w&i.
no. n
"IIKMOION AND CIVILIZATION."
!)!)
.m
i
"11ELWI0N AtfD Gl VIL1ZATI0N."
In the March number of tlie Student,
appeared an article under the above cap
tion, in which the writer assayed to prove
that the Church has always been u bar
rier in the pathway of human progress.
To say the least, the article contains a
considerable amount of either intentional
or unintentional sophistry.
The statement is made that scepticism
is the necessary forerunner of inquiry.
This is, in the main, probably correct,
and yet a certain amount, more or less, of
inquiry is necessary to scepticism. That
is to say, scepticism is always the result
of partial inquiry, and is generally the
forerunner of certain and newly acquired
knowledge. In the statement just made,
the term scepticism is used in its general
sense of doubt, without applying it to any
particular kind ot doubt. Then the wri
ter makes the statement that the Church
has always opposed scepticism, and, us
scepticism is necessary to the acquisition
ol new knowledge, that the Church has
been a hindcrencc to the progress of civil
ization. But it will be carefully noticed
that in the second statement, the term
scepticism is used in a specific, or, as it
might be called, a technical sense, name
ly, doubting the truth of the Christian
religion, and herein lies the fallacy in the
argument.
The Church has always opposed scepti
cism, in the technical sense referred to,
because any doubt as to the divine origin
of the Chnsian religion, is simply a deni
al of the truth of the religion, and to be
consistent with herself the Church must
oppose everything of the Kind. That the
Church has opposed scepticism in tiie
first or general sense to which reference
was made, any more than many other
institutions, cannot be maintained. The
Church, herself, has been, and is, pre-cm-iuently
a progressive institution; a fact
which history confirms beyond a doubt.
Indeed, I take it to be a truth which will
find its confirmation in the natural laws
of human progress and development, and
will commend itself with every thinking,
intelligent person, that no institution,
other than a progressive one, could have
exercised for so many centuries such a
powerful and extended sway over the
human race as has the Church ; and in the
midst of such numerous and extensive po
litical, intellectual, and social revolutions
as have characterised the progress of the
human race since the begining of thu
Christian era. Shall an institution be
condemned because it has not accepted
every new theory at its first announce
ment? It is natural for men to look with
distrust upon each new theory as it ap
pears, and to cling U) the old until the new
shall find time and facts for its confirma
tion. And it is this tendency in man's
nature which gives to society its stability.
The history of the world shows that the
Church, (when I say Church, I do not
mean the Roman Catholic Cliuich, but
the Christian Church,) has ever led the
van in those great revolutions and grand
enterprises, which have been most potent,
in their results, for the advancement and
civilization of the human race.
But the statement is made, that "before
the Church can claim to have iwivanced
civilization, her advocates .ndst show
that she has lessened the powe, of the
imagination, and has given broader
range to the intellect of man," just
what is meant by lessening the power
of the imagination, we do not know,
but the writer, in making this statement,
assumes that civilization consists simply
in intellectual rdvauccment, which is in
deed a narrow conception of that quite
comprehensive term. Such u construc
tion cannot be placed upon this term ex
cept by ignoring altogether the moral na
tures and vicissitudes of men. I can con
sidcr it possible for the Church to have
accomplished nothing for the intellectual
advancement of the race, which, however,
is far from the truth, and still have done
much for the advancement of civilization.
But let us turn to the historical part of
