Protoplasm, Powheads, Porwiggles
The Evolution of the Horse
From the Rhinoceros



A guide for Electors
In choosing Lord Rectors.

For he a rope of sand could twist
As tough as learned Sorbonist;
And weave fine cobwebs, fit for skull
That's empty when the moon is full.





Since professed unbelievers, whether called infidels or atheists, or recognised as materialists, pantheists, positivists, freethinkers, or by any other name, may be regarded by legitimate inference as virtually looking on the acceptors of Christianity as a class of cozened and credulous ignoramuses, because of their believing in a personal God and divine Revelation; they cannot justly complain if in return for such an implied estimate, they are in any case treated with ridicule and scorn by the said ignoramuses; for these, in holding themselves as witnesses for their own great Creator and His imperishable Revelation, will not calmly submit to be substantially told by the dupes of blank infidelity that they are in respect of their beliefs, a set of undiscerning and unreasoning fools and simpletons.

In the sentiments and bearing of the advocates of materialism, or thorough infidelity of any species, there is embedded a large amount of arrogance and impudence, for in their rejection of Christianity they actually lay claim to a superior degree of wisdom and discernment, compared with that which is possessed by its acceptors; and that these therefore are in that respect more deserving of being looked on as misled or ignorant fools than wise men. When we direct our attention in this light to the supercilious abettors of infidelity, we picture them to ourselves in the character of presuming pigmies vilifying the memory of dead giants, and daring living ones to the fight, inasmuch as very many great men who have had, and very many who still have, the highest reputations for literature, have not only professed undoubting belief in God and Revelation; but have been the most learned and redoubtable defenders of the whole system of Christianity. We feel therefore as if we beheld in the field of contest this and that and the other self-magnifying sceptic, crowing with exultation in the midst and the muddle of his materialism, and in sheer impertinence pretending to caricature and laugh at believers in a personal Creator and God over all, as the blinded dupes of superstitious credulity. Such by implication is the compliment professed infidels pay to believers; but if any believer, following the example of Elijah in mocking the priests of Baal, adventures by anything in the shape of mocking to come down on any specimens of the said infidel fraternity, forthwith there may be raised no little hullaballoo about rudeness, and incivility, and the lack of Christian charity.

Alas! alas! how very rude and inconsiderate for the great prophet Elijah to mock such learned and enlightened men as the [2] priests of Baal! How very rude and inconsiderate for any one in these our own days of superlative speculation and discernment to laugh in mockery at such learned-looking theories as represent human beings as merely lumps of matter organized, and the lineal descendants of tadpoles, monkeys an baboons. What folly for any to laugh at theories so very simple, and which great scientists can so easily put beyond doubt! How could they be mistaken in a matter so capable of demonstration? and who so presumptuous as to say to them in scorn, "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Nevertheless, being less concerned for the credit of their precious evolution science than our own creditable lineage, and therefore being inclined to abide sternly by the Mosaic account of the "origin of species," and consequently our honourable descent from Adam and Eve, we hold ourselves at full liberty–as the case may happen to demand, to hoot with ridicule and contempt the romance and rigmarole of all Huxley-Darwinian balderdash anent Protoplasm, Powheads, or Porwiggles.



Protoplasm looked at by the unlearned simply as a euphonious term, and to them of unknown meaning, may have something of an imposing aspect; but when once introduced for their information into the common dictionary, they may find it designated in the language of Professor Huxley, "the physical basis of life," and described as "a granulated semifluid body, contractile in mass and also in detail." As a somewhat recently "developed" term in scientific nomenclature, it possesses, in the estimation of juvenile and embryonic scientists, great attractions, and hence their pedantic repetition of it makes them feel as if they were thereby adding not a little to their intellectual or scientific stature. If its influence extended only to an increase of this species of inflated vanity, there might be the less to cause regret; but from the apocryphal attributes with which it is accredited, it has become a sort of pseudo-scientific Jack-o'-lantern or Will-o'-the-wisp, in leading some silly be-glamoured dupes into the swamps and quagmires of infidelity. Its influence in this direction was doubtless in the eye of Mr. Disraeli, when, in his Parliamentary speech on Mr. Gladstone's Dublin University Bill, he said–"This is essentially a material age....We live in an age when young men prattle about Protoplasm, and when young ladies in gilded saloons unconsciously talk atheism."

Since, according to the proverb, "As auld cocks craw young cocks learn," it is the less surprising that there should be found young sceptical or atheistic cocks, "crawing" or prattling about Protoplasm, when there are found, perched on high and conspicuous places, many auld atheistic cocks flapping their wings and crawing exultingly, whether about [4] Protoplasm specially, or inorganic matter generally, as having an inherent power for originating life, or as actually constituting life itself. For what could be more natural than for young men and young ladies, whether in gilded saloons or anywhere else, to prattle about that whereof they conceive their all-important selves are actually made? It is not to be supposed that the atheistic creatures would prattle so vulgarly as to say they were made of "dust," for this would have too much of a Scriptural and unlearned appearance, and therefore it has, in their eyes, a much more erudite and scientific look to prattle about their being made of–or their being made by–Protoplasm. In our juvenile days–some threescore years ago–when college Professors and other pedagogues were not quite so materialistic in their teachings as they are now, and consequently less inclined to taboo Biblical catechisms in the view of bringing about irreligious equality, our first and appropriately called "Mother's Catechism" put the question: "Who made you?" and the reply was "God made me"; but in this "material age" the reply would need to be–Protoplasm made me. Then to the next question, "What are you made of?" instead of saying in reply, "Of dust," young prattlers would need to say–we are made of Protoplasm. Were all to proceed thus logically and scientifically, the next question would be: What is Protoplasm? and the proper atheistic reply would be: it is "the physical basis of life," while, for proof, chapters and verse would be quoted from the Revelations of Professor Huxley; and the statement still farther confirmed that Protoplasm must be the said "basis of life" by the common sense consideration that no body could be made without a basis.

To some such exposition as this the matter must come for the instruction of young prattlers, if general belief is to be entertained in the supposed life-giving or creating power of Protoplasm; and then Topsy's notion of her "origin" or mode of "evolution," as given in Uncle Tom's Cabin may be regarded as scarcely less scientific:– "Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?" asks her new mistress–"Do you know who made you?" To which Topsy replies: "Nobody as I knows on; 'spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me." Such was Topsy's scientific theory of her origin, or the "evolution" of her species, and it is not much behind the notions of those Protoplasmic or materialistic scientists who seem to know as little about God as she did, in their ascribing the existence of all living things, and there[4] fore the human race itself, to the inherent powers of matter; so that their correct way of speaking of themselves, according to their materialistic creed, would be to say with Topsy:–"Don't think nobody never made us–we 'spect we grow'd." It is clear that were the old "use and wont" of catechetical instruction to be continued for the benefit of young prospective prattlers in science, its basis would not require to be on the Mosaic account of the "origin of species," but on what dealt largely with Protoplasm, atoms, monads, primary cells, powheads, and porwiggles. It would be necessary to show that all things had begun or "grow'd" out of another, till human beings had themselves "grow'd" out of monkeys or ourang-outangs. Should new catechisms be thought of for such instruction, these could easily be prepared by competent Lord Rectors, sceptical Professors, Broad-church D.D.'s; but instead of using the now almost hackneyed phrases of "evolution and transmutation," in accounting for the origin of species, they should adopt Topsy's scientific nomenclature, and use the word "grow'd"; and hence instruct each young atheistic prattler to say, in accounting for his own origin, "I 'spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me."

