EXAMINATION 
OF THE 
SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM 
OF THE 
DARWINIAN SCHOOL OF EVOLUTIONISTS, 
AS SUGGESTED BY 
Prof. Asa Gray's Two Lectures 
ON 
NATURAL SCIENCE JIND RELIGION, 
TO 
THE THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS OF YALE COLLEGE. 
BY 
HENRY A. DU BOIS, LL.D. 
Reprinted From THE GUARDIAN : NO. 61 Bible House, New York. 
New York: 
T. Whittaker, No. 2, Bible House? 
1880. EXAMINATION 
OF THE 
SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM 
OF THE 
DARWINIAN SCHOOL OF EVOLUTIONISTS, 
AS SUGGESTED BY 
Prof. Asa Gray's Two Lectures 
ON 
NATURAL SCIENCE /ND RELIGION, 
/ 
TO 
THE THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS OF YALE COLLEGE. 
BY 
HENRY A. DU BOIS, LL.D. 
Reprinted From THE GUARDIAN; NO. 61 Bible House, New York. 
New York: 
T. Whittaker, No. 2, Bible House, 
1880. The following Examination of Prof. Gray's Lectures at Yale College 
was contributed, at the Editor's request, to The Guardian (New York); 
and was printed, as an Editorial, in the Numbers of that Paper, April 
17th and 24th. So valuable did the Articles seem to be. as a contribu- 
tion in behalf of the Truth, and, withal, so timely, that, at the Editor's 
suggestion, the Author has consented to their republication in pamphlet 
form; that they may thus reach persons "who otherwise would not see 
them. They are now given over the Author's name. 
We may, perhaps, say, without impropriety, that the writer of these 
strictures on Prof. Gray's Lectures, is no novice in Natural Science, and 
that he does not appear now, for the first time, as the able defender of 
Divine Revelation; not only against the assaults of Scientific Infidelity, 
but also against that specious form of Skepticism, which, twenty years 
ago, was taught in the noted "Essays and Reviews." His Articles in 
the American Quartert.y Church Review, in 1861, and 1865-6, were 
so masterly and conclusive, that they were republished in this country; 
and portions of them were reprinted in England, with the endorsement, 
and warm commendation, of one of the most distinguished Scholars in 
the English Church. 
EDITOR OF "THE GUARDIAN." Natural Science and Religion. 
New Haven., March 24, 1880. 
To the Editor of The Guardian: 
I have just read the two Lectures of Prof. Asa Gray, lately 
delivered to the Theological Students of Yale College. I have 
read them with great interest. They manifest great learning, 
deep thought, careful study of his subject, and, above all, an 
admirable candor and liberal feeling. 
He honestly exhibits a strong, favorable bias, towards "Dar- 
winian Evolution," and an evident desire to reconcile " Christian 
Theism," with this form of Materialism. But, in the conclud- 
ing parts of his Second Lecture, he frankly professes his belief 
in the Christian Faith, in terms which seem inconsistent with 
his previous utterances. The effort to reconcile the gross Ma- 
terialism of Scientists who adopt the Darwinian hypothesis, is 
as fruitless, as would be the attempt of one man to trundle at 
the same time two wheelbarrows. 
There can be no concord between Christian Faith and Scien- 
tific Materialism. The one believes in a God, Who has super- 
naturally revealed Himself to us as the Creator of all things in 
heaven and earth, according to a fixed plan and design. The 
other, scouts the idea of a God, and a Supernatural Revelation. 
It asserts, that Matter, by chance contingencies, has made the 
Laws which govern it, and which are therefore inviolable. It 
rejects all plan, and design of an intelligent Creator. The 
partisans of this Materialist School, arrogantly assume, that 
they know all the Laws of Nature; whereas, in fact, they do not 
know one of them perfectly. They draw inferences, and manu- 
facture hypotheses (which no true Scientific man ought to be 4 
permitted to do), and then attack all whose opinions differ from 
their own. 
