1885 269 Letter 1.
Dear Mr. Editor,
The article in the February number of "The Bible Treasury" on Drummond's book appeared to me so sound and true that it was with a little disappointment I observed the absence in it of any purposed continuation of the subject so as to include a more general review of the work. In the spirit of that article, though wielding a less able pen, I have made the following remarks, which I venture to submit for your consideration and that of your readers. The volume before me is "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," by Henry Drummond F.R.S.E; F.G.S. Fourteenth Edition, completing thirty-four thousand. Such a sale in comparatively so short a time is indicative of the great public interest which the work has excited, and of a very large number of readers. So far, too, as we can judge from the general tenor of the public notices, and from the individual opinions one hears expressed, a large proportion of that number entertain a high opinion of the book. Some of them, doubtless, have read it but cursorily, and scarcely understand its true nature. One knows too well the general state of the church, and of individual minds, to be surprised at such a reception, deeply as it is to be regretted. Thank God, truth is yet to be found in the church, though the church herself has well-nigh forfeited all claim to be "the pillar and ground of the truth." The Holy Spirit however still dwells in the church, and God's sovereign grace makes good that truth in the hearts of not a few.
And it is of more than usual importance, in the present case, to insist on the fact that the grace of God, where sin and sinners are in question, always is and must be, sovereign in the most absolute sense, and in no sense a matter of course. Nevertheless the flood-gates of error and of infidelity are open, — the barriers which should bar and shut out error, and shut in truth, are overthrown; the whole scene is as it were deluged with error, and, more than that, the foundations are being broken up. Nor can I hesitate to express my conviction that this book is not only a result of the existing state of things, but will in no small measure expedite further progress in the same direction. Not that the work in itself is one of power, though the language, as regards mode of expression (and with a few peculiarities not worth mentioning), is clear, forcible and elegant. But I hope to show that by the time we subtract, from the work as a whole, the pages which are occupied with Science pure and simple, and on our own part give its true value to the figurative language of scripture (for which of course we shall not be indebted to Mr. Drummond), — little will be left to characterise the work as original, or towards proving the extraordinary and self-contradictory notion of Natural Law in the Spiritual World. The author with exquisite modesty says, "In what follows the Introduction, except in the setting, there is nothing new, I trust there is nothing new" (Preface, p. xvi). He need not be apprehensive on this score; — there is nothing new unfortunately. For, excepting the absurd and undemonstrable notion of Natural Law in the Spiritual World, all, or nearly all, is the current error of the day, into which, unhappily, so many who profess to be christians have fallen. I purpose examining the book, first, in a religious and doctrinal point of view, appealing to the christian sense (1 John 2:20, 27) to judge in the matter; and, secondly, as to its scientific and argumentative character, — though these two aspects cannot be altogether regarded separably. By the Duke of Argyll the "Reign of Law" has been treated in a sober, rational, and christian manner; in this book on the contrary its treatment would be called grotesque, were not the subject too serious to be regarded in such a point of view.
The principle advocated is indeed profane, though the spirit in which it is handled is not so, and consequently I do not accuse the author of profanity. The ungodly theory of Evolution is not only held by him without a notion of its ungodliness, but is pushed even into heaven itself, and to God, as its goal. On this side it is called "Advolution." "It is surely obvious that the complement of Evolution is Advolution" (p. 401). "Then from a mass of all but homogeneous 'protoplasm', the organism must pass through all the stages of differentiation and integration, growing in perfectness and beauty under the unfolding of the higher evolution, until it reaches the Infinite Sensibility, God" (p. 402). Were this not arrant nonsense, we should simply call it profanity; — happily better motives and the utter want of logical sequence save the book, or at least its author, from such a charge.* The fact however that Mr. Drummond is, doubtless, a good and a christian man, is no excuse for doctrines and views of an anti-christian and dangerous character. The most injurious heresies — those which have most widely and permanently corrupted the church — have owed their effect mainly to the personal character of their original propounders. Take Irvingism for instance, the poison of which heresy will probably (in a more or less diluted form) infect the church as long as it is on earth. And yet Irving himself was in the ordinary sense a good man as well as a very attractive man. And though the theory of evolution had a secular and so-called scientific origin, yet it is utterly antagonistic to divine revelation, and when accepted and propagated by Christian men, the result is terribly disastrous. It is no exaggeration to say that the state of things in the church is in the highest degree alarming, and that it fills one's mind with anxiety and solicitude, especially on behalf of the young. "Schools of thought," and incessant conflict of opinion, tend to confuse and unsettle the mind, and to retard at least, if not finally to hinder, sound and settled conviction.
[*I would here state, once for all, that the italicised words in the quotations are generally my own doing, for the sake of calling attention to them.]
If at so early a period in the church's history it was needful for the apostle Jude to write to christians, and exhort them "earnestly to contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," certainly it is no less necessary for "the called ones, beloved in God the Father" (Jude 1), to do so now. That objective faith, which was once delivered unto the saints, we still possess in the word of God, and the resource of every right-minded and true-hearted believer is still as was expressed by the Psalmist, "Concerning the works of men by the word of Thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer" (Ps. 17:4). For our comfort and assurance we are told also, that we are "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (1 Peter 1:5). That subjective faith God will sustain in the hearts of all who look to Him and honour His word. Now faith is believing Holy Scripture because it is God's word, — it is believing simply and solely upon the authority of His word, i.e. upon the authority of God Himself. It is throwing dust in people's eyes, and only deceiving oneself, to talk about rejecting human authority in this matter. The word of God in itself, by whatever channel it reaches a man, speaks to him with the authority of God; authority in the question there undoubtedly is, and cannot be got rid of, and that Personal authority will judge men in the last day. But faith is not believing because we know or understand, even though heart-knowledge and spiritual understanding are the result of believing. To make the acceptance and reception of divine truth, as revealed in Holy Scripture, contingent on knowledge (i.e. science), or understanding, is not true faith at all. And it is just in this that faith differs from intellectual belief; for all, of course (even the devils), believe what they know. And so with men when they are outside this world, — it is no longer a question of faith with them, it is knowledge, — they are where they know, not where knowledge can accrue simply as a matter of faith.