Since it seems sufficiently notorious that "young men prattle about Protoplasm, and young ladies in gilded saloons talk atheism," it is high time that primary catechetical manuals, strictly scientific, should be got ready for such novices and neophytes, lest in ignorance they caricature rather than explain what they prattle and talk about, when wishful to display their supposed scientific acquisitions. A writer in Blackwood takes note of the glib way in which such may be heard alluding to their own "developed" condition, saying, as if parenthetically, "We were once tadpoles, you know" (for as honest evolutionists they are not ashamed of having been "once tadpoles"), and after thus noting the case, he proceeds to remark:–"In many circles, especially in certain sections of London society, fluent conversational evolutionists are to be found, whose literary culture hardly goes deeper than a slight knowledge of Swinburne's poetry, and whose scientific and philosophical training is restricted to a desultory acquaintance with some of Mr. Darwin's more philosophical works." It may be that in London circles the evolution, with the protoplasmic pestilence assumes an aggravated type; but the contagion is afflicting the provinces also, and even as far north [6 as Aberdeen, where it has so encroached on the thinking powers and moral feelings of a large body of academical youths that they gratuitously invited a party to come in an official capacity among them, who, like the person said by the Evangelist to have been "full of leprosy," is radically affected with the virus of Evolution and Protoplasm–and yet no measures were taken to subject him previously to any disinfecting fumigation. It may be that the youthful requisitionists in this case, like some older experimenters who have purposely tried the effect of contagious inoculation on their own persons, have wished to follow the example, in the view of gaining admiration for their apparent devotion to science. Or wishing, perhaps, to hear the utmost that could be said about Protoplasm and Evolution, they had thought of putting themselves for that purpose in immediate communication with one of the greatest experts on these subjects; and by whom the rank and file of sceptic or atheistic sciolists are accustomed to swear, as another infallible authority.

However, if any danger from the virus of scepticism was apprehended in consequence of the formation of such a Rectorial relationship, it might have been supposed that it would be counteracted by a spell at Lay-sermonising, for which the object of their choice has been somewhat celebrated; and if he took to that for their edification, he might attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of his own text, in which he puts the question:–"Wherein lies man's superiority, or in what respect has he the advantage of the brute, but in respect of his speech." If, indeed, the essence of human superiority, compared with the irrational animals or brute-creation, consists in the possession of the attribute of articulate speech, then prattling about Protoplasm, or talking atheism will be attended with less injurious consequences; and such hapless youths as can be persuaded of this will more readily take the empirical and atheistical advice given them rectorially, to be all for the present world and think nothing about the future. The distinction, however between the man and the brute has been made out by a higher rule of contrast by the philosophical Mr. Coleridge, when he says in his Table-Talk:–

"Either we have an immortal soul, or we have not. If we have not, we are beasts; the first and wisest of beasts, it may be; but still true beasts. We shall only differ in degree, and not in kind; just as the elephant differs from the slug. But by the confession of all the materialists, of all the schools, or almost all, we are not the same kind of beasts-–and this we [7] also say from our own consciousness. Therefore, methinks, it must be in possession of a soul within us that makes the difference....Try to conceive a man without the ideas of God, eternity, freedom, will, absolute truth; of the good, the true, the beautiful, the infinite. An animal endowed with a memory of appearances and facts might remain. But the man will have vanished, and you have instead a creature more subtle than any beast of the field; but likewise cursed above every beast of the field; upon its belly it must go, and dust it must eat all the days of its life.

Lord Bacon, another great philosopher, who, like Coleridge, did not repudiate Revelation and common sense, or the principles of his own inductive philosophy, said, as we find quoted by Dr. Martyn Paine:–"I had rather believe all the fables in the legend and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame (the body) is without mind; and therefore God never wrought miracles to convince Atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to Religion." Pursuing the reasoning which this is meant to confirm, Dr. Paine remarks:–"The concerted action which is now in progress in the British School of the 'New Philosophy,' reveals its prototype as it flourished in Addison's time; and the reader will be interested with the parallel." Referring to the infidelity which thus prevailed upon the subject of the Soul and its Immortality, Addison continues thus:–

"It is, indeed, a melancholy reflection to consider that the British Nation, which is now at its greatest height of glory for its councils and conquests than it ever was before, should distinguish itself by a certain looseness of principles, and a falling off from those schemes of thinking which conduce to the happiness and perfection of human nature. This evil comes upon us from the works of a few solemn blockheads that meet together with the zeal and seriousness of Apostles, extirpate common sense, and propagate infidelity. These are the wretches who, without any show of wit, learning, or reason, publish their crude conceptions with an ambition of appearing more wise than the rest of mankind, with no other pretence than that of dissenting from them.'... 'The persons who now set up for Free-thinkers are such as endeavour by a little trash of words and sophistry to weaken and destroy those very principles, for the vindication of which freedom of thought at first became laudable and heroic. Those apostates [8] from reason and good sense can look at the glorious frame of nature without paying any adoration to Him that raised it; can presume to censure the Deity in His ways towards men; can level mankind with the beasts that perish; can extinguish in their own minds all the pleasing hopes of a future state, and lull themselves into a stupid security against the terrors of it. If one were to take the word priestcraft out of the mouths of those shallow monsters, they would be immediately struck dumb.'"

That peculiar species of animals which Addison has designated "solemn blockheads," and to whom he has appropriately given the additional name of "wretches," has not only ever since had a sufficient number of representatives to keep the breed alive, but has for a while past been turning out more than a usual number of specimens. The propagators of materialism, and other forms of infidelity–constituting such "solemn blockheads"–have been much on the increase of late, so that, after the style of certain demoniacs questioned by Jesus as to their name, they may say their "name is legion, for they are so many;" or, as otherwise expressed, their "name is legion, because many devils were entered into them." As they were also represented as "exceedingly fierce," the same may be said of some of the possessed now in view, especially in their bearing towards their supposed arch-enemies, the clergy, whom Buchner, one of their redoubted Goliaths, is pleased to call "theological cut-throats." The clergy have always been regarded by infidels as a set of elfish bogies and ghoules; but none of them we should suppose would proceed so far under any slandering from blank atheism, as to indulge in "throat-cutting"–even in the case of such hopeless sinners as reason, and reduce themselves to the degrading status of beasts, by denying they have immortal souls. Theologians, notwithstanding the teachings of the so-called "New Philosophy" and "Modern Science" have still more faith in the power of exorcism than in throat-cutting, and they would rather, for the benefit of the possessed themselves, do their best to drive out the evil spirits with which they are infested; and with no objections to these tormentors going into swine if such a boon were sought.