They meet, however, with two little difficulties. 1st. They 
cannot account for the Origin of Matter. 2d. They see, that 
they cannot account for Organization, without the existence of 
a Vital Principle super added to Matter. Attempts have been 
made to seize and handle this Vital Principle, as if it were a 
physical body, to which the fanciful name of Protoplasm has 
been given; and, without which, no Organization can exist. 
It is amusing to see how they writhe, under the impossibility 
of accounting for this Vital Principle in accordance with their 
hypotheses. 
They seem to say, "Grant us a little of this Protoplasm, to 
begin with; and we will agree to evolve all the Laws of Nature, 
without the aid or interference of any God, or intelligent 
Creator. " 
Now, True Science and "Christian Theism" need no recon- 
ciling; for they have no cause for quarrel. Their departments 
are entirely different. The one, deals with the present Physical 
World. The other, with the future wie/a-physical state of man. 
The facts, claimed by each, must be established upon the 
evidence, adduced by each. It would be folly in the Theist, to 
deny the well-established facts of Science, because, they militate 
against his own peculiar interpretation of Divine Revelation. 
So, also, would it be equal folly in the Scientist, to deny the 
possibility of a Supernatural Revelation from the Author of 
Creation-because it militated against his peculiar views in 
regard to the inviolability of the Laws of Nature. Each party 
must stand or fall upon its own evidence. 
The Scientist must adduce prooffs of the correct and accurate 
examination of the phenomena of Nature. The Christian 
Theist must adduce historic proof of a Divine Supernatural 
Revelation; the necessity for which is demanded by the very 
constitution of Man; and, without which, Man, instead of being 
"Nature's masterpiece," would be a blot in Creation, the only 
animal left without adequate means of supplying its natural 
wants and cravings. 
Most, if not all, admit, that the first appearance of Organic 
life occurs in the lowest forms of Nature, beginning at a point 
difficult to distinguish between vegetable and animal life; but 5 
each Organism " whose seed is in itself," never mixing or retro- 
grading, but advancing within prescribed limits by evolution, to 
higher forms of development. Here we have the first mani- 
festation of life superadded to matter. How this was done, 
God only knows; but it is certain that dead, inert Matter had 
nothing to do with it. 
Next, we see, as Evolution gradually progresses in each class, 
" after its kind," " whose seed is in itself," the glimmerings of 
sensation, volition, motion, the germs of intelligence and mind, 
feeble, and fixed within certain limits, in each form of the lowest 
Organism, but ascending in the highest till they attain to the 
rank of ratiocination. Here we see Mind superadded to Matter. 
In what way this was done, God knows, but man certainly does 
not. 
Last of all, we find Man, the latest denizen of the earth, whose 
fossil remains cannot be found below the dust, which covers 
the last Geological formation. He, in common with vegetables, 
possesses an Organic Life. In common with the highest order 
of Animals, he possesses an intellectual life. But, he has also, 
what no others possesss, a Spiritual Life; a living soul; a 
Moral Sense ; a Conscience of right and wrong; the faculty of 
Speech ; an intuitive and universal longing for knowledge of a 
Future State; a universal recognition of a Supreme Being, to 
Whom Adoration has been paid in some form, by every people, 
in every age of the world. 
This Development, or Evolution, from the lowest to the high- 
est, is in perfect accordance with the Narration of Moses; whose 
Cosmogony of Six Epochs, the gifted Cuvier, without being a 
"Christian Theist," pronouned to'be a wonderfully accurate 
statement of the changes which the world had undergone in 
successive order, as revealed fiy Geology. 
And here, let me say a few words in regard to " Darwinian 
Evolution," to which Mr. Gray seems so favorably inclined. 
Mr. Charles Darwin, a Naturalist of very respectable acquisi- 
tions, and some experience, inherited from his grandfather, the 
author of the "Loves of the Plants," a sureroit of his fanci- 
ful imagination. 
He informs us, in the beginning of his book on the " Origin 
of Species by Natural Selection" (Ed. 1860), that he has "asso- 
ciated with several eminent pigeon fanciers, and has been per- 6 
initted to join two London pigeon clubs," and that he was aston- 
ished at the numerous varieties of pigeons derived from one 
common parent, the blue rock pigeon. He also expresses his 
obligations to various Cattle-breeders, who had informed him of 
the great varieties produced by artificial selection of parents and 
food. This is his starting point, and suggests to him the idea 
(by no means an original one), that similar changes take place 
in Nature. 