Again, to talk of creation as being another revelation, or a part of revelation, is mischievously false. Doubtless by creation men should discern God's "eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. 1:20 theiotes, not theotes), and they are "without excuse" for not doing so; but creation is no more a revelation of God, than one of his paintings is a revelation of Gainsborough. Certain qualities of a man may be perceived by his works, whilst the man himself is wholly unknown. Much more is this the case with God, who Himself has been revealed only in Christ; as Christ is revealed by the Spirit in the written word; but neither God nor Christ is otherwise revealed. Utterly false then is the following statement (however essential it may be and is, to our author's theory): "Nature, it is true, is a part of Revelation, — a much greater part doubtless than is yet believed, — and one could have anticipated nothing but harmony here" (Preface, p. xvii.). This is a notion in which all mystics delight to revel, simply because they have unlimited scope to do so. But if nature is a revelation, will those who hold it to be so kindly tell us what facts or truths it teaches men? If nothing but harmony could have been anticipated here, in what does that harmony consist? If nature is a revelation, surely it appeals as such to all men and in all time. What did it teach men prior to the advent of Christianity? The wisest men, in the wisest city of the ancient world, mocked at Paul when he spoke to them of the resurrection, and even fancied he was speaking of another God; and yet if there is a truth which can be said to be clearly symbolised in nature, it is that of death and resurrection. If moreover nature is a revelation, how came the state of morals and of "religion" to be what it was in the world at the advent of Christianity? Poetic fancies, or speculative ideas, are indeed not uncommon amongst the heathen writers; but where will you find in them one spiritual truth, definitely seen, and generally accepted? What single quotation can be given, as furnishing us, in part or whole, with a heathen creed? "Harmony," if harmony it can be called, was in abominable idolatry and wickedness, and in that alone. Alas, poor man! Not liking to retain God in their knowledge, men gave Him up, — the consequence was their heart became darkened, their mind reprobate, and God in fact gave them up. Man is lost. In sovereign grace God by His gospel may and does save those who hear and believe; but though the final and judicial sentence on individuals has yet to pass the lips of Christ, the Judge of all, — man is already morally and wholly lost. The Son of man came "to seek and to save that which was lost;" but the world would not have Him and cast Him out. How flatly opposed to Scripture then are our author's words, "The wicked are not really lost as yet, but they are on the sure way of it" (p. 102)! This is to confound the final and authoritative sentence, with a man's actual and moral condition.
It is from a state of complete ruin and liability to judgment, that the believer has been saved. Besides, if man is not lost, why does he need regeneration? Yet regeneration, like Christ Himself, is made much of in this book, though only in a scientific way; and so with redemption. "This," we read, "is the final triumph of continuity, the heart-secret of creation, the unspoken prophecy of Christianity. To science, defining it as a working principle, this mighty process of amelioration is simply evolution. To Christianity discerning the end through the means, it is redemption" (p. 413). So that Evolution and Redemption both mean the same thing, and it is to be presumed that, on the principle of continuity, the process has been going on ever since evolution began. Here again is an instance of what evolution and Christianity comes to in the hands of Mr. Drummond! Are we to call it preposterous or profane? But what under these circumstances can be the place he gives atonement? The word is indeed mentioned by him (see p. 362), where, speaking of Theology, he says, — "The Trinity is an intricate doctrinal problem. The Supreme Being is discussed in terms of philosophy. The atonement is a formula which is to be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid." Now it is no doubt too easy to rest satisfied with a "form of sound words," — with a head-knowledge of dogma; one may know and yet practise too little of the spirit of it. We are all prone to fail in this way, and few can afford to throw stones at others. Nevertheless sound doctrine, and particularly on such subjects, is of all importance; as on the other hand we are warned in scripture against "doctrines of devils," and "damnable heresies;" and certainly there is something much more deliberate, wicked, and injurious in the propagation of bad doctrine than in faulty practice, though both should be abhorred by the christian.
Again (p. 334), "Need we proceed to formulate objections to the parasitism of Evangelicism? Between it and the religion of the Church of Rome there is an affinity as real as it is unsuspected. For one thing these religions are spiritually disastrous as well as theologically erroneous in propagating a false conception of Christianity. The fundamental idea alike of the extreme Roman Catholic and extreme Evangelical Religions is escape. Man's chief end is to 'get off.' And all factors in religion, the highest and most sacred, are degraded to this level. God for example is a great Lawyer, or He is the Almighty Enemy; it is from Him we have to 'get off.' Jesus Christ is the One who gets us off, — a theological figure Who contrives so to adjust matters federally that the way is clear. The church in the one instance is a kind of conveyancing office where the transaction is duly concluded, each party accepting the other's terms, etc." Now whatever may be the author's judgment, — whatever might be a true judgment, — of Evangelicism, or even of so gross an ecclesiastical system as the Church of Rome, no one who knows and values divine truth, who has felt the grace of God in the gospel, above all, no one who entertains in his heart due reverence towards the Deity, could warrantably express himself thus. Such a phenomenon can only be accounted for by supposing that it may be a tremendous rebound from rigid Scotch Presbyterianism. I should have thought that "escape" from everlasting punishment was indeed a very fundamental idea with any sober-minded person; and that the solemn truth that we owe our "escape" to the love of God, who gave His only-begotten Son to expiate our sins on the cross, should be a most powerful motive on our part to give ourselves to Him who gave Himself for us. If on the one hand a proper filial fear of God can never be absent from the heart of the true believer, yet the predominant feeling there is love and gratitude to our God and Father. But, again I say, what can be our author's sense of sin, of redemption, and of atonement, that he can write in this way?