However, although the evil materialistic spirit which possesses Buchner has led him, from being "exceedingly fierce," to spurt a molecule or modicum of venom at his bogies–the "theological cut-throats"–we do not mean to insinuate that all who are substantially of his materialistic school are equally [9] disposed to such rabid or venomous epithets at the expense of the preaching fraternity; and certainly we would not include in this category the present Lord Rector of the Aberdeen University, for he is a bit of a preacher himself, and has actually published a volume of his pulpit lucubrations under the title of Lay Sermons. Dr. Martyn Paine very racily says of this: "But the drollest thing of all that has issued from 'modern science' is the project of promoting its doctrines by lay-preaching, notwithstanding its 'emancipation from theology,' as lately exemplified in a series of so-called Lay Sermons by the Harlequin of Science. They will doubtless make many converts to the worship of that unknowable which presides over the creative forces and laws of inorganic nature, particularly the sermon on the 'Origin of Species.' The freshness of novelty pervades all the sermons. This, as in the one just mentioned, is particularly manifest in the manner in which he salutes the clerical preachers in another sermon, of whom he says–'They are at present divisible into three sections–an immense body, who are ignorant and speak out; a small proportion, who know and are silent; and minute minority, who know and speak according to their knowledge.' The merits of their sermons are measured by the same criterion as already quoted from our author on another occasion, and which would 'commit them to the flames.' This opinion of Clerical Sermons is followed by a corresponding suggestion of a novel method of hallowing the Sabbath Day–'Would there,' he asks, 'really be anything wrong in using a part of Sunday for the purpose of instructing those who have no other leisure in a knowledge of the phenomenon of nature, and of man's relation to nature? should like to see a Scientific Sunday School in every parish.' What he would inculcate in these Sunday Schools as to 'man's relation to nature' may be inferred from the remark that 'I hold with the materialist that the human body is a machine, all the operations of which will, sooner or later, be explained on physical principles; that we shall arrive at a mechanical equivalent of consciousness and volition.' 'And if I say that thought is a property of matter, all that I mean is, that actually or possibly, the consciousness of extension and the consciousness of resistance accompany all other sorts of consciousness. Why and how they are thus related is an insoluble mystery.'"

Although at the risk of being thought to resemble too closely that section of clericals the Rector specifies as an "immense body who are ignorant and speaks out," we must so far exercise [10] the privileges of free-speech and out-speaking, as to remark that, from the pitiful ignorance which he and his compeers in scepticism or blank materialism develop, in respect of the theology, philosophy, and science even of the Bible, it would be well if they would condescend in their mightiness to take for their own instruction some of the lessons given in existing Sabbath Schools, instead of projecting such as in the name of science, would, for the Mosaic account of God's Creation, substitute by their "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called," their so-called development and transmutation theories; and thus get the rising generation scientifically taught they are merely matter organized, and the descendants of apes, gorillas, and orang-outangs. The surest way of poisoning the nation with scepticism is to teach its balderdash to the young, whether in Sabbath Schools or other juvenile seminaries; and as supplementary to this, if sceptical Professors and Lord Rectors of Universities can be got, they will help in a superlative manner to carry on the destructive work. This brings before us a view of the subject on which we might descant at some length; but instead we shall present in regard to it the sentiments of a public journal, elicited by the perusal of Professor Huxley's inaugural speech as Rector of the University of Aberdeen. It is much to be regretted that more of our journals are not equally inclined to act on such counsel as the witty Dr. South tendered in preaching in St. Paul's Cathedral in the metropolis, 200 years ago; and "reflect upon the numerous litter of strange things, senseless, absurd opinions, that crawl about in the world, to the disgrace of reason and the unanswerable reproach of a broken intellect." Had it been otherwise, the Perthshire Courier had not been left so much alone to expostulate as it thus did in its publication of 10th March, 1874.

"It is one of the significant, and perhaps, discouraging signs of the times, that the youthful students at our Universities should find so much delight in so highly honouring such men as Huxley, Mill, and Carlyle....We have no doubt whatever the juvenile philosophers feel perfectly assured that, by indulging in such erratic and restless courses, they are making for themselves a fame of heroism, independence and large-mindedness. Loose and infidel proclivities are now-a-days, in the estimation of many, not a reproach, but a praise....The fact is, to such a height has this applause of laxity and sadly-miscalled liberty attained, that that man alone, whether old or young, is entitled to be esteemed a hero [11] who can face and fight the opprobrium of being narrow-minded and old-fashioned. But a greater ground of alarm, and a greater ground of humiliation than even this is found in the fact that such impulses and influences should so largely prevail within the walls of our Universities. What a miserable estimate does it lead one to form of the whole moral and intellectual atmosphere of our great seats of learning....Professor Huxley himself seems to look upon his election to the Rectorate of the University of Aberdeen as an incongruity. Nobody has ever appeared so much astonished at the fact as he. At the very opening of his installation address he thanked the students for conferring upon him an honour, of which, he said, 'he could not have dreamed.' 'And,' continued the Professor, 'it was the more surprising to me, as the five-and-twenty years which have passed over my head since I reached intellectual manhood, have been largely spent in no half-hearted advocacy of doctrines which have not yet found favour in the eyes of academic respectability–so that when the proposal to nominate me for your Rector came, I was almost as much astonished as was Hal o' the Wynd 'who fought for his own hand by the Black Douglas's proffer of knighthood.' We trust the young gentlemen of the University of Aberdeen when next engaged in choosing a Lord Rector–and all young gentlemen of the other Universities when similarly employed–will profit by the very decided snub thus so handsomely and elegantly administered to them by the object of their misguided choice."