He argues, that in the " struggle for existence," the stronger 
and more favored individuals, will ever flourish, and root out, 
their weaker competitors; and, that the result will be, " the 
survival of the fittest," in an improved state. This he calls 
" Natural Selection ? " 
Now, nobody will deny this fact. Everybody is willing to ad- 
mit, that such would be the effect, of his so-called Natural Selec- 
tion, in every department of Nature ; water, air, or earth ; and 
that it would probably result in the evolution of improved varie- 
ties of each favored class, as is shown by artifical selection. 
But then, this is not Darwin's idea of Evolution. He claims, 
that his "Natural Selection" by "chance variations," can trans- 
mute one species into another ; that it can transform, a fish into 
a bird ; a bird into a monkey ; a monkey into a Man. 
All that we need to say of this, is, that this inference, or 
rather, baseless assumption, is not countenanced by a single fad 
in Science or Nature ; and as a Scientific hypothesis, it is more 
ludicrously absurd than the Metamorphoses of Ovid. We repeat, 
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FACT, IN SCIENCE OR NATURE, to Sup- 
port foundation principle of transmutation by an intelligent 
agency called "Natural Selection;" nor is there a particle of 
evidence to countenance the possible existence of such a Power 
(the offspring of Chance); and, therefore, the whole gigantic 
superstructure of misapplied facts, built on phantasm, stands 
like an inverted pyramid, based on an ideal Nonentity. 
He tells us, in the beginning, that Natural Selection is the 
creature of ''Chance," and operates through "chance variations," 
which is a true definition of the common idea of Natural Selec- 
tion ; but, as his imagination becomes heated by the exigencies 
of his hypothesis, he finds it necessary to endow his "Natural 
Selection " with every one of the Divine Attributes of the Chris- 
tian Theist's God; and then, he represents this deified Power 7 
as constantly interfering in the works of Nature, creating con- 
stantly new Organs and new Forms, in accordance with its own 
all-wise and intelligent plan. Has any Christian advocate for 
immediate acts of Creation, ever made such a demand upon our 
credulity as this ? 
I will here make two or three random quotations from Mr. 
Darwin's "Origin of Species," to show, that the above severe 
remarks do no injustice to his doctrine of Evolution, and are 
not, in the slightest degree, a perversion, or exaggeration, of his 
peculiar inculcations. 
I quote from the edition published in 1860. On page 169, 
he says : 
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed 
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, suc- 
cessive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break 
down." 
But, he can find no such case, and therefore gives us his recipe 
for making an "eye;" which we commend to the reader's 
special attention. It is as follows : 
"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a tele- 
scope. If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, 
we ought, in imagination, to take a thick layer of transparent 
tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose 
every part of this layer to be continually changing in density, so 
as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, 
placed at different distances from each other, and with the 
surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, we 
must suppose that there is a power always intently watching, 
each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and 
carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circum- 
stances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a 
distincter image. We must suppose, each new state of the 
instrument to be multiplied by the million; and, each to be 
preserved, till a better be produced ; and then the old ones to he 
destroyed. In living bodies variation will cause the slight 
alterations ; generation will multiply them almost infinitely ; 
and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each 
improvement." 
I ask who destroys the old forms? He remarks, in this 
connection, on page 168: 
" I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case 
of other structures) in believing that Natural Selection has 8 
converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with 
pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical 
instrument, as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great 
Articulate class." 
In the next sentence he says : 
" He who will go thus far, ought not to hesitate to go further; 
and to admit, that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an 
eagle, might be formed by Natural Selection, although in this 
case, he does not know any of the transitional grades." 
And then he adds, with sublime coolness: "His reason ought 
to conquer his imagination! " 
Again; his hypothesis peremptorily demands, that the acquisi- 
tion and perpetuation of any given Form, shall be the effect of 
direct inheritance. But, the constant reproduction of neuter 
bees and ants, with a fixed structure different from their parents, 
is fatal to his hypothesis. 