Before closing this letter, and the first portion of my remarks, I would observe that next to redemption nothing could be of such transcendent moment to us all as creation, the divine account of which is given in Genesis 1. Whether as regards mere matter, — the lower animal creation, or the creation of man, language could not be more clear and precise; nor could anything be more deliberate or more solemn than the mode in which God created our first parents, making them as He did, in His own image, after His own likeness, i.e. moral beings, — rational and accountable. To make therefore anything co-eternal with God is to deny His absolute Deity. Yet our author says (p. 27), "We should be forsaking the lines of nature were we to imagine for a moment that the new creature was to be formed out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil — nothing can be made out of nothing. Matter is uncreatable and indestructible!" This is simple heathenism, and in reference to evolution (which abominable theory is the very gist of this book), he says, "There is no intention here to countenance the old doctrine of the permanence of species" (p. 292, note)! And what has become of divine revelation, and of the Christianity it teaches, if the following is true? "All that has been said since, from Marcus Aurelius to Swedenborg, from Augustine to Schleiermacher, of a besetting God as the final complement of humanity, is but a repetition of the Hebrew poet's faith. And even the New Testament has nothing higher to offer than this!"
The fact is that, as regards Evolution, none are so utterly inconsistent as those who profess to believe the Bible, and yet attribute evolution to God as His plan and method. God has told us as plainly as it can be written that He created man from the dust of the ground; and there is no more difficulty in believing this than in believing that in the resurrection He will raise man from the dust. To attribute evolution to Him, therefore, is simply to contradict Him. Avowed infidelity is honest compared with this, and much less inconsistent. In short, our author's book is rejected alike by incredulity if honest, and by honest Christianity. He has fallen between two stools, — much to his own injury and not a little to the injury of others.
I am, dear Mr. Editor, Your's, in our Lord, THETA.
1885 286 Letter 2.
Dear Mr. Editor,
In my last letter I endeavoured to show the true character of Mr. Drummond's book in a religious and doctrinal point of view. My endeavour now will be to examine it more particularly in its scientific and argumentative aspect, — that is, as to the author's fundamental principle, and as to the logical consistency of his argument. The very nature and structure of the book, however, prevent its being regarded in either the religious or scientific point of view quite exclusively of the other. I shall be obliged in this letter to make rather long and frequent extracts, for which I trust no apology will be necessary. I might begin by dwelling on the contradiction in terms which its title involves, but perhaps this will be best proved as the conclusion to which the following remarks tend. Even the author himself constantly distinguishes between the Natural World and the Spiritual World. The orthodox Christian holds these to be totally distinct spheres, — each with its own mode of existence and system of laws; and if anywhere tangential so to speak, yet without being mutually connected by continuity of natural law.
Before beginning my quotations it may be well to make the following statement. The notion is not uncommon (though it is very erroneous), that Adam, had he not fallen, would have been taken to heaven. I say it is erroneous for two reasons: first, because Adam was created expressly as the head of this terrestrial system; and secondly, because title to heaven comes to us only through the second Man, the last Adam, and as a consequence of His meritorious work on the cross. And here is the true answer to the question sometimes asked, If man has an immortal soul, and men are liable to everlasting punishment, why did not God forewarn him of this, when He created him, and forbade him to cat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Now God's purpose in creating Adam was to make him head of this terrestrial system; and though God foreknows all things, this never interferes with the responsibility of the creature and with the proper course and propriety of things. It was not for God, if I may say so, to presuppose that Adam would fall — at least by dilating on the consequences. He did tell Adam all that then concerned him to know; for the rest, Adam should have reflected that no consequences of disobeying God can be too serious. In itself disobedience to God must always be ruinous to the creature; to fall from his first estate is to plunge himself into moral wreck and ruin, — a ruin which, unless God intervene in grace, is irreparable.
Besides, motive arising from fear alone, or from a mere calculation of consequences, — in the absence of motive arising from a sense of fealty to God, and of dutiful affection towards Him — must have proved useless, and indeed would itself imply a heart estranged from God, i.e. a fallen state. What could it have profited Adam then to have told him more than God did tell him? Simply nothing. In the order of creation, man was not intended for heaven; and so no evolution, even had there been any in this world, could have brought him there. To identify evolution with redemption, and thus to make of the latter a scientific process, one not simply analogous to the evolution which, it is asserted, has taken place in the past, but by the law of continuity one which is a continuation of it in some sort, is to evince a blindness of heart, and perversity of judgment, of which one would have thought no man with the slightest knowledge of Christianity could have been capable. Surely one who can say with the apostle, "Who loved me and gave Himself for me," one who believes and feels the truth, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree," who realizes the fact that if we are saved it is in sovereign grace on God's part, that men are not saved en masse, or as a matter of course (for we see from scripture that all will not be saved), but as individuals, and that universalism is a deceptive and destructive falsehood, — such will reject this scientific Christianity with horror. The moral results of divine grace in the soul, producing conviction of sin, contrition, and repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot possibly be reduced to science, and therefore can have no place in this pseudo-intellectual system.
The term "law" being so much used in this work, what I ask is the proper definition of law? Law is rule imposed by authority. I do not deny that the term may be used in a secondary or accommodated sense, but doubtless rule imposed by authority is its primary and strict meaning. There is no "impersonal authority" in law; the authority and the power alike are in God, or in the law-giver. On this point I may be permitted to quote J. S. Mill, who says (infidelity being generally more honest than mere nominal or corrupted Christianity), "It is the custom wherever they can trace regularity of any kind, to call the general proposition which expresses the nature of that regularity, a law; as when in mathematics we speak of the law of decrease of the successive terms of a converging series. But the expression, law of nature, is generally employed by scientific men with a sort of tacit reference to the original sense of the word law, namely the expression of the will of a superior, the superior in this instance being the Ruler of the universe."