Next, for the sake of the comment by which it is followed, we adduce as the text a short passage from the Rector's address, wherein he remarks:–"Kant has said that the ultimate object of all knowledge is to give replies to these three questions. What can I do? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? The forms of knowledge which I have enumerated (continued the Rector) should furnish such replies as are within human reach to the first and second of these questions. While, to the third, perhaps, the wisest answer is, 'DO WHAT YOU CAN TO DO WHAT YOU OUGHT, AND LEAVE HOPING AND FEARING ALONE.' And second, 'Practical life is such a sum, in which your duty multiplies into your capacity, and divided by your circumstances, gives you the fourth term in the proportion, which is your deserts with great accuracy.' 'Your deserts!' We could not have imagined it necessary–continued the critic–to send to London for a learned Professor to come to tell 600 Aberdeen students particularly how, 'with [12] great accuracy' to ascertain their 'deserts.' We do not know how it may be with Aberdeen students particularly, but we suppose we shall be very amply borne out when we say, that with people generally, the great concern is, not to know what their deserts may exactly be, but, knowing them to be sufficiently great and sufficiently bad, how they may best get rid of them. Strange admonition to the students this:–Do what you can to do what you ought, and let hoping and fearing alone.' And still stranger instruction:–'Your duty multiplied into your capacity, and divided by your circumstances, gives you the fourth term in the proportion, which is your deserts, with great accuracy!' Here is the new gospel according to Huxley–works without either hope or fear, which, being interpreted, simply means without either reward or punishment,–duty, capacity, circumstances, deserts! A miserable comforter it surely is. Whatever all else this may be, we are to stake our existence upon the contention that, at least, it is not philosophy. Mr. Darwin concedes to man the comparatively honourable condition of progress and development. But Professor Huxley casts him back direct to the condition of the dogs. His formulated proposition for extracting the deserts of the one is precisely of equal application and efficacy in determining the deserts of the other. And, so in the matter of duty and destiny, are the cases perfectly identical. Every well-conditioned and well-trained dog undoubtedly does what Professor Huxley told the Aberdeen students they had only to do–does what he can to do what he believes he ought, and so far as we know anything about the mental and moral constitution of dogs, he leaves all removed and remote considerations of 'hoping and fearing alone.' Noble teaching this to be sure. No wonder the learned preceptor deemed it necessary to preface his prelection with the confession and warning that, however highly he might be esteemed by the students of Aberdeen, his doctrines had not yet found favour in the eyes of academic respectability . ... Then, the farther admonition to 'leave hoping and fearing alone!' Is that the advice of a philosopher? Is it a philosophic advice arbitrarily to tell any earnest anxious man to do, what no man, by mere authority, can do? A thorough philosophic mind would despise to emit any such dictum. A genuine philosopher would not so befool himself and his disciples....If all we have got to do is do what we can, to do what we ought, and leave hoping and fearing alone–if the whole problem which man has to solve in this world is reducible to a [13] proposition in the Rule of Three, whereby, without either hope or fear he may, 'with great accuracy,' extract his deserts,–where can be the place for, and what can be the use of, the whole Divine scheme of Redemption, and the whole system of the Christian religion? Manifestly–nowhere; and manifestly–none.

In two subsequent issues of the Courier –Sept. 15th, 22nd, 1874–there is a review of an excellent pamphlet by Rev. Alexander Anderson, M.A., Director of the Gymnasium, Old Aberdeen, titled: "Science–Theology–Religion: with notices of the teaching of Professor Struthers and others;" and wherewith students and others under any materialistic or other pseudo-scientific tendencies should provide themselves. From the review, which spares no arrows in dealing with the tomfooleries of the pretentious scientists who came in its way, we shall present a few of its pungent remarks, and the more readily as they are well calculated to supersede any farther observations of our own in reference to the parties on whom the reviewer's blows descend.

"A few years ago, Mr. Huxley changed the glory of God into–Protoplasm! That 'lie' (Rom. i. 25) was speedily and effectually disposed of, and it is remarkable that in his infidel demonstration, in his Rectorial Address at Aberdeen, Mr. Huxley did not repeat it. Nor is it repeated in the still more abominable outburst of infidelity which we have recently had from Mr. Tyndall at Belfast. 'Protoplasm' turned out a losing horse, and the game with him is up. Hence Mr. Tyndall has taken to driving tandem. He handles the ribbons now on 'Organism' and 'Environment.' Creation, and all the wisdom and design displayed in the order and arrangements of the material universe, are henceforth to be explained by the cabalistic utterance of the names of Mr. Tyndall's two pet horses, Organism and Environment! How an organism comes to exist; how it comes to act on its environment in a manner in which inorganic matter cannot act; how its environment is arranged around it, is adapted for it, and acts suitably upon its reciprocating to the action of the organism; all these questions are to go for nothing. Purpose, and power and wisdom, and will, and every intuition that the wisest and best of men have hitherto embraced in the word Creator is to be swept aside, and the field left clear for Mr. Tyndall to drive tandem with his two horses, Organism and Environment; and the only possible variorum by way of exhilaration and amusement we can expect, is to see him sometimes driving the one beast first, and sometimes the other!"

[14] In allusion to the absurd materialistic theories or fancies set forth in the name of science by Tyndall and Huxley–et hoc genus omne, the reviewer says:–

"It ought to be widely known that when this sort of thing attempted to gain entrance to the Institute of France in the person of Mr. Huxley, the Parisian savans–far enough, many of them, from being overburdened with respect for Christianity, but knowing something about at least the first principles of Science–said 'No, this is not Science.' Mr. Huxley was blackballed. You can go to Belfast with your atoms, and 'ape' Lucretius, and whirl young atoms there! Laplace has been here; and we rejoiced in the honour of having the name of Chalmers on our roll. We honour men of Science, and would fain keep the Institute of France somewhat pure. The British Association is the place for charlatans–the theatre for impudence. It is science we want here, and that is what you have not to show."

We have respect for the memory of the old lady of Edinburgh who, on being told that David Hume was overthrowing the Christian Religion, quietly replied, 'Gey impiddent in him, I'm thinking.' And the similarly quiet remark of Dr. Beatie of Marischal College is well worth reproducing:–'These gentlemen seem to have a strange prejudice against their Maker.' There is no difficulty in unravelling their webs of speeches, down to the last thread and fibre of them. And for some purposes, and with a view to the instruction of certain classes of enquirers, this may with propriety be done. Nor will these 'prejudiced' and 'impiddent' gentlemen be left to complain that this detailed method of dealing with their effusions has been neglected. Mr. Huxley's Sabbath Evening Sermon on Protoplasm (in Edinburgh) was pretty well attended to, in that particular line of treatment. But ridicule is as legitimate as argument, and comes more readily to hand. A pulpy deity like Protoplasm is easily quashed. It will be neither to-day or to-morrow that Mr. Huxley will get a temple built on Carlton Hill, for a god who has so little self-respect as to be indifferent whether his habitat be in fish, or flesh, or flowers, nettles or dockens, Scotch fiddles or the intestines of men and brutes. Elijah, with the priests of Baal, has taught us how to deal fearlessly with more remarkable gods than these. And Paul has instructed us to call their worshippers 'fools' to their faces. For if the saying has any meaning, or is capable of verification, 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools,' who can fail to see [15] it verified when men study Natural History, not to discover traces of wisdom and design, but to find in the functions of animals a substitute for a living and all-wise Creator?

Whilst it is a comfort to find, as so far thus illustrated, that true science–so different from science falsely so-called–is demolishing the fantastic structures of atheistic materialism, it is a matter of farther congratulation to sound thinkers and God-fearing men, that now even, as in former times, the worshipped leaders of infidel theories fall foul of one another; and in their sceptical raids on Revelation and common sense, break their harlequin wooden swords on the heads of their own professional brethren. Hence, M. Paul Janet, Professor of Philosophy in Paris, in speaking of Schopenhauer, one of the wild theorists of Germany, adverts to him as saying, "Pantheism has fallen so low, and has led to such nonsense, that people have finally worked it as a means of livelihood for themselves and families." Farther, giving a character to the several systems of spurious metaphysics taught by Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, he says in sarcasm, "Dilute a minimum of thought into five hundred pages of nauseous phraseology, and trust for the rest to the truly German patience of the reader." So hath spoken Harlequin Schopenhauer of the three other harlequins thus in his view, whilst he himself had "taken the fancy of reviving the Nirvana of the Buddhists"–as stated by Janet. The same author, referring to Buchner, one of the present most popular 'harlequins of science,' represents him by saying:–"We shall set aside all the philosophical verbiage by which our theoricians shine, chiefly the German philosophy, which inspires a legitimate disgust in men both learned and illiterate. The days are past when learned jargon, metaphysical quackery, and intellectual legerdemain enjoyed popularity." "Our modern philosophers are fond of heating up old vegetables, and then serving them under new names as the last invention of the philosophical kitchen."

