uncertain authorship of the Gospels, the final goal of spiritual eTolution — ^the Perfect Man ; but it would be difiBcult to prove this fact to many even among professing Christians — some Unitarians, for instance. My views of Christ's birth and resurrection have been abundantly denounced, but not so criticised as to enable me to correct the errors which the critics say they contain. Still, I have rewritten those views, and, while I have not altered them, I have stated them more clearly and brought out the miraculous features of the events more strongly and distinctly. My aim in writing this book, especially the chapter on miracles, was to show that the substance of the Gospels and the articles of the Christian creed might be accepted even if, as the radical critics and skeptics claim, certain details must be given up. But my critics, instead of giving me credit for this conservative aim, have abundantly denounced my so-called " attack " on the faith, and have emphasized the negative part of my work — the concessions I made to the skeptics in order to save the substance of the truth — to the neglect of the conservative " orthodox " part of my views. Indeed, as stated above, they have greatly misrepresented those views, even accusing me of rejecting the Incarnation and the Kesurrection of Jesus, and in fact all miracles. But it is hoped that this further explanation and defense will be satisfactory. The difficulty was, to be popular, succinct, and clear, all at once. It would require several volumes to elaborate what is here condensed into xii EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GEBI8TIANITT.

four hundred small pages ; and yet such elaboration would be necessary, to make the positions taken clear to all persons. Hence I urge readers of the book to consult the works referred to, if they are unacquainted with them, ere they criticise my views. This, of course, was addressed to young theologians, who are disposed to be even more dogmatic and "cock-sure" on profound problems than older and more learned people are. I did not presume to suggest a course of reading to editors of "religious newspapers," much less to professional critics, and I earnestly hope that they will not be offended by advice which was never intended for them.

The most serious defect, however, of the criticisms of the book is that many have not asked. Are the opinions true ? but they have rather asked, Are they compatible with the acceptance of the Creeds and Articles of the Episcopal Church ? In other words, the book has been looked at mainly from an ecclesiastical, not from a scientific or philosophic point of view, and even the ecclesiasticism of the preface to the first edition has not been fairly considered. In that preface I contend that the BjDiscopal Church, being a Protestant Church, allows liberty of thought and speech — accepts the Bible as her rule of faith and practice, and holds that her Creeds and Arti-, cles must be interpreted by the Scriptures, not vice versa ; and, further, i,hat the Bible should be interpreted by facts and reasons as they appear to the individual. This contention has not been refuted, and may be more fully proved than it was in the preface to the first edition. Thus, the second ordination vow asserts, with the Sixth Article, that the "Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation." The third vow, which is the one so often appealed to and misinterpreted, asks the candidate, " Will you then give your faithful diligence, always so to minister the doctrine and

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xiii

sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same ? " This is understood by many to mean that the minister promises to accept the Creeds and Articles of " this Church" as final ; but I maintain that "the doctrine of Christ as this Church hath receiTed the same " is that " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," and that each one is at liberty — nay, is in duty bound — to interpret the Bible by facts and reasons as he understands them. The word " then" in this vow . refers us back to the second vow, and shows that the doctrine there stated is " the doctrine of this Church." And what is the doctrine there stated ? That the Bible is our rule of faith. If this were not the meaning of the third vow, it would occupy the place in the service of the second vow, and instead of being asked, "Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine ? " the candidate would be asked. Are you persuaded that the Apostles' and Moene Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles contain all doctrine necessary to salvation, and will you interpret the Bible by these formulas and teach them to the people committed to your charge ? But, no ; in the fourth vow he promises to " banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to "^the Creeds and Articles ? no! but contrary to — "God's Word." In the fifth vow he promises to "be diligent in prayers, and in reading Holy Scripture, and in such studies as help to a knowledge of the same." This last vow distinctly asserts not only the right but the duty of " private judgment." The minister is to use all diligence to ascertain for himself what are the essential truths of Scripture, not of the Creeds and Articles, Really it is most remarkable that it should be necessary to say all this about the Church which was the mother of English Protestantism, and xiv EVOLUTION OF MAir AND CHRISTIANITY.