Natural Law is simply the operation of the will of God in any particular case of nature, as carried into effect by His own power; and the whole creation is divided into two distinct departments, viz. the natural, physical or visible, and the spiritual, immaterial and invisible; in each of which there are sub-systems of law, wheel within wheel, each department forming an harmonious system within itself, and all tending towards a moral end and object, the glory of God. Our author, in a passage to be presently quoted, denies that there can be analogy between laws; he maintains that between phenomena there is analogy, between laws there is not analogy but identity (p. 11), or continuity, (p. 76). I question how far this dictum can be accepted, even when the phenomena all belong to the same order of things, i.e. when they are all physical, or all spiritual; but I am perfectly certain it cannot apply where they are of different orders, i.e. one set physical, and another set spiritual: in such a case there is neither identity nor continuity. For instance, I should not myself say that the law of magnetic attractions and repulsions is the same as that of gravitation, though, as regards the mere abstract and mathematical mode of expression, it can be expressed in the same manner. We may have attraction or repulsion in the former case, attraction only, in the latter. So, the rate at which a static charge of electricity. is dissipated, resembles that at which a hot body cools, as expressed by Newton's law of cooling; yet I could not say it is the same law. There is analogy rather than identity in these cases. Take again the law of induction, as we have it in natural philosophy, or in pure mathematics. There is analogy but not identity between them. But these instances are, so to speak, generically the same, i.e. they are all of the physical order; and hence, if people choose to call these laws the same, at least no harm is done. Now unquestionably God has seen good to teach us spiritual truth by figurative language, language borrowed from the natural world (how else could we learn?). But to regard these spiritual truths simply as phenomena, to bind them together into a law, and then to assert that there is identity and continuity (not analogy) between this so-called law, and natural law, is to falsify the character of the spiritual, being a profane intrusion into the spiritual sphere, and ignores (in principle, if not intentionally) the personal will and operation of God acting in grace. The place and application which our author gives to law is logically a denial also of miracle, and here again consistency is altogether on the side of thorough-going infidelity.
"For Theology must pass through the necessary stages of progress, like any other science. The method of science-making is now fully established. In almost all cases the natural history and development are the same. Take for example the case of geology. A century ago there was none. Science went out to look for it, and brought back a geology, which, if nature were a harmony, had falsehood written almost on its face. It was the geology of catastrophism, a geology so out of line with nature as revealed by the other sciences, that, on á priori grounds, a thoughtful mind might have been justified in dismissing it as a final form of any science. And its fallacy was seen and thoroughly exposed. The advent of modified uniformitarian principles all but banished the word catastrophe from science, and marked the birth of geology as we know it now. Religions doctrines, many of them at least, have been up to this time all but as catastrophic as the old geology. They are not on the lines of nature as we have learned to decipher her" (p. 19).
Now that the treatises on geology, which have appeared since the epoch of Lyell's "Principles of Geology," exhibit the subject as treated in a totally different manner and spirit from that in which it had previously been viewed, is true. The grand object now, is to represent the whole process, by which the earth has assumed its present form, as a gradual one, effected by forces similar both in kind and degree to what we are acquainted with in historical times, the denial in short of catastrophe. That change is very gradual, and that catastrophe on a very large scale is absent during the historical period, i.e. whilst the earth is the platform on which man's history is being worked out, no one denies. Farther than this the modern theory is false; its object in representing change as always gradual and occupying immense periods is to shut out God, and to deny creation by substituting a sort of perpetual motion. But the various phenomena presented by geology and physical geography are wholly opposed to the notion of a merely gradual process. Time after time sudden and violent destruction has come upon both plants and animals. The mountain system of the globe exhibits the action of force on a prodigious scale, infinitely surpassing anything which has happened since the earth became the abode of man. The former theory such as that granite forms the sub-stratum of all the rocks is denied — a denial which is sought to be justified by the fact that granite is found intruding and overlying as regards the super-incumbent rocks. But such action is simply local and partial, and is no disproof whatever of what Humboldt says in his Cosmos 1. 305, "What we call the older Silurian strata are only the upper portions of the solid crust of the earth. The eruptive rocks which we see breaking through, pushing aside, and heaving up these, arise from depths that are inaccessible to us … I also hold it as more than probable that a primordial granite-rock is the foundation of the great systems of stratification which are filled with such variety of organic remains." In the main this is true, though since Humboldt's time fossil indications of life have been found somewhat lower down than was then known. But geological (including palaeontological) and biological theories are now made to accommodate each other. Valuable testimony on this subject is contained in D'Orbigny's Cours de Palaeontologie, Vol. 2. pp. 251-258, for a quotation from which, with some sensible and important remarks, my readers should consult "Lectures on the Pentateuch," by Mr. Kelly, Introduction, p. xxix. (to be had of W. Walters, 53, Paternoster Row). The whole of that Introduction should be read, dealing as it does in a godly and able manner, with several of the errors of the present day. In fact, works of science (more especially those dealing with geology and biology) are palpably constructed on the atheistic principle of shutting out God. Past, present, and future, continuity is the grand object. There is law, but as little of God as possible; and unhappily this is the idea, not only accepted and adopted by our author, but actually sought by him to be carried into theology, and into the spiritual world. Religious doctrines, the facts and truths "revealed" not by "the other sciences," but in Holy Scripture, are too "catastrophic" for him, and must undergo the process of "science-making" such as is exhibited in this book. Whilst infidels with more consistency deny creation and Christianity, he, whilst owning these in a certain sense, does his utmost to alter their divine character. It would be bad enough if evolution were confined to this world; to adopt the notion in reference to the next, to the spiritual world (in however modified a way), is to do despite to the Spirit of grace, and is revolting to every proper Christian thought and feeling. Ruined sinners by nature, saved through sheer grace, and in consequence of the sufferings of Another; our title to heaven, His precious blood: where can there possibly be room for evolution here?
I would add on again looking at the passage quoted in my last letter, "ex nihilo nihil, etc." it may be, from his context, our author only denies that there can be any creation or destruction, so far as nature and man are concerned as the agents. This is of course true, and I trust his meaning is limited to it. The fundamental idea in this work being natural law, its identity and continuity whether in the natural or spiritual world, I have dwelt thus much on the general subject, and purpose (D.V.) proceeding with further extracts and remarks in a subsequent letter. Your's in our Lord, THETA.