Wherein may consist the difference, in Buchner's view, between sceptical philosophical kitchens and atheistic sculleries, we do not know; but we are sure enough that no man could be at meaner and more dismal work than Buchner's own, in sweating and toiling to brush up and burnish in his scullery the old sooty pots and pans and other begrimed ware of Democritus, Epicurus, and other old heathen atheistic world-makers. Veritable scullions of good character we can conscientiously respect, lowly though they may be; but persons learned or illiterate, who toil at such degrading and destruc[16]tive work as Buchner and Co. in their sceptical sculleries and kitchens, we utterly pity and contemn; for their abhorrent theories and principles tend directly to the ruin of immortal souls, and if generally embraced would lead to the ruin of the nation itself. Not only therefore are there urgent demands on Christians generally, as well as on Buchner's nicknamed "theological cut-throats," to betake themselves energetically to the proper means for repelling the arrogant and impudent foe, but even the Government of the land itself may be urged to keep a watchful eye on the propagators of atheism, whether openly avowed teachers of the abominations, or such as endeavour to get currency for these, under the specious names of philosophy and science; for were the doctrines of atheistic materialism generally accepted, the very existence of the State itself would be endangered. For the purpose of maintaining civil order and good government generally, more than merely civil interests should be less or more under the protection of State authorities, supreme and subordinate, in as much as robbing men of their Christian principles–for which atheism labours–is a species of robbery of a much more serious character than aught which affects temporal goods or chattels.

"Who steals my purse, steals trash, 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he who filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

Thus hath Shakespeare wrote in illustration of the superior value of a good name compared with worldly substance; but of higher value still than even a good name are Christian principles, and parties who by any means rob men of these are the worst enemies of our race. They are still worse specimens of humanity than the denounced "theological cut-throats" of our said atheistic German scientist; and, if we may be allowed to imitate his refined nomenclature in this matter, we may call them materialistic or atheistic cut-throats; and on whom, if viewed only in the light of citizens or subjects of the kingdom, we must look as very dangerous characters–and all the more so if they are in any way officially connected with educational institutions.



"He knew what's what, and that as high
    As metaphysic wit can fly."

World-makers of cosmogonists,
    By Scientific speculation,
And who account for creatures all
    By their odd whims about creation;
Seem sib to old Democritus,
    And Epicurus with their motes,
For their creating theories
    Are like the dreams of idiots.
And yet, although plain common sense
    Can such poor whims as their's capsize,
Still seldom do they wink or wince
    At aught whereon they jargonise:
But what the wonder since they I know
    That as great gommachs much abound,
Such gowks will gobble all their bosh,
    Howe'er absurd it may be found!
The gape of sceptic gapuses
    Is so enormous as now shown,
That they can swallow anything
    As there is nought they'll choke upon.
But seeing sceptic scientists,
    In scorn reject Heaven's Revelation,
And of themselves reveal a mode
    For manufact'ring a creation;
They ought by now to have "evolved,"
    That unevolved desideratum
What could "evolve" what matter is,
    As to its essence or substratum.
No doubt, howe'er, that will be done
    When proof arrives that life began
On what Professor Huxley holds,
    Or calls, the Protoplasmic plan;
For Protoplasm in his view,
    Of living matter is the basis,
[18] And having his substratum got,
    His scheme of life he slickly raises.
The Bible or Mosaic scheme,
    He holds is tott'ring to its fall,
As it has not a basis got,
    Correctly scientifical;
And what does not on science rest,
    But on what Heaven has chosen to pen,
Should ne'er outweigh, he's sure enough,
    The saws of scientific men.
Still Huxley's own creating scheme
    Involves such fustian, that some folks
Suppose that it is only meant
    To be a scientific hoax.
They've seen the Rector likes a joke,
    In having hoaxed the College boys;
And having many other gowks
    Bamboozled by learned-looking noise,
It may be that when thus he notes,
    The hoaxing credit he has won,
He feels encouraged to proceed,
    In view of getting farther fun.
To make even one great gapus think,
    That men had all be monkeys once,
Might well, just for the fun of it,
    Set him into a jumping dance.
Howe'er, Rectorial dignity,
    As something due to College chiels,
Would scarce permit him in that way,
    To turn up Terpsichorean heels.
Yet better he were capering thus,
    Along with other dancing drolls,
Than in Rectorial speeches tell
    Young College loons they have no souls.
Then for the sake of capt'ring gulls
    That they may gobble his supposes,
He needs must try to give some jerks
    To records which were written by Moses;
Though still he does not plainly say,
    That Moses was a stupid body,
But rather that he lost himself,
    Through want of scientific study:
And science being every thing,
    As dabs in science all admit,
[19] He marvels not that Moses came
    To suffer from the want of it.
Egyptian science he might have,
    As taught by the Egyptian priests,
And hence might know how to embalm
    Dead men and women, and dead beasts;
But knowing not that Protoplasm,
    Beast-making first of all began,
He could not know things thus were made
    Upon the scientific plan.
'Twas thus he had to be content–
    As any unlearned writer would–
With writing of creating work,
    As it was pop'larly understood;
And in his time it was believed–
    Just as some folks believe it still–
That at the first no use was made
    Of any "evolution" mill;
But that, as he hath well detailed,
    There were bestowed by the Creator,
The perfect form and attributes
    Which appertained to every creature.
Had there been Darwins in his day,
    As primary evolution lights,
And toadified as these now are
    By evolution satellites,
Then Moses might–if let alone,
    As men of science often be–
Have fallen a prey, like other gowks,
    To the Darwinian theory
But not abandoned to himself,
    Like many of our great savans,
He did not write that man's descent
    Had been through the ourang-outangs.