" But [says Mr. Darwin], some insects in a state of nature 
occasionally become sterile; " this is his premise, from which 
he concludes, viz.: 
" And, if such insects had been social, and if it had been 
profitable to the community that a number should have been 
annually born capable of work, but incapable of procreation, I 
can see no very great difficulty in this being effected by Natural 
Selection ! " P. 209. 
Nor can any one else, if Natural Selection has the same power 
as Almighty God. 
Again he says: 
" Natural Selection will never produce in a being any change 
injurious to itself; for, Natural Selection acts solely by, and for, 
the good of each." P. 179. 
Now, the sting of bees and wasps, owing to the backward 
serratures, cannot be used by these insects without causing 
inevitable death. This gives the lie to his oft-repeated funda- 
mental principle; but he tries to reconcile this fatal fact, by 
concluding that the sacrifice of the individual is made pro bono 
publico. 
"For [he says] if on the whole the power of stinging be useful 9 
to the community, it will fulfil all the requirements of Natural 
Selection, though it may cause the death of some few members." 
Again: Mr. Darwin is apparently anxious, to prove the possi- 
bility of the transmutation of a warm-blooded terrestial mammal 
into a denizen of the sea. Now, mark his logic! He tells us, 
that he learns from Mr. Hearnes' travels in Northern America, 
that a black bear was once seen to rush into a little lake, and 
swim about for hours with widely open mouth. The bear was 
probably cooling himself from the intense summer heats of the 
northern latitudes. But, Mr. Darwin's assumption is, that he 
was "thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water"; and 
his conclusion is, that 
"Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects 
were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already 
exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being 
rendered by Natural Selection, more and more aquatic in their 
structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths; till a 
creature was produced as monstrous as a whale " ! ! 
Every reader of Mr. Darwin's book, must be struck with one 
peculiarity; which characterizes his mode of argumentation, or 
manner of handling his subject; for it can hardly be called 
reasoning, qnqx\. by courtesy. It consists, in the use of the term 
"Natural Selection," in connection with such expressions as, 
"I can see no difficulty," "It is conceivable," "We may sup- 
pose," or "I have no doubt;" such expressions occurring on 
almost every page, and constantly advanced, in explanation of 
all the mysteries of Nature, without the slightest regard to 
logical sequence. 
The above remarks, are a fair representation of the peculiar 
views, and deliberate utterances, of this visionary dreamer of Sci- 
entific Matters; who, nevertheless, stands god-father to the pre- 
sent popular School of Scientific Atheists. 
In conclusion; we repeat, there is not a particle of evidence 
in the present course of Nature, nor in the revelations of Geology 
for previous millions of ages, to show that there ever has been 
such gradual change of structure, transmuting one Class or Spe- 
cies of animals into another, which this fanciful hypothesis de- 
mands for its support. 
We find evidence, from the beginning of animal life, of five, 
distinct types of Animal Organization, viz.: 1st, Protozoans; 10 
2nd, Radiates; 3d, Molluscs; 4th, Articulates ; and 5th, Verte- 
brates: Each type producing " after his kind," having " its seed 
in itself; " each, capable of immense development of varieties 
within prescribed limits; but, there is not a particle of evidence, 
to shoiv that one type had ever been transmuted into another, 
during the countless ages of the Geological record. Each type 
remains to the present day, distinct, intact, and independent. 
But yet, this hypothesis of gradual Evolution demands abso- 
lutely, such evidence; and unless such evidence be produced, it 
must fall to the ground as a baseless assumption. Darwin teaches 
that the present Order of Nature, so beautiful in its harmonious 
arrangement, and governed by wise Laws, has come about by 
chance; for, he maintains that every Form of Organic life has 
been gradually evolved from the lowest Form, by the develop- 
ment of Chance Varieties. 
In opposition to this, Science finds in every department of 
Nature, from the earliest date to the present time, constant evi- 
dence of plan, thought, contrivance, and adaptation of every 
living Form to the successive changes in the Earth's progress, 
attesting the existence of a Divine Supernatural, Law-imposing 
Creator. This is Moses' Doctrine of Evolution ; which Cuvier 
said, was in wonderful accordance with the successive changes 
in the Earth's history, as revealed by Geology. 