1885 301 LETTER 3
Dear Mr. Editor,
The extent to which Mr. Drummond naturalises (one might perhaps say, materialises) the spiritual World is shown very clearly by the following passages. "Then and not till then will men see how true it is, that to be loyal to all of nature, they must be loyal to the part defined as Spiritual" (Preface p. xxii). "Thus as the Supernatural becomes slowly natural, will also the natural become slowly supernatural" (p. xxiii). "We shall not say what they see. But we shall say what they might see. If the Natural Laws were run through the Spiritual World, they might see the great lines of religious truth as clearly and as simply as the broad lines of Science. As they gazed into that Natural-Spiritual World, they would say to themselves, 'We have seen something like this before. This order is known to us. It is not arbitrary '" (p. 27). Again, "In a word, Is the Supernatural natural or unnatural?" (p. vi.) I should have thought the answer to this question would be, "Neither; a supernatural phenomenon is an exceptional interposition, on God's part, into the ordinary course of nature."
If the spiritual ought to be regarded as part of nature, of course "Natural Law in the Spiritual World" would present nothing incongruous or contradictory to the mind. The title would simply appear to be rather tautological, and there would be nothing left to prove, since natural law would then be synonymous with spiritual law, and of course there is spiritual law in the spiritual world. Nevertheless the doctrine of evolution would still remain opposed to scripture, as well as most repugnant to all right and proper human feeling. Our author says (p. 227), "No secular theory defines the point in the chain of Evolution at which organisms become endowed with Immortality." It cannot. But scripture tells us that God created man out of the dust of the ground, and made him in His own image after His likeness; in other words, he had an immortal soul from the moment that he became a living man. Man started in perfection and in an earthly paradise, and fell from that state into one of sin. Evolution denies this, and asserts that his course has been one of progression and of improvement, commencing with the spore of a sea-weed, to the present time. Mr. D., by engrafting on this theory a scientific Christianity, carries on the process of evolution into the spiritual World, and to God as its goal.
"It may seem an obvious objection that many of the natural laws have no connection whatever with the Spiritual World, and as a matter of fact are not continued through it. Gravitation for instance, — what direct application has that in the Spiritual World? The reply is threefold. First, there is no proof that it does not hold there. If the spirit be in any sense material, it certainly must hold. In the second place, gravitation may hold for the spiritual sphere although it cannot be directly proved … Thirdly, if the spiritual be not material, it still cannot be said that gravitation ceases at that point to be continuous. It is not gravitation that ceases, — it is matter" (p. 42). Imagine a christian writing this! and observe the assumption that that may be which cannot be proved. This is not scientific. We allow our author, faith, or demonstration, but not surmise.
If the spiritual is a part of nature, so that natural law in the spiritual world would be a rational idea, there would of course be no difficulty in then supposing that the spiritual sphere, being regulated by known i.e. natural laws, can be grasped by science, and treated accordingly. And as science is human or natural knowledge in a methodical form, this particular branch of it is included in that form, and thus, being capable of being perceived and comprehended by the human intellect, may be perceived and comprehended by all men. Our author admits that there are mysteries in the spiritual world, as in the natural, and says, "however far the scientific method may penetrate the Spiritual World, there will always remain a region to be explored by a scientific faith" (p. 28); — so that after science has done all it can, a region of mystery yet remains, which region has to be explored by a scientific faith! Now I know what science is, and I know what faith is; but I confess I do not know what a "scientific faith" is. It is a thing repudiated alike by the unbeliever in divine revelation, and by the true christian.
However, Mr. Drummond says (p. 28), "How much of the spiritual world is covered by Natural Law we do not propose at present to inquire. It is certain, at least, that the whole is not covered." Yet he says (p. 49), "Are there then no other Laws in the Spiritual World except those which are the projections or extensions of Natural Laws? From the number of Natural Laws which are found in the higher sphere, from the large territory actually embraced by them, and from their special prominence throughout the whole region, it may at least be answered that the margin left for them is small. But if the objection is pressed that it is contrary to the analogy, and unreasonable in itself, that there should not be new laws for this higher sphere, the reply is obvious. Let these Laws be produced." Our author is somewhat prone to meet the challenge that he should keep to his scientific method, and make no assertions which he cannot prove, by a retort of this kind. "The establishment of the Spiritual Laws on 'the solid ground of nature,' to which the mind trusts, 'which builds for aye,' would offer a new basis for certainty in Religion. It has been indicated that the authority of Authority is waning. This is a plain fact. And it was inevitable" (p.29). "Hence we must exhibit our doctrines, not lying athwart the lines of the world's thinking, in a place reserved, and therefore shunned, for the Great Exception; but in their kinship to all truth, and in their law-relation to the whole of nature" (p. 33). In other words they must have a scientific basis, — "the solid ground of nature;" Christianity, as hitherto accepted, having been "the Great Exception."
Our author, at the beginning of his preface says, "Science is tired of reconciliation, between two things which should never have been contrasted; Religion is offended by the patronage of an ally which it professes not to heed." The truth is, science has taken all care to avoid the possibility of any reconciliation for the future; — its position in reference to religion, both natural and revealed, is simply and hopelessly irreconcileable. Happily for us all, Christianity does not need the aid of science; nor can right-minded and true-hearted Christians feel otherwise than the utmost disgust at such an attempt, as this book makes, to engraft Christianity on science, in the present attitude of the latter. No doubt there is plenty of scripture in it; but then our author himself reminds us that "the devil can quote scripture."