whicli bears in her rery name the evidence of this fact. It is still more remarkable that some of her members should assert that, while the Thirty-nine Articles are man-made and alterable dogmas, yet her creeds, being the products of the first General Councils of the Church (at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) are infallible and unchangeable. This contention is refuted by Scripture, reason, history, and the Articles of the Church. The idea that a General Council — or a council of the whole Church — is infallible, rests on the absurd assumption that the infl.uence of the Holy Spirit depends upon the number of people seeking it ! On the contrary, our Lord said, where two or three are gathered together in His name there He will be (Matt., xviii, 20) ; nay, that any individual who would enter his closet and pray to the Father, would receive the Divine blessing (Matt., vi, 6). This shows that the Holy Spirit influences individuals as truly as He does masses of people. But, be it observed, it is not said that He makes individuals infallible ; and, if not, how can general assemblies of fallible persons enunciate infallible truths? Surely the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts ; and if the separate units of a General Council are fallible — and all insist upon this — then the council must be even more fallible. This is not only the common-sense view of this matter, but the Articles of our Church express precisely this opinion. The Twenty-first Article says, "Forasmuch as they [General Councils] be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God." This article was omitted from the Prayer Book by the American revisers, but let no one thence infer that the American Episcopal Church accepts the infallibility of the first General Councils, for the Prayer Book states that the "other Articles" settle this

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xv

question. Thus the Nineteenth Article says, "The Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome [the very Churches represented in the first General Councils] have erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, hut also in matters of faith." Why say more ? Is it not evident that those bishops and clergy who have denounced me as a Tiolator of solemn ordination vows are themselves condemned by the Church whose doctrines they profess to believe and defend ?■ If, now, it be said that the foregoing theory of ecclesiastical authority leads logically to the destruction of all creeds or formulas, and therefore to a disorganization of the Chruch, I reply : 1. If so, I am not responsible for it, but the Reformers who framed our Articles. 3. This is not so, for the Republic exists very comfortably under a Constitution that admits of amendment, and why can not the Church so exist ? Indeed, common sense teaches that the Church should be at liberty to revise her articles of faith from time to time as new light is gained ; lut how is she to do this if every one who proposes either an interpretation of her formulas different from that commonly accepted, or an alteration in those formulas 4s forthwith excommunicated? Surely if we believe in the Holy Ghost, as we profess in the Creed ; if we believe that He will be with the Church — with each member of the Church — ^to the end of time, we must admit the truth of this view of the Church. At any rate, this view has not yet been refuted.

The real reason why it is doubted, and the semiinfallibility of the Creeds is asserted, is that these Creeds have been accepted for centuries by the majority of Christians. But those who think that, because a doctrine has long been accepted by the majority, it is therefore necessarily or even presumably true, should remember these facts : Christianity itself can not stand this test, since the followers of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, and Moxvi EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY.

hammed far outnumber Christians. Even in Christendom at one time the Divinity of Christ was rejected by the vast majority of Christians, and then it was Athanasius, a young archdeacon, against the world. "When Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, and Columbus first published their yiews, the world hooted and ridiculed. When the Eeformers of the sixteenth century proclaimed their great doctrines, they were denounced and persecuted by the majority; and had Luther submitted to the dictation of the Church, or to numbers, there would to-day be no Protestant Church. Every departure from accepted opinions of any kind is necessarily inaugurated by a minority if not by one individual, and hence it is high time to have done with an appeal to what the majority believe as a refutation of any opinion. AW this is said, not because the writer claims originality, much less because he classes himself with the great men referred to— for he does not consider himself worthy to untie their shoes — but it is simply a citation of facts in order to refute a superficial but powerful notion.

Finally, it has been said that I stand alone in the Episcopal Church. To a well-informed Episcopalian such an assertion is astonishing ! Has not this Church been the home of those great liberal theologians and devout Christians, Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kingsley, Frederick W. Eobertson, Matthew Arnold, Frederick "W.' Farrar, Archbishop Tait, Deau Stanley, Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, Alfred Momerie, H. E. Haweis, Canon Fremantle, Heber Newton, and numerous other liberal-minded men, who, however much they may have disagreed on unessential points, are at one in their advocacy of the freedom I claim ? Their interpretations of Scripture are essentially the same in principle. In particular, Dr. Abbott, Dr. Newton, and Mr. Haweis hold essentially my views— or rather I hold theirs— on the authorship and