This doctrine, in accordance with true Science, is destructive 
of Darwin's hypothesis, in as much as it calls for an intelligent 
Creator. Darwin sees this difficulty, and endeavors to evade it, 
by inventing a pseudo-divinity (the offspring of Chance) which 
he dubs with the name of " Natural Selection"; which, as we 
have shown, he endows with all the attributes of the Theist's 
God, and which he represents going about, scrutinizing all the 
departments of Nature, constantly creating new Forms of being, 
and new organs in each Form, to meet the exigencies of his 
hypothesis. 
It is logical to infer, that any one capable of believing in such 
an absurd and unscientific phantasm would be also capable of 
believing, that a small Boat had been brought into existence, by 
the chance aggregation of matter, and had, in time, gradually 
developed itself, into a First-class Frigate. 
If it is objected, that there can be no legitimate comparison 
of development, between inert dead Matter and living Organ- 11 
isms ; we reply, that the comparison is strictly legitimate, ac- 
cording to the objector's theory, so long as he maintains that 
inert dead Matter came into existence by Chance ; and that, by 
chance, it somehow acquired a protoplastic principle of Organ- 
ization; in virtue of which, dead matter took on vegetable life; 
vegetable life was transmuted into animal life; and animal life, 
in its progress from its lowest form of a cell, or sack, without 
members,-gradually developed Monads into Men. 
It is difficult to understand how it is, that men of sound 
minds, of common sense, and of great scientific attainments 
can receive, with approbation, such a doctrine as Darwinism. 
One cause may be found, in the proneness of Scientific men, 
when they depart from their only legitimate sphere of patient 
observation and collection of facts, and indulge their imagina- 
tion, to be deluded by most visionary hypotheses. The great 
Kepler was a very remarkable instance of this. 
A second cause, exists in " reasoning pride," which puffs up 
some Scientific minds into the conceit, that they can unravel all 
the arcana of Creation, by those Laws of Nature which they have 
studied (but only partially understand), without the interven- 
tion of a Supernatural Law-giver, who is an offence to their sci- 
entific pride. 
Lastly, a third, and perhaps the strongest reason of all, may 
be found, in the depravity of the human heart; which prompts 
us to seek to escape from a Personal God, whose strict and 
righteous Justice, we fear; and whose proffers of Infinite Mercy, 
we distrust and will not accept. 
I have said nothing, in regard to the " homological struc- 
ture " of Man (upon which Mr. Huxley chiefly relies in support 
of his Atheistic views), because, it did not properly come within 
the scope of this short Article. For my present purpose, it is 
sufficient to say, that the inferences drawn by Mr. Huxley from 
"Homology" are quite as untenable, though perhaps not quite 
as absurd, as any of the fanciful vagaries of Mr. Darwin; which 
I here proceed to show. 
Mr. Huxley is an anatomist, and depends upon his scalpel to 
find "Man's place in Nature." He attempts to show that 
resemblance or similarity of structure is proof of unity of origin 
and identity of nature. He selects as Man's progenitor, the 12 
Gorilla, the most brutal of the Simian tribe, and far inferior in 
the scale of intelligence to the Chimpanzee and Ourang. He 
attempts to show that the two forepaws of the Gorilla are hands 
and the two hindpaws are feet, because they are somewhat similar 
in structure to the corresponding members in man, and do not 
present any greater differences than those which occur among 
animals which are classified in the same Order as the Gorilla. 
This is his fundamental argument, repeated in proof of every 
other point. He attemps to prove that the anterior paws of the 
Gorilla are hands, because they have something that resembles a 
human thumb, although from its construction it is destitute of 
the force, variety, and freedom of motion, and functions of the 
human organ. The celebrated anatomist Gratiolet, says "the 
hand of the Ape is but a prehensile hook." He argues in this 
respect, as in all others, "that the differences between Man and 
the Gorilla are of smaller value, than those between the Gorilla 
and some other Apes." 