I regard the book as false in every sense; for the more attentively one reads it, the more one sees that it is guardedly expressed, so as not to frighten less advanced Christians, and that the author's views are more in harmony with some of the worst scientific and theological errors of the day, than he cares to say explicitly. But Christianity, like Christ Himself, finds that false friends are its worst foes. Again, "Men must oppose with every energy they possess what seems to them to oppose the eternal course of things" (what things are these? and in what sense are they "eternal?") "And the first step in their deliverance must be, not to `reconcile' nature and religion, but to exhibit nature in religion. Even to convince them that there is no controversy between religion and science is insufficient. A mere flag of truce in the nature of the case is here impossible; at least it is only possible as long as neither party is sincere. No man who knows the splendour of scientific achievement, or cares for it, no man who feels the solidity of its method, or works with it, can remain neutral with regard to religion. He must either extend his method into it, or, if that is impossible, oppose it to the knife" (Preface, pp. xxi. xxii). This is plain speaking, and admits of no misconception. Well! we must leave it to science to do as it pleases: on the part of true Christianity there can be no compromise. We read, "Thou hast magnified Thy word, above all Thy Name" (Ps. 138:2), i.e. divine revelation has a place far superior to creation, — just as faith in that revelation is far superior to natural knowledge. Not that the christian undervalues the testimony of creation to the glory of God — far from it. Still we believe, not on account of what we see or know, but simply because God has spoken. Spiritual sight and intelligence are, no doubt, the result; but there is no science in the matter. For scientific Christianity the christian would not give a "thank you." He takes Christianity as revealed in God's word, as if this were a myth; and then like an honest infidel, he would reject it. A mixture of Christianity and science is the most abominable of all things, — a "cheap Christianity" indeed.
"The Spiritual World as it stands is full of perplexity. One can escape doubt only by escaping thought. With regard to many important articles of religion, perhaps the best and the worst course at present open to a doubter is simple credulity. Who is to answer for this state of things? It comes as a necessary tax for improvement on the age in which we live. The old ground of faith, authority, is given up; the new Science, has not yet taken its place. Men did not require to see truth before; they only needed to believe it" (p. 26). That we may be better able to see truth, Mr. Drummond has reduced it for us to Science. He has already spoken of the "solidity of its method," and has told us that this method must be introduced into religion. To make this method more clear and unmistakeable, he quotes Messrs. Huxley and Harrison, after a few words of his own. The extract is rather long, but cannot be passed over:
"And what will be gained if the point be made out? Not a few things. For one, as partly indicated already, the scientific demand of the age will be satisfied. That demand is that all that concerns life and conduct shall be placed on a scientific basis. The only great attempt to meet that at present is Positivism.
"But what again is a scientific basis? What exactly is this demand of the age? 'By Science, I understand,' says Huxley, 'all knowledge which rests upon evidence, and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our assent to ordinary scientific propositions; and if any one is able to make good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and sound reasoning, then it appears to me, that such theology must take its place as a part of Science." "Mr. Frederic Harrison, in name of the Positive method of thought, turns aside from ideal standards which avow themselves to be lawless, which profess to transcend the field of law. We say life and conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis of law, and must rest entirely in that region of science (not physical, but moral and social science), where we are free to use our intelligence, in the methods known to us as intelligible logic, methods which the intellect can analyse. When you confront us with hypotheses, however sublime, and however affecting, if they cannot be stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are disparate to that world of sequence and sensation, which to us is the ultimate base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and turn aside.' This is a most reasonable demand, and we humbly accept the challenge" (pp. 23-24). Now all the "important articles of religion" are a matter of revelation, and have been recorded in Holy Scripture in the language of inspiration. As to this the apostle says, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God: which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:9-14).
These words alone judge and condemn the whole of our author's system. I am aware he quotes them, as he constantly quotes the passages which are most against himself, seemingly unconscious how much they are so. Yet in the present case he makes a singular misquotation, for he says, "And Paul afterwards carries out the classification consistently, making his entire system depend on it, and throughout arranging men, on the one hand as pneumatikos — spiritual, on the other as psychikos — carnal, in terms of Christ's distinction," (p. 382). But Paul does not divide all men into "spiritual" and "carnal," and our author only expresses his ignorance of Scripture in saying so: — nor is there such a word as psychikos in Greek, that I am aware of. Had he said that Paul divides all men into spiritual, carnal, and natural, he would have been right. The "things of God" cannot be reduced to science, nor can they be known in their true character and power but by the Spirit. Our author's system consequently is anti-scriptural and anti-christian; and the attempt to construct it on the lines of evolution makes it profane. I do not say this is intentional on his part; but it is so in fact, nevertheless.
Your's, in the Lord, THETA.
1885 317 Letter 4
Dear Mr. Editor,
One would suppose after all this, that the ordinary difficulties to unbelievers, of a spiritual kind, would have been met by a sort of scientific bridge. By substituting, for the simple and homely phrases of scripture, the technical terms of science, — by availing himself of the figurative language of scripture to run a complete parallel between spiritual and natural processes, — and so to identify spiritual laws (as though we knew them) with natural, as to speak of natural law in the spiritual world, — in this manner Christianity is so reduced to science, one would have hoped that unbelievers, and more especially scientific men, would derive some benefit from it. If scientific men have such a fancy for the words, biogenesis, protoplasm, embryology, etc. that to introduce these terms into theology makes them more wiling to receive Christianity, by all means let them have this benefit. We should be truly glad to win them in such a way. But it would be wrong to deceive them. This merely puts a scientific aspect on Christianity without making it really such.
Evolution, too, in any honest sense, must be given up; — whether therefore the word is honestly used or not in this book, they will find the word of little or no use to them. Ambiguous language may deceive simple Christians but will not deceive scientific men. They will take the word "Evolution" as meaning evolution, and that in the sense in which it is scientifically understood, and that is the true (though not always the obvious) meaning in this book, as is made clear by our Author's denial of species. Again, if very unspiritual Christians appreciate such language as the following, let them take it: though, rejecting it ourselves, we will not quarrel with them.