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EBITION. xvii

authority of the books of the Bible. And we also agree ia our views of miracles. Dr. Abbott, in his book entitled "The Kernel and the Husk" (Koberts Brothers, Boston), rejects the Virgin-birth and. accepts the spiritual resurection of Jesus. Dr. Newton has not expressed himself publicly on the birth, but in a sermon on " Eobert Elsmere," published in " All Souls' Monthly " for December, 1888, he accepts the spiritual resurrection of our Lord. EeT. Mr. Haweis, in his " Picture of Jesus " (vol. ii of his " Christ and Christianity " ), takes the same view of our Lord's birth and resurrection that I do. Canon Fremantle, of Canterbury Cathedral, in an article published ia " The Popular Science Monthly " for June, 1887, takes the same view. Eev. Prof. Momerie, in his " Church and Creed," takes the ground that whosoever doeth righteousness is a member of God's (Christ's) Church, which means that good Jews, Turks, JBuddhists, Chinese, etc., must be included among the faithful. I ^m at liberty to quote some passages from letters he has written me. He says : " I have not said much about miracles [in his books] except implicitly. I, of course, do not believe in them, except as the subjective fancies of unscientific men." In his "Church and Creed " (pp. 237-231 et seq.) he accepts the view of the resurrection advocated in this book. Again, in a letter he says, " The facts you insist on (in this book) must be recognized (italics his) by the Church on pain of perishing everlastingly," and adds, "Prof. Jowett some years ago said in a sermon at the Abbey [Westminster], ' People would soon give up believing in miracles as they had given up believing in witchcraft.' "

The liberal opinions of Tait, Stanley, Maurice, Farrar, etc., on inspiration, the atonement, future retribution,- and the like, are well known. The point is this : these clergynien represent, and are known to represent, a large and growing school of thought in this Church, and yet xviii EVOLUTION OF MAN AND 0ERISTIANIT7.

the Church not only tolerates them but has given them prominent and influential positions. Why, then, should it be thought a thing so heinous in me to adopt and propagate views -which violate no principle of the Church, and which she tolerates and upholds in other cases ?

It is said that we can not conscientiously repeat the Creeds of the Church in the regular service, but this is not true. It would, indeed, be well if the Church allowed an alternate form of the Article on the birth, as she does in the case of the Article on Christ's descent into hell. If the words "or born of Joseph and Mary" were put in the margin of our Prayer Book as a substitute, when preferred, for the words " born of the Virgin Mary," we should be better satisfied. But as it is we can explain to our people that there are two views of Christ's birth in the Bible : one which assigns only one parent to Him, and another (Matt., xiii, 55, etc.) which gives Him two parents — either of which may be accepted without violating the principles or doctrines of this Church. We have scriptural authority (Isaiah, vii, 14) for the use of the word "virgin " in the sense of "young woman " merely. We do not believe that God has hands, though the Creed says Christ "sitteth at the right hand of God " (see Article I). No intelligent person believes in a literal resurrection of the body, though the Creed speaks of such, and Bishop Pearson and all the older theologians held this view. We believe in " the spiritual body," spoken of by St. Paul, and as we shall each have such a body, so Christ, we may believe, had such a body— did not take " His body, with flesh and bones," and thus ascend into heaven ; but appeared in a spiritual form, and then withdrew into the spiritual world that lies back of and gives shape to the material, visible world, somewhat as our soul inhabits our body (see chapters on Miracles, and Heaven and Hell).

PREFACE TO TEE SEOONB EDITION. xix

From all this it is apparent why I did not resign from the ministry of the Episcopal Church when I reached these views, as I was advised to do by some friends. I knew that I did not violate the fundamental principles of the Church — that my departure from traditional views was not greater than that of others who were honored by the Church ; and I felt it my duty to stay in the Church and do what I could to make it accomplish its purpose by meeting the wants of the age. I am strongly opposed to sectarianism, and determined I would not willingly be guilty of it ; if the Church excommunicated me, it must bear the blame. Moreover, I felt that it could be only a few years, at most, before such views as are advocated in this volume would be pretty generally accepted by the Church ; for, whether they be true or false, they are being taught in all the leading educational institutions of the land ; and the rising generation, which will furnish religious, moral, and intellectual teachers to the next, is being thoroughly imbued with such teaching. If, therefore, the Church were wise, she would gladly accef)t the services of all earnest-minded men, who lead pure lives, and would fain do what they could to advance her intellectual and spiritual life. But it seems that the folly of centuries will not teach her that excommunication neither converts the "heretic " nor refutes or suppresses his " heresy " ; and so we find, even in this "enlightened generation," the spirit, if not the cruelty, of the old Inquisition.