Thus it is clear that Huxley had
    To turn old Moses "heels o'erhead,"
Ere he could hope folks would believe,
    That men from monkeys had been made;
And since his "evolution" views
    So far excel his views of Moses,
[20] With gratitude all should accept
    What Huxley's science thus imposes.
But even though Moses had possessed,
    As good's a nineteenth-century pen,
It follows not he would have wrote
    For none save scientific men.
No one need doubt that he foresaw,
    Or rather that he got a hint,
The world would have, than great savans,
    Great lots of simpler bodies in't;
So that it would not do for him,
    To write for none except savans,
As if so far to pave their way,
    For proving men came from 'outangs.
Just as instructed by high Heaven,
    So did he write that every creature
Derived its form, and all it had
    Directly from the great Creator.
As he knew nought of Protoplasm–
    For then it had not been "evolved"–
He could not write, as if by it
    Creating tactics could be solved.
Besides, as specks had not been made,
    With other things which aid the senses,
It could not be perceived at all
    From want of specks, or other lenses;
But that by these it can be seen
    Not even a sceptic need to doubt it,
For Huxley microscopes the thing,
    And therefore must know all about it.
Minutely even he microscopes,
    In search of it the stinging nettle,
For Protoplasm there maintains
    Its scientific stinging mettle.
As thus in plants and animals
    Its operation is so rife,
The Rector hath a treatise wrote,
    To prove it is "The Base of Life;"
And hence whoever wants to know,
    What is his scientific basis,
At once should buy and read the book,
    To understand the Rector's thesis.
Since it makes clear that special point,
    And other great points of creation.
[21] The title of it ought to be--
    The Book of Huxley's Revelation;
And specially should those savans
    Most piously peruse the book,
Who rather would in Huxley trust,
    Than Moses and the Pentateuch.
The readier, too, should this be done,
    Since thus there hath been solved at last,
The problem as to what life is–
        So baffling in all ages past.
But though there hath been for so long
    This puzzling scientific chasm,
The answer now to–What is life?
    Must simply be–'Tis Protoplasm.
And as to how it works its way--
    Else called its modus operandi--
From frogs there may with ease be got
    An illustration pat and handy.
Perhaps to some it may not seem
    An illustration of great beauty,
But still as one most scientific,
    Our using it becomes a duty.
So we shall state the case at once,
    For on it we have great reliance,
As proving how advanced our views
    Are of the Evolution Science,
Thus Protoplasm, as the base
    Of puddock spawn, leads on to
That into tadpoles or powheads,
    It next by science doth progress,
And these hold on sometime as such
    Enlarging in disporting wriggles;
But when at length they're big enough,
    As simple powheads or porwiggles,
To change their state, so as to leave
    Their stagnant pools, or native bogs,
They're then "developed" with four legs,
        And jump about in name of frogs.
Since this so proves that Protoplasm,
    Is very plastic in its nature,
It shews how Huxley may account
    For frogs, or any other creature;
And having by such science got
The ball thus fairly at his foot.
[22] He can develope, to his mind
    The smallest or the biggest brute.
It is as easy hence to make
    A mammoth, as to make a moth,
Since Protoplasm has been proved
    To be the basis of them both;
But still the Rector, in the end,
    Has no advantage over Moses,
For Moses says (and all he says
    Is always far beyond supposes)
That God's great fiat –"Be it done,"
    As soon as said, creates outright,
And perfect makes what He creates,
    Be it a mammoth or a mite.
The Rector takes when he creates,
    By "evolutions" his advance,
But when at first God-creatures made,
    He made them perfect all at once;
So that like evolutionists,
    His plan was not to "eke and add,"
Or patch, and change this into that,
    Till something perfect could be had.
And no transmuting sciolist,
    By evolutions a la mode,
Can make a creature something else
    Than what it was as made by God.
The nearest change to aught like this–
    So far as known to us at least—
Is when a sceptic scientist
    Transmutes himself into a beast,
In holding that he has no soul,
    More than a dog or other brute,
And that when once as dead's a dog,
    All that he is will be snuffed out.


Still wondrous are the wondrous things
    Which science in these days finds out,
For blunders even respecting cats,
    The Rector has put to the rout;
For by pure scientific tests,
    With argumenting learned and nice,
[23] He proves that cats, as to design,
    Were not designed for catching mice:
But that the pussies having found
    Mice catching was what they could do,
They thus, as if by accident,
    Began that business to pursue.
Then when folks quite unlearned perceived
    That cats for this were first-rate creatures,
They thought their taste for catching mice,
    Had been orig'nally in their natures;
And eke had been implanted there,
    By the Creator of all good,
That any mice they caught might be
    A "part and parcel" of their food.
But science now corrects that view,
    For the Lord Rector shows at once
That cats, just like all other brutes,
    Had been "evolved," or made on chance;
So that as far at it regards
    There present calling or vocation,
Mice catching had no special part,
    In the design of their creation.
But neither had it been designed,
    When man was made a rational creature,
He should rebel, and fall so low
    As to deny his own Creator.
And rather than descend so far,
    Thus to degrade his rational station,
Much better that, along with cats,
    Mice-catching were his own vocation.
Nor was the eye for seeing made,
    As Mr. Huxley proves at once,
For by his science he asserts
    Its seeing was "evolved" by chance.
And by such science could he prove–
    As by right in'frence we can tell,
That noses, too, were made by chance,
    But found, when made, that they could smell.
So that it is a sad mistake
    For any person to suppose,
There is the least mark of design
    In the machinery of the nose.
And even great snuffers will confess,
    That noses were not made for snuff
[24] But that by chance it was found out,
    These might of that take quantum suff.
Yea! what is more! the Rector proves,
    When on the "evolution" line,
That in Creation there is nought
    To show that aught came from design;
But that, per contra, every thing
    Most simply came to be by chance,
As atoms happened to coalesce
    When reeling in their primal dance;
Whilst, doubtless, something would depend
    Upon the tunes their fiddlers played,
For tunes, of course, would regulate
    The "evolutions" which they made.
Then as to the rhinoceros,
    The Rector proves by logic force,
That it–the said rhinoceros–
    Developed or produced the horse,
Which was another wondrous thing,
    Could science prove it to be true,
And Moses would have said as much,
    Had such a thing been in his view.
Even as a special miracle,
    He doubtless would have put it forth,
But then to sceptics, in that case,
    It had been a poor pennyworth;
For these, if evolutionists,
    Are such pure self-conceited elves,
That they blackguard all miracles,
    Except they be wrought by themselves
But if the rhin. evolved the horse,
    These should be liker one another–
More like the father and the son,
    Or otherwise the son and mother.
As the rhinoceros, of the two,
    Is greatly more the baggy creature,
And has a horn upon its snout,
    It seems as of a diff'rent nature;
And as the brute has got, besides,
    A thicker and more armoured skin,
'Tis so much more unlike the horse,
    Though maybe liker one within.
Then as the learned anatomists
    In judging, leave all common ruts,
[25] And like old Roman augurs judge,
    Not by exteriors, but the guts;
It may be that when thus they find
    The two brutes liker one another,
They feel as if they might conclude,
    Without more scientific bother,
That clearly the rhinoceros–
    Developed first, and then made ready–
The horse developed, and became
    The horse's scientific daddy.
Anatomists may thus be right
    In keeping hard by what's within,
And judging, without all regard
    To hoofs, or horns, or snouts, or skin.
"The origin of species" thus,
    Great scientists must needs determine,
And prove, by their developments,
    The origin of brutes and vermin;
For though a beastie, from its snout,
    May seem to differ from another,
It may have even more developed still,
    A diff'rent kind of biting brother.
A bug's proboscis and a flea's
    May not so much of difference claim,
As to prevent a scientist
    Asserting they were once the same.
The more's the need to think of this,
    As it is very clear that Moses
Did not develop origins,
    By noting specially creatures' noses.
And Moses, though of small account
    In these great scientific days,
May still, to folks who are unlearned,
    Be of some use by what he says.
In short, transmuting scientists
    So deal with species and with nature,
As if they could at first have saved
    Much trouble to the Great Creator;
And thus by pure economy,
    As it respects creating force,
They would make the rhinoceros
    The primal parent of the horse.
But why might not the sceptic then,
    As of the species of deceiver,
[26] Endeavour to transmute himself
    Into a common-sense believer?
That should not more of science need,
    That what is claimed by those savans,
Who trace their own ancestral line
    Back to the monkeys or 'outangs.
And if quite sure that now they're men,
    Though monkeys once–as they avow–
They ought most clearly to have been
    Good Christian creatures long ere now.
Since men by science, as they hold,
    Will at the last quite perfect be,
'Tis time that they themselves were at
    The sage of Christianity.
At least if they had had by now,
    Some worth-while knowledge of its nature,
They would have known how well it suits
    The case of an immortal creature;
And that of all the sciences,
    Which great savans bring to the test,
The science of religion is
    By far the grandest and the best.