After (p. 293), speaking of the bird-life seizing on the bird-germ, and building it up into a bird; of the reptile-life seizing upon another germinal speck and fashioning it into a reptile, he proceeds … "There is another kind of life of which science as yet has taken little cognizance. It obeys the same laws. It builds up an organism into its own form. It is the Christ-life. As the bird-life builds up a bird, the image of itself, so the Christ-life builds up a Christ, the image of Himself in the inward nature of man. When a man becomes a christian, the natural process is this. The living Christ enters into his soul. Development begins. The quickening Life seizes upon the soul, assimilates surrounding elements, and begins to fashion it." And how does our author meet the "reasonable demand," as he calls it, for rational proof as to the immortality of the soul, and the reality of a future life? Surely these are the most elementary of spiritual truths and facts! In the presence of their denial our author's pseudo-spiritual and biological notions are so many fictions: no progress can be made till they are granted or proved; and lying upon the very threshold, they cannot be rightly said to pertain to the unknown regions of the spiritual sphere.
If "it has been keenly felt by those who attempt to defend this doctrine of the spiritual life, that they have nothing more to oppose to the rationalistic view than the ipse dixit of revelation" (p. 66), yet since the natural laws "are great lines running not only through the world, but, as we now know, through the universe, reducing it like parallels of latitude to intelligent order" (p. 6), — surely that part of the spiritual region which is nearest to us should be the most distinctly marked out by these lines! But no, natural laws, it appears, are even of less use to us here than the ipse dixit of revelation (not that our author on his own part questions the adequacy of revelation; still he should be consistent with his theory), for, "No secular theory of personal continuance, as even Butler acknowledges, does not equally demand the eternity of the brute" (p. 226). This however I cannot agree with; it has always seemed to me that there is much, which strongly tends to the conclusion that man has an immortal soul, I mean apart from revelation. Our own existence is a proof that there is a God, our knowledge of good and evil, is a proof that we are accountable to Him. Adjudication is clearly not in this world, and therefore is to be in the next. This however is the reasoning of natural religion, which we fully own and accept, as we do revealed religion, admitting that the latter cannot be put on a demonstrable basis. He can give no proof of the immortality of the soul, and little as, even of the existence of a spiritual world; for he says, "at the same time, although attempting no philosophical proof of the existence of a spiritual life and a spiritual world, we are not without hope that the general line of thought here may be useful to some who are honestly inquiring in these directions" (p. 26).
Mr. Drummond truly says that life can only come from life, that the organic kingdom is hermetically sealed on the side of the inorganic, and that similarly "the passage from the natural world to the spiritual world is hermetically sealed on the natural side (p. 71). "The door from the inorganic to the organic is shut, no mineral can open it. This world of natural men is staked off from the spiritual world by barriers which have never yet been crossed from within." So far so good. He continues (p. 72), "There being no passage from one kingdom to another, whether from inorganic to organic, or from organic to spiritual, the intervention of life is a scientific necessity if a stone, or a plant, or an animal, or a man, is to pass from a lower to a higher sphere. The plant stretches down to the dead world beneath it, touches its minerals and gases with its mystery of life, and brings them up ennobled and transformed to the living sphere. The breath of God, blowing where it listeth, touches with the mystery of life the dead souls of men, bears them across the bridgeless gulf between the natural and the spiritual, between the spiritually inorganic and the spiritually organic, endows them with its own high qualities, and develops within them those new and secret faculties by which these who are born again are said to see the kingdom of God." As a sort of general illustration, one would let this pass as sufficiently near the truth; but when it is used in support of identity and continuity of law, it is requisite to look more minutely into it; and I think that it will be found that not only law but even analogy then fails. Our author says (p. 75), It is clear that a remarkable harmony exists here between the organic world as arranged by science, and the spiritual world as arranged by scripture. We find one great law guarding the thresholds of both worlds, securing that entrance from a lower sphere shall only take place by a regenerating act, and that emanating from the world next in order above. There are not two laws of biogenesis, one for the natural, the other for the spiritual; one law is for both. Wherever there is life, life of any kind, this same law holds. The analogy therefore is only among the phenomena; between laws there is no analogy, — there is continuity."
Now the inorganic and the organic kingdoms of nature form but one physical system, — each enters into the very existence of the other. Leaves drop off plants decay, and mould is formed. This very mould is taken up by another plant and absorbed into its system. Vegetable life cannot exist alone, — it exists only in combination with mineral elements. When we plant a vegetable in the ground, doubtless the process goes on, described above; but from first to last, that process goes on in consequence of a mineral organisation coming into contact with mineral, though in an inorganic state. But the Holy Spirit has nothing in common with men; in dealing with the soul He has to effect a recreation. He reorganises that soul, receiving nothing Himself. This is not like a soil He can simply come into and assimilate. The man thus enters the kingdom of God, — a spiritual sphere totally distinct from the physical, and having no necessary connection with it. And he enters that kingdom, not on account of a mutual and reciprocal connection and relationship with it (as regards his human nature), such as there is between the mineral earth and the mineral plant, but by an act of sovereign grace and power on God's part, which is subject to no rule (often choosing the worst instead of the best), and in which the man can supply nothing but a ruined soul, — in itself worthless to God; but which God renews, and then admits into His kingdom. Continuity of law, then, is out of the question.
But the most singular line of reasoning, perhaps in the whole book, — the most desperate of all his attempts to surmount difficulties, is in his endeavour to make good the continuity of the law of evolution. We have seen and accepted his lucid statement, "the door from the inorganic to the organic is shut, no mineral can open it; so the door from the natural to the spiritual is shut, and no man can open it." On p. 404 he says, — "This attempt to incorporate the Spiritual Kingdom in the scheme of Evolution may be met by what seems at first sight a fatal objection. So far from the idea of a Spiritual Kingdom being in harmony with the doctrine of Evolution, it may be said that it is violently opposed to it. It announces a new kingdom starting off suddenly on a different plane, and in direct violation of the primary principle of development. Instead of carrying the organic evolution farther on its own lines, theology at a given point interposes a sudden and hopeless barrier — the barrier between the natural and the spiritual, and insists that the evolutionary process must begin again at the beginning. At this point in fact, nature acts per saltum. This is no evolution but a catastrophe — such a catastrophe as must be fatal to any consistent development hypothesis. On the surface this objection seems final; but it is only on the surface." So says Mr. D.; but indeed the objection is fatal to any consistent development hypothesis.