Cuvier and Gratiolet, both high authorities, and so acknowleged 
by Huxley, show conclusively that all the paws of the Simian 
tribe are prehensile members, destitute of the distinctive func- 
tions of the human hand and foot, rendering them incapable of 
standing or walking'continuously erect, but adapting them as 
"tree climbers," which is their natural habitat. 
When Mr. Huxley comes to the examination of the brain of 
the Gorilla, he finds similarity of cerebral structure, but he 
acknowledges "the great gulf which intervenes between the 
lowest man and the highest ape in intellectual power." He also 
admits of a divergence " which has ended in the present enor- 
mous gulf between them. " In a long foot-note, he speaks of the 
effect of a hair in the balance wheel of a watch, etc., making all 
the difference between an accurate timekeeper and a watch that 
will not go at all, and says: " I find it very easy to believe that 
some equally inconspicuous structural difference may have been 
the primary cause of the immeasurable and practically infinite 
divergence of the Human from the Simian Stirps." 
By these incautious admissions Mr. Huxley virtually abandons 
his position; for he concedes that there is an impassable gulf\)Q- 
tween Man and any bestial ancestor. His arguments are avail- 
able to classify Man in the same Order as the Gorilla; but such 
artificial classification is no evidence whatever of Consanguinity 13 
or identity of nature; which is the point he seeks to prove from 
structural resemblance. * 
The three foremost and progressive pupils of the Darwinian 
School of Material Atheism, are Huxley, Tyndal and Herbert 
Spencer. We say progressive; for we have seen that "Darwin, 
unable to get on with his scheme without the aid of an intelli- 
gent Creator, and totally ignoring the Theist's personal God, 
invented an impersonal, all-wise and all-powerful creator, called 
Natural Selection, who still keeps up the work of creation, in 
what may justly be termed a very wonderful and miraculous 
manner. 
Now Huxley knows no creator but matter, force, and motion. 
Those are his Gods. He denies all plan and design in Creation, 
but makes it the result of some fortuitous kaleidoscopic congre- 
gation of molecular atoms. He makes man an automatic machine, 
acted upon, like a steam engine, by external forces and agents, 
without any independent volition or mind-in fact, a mere 
atitomaton. 
Tynda], though more learned and specious, is just as rank a 
materialistic Atheist. This is shown by the following utterances 
-" The inexpugnable position of Science may be stated in a few 
words. We claim and we shall wrest from Theology the entire 
domain of cosmological theory "; which he intends to do without 
the aid of a Divine Creator, and to account for the origin of life 
and all the works of Nature, through the inherent power of 
Matter and correlation of forces. 
Again he says: "The spirit and practice of Science pronounce 
against the intrusion of an anthropomorphic creator"; i.e., there 
is no personal God. 
Again he says: " I discern in matter the promise and potency 
of all terrestrial life." And again: "The human mind itself, 
emotion, intellect and will, and all their phenomena, were once 
latent in a fiery cloud." It would be difficult to find any greater 
instance of materialistic Atheism, even if we went back two 
thousand years, to Lucretius and other pagan philosophers, 
* We published in the "American Quarterly Church Review," in the July 
Number, of 1865, and in the two following Numbers, a full and complete 
refutation of this doctrine of Huxley, and we would refer the reader to those 
Articles if he takes any interest in this subject. 14 
whose speculations, pardonable in their day of ignorance, these 
modern philosophers have only rehashed, and invested with a 
garb of scientific jargon, which they call Science. Such specu- 
lations are unbecoming in professional scientific men. 
Next comes Mr. Herbert Spencer, about whom there will be 
a difference of opinion-but we think he can be shown to be as 
rank an Atheist as either of the others; though more insidious, 
notwithstanding his proposal to reconcile Religion and Sci- 
ence, as set forth in his "First Principles of a New System of 
Philosophy." This proposal was hailed with great applause by 
his friends; and also by many of the public who were prejudiced 
against Revealed Religion as taught by Theologists. 
We will show, in a few words, what kind of religion Mr. 
Spencer proposes to reconcile with Science. His idea of reli- 
gion is something without Form, Creed or Doctrine, but which 
utterly ignores a personal God, and an intelligent Divine Creator 
of the Universe. 