Perhaps, howe'er, we're going wrong,
    And maybe verging on a libel,
In lect'ring pundits in this way,
    Who think they're far above the Bible;
As if by drawing from that source,
    And putting them in mind of Moses,
We could in any way affect
    Their theories and wild supposes;
Or make them change their view so far,
    As to admit that there may be,
Even for savans, a future state,
    And lasting as eternity;
So that Lord Rectors nevermore,
    Should in conceited sceptic swell,
Adventure to make students doubt
    If there be any heaven or hell.
Such is a kind of Rectoring,
    That does not suit our Scottish taste,
[27] And in this way their scepticism,
    They should be careful not to waste;
But rather keep all they have got,
    To comfort them when at the last,
They're just about to leave the world,
    And bid farewell to all the past.
Howe'er, this lect'ring here we end,
    As we have still somewhat to say
About some "evolution" views,
    Which have so far been in our way.
Thus after all may it not be,
    That by pure Protoplasmic force,
The baggy, horned rhinoceros,
    Did actually "evolve" the horse?
And that at first there may have been
    A horn upon the horse's nose,
And as with the rhinoceros,
    Upon each foot entire three toes?
'Tis hard to say what may have been
    Ten hundred million years ago,
For that the earth was then "evolved,"
    Great scientists attempt to show;
As they can't see how Protoplasm,
    Which works away like barm or yeast,
Could have, in any shorter time,
    Developed every kind of beast.
No doubt we see that very soon,
    A man may make himself an ass,
But making asses into men
    Is not so quickly brought to pass:
For men we find by thousands still,
    So very near the donkey station,
That they have not got mind enough
    To see design in God's creation.
But in what manner Protoplasm,
    Which made all things itself did make,
Is that which evolutionists,
    To tell us do not undertake.
Since man himself had once to be
    A tadpole, powhead or porwiggle,
And after that through countless beasts,
    His up and onward way to wriggle;
Such endless ages were required,
    As scarce admit enumeration,
[28] Ere he was rightly organised,
    And fit to lord the brute creation.
Even yet he's said to have no soul,
    By some all-knowing crack savans,
Who, judging by themselves, conceive
    He's still too like ourang-outans.
But as in scientific lore,
    His present progress is so great,
It is supposed he may, ere long,
    Emerge from such a soullest state,
Howe'er a with those sceptic dabs,
    We don't incline to sceptic doubts,
We're hence convinced, and well assured,
    That men are not mere soulless brutes;
And in that view we're not inclined
    To share in Huxley's wild supposes,
As there's no reason to suspect
    That we have been humbugged by Moses.
Hence to all guessings we prefer
    Mosaic facts, and therefore say,
That God developed all the beasts,
    Which were created in their day;
So that to the rhinoceros
    When it was made He gave twelve toes,
And at the same time made the horn,
    Which is developed on its nose.
But after all it may some day,
    By the Lord Rector be confest,
His schemes of life was only meant
    To be a scientific jest;
So that by quizzing sceptic gowks,
    With such a scheme of the creation,
He might them show what gowks they were
    For scorning Heaven's great Revelation.
When once he comes to moralise,
    And take the sceptics by their noses,
He'll show the asses what they are,
    In thinking they'll bamboozle Moses.
If once at work in such a cause,
    And set on such a grand defence,
He'll show the sceptic idiots,
    They have not even got common sense;
Whilst therewith–should he be inclined–
    Abundant proof he may produce,
[29] That any sceptic he had known,
    Was in his view just half-a-goose;
And by appeal in triumph ask,
    Could any man be such a ghoul,
As to survey man's mental powers,
    And still affirm man had no soul?
Then if it were that Huxley came
    To turn the tables in this way,
What might be his great future fame,
    'Tis clear no mortal man could say.
And in old age the College boys,
    Who voted for him as Lord Rector,
Would feel inclined to overlook
    The errors of his sceptic lecture;
Just as good folks who prize St. Paul,
    Rejoice so much in his conversion,
That they would not of what he was
    Before that time, make a diversion;
Though, doubtless, Paul was not so mad
    Before conversion, as to say
That men were all mere tadpoles once,
    And up through monkeys made their way.