Again, "any objection then to the catastrophe introduced by Christianity between the natural and spiritual kingdoms applies with equal force against the barrier which Science places between the inorganic and the organic. The reserve of life in either case is a fact, and a fact of exceptional significance. What then becomes of evolution? Do these two great barriers destroy it? By no means" (p. 406). But they certainly do. Science will hear nothing of catastrophe, — as little as it will admit of a "great exception." Even if God acts, it must be by law. Nor does science like the idea of a law-maker, that law-maker being Himself a perfectly free agent. Even Mr. Drummond says, "The fundamental conception of law is an ascertained working sequence or constant order among the phenomena of nature" (p. 5). Not so; — it is rule imposed by authority, which may be abrogated whenever that authority chooses.
But our author continues, "what we are reaching in short is nothing less than the evolution of Evolution. Now to both Science and Christianity, and especially to Science, this enrichment of Evolution is important. And, on the part of Christianity, the contribution to the system of nature of a second barrier is of real scientific value. At first it may seem surely to increase the difficulty. But in reality it abolishes it. However paradoxical it seems, it is nevertheless the case that two barriers are more easy to understand , than one, — two mysteries are less mysterious than a single mystery. For it requires two to constitute a harmony. One by itself is a catastrophe. But, just as the recurrence of an eclipse at different periods makes an eclipse no breach of Continuity; … so the recurrence of two periods associated with special phenomena of life, the second higher, and by the law necessarily higher, is no violation of the principle of evolution" (p. 407).
Now Mr. Drummond has laid down the undoubted law, that the door of the organic world is hermetically sealed on the inorganic side, and that the door of the spiritual world is hermetically sealed on the natural side, as also that death to the old man, and an altogether new life, are requisite to enter the spiritual world. He has moreover said, "In either case the first step in peopling these worlds with the appropriate living forms is, virtually, miracle" (p.76). He now says that these two breaks are no breach of continuity, that Evolution is not destroyed by them: in fact it is the "evolution of Evolution." He asserts that on the contrary these two barriers make a harmony. Yes! by confirming each other as barriers, upon the principle that two negatives only make the negative more emphatic, not upon the principle that two negatives make an affirmative. Two eclipses do not prove that there is no such thing as an eclipse at all. Can this argument be called honest? Present this to upright men, who reject divine revelation, and who do not believe that the being of God is a proved fact; and they will laugh at it. Present it to the right-minded and true-hearted christian; and he will utterly reject it. The fact is, Mr. Drummond's attempt to turn Christianity into science is, for any earnest infidel or christian, a palpable and an egregious failure. He owns that life came originally from God, and says, "so everywhere God creates, man utilizes" (p. 140), by which I suppose he means that, "ex nihilo nihil" does not apply to God. He also speaks of our Lord, and of some of the truths of Christianity, in a way which leads one to hope and believe he is himself a christian, even if under a terrible delusion. How then a man who is a christian can think and write as he does, is a marvel.
We however are concerned only with the errors and inconsistencies of the book. The idea which runs through it is, Continuity of law upon the principle of Evolution; but both the Continuity and the Evolution are myths of science. Much of what he says about Christianity is true; but there is no need to turn the simple yet profound language of scripture into any scientific phraseology, for this is proof of Continuity of law only in appearance, and not in reality. So carried away is he with his deadly doctrine of evolution that he says (p. 398), "Third and highest we reach the Spiritual kingdom, or the kingdom of heaven. What its characteristics are, relatively to any hypothetical higher kingdom, necessarily remains unknown. That the Spiritual, in turn, may be the preparation for, and the prophecy of, something still higher, is not impossible" (p. 398). One who can talk like this, is not likely to argue consistently. A few words should be added in reference to the following statement (p. 409), "Modern science knows only two kingdoms, the organic and the inorganic." I would warn my fellow-Christians earnestly against this dictum of science. It is essentially infidel. The object simply is to get rid of the line of demarcation between the spiritual and the natural. For the infidel, the latter alone remains; for Mr. Drummond, the two are combined into one by natural law. The true distinction is inorganic and organic, forming the natural or physical world; and the spiritual world. We have had abundant proof how Mr. D. naturalises the spiritual. To cite one more instance only, I take the following, "The visible is the ladder up to the invisible; the temporal is but the scaffolding of the eternal. And when the last immaterial souls have climbed through this material to God, the scaffolding shall be taken down, and the earth dissolved with fervent heat, — not because it was base, but because its work is done" (p. 57). How completely everything is seen by him, through a natural medium, and grounded upon a natural basis! His ladder to heaven is unquestionably a very material one.
Mr. Drummond may say, "Certainly, I never premeditated anything to myself so objectionable, and so unwarrantable in itself, as either to read Theology into Science, or Science into Theology" (Preface, p. x); and, "Inappropriate hybridism is checked by Sterility" (p. xiii). He must be more simple than I give him credit for, if he does not see that this is just what he has attempted to do; and that such "inappropriate hybridism" cannot but be completely sterile as to what is good and of God. Most unholy must be the fruit of this work. In fact Mr. Drummond may not have intended it, and may not be aware of it; but he has nevertheless turned out one of the worst and most injurious books ever written by a christian, — a book injurious to souls, as it is a deep dishonour to God, and to His word. It has been a painful process to go through it. I have endeavoured (and I trust in the main have succeeded) to give a just and true account of it; and if I shall have aided others in forming a true estimate of its character, and in avoiding any ill effects which an erroneous estimate of it might entail, I shall be abundantly thankful.
I am, dear Mr. Editor, Your's, in our Lord, THETA.