The Universe, he thinks, has a different origin, and has been 
evolved by the forces of Matter. He sets out with a plea for 
Religion, and says: " Of all antagonisms of belief, the oldest 
and widest, the most profound and the most important, is that 
between Religion and Science." He believes there must be 
some verity or " element common to all religions," which Sci- 
ence can accept; and says, " This element must be more abstract 
than any current religious doctrine," or creed, or dogma, "for 
Science cannot recognize beliefs like these; they lie beyond its 
sphere. " 
The basis of agreement which he proposes must be " a fact 
which Science recognizes in common with Religion." He scouts 
all knowledge and doctrines in regard to the creation of the uni- 
verse, and says, " The power which the Universe manifests to us 
is utterly inscrutable." This is the verity with which he seeks 
to reconcile Science and Religion. He says, " All changes are 
manifestations of a power that transcends our knowledge"; and 
also, "Some mode of the Unknowable related to matter, we 
know as cause and effect." He believes (in direct opposition to 
the idea of an intelligent personal Divine Creator), in an imper- 
sonal "Unknowable," a power without intelligence, as his 
God. He thinks that there should be no prejudice or alarm 
excited " at the proposal to reduce the phenomena of life, of 15 
mind, and of society, to terms of matter, motion, and force.'" 
He says, we can " without hesitation affirm that a sincere recog- 
nition of the truth, that our own and all other existence is abso- 
lutely and forever beyond our comprehension, contains more true 
religion than all the dogmatic theology ever written." 
So much for Mr. Spencer's much-lauded attempt to reconcile 
Religion and Science. 
Mr. Herbert Spencer is a writer difficult to read and under- 
stand. In his Philosophy he soars all over the Universej from 
earth to the heavens, with a self-confidence and audacity which 
excites our astonishment if not our admiration. But his con- 
fusion of thought is so manifest, his self-contradictions so fre- 
quent and his verbiage so obscure, and overlaid with new-fangled 
scientific terms, that we are not sure that we understand him, 
and sometimes doubt whether he understands himself. 
He is called the "Logician" of this brotherhood of Atheists. 
Now, Logic never yet discovered a truth, from the days of 
Aristotle to the present-but its false use has strengthened and 
sustained many errors. The logic of Mr. Spencer is somewhat 
peculiar. He starts with a premise-which is generally an 
assumption, an assertion, or an opinion, of his own-and from it, 
by logical reasoning, comes to a conclusion which is frequently 
false and sometimes absurd. 
In conclusion, we would briefly sum up the teachings of this 
modern Materialistic School of Philosophy. They all agree in 
teaching that inert matter, from eternity, has always possessed a 
supreme potency of molecular force, and correlation, inherent in 
itself, which has evolved all forms of existence, and although 
unintelligent, it has imposed upon itself Law, evincing plan and 
design; and also that said matter, in virtue of its correlation of 
force and motion, has evolved in Man, volition, mind, affections, 
and-all his spiritual endowments. 
In this connection we would ask, How comes it, that Man, 
thus evolved from and by matter, can, nevertheless, at his pleas- 
sure, make it subservient to his will, and can so control and 
direct its laws as to make them servants of his mind? If man, 
thus evolved, can exert such power over matter and its laws, 
why may not an intelligent Divine Creator, much more exercise 
a similar control over His own works, though we cannot see or 
understand the way by which He accomplishes it ? 16 
The doctrine, which all these materialistic Atheists now 
preach, namely, that the thoughts, volition, mind, and spiritual 
attributes of man, are due to the molecular arrangement and 
correlation of forces inherent in matter, recalls to our mind a 
dogrel verse, which we once heard in our youth, and which we 
think is a very exact representation of the teachings of this ad- 
vanced School of Modern Philosophy. As near as we remem- 
ber, it ran somewhat like the following : 
All mind is matter; sages say 
The human soul is made of clay; 
Cold clay, is virtue; hot mud, sin; 
And thoughts, are angle-worms that crawl within. 
' HENRY A. DUBOIS.