As much as this we may surmise,
    If we, too, may indulge supposes,
And thus suppose the Rector may
    Become a champion still for Moses;
And in that case, as senseless gowks
    Are spitting on the Pentateuch,
Write and send forth in its defence
    A first-rate scientific book.
But then, alas! young College chiels
    Would lose such stunning spectulation,
As hold that the rhinoceros
    And horse are very near relations,
And in that case they even would be
    As ignorant as the bobtail classes,
That the said horned rhinoceros
    Is likewise sib to cuddy-asses,
Then did it come to be unknown,
    That cuddies are so well connected,
[30] They might, by chiels who worship rank
    And scientists, be less respected.
And though an ass be but an ass,
    With skull and skin so very thick,
That he is guided less by speech,
    Than by a good big cudgelling stick.
Yet even an ass we would not rob
    Of any prestige he can claim,
For that must needs be small enough,
    Whilst ass or donkey is his name.
However, cuddies never can
    Sink very far in the repute
Of chiels who hold that they themselves
    Have been developed from that brute:
So that, of course, young college loons,
    Who think from cuddies they've come hither,
Will thus on each poor cuddy look,
    As being somewhat of a brother.
But we, per contra, who believe
    Our race have come from Eve and Adam,
And that when Moses tells us this,
    He wrote just as the Spirit bade him,
With indignation scorn the thought
    Of our descending from the donkeys,
And from their improved progeny,
    In the gorillas, apes, and monkeys,
Such balderdash is quite as gross
    In science as it is in saying;
And to each ghoul we cry, avaunt!
    Who ventures on such donkey-braying.
All science such is asinine,
    If science still must be its name,
Whilst each and all we needs must scorn,
    Who dare such rubbish to proclaim;
And hence, with Dr. Martyn Paine–
    Whose lore sets Huxley's at defiance,
We sympathise, and with him say,
    That he's "The Harlequin of Science."
But harlequins, though in their place,
    When making pantomime a sport,
Are not for College Rectorships,
    Of any well-conditioned sort.
And in good sooth, the Rector's self
    Looked on the choice with so much wonder,
[31] That he suspected it to be
    A sort of scientific blunder.
He had supposed Scotch boys were taught
    Those Presbyterian Bible views,
Which show that the Samaritans
    Were kept at arm's length by the Jews;
And this made him the surer still,
    The loons were under some mistake,
For how could a Samaritan,
    An orthodox Lord Rector make!
To fathom how the thing had happened,
    To him was still more of a puzzle,
Than how the big rhinoceros,
    Should have a horn upon its muzzle.
But likely the electors hoped,
    To have heard lots of funny stories,
As to how the apes were made men,
    By means of evolution worries.
Had aught save pious pedagogues
    Been teaching youths when in their place,
One might have thought wheels within wheels,
    Had been at work in such a case:
But since its pious pedagogues,
    All thoroughly believe in Moses,
We dare not, lest we did them wrong,
    Indulge in any wheel supposes.
Who of them all would turn a wheel,
    Which tended in the least degree,
To trench on Christian principles,
    Or Biblical philosophy?
Well knowing that they have in charge,
    Young clerics or prospective priests,
They guard them well against the thought,
    They have no souls, and are but beasts,
Denouncing error on all hands,
    And all that into error leads,
Each one would rather hang himself
    Than teach materialistic creeds.
Philosophy they do not scorn,
    As long as it supports God's truth,
But when it threatens in any form
    To undermine or poison youth,
Then all on fire and up in arms,
    They treat it with profound contempt,
[32] And hold that for the public good
    Its patronizers should be hempt.
Even thus the pious pedagogues,
    As faithful teachers do their best,
To keep pure Bible principles
    Alive in every pupil's breast;
Whilst for such consciousness,
    In piously instructing youth,
Loud praises of the pedagogues,
    Proceed from many a patriot's mouth;
And righteously may praises such
    Resound in the most jubilant notes,
Through Scotia's fair and far-famed land,
    From Maidenkirk to John o'Croat's


Howe'er, if students would not prove,
    They're yet not far from the porwiggles,
With no more Rectors should they dance,
    In any "evolution" jiggles.
With pseudo-science let them not
    Their vanity attempt to feed,
And from the bosh of sceptic ghouls,
    Botch for themselves a sceptic-creed.
Without their spoony patronage,
    In patronizing "Kraft und Stoff, "
Or Force and Matter, as so-called,
    That curse is travelling fast enough.
That monstrous atheistic "force,"
    Is in no need of more recruits,
For such it treats when in its ranks,
    As but an improved kind of brutes.
And therefore embryo scientists,
    If covetous of future fame,
For patronizers ought to look,
    Who do not bear a sceptic's name.
For Rectorship men may be found–
    And with more science than it needs,
Who still believe in the Supreme,
    And honestly in Scriptural creeds:
And therefore who won't tyroes tell,
    They ought to give themselves no bother,
[33] About aught that's beyond this world,
    As it may be there is no other.
Than college halls, menageries
    Are fitter far for such harangues,
If but supplied with grinning apes,
    Gorillas, and ourang-outangs.
"The origin of species" there
    Might be expounded a la mode,
For soulless monkeys would not grin
    When they were told there was no God.
Nor would they any rumpus raise,
    When told by a haranguing tutor
To eat, drink, and merry be,
And never think about the future.
There might such pundits grin and growl,
    For there they were in brotherhood,
With animals which have no soul,
    And nothing hope from future good.
But Colleges, where truth should reign,
    If used for teaching sceptic lies,
Were better if made cattle sheds,
    Or else for pigs turned into sties.
Already there are in the land,
    More than enow of sceptic cattle,
And more of such must not be bred,
    By means of trashy sceptic prattle.
On Bradlaugh as a specimen,
    In any nation were enough,
If men must have a specimen
    Of rotten atheistic stuff.
One might be travelled in a van,
    Like any other beast of prey,
And visitors advised the while,
    To keep out of the creature's way.
Or better still–if skinned and stuffed,
    To be looked at in such a mode,
He might be labelled as a beast,
    Who dared to say there was no God.
And if some Barnum showman then,
    Took to the road to show him thus,
More he might draw than if he had
    A living hippopotamus;
For folks who ne'er had seen alive
    A monster who denied his Maker,
[34] Might haste to see one in this state,
    And ready for the undertaker.
They would not then have any fears,
    Of suff'ring from his sceptic breath,
Since all his sceptic growls at last
    Had ended in the monster's death.
Even sternly thus would be denounce
    All such giaours, for be it known,
Much more we owe to that great God
    By whom we live, and whom we own.
Except for Him we thus could plead,
    In spite of every sceptic ghoul,
Then might we, too, begin to doubt
    If we ourselves have got a soul;
Or if, indeed, our creature state
    Deserved to be more highly prized,
Than if we were a two-legged ape,
    Or merely matter organised.
By no mean compromising modes,
    Ought we to meet attacks on truth,
Or look on brainless balderdash,
    In name of science taught to youth.
And when men boast, such balderdash
    They hold "in no half-hearted way,"
'Tis more than time believers should
    All boldness for the truth display.
Save utterly all such we dare,
    As in their daring kick at Heaven,
Less reverence were shewn to God,
    Than were to such low scorners given.
"Do not I hate all those, O Lord,"
    Said one, "who hatred bear to Thee?"
And this notes higher principle
    Than Philistine philosophy.
Poor Philistine philosophy!
    Can it dethrone the great Supreme?
Or by its venom blur the Book,
    In mercy given to man by him?
Poor Philistine philosophy!
    Will it e'er prove, by any chatter,
That soul or mind can not exist,
    Except it be conjoined with matter?
Poor Evolution rigmarole!
    Has it, with all its wild supposes,
[35] Upset one great creation fact,
    As it has been evolved by Moses?
Poor Evolution gibberish!
    With all its dreams about creation
Has it upset one sacred truth
    God hath evolved in Revelation?
As if it were that He had left
    So ill-defended His own words,
That "Harlequins of science" might
    Despatch them with their wooden swords–
As if such self-sufficient prigs,
    Could by their conjuring tricks with matter,
Resolve the truths God hath revealed
    Into deceptive idle chatter!


Hold! hold, ye sceptic scientists!
    And waste no more of ceptic breath,
Till what's life's essence ye define,
    And thus define as well what's death.
Then more of your "environments"
    And "organisms" you'll see through,
For such definings as thus named,
    Have not been yet "evolved" by you.
So that till much more is made plain,
    Than you have done, or ventured on,
Mere guessings dealt with as if facts,
    Your science ought to let alone.
If still more counsel we would give,
    Before our lucubration closes,
It is, that you should study well,
    The lucubrations written by Moses:
And should you happen to condescend,
    To venture on so grand a study,
You would not hold as now you do,
    That Moses was a stupid body;
Whilst doubtless with wise men ye would
    Indulge in laughter, sneers and giggles,
When told men had from monkeys come–
    From Protoplasm and Powiggles.


C. Blinderman & D. Joyce
Clark University