The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-01-28
REV. MACQUEARY'S BOOK
i..,1FNT EXTRACTS FROM IT THAT
-coxTAIN HIS ALLEGED HERESY.

OH and Resurrection of Christ.
From the Philadelphia Press.
r.is not perhaps surprising that evangeli-
= christians should be shocked at the
% exprossed by the Rev. Howard Mac
r-..-v in his work on 1.-THE Evolution
= Man and Christianity" for the writing
!. vhich the author has been tried for
herssy.
-. trial. reprints below some salient extracts
rom the book in question.
There Is no opposition between the ideas
.fGod and nature. The forces of nature
.rs nsught else than different manifesto
CONS of the divine will, the laws of nature
,ought else than the regular modes Of oper-
iron of that will, Interchangeable because he
Man nas been evolved from a lower an
;r1aI form, The evidences of this proposition
are derived from four sources, viz.
Paleontology, Morphology, Variability,
and Embryology. Some scientists and
tbsologians have been compelled to grant
tbst mans physical organism has been de-
yaIoped from a lower animal form, but they
draw a line at his spiritual nature, asserting
,bet his spirit could not have been evolved
from The ANNA of animals. For my own
mart | see no possibility of dra ting so
;magi ary line, and, therefore, 1 accept
the evolution of man, body and soul, from
the lower animals.
Theology attempts to refute the evolu-
tionists' explanation of the origin of man,
without being able to offer an explanation
NJ that origin. That attempted refutation
Is based on the Book of Genesis, a docu ment
whose meaning and au lhorship are 50 no Pc
lessly uncertain that the most learned and
devcut minds cannot agree on either the
one or the other.
The human race, according TO an arch
bishop in the church, who lived about 800
wears ago, is nut 5000 years old. But
science proves indisputsbly that mans first
appearance on tine earth must have been
very remote, at least 10000, perhaps 100000
years or more ago.
As to mans primitive home and condi-
ton, theology claims that the first man
was created in the full perfection of his
nature, ami that his home was in some
Eden, which has been variously located,
not only in every part of the world. but
even outside of it. This claim is made on
"the authority of scripture" But ''the
authority Of scripture" is the very point to
be proved. We have no more reason to
believe that our Genesis is inspired than we
have to believe hat George Smiths
''Chaldean Genesis" is inspired.
Science, on the contrary. shows that, for
thousands Of years before the origin of the
oldest Known civilization, men were saw
ages of a very Low type. and it is now gen
orally admitted that mans birthplace was
in a region covered at present by the waters
of the Indian ocean. The main reason that
theol gians jsct SO strongly to the scien-
tfc theory of mans primitive condition, is
its inconsistency with the popular doctor of
mans fall and depravity in Adam. This
doctrine, however, is not sanctioned by
Scripture, as is shown by Canon Row of
England in his Future Retribu5ion."
When and by whom were the books of
the New Testament written? Whatever
else the Bible may be proved to be, it is
book, and like ali other books it must sub
NIT TO a critical examination. That exami-
nation has been made with the most reger-
ent spirit, by many critical experts, most
of whom would gladly have found the New
Testament to be exactly what popular the
ology claims it to be. The final result of
the consideration of these experts is that
the ten eplstles ascribed to St. Paul, espe-
cially those to the Romans, Corinthians,
and Galatians, are his works; that the Rev
citation is st. Johns; that TIE first three
Gospels are not the works of Matthew,
Mark aud Luke, but contain merely certain
notes" made by those disciples, which were
worked over by the authors of our Gospels
sometime between the years 20 and 1875
A. D.. that the Gospel of John was written
by Philonic Philosopher, prob
ably disciple of st. john at Ephesus, s1me
time between the beginning and middle.of
the second century; that the Acts was writ
ten by Gentle disciple in Asia Minor
perhaps at Ephesus-between the years rs
and l25 A. D., d was based on notes by
st. Luke on st. Paul's missionary journeys.
The origin of the remaining books of the
New Testament 1t is not necessary to con-
slider for the purpose of this book.
In discussing the relation of evolution and
miracles it is important to remember that
while the evoluticnists deny the actual &C.
currences Of many, if nor all given in
stances of miracles, none deny the POSSIBLE
lily OF such occurrences, and this for the
simple reason that such denial would be
utterly absurd. do not deny the posi-
billty Of miracles. l believe in the existence
OF an infinitely wise and powerful being,
who creates and governs all things, and
upon this basis rests the possibility of mira
cles A miracle, according to such philoso-
ghy, Is simply one mode in which the In
mite Spirit manifestsl hlmself-literally an
extraordinary event.
while do not believe in the Bible mir
acies In the gross, so to speak, do believe
mat really wonderful and, properly speak
1HIs, miraculous events are recorded in the
NeW testament, but those events were diff
l9Teot from what they are commonly sup
posed to be. The real reason that the
eIorts to explain, or explain away, if you
please, the alleged intricacies of christian
history are SO distasteful to most people is,
no1 thelr intrinsic weakness-not because
Cuey are based on an assumption of impos<
sl3le or improbable facts-but rather the
IaSe notion that they and they alone can
prove the divine character of Christ. In
[elutatlon of this silly notion l would ask
gne SIMPLE question: Did the miracles of
aalIan, or Elisha, or the apostles prove their
DIVINITY? No!
But" 1T will be asked, "what are you
gong 10 do with the virgin-birth and res
direction of ChristY As to the former, the
dalprooa6llity of such an occurrence can be
uesyroyed only by the most overwhelming
ees-uence. Yet it is undeniable that the his
o cUaicai evidence on the subject is notori-
eusy weak. Only two of the evangelists
roooIu this event-Matthew and Luke-but
We 10 not know on what authority their
accounts rests. The epistles of st. Paul
Il Imam !. no evidence as to the virgin birth.
sS 81 ~ easy to understand how such story
should originate.
tb o. Matthew, devout Jew, writes with
ny. NC aVowed purpose of showing that Jesus
tba 1He Messiah of the Jews, and it was,
b1o e,telore, the most natural thing magma
no. no 1uae Saint Matthew he wrote that
a anil Oh the gospel bearing his name-should
n P tfa % Jesus lsaiah's prophecy, as it stood