It is hoped that this preface will tend to vindicate my mental and moral, my theological and ecclesiastical character.

HowAED MacQubaet.

Ganion, Ohio, January, 1891.

PEEFATOET.

"Theee can be little doubt in the mind of the thoughtful observer that we are now on the eve of the greatest change in traditional views that has taken place since the birth of Christianity. This change means not a readjustment of details only, but a reconstruction of Christian theology." *

It is because I am firmly convinced of the truth of these profound words that I have written this book.

Three great forces, among others, will efEect the theological and ecclesiastical revolution predicted — ^viz.. Physical Science, Biblical Criticism, and the Social Movement. Our young men and women who enjoy the privileges of the higher education are becoming thoroughly imbued with the teachings of Physical Science, which, backed by Biblical Criticism, is aiming deadly blows at the» miraculous features of popular Christianity, and, as will appear from the following pages, it is destined to profoundly modify our idea of miracles, and this means a complete reconstruction of traditional and popular theology. Evolution is " in the air," and its fundamental tenets are being accepted (perhaps unconsciously) by all classes of minds — from a Huxley to a hod-carrier. It behooves us,

* Prof, Joseph Le Conte, " Evolution and Religious Thought," p. 277.

then, as religious teachers to recognize this fact, and adjust our theology accordingly. The Social or Labor movement is assuming (has assumed) an anti-church attitude. The laborer imagines that the Church is not his friend, and that its doctrines — its " fish-stories," etc. — have been exploded by Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and others. I speak from personal knowledge as well as from the testimony of others.* The Church (i. e., primarily the Clergy and secondarily the Laity) must arouse itself to an exact recognition of the facts of the case and prepare to meet the issues before it. This book is written in the hope of drawing attention more generally to the salient points of the work before us. No one is more conscious of its defects than its author, but he asks his readers to give him credit for at least honesty and loftiness of purpose.

He has not hesitated to reject the teachings of the most venerable and the most eminent when they seemed to him to conilict with fact and i-eason. He has done this, however, not from presumption and conceit, but simply because his conscience and intellect would not allow him to accept such teachings. He is conscious of having used strong language in some places, but he begs his readers to remember that he did not mean to stoop to personal abuse, but only spoke strongly because he felt strongly, and because strong language alone can impress certain minds. Every person, whose views I oppose in this book, has my profound respect, and indeed it is because I respect them that I oppose their theories ; and, could we be thrown together, they would find in me a warm-hearted friend.

Of course, I anticipate great opposition from various quarters, and any courteous criticism of my position will be thankfully received and duly considered, but the prime

* See Prof. E. T. Ely's " Labor Movement in America," pp. 244, 245.

object of the book is not to stir up bitter controTersy, but to help those, of all classes, who are troubled by the difficulties of traditional and popular theology, to a plane of thought from which they may espy the Celestial City and escape the miasmas of time-worn Traditionalism. It is needless to say that I have drunk deeply of the quiet waters of popular " Orthodoxy," and hence can sympathize with those who still find in it a haven of rest for their souls. It is also needless to say that in putting forth from that haven I have experienced the usual storms of mental and spiritual disturbance which beat upon one in his voyage over the ocean of free thought. " It is an awful moment," says Frederick Eobertson, " when the soul begins to find that the props on which it has blindly rested so long are many of them rotten, and begins to suspect them all ; when it begins to feel the nothingness of many of the traditionary opinions which have been received with implicit confidence, and in that horrible insecurity begins also to doubt whether there be anything to believe at all. It is an awful hour — let him who has passed through it say how awful — when this life has lost its meaning, and seems shriveled into a span ; when the grave appears to be the end of all, human goodness nothing but a name, and the sky above this universe a dead expanse, black with the void from which God himself has disappeared. In that fearful loneliness of. spirit, when those who should have been his friends and counselors only frown upon his misgivings, and profanely bid him stifle doubts, which for aught he knows may arise from the fountain of truth itself, to extinguish as a glare from hell that which for aught he knows may be light from heaven, and everything seems wrapped in hideous uncertainty, I know but one way in -which a man may come forth from his agony scathless : it is by holding fast to those things which are certain still, the grand, simple landmarks of morality. In the darkest hour through which a human soul can pass, whatever else is doubtful, this at least is