No class of works is received
with more suspicion, I had almost said derision, than that which deals
with Science and Religion. Science is tired of reconciliations between
two things which never should have been contrasted; Religion is offended
by the patronage of an ally which it professes not to need; and the critics
have rightly discovered that, in most cases where Science is either pitted
against Religion or fused with it, there is some fatal misconception to
begin with as to the scope and province of either. But although no initial
protest, probably, will save this work from the unhappy reputation of its
class, the thoughtful mind will perceive that the fact of its subject-matter
being Law--a property peculiar neither to Science nor to Religion--at once
places it on a somewhat different footing.
The real problem I have
set myself may be stated in a sentence. Is there not reason to believe
that many of the Laws of the Spiritual World, hitherto regarded as occupying,
an entirely separate province, are simply the Laws of the Natural World?
Can we identify the Natural Laws, or any one of them, in the Spiritual
sphere? That vague lines everywhere run through the Spiritual World is
already beginning to be recognised. Is it possible to link them with those
great lines running through the visible universe which we call the Natural
Laws, or are they fundamentally distinct? In a word, Is the Supernatural
natural or unnatural?
I may, perhaps,
be allowed to answer these questions in the form in which they have answered
themselves to myself. And I must apologise at the outset for personal references
which, but for the clearness they may lend to the statement, I would surely
avoid.
It has been my privilege for some years to
address regularly two very different audiences on two very different themes.
On week days I have lectured to a class of students on the Natural Sciences,
and on Sundays to an audience consisting for the most part of working men
on subjects of a moral and religious character. I cannot say that this
collocation ever appeared as a difficulty to myself, but to certain of
my friends it was more than a problem. It was solved to me, however, at
first, by what then seemed the necessities of the case-- I must keep the
two departments entirely by themselves. They lay at opposite poles of thought;
and for a time I succeeded in keeping the Science and the Religion shut
off from one another in two separate compartments of my mind. But gradually
the wall of partition showed symptoms of giving way. The two fountains
of knowledge also slowly began to overflow, and finally their waters met
and mingled. The great change was in the compartment which held the Religion.
It was not that the well there was dried; still less that the fermenting
waters were washed away by the flood of Science. The actual contents remained
the same. But the crystals of former doctrine were dissolved; and as they
precipitated themselves once more in definite forms, I observed that the
Crystalline System was changed. New channels also for outward expression
opened, and some of the old closed up; and I found the truth running out
to my audience on the Sundays by the weekday outlets. In other words, the
subject-matter Religion had taken on the method of expression of Science,
and I discovered myself enunciating Spiritual Law in the exact terms of
Biology and Physics.
Now this was not simply a scientific colouring
given to Religion, the mere freshening of the theological air with natural
facts and illustrations. It was an entire re-casting of truth. And when
I came seriously to consider what it involved, I saw, or seemed to see,
that it meant essentially the introduction of Natural Law into the Spiritual
World. It was not, I repeat, that new and detailed analogies of Phenomena
rose into view--although material for Parable lies unnoticed and unused
on the field of recent Science in inexhaustible profusion. But Law has
a still grander function to discharge towards Religion than Parable. There
is a deeper unity between the two Kingdoms than the analogy of their Phenomena--a
unity which the poet's vision, more quick than the theologian's, has already
dimly seen :--
"And verily many thinkers of this age,
Aye, many Christian teachers, half in heaven,
Are wrong in just my sense, who understood
Our natural world too insularly, as if
No spiritual counterpart completed it,
Consummating its meaning, rounding all
To justice and perfection, line by line,
Form by form, nothing single nor alone,
The great below clenched by the great above.
The function of Parable in religion is to
exhibit "form by form." Law undertakes the profounder task of
comparing "line by line." Thus Natural Phenomena serve mainly
an illustrative function in Religion. Natural Law, on the other hand, could
it be traced in the Spiritual World, would have an important scientific
value--it would offer Religion a new credential. The effect of the introduction
of Law among the scattered Phenomena of Nature has simply been to make
Science, to transform knowledge into eternal truth. The same crystallising
touch is needed in Religion. Can it be said that the Phenomena of the Spiritual
World are other than scattered? Can we shut our eyes to the fact that the
religious opinions of mankind are in a state of flux? And when we regard
the uncertainty of current beliefs, the war of creeds, the havoc of inevitable
as well as of idle doubt, the reluctant abandonment of early faith by those
who would cherish it longer if they could, is it not plain that the one
thing thinking men are waiting for is the introduction of Law among the
Phenomena of the Spiritual World? When that comes we shall offer to such
men a truly scientific theology. And the Reign of Law will transform the
whole Spiritual World as it has already transformed the Natural World.
I confess that even when in the first dim
vision, the organizing hand of Law moved among the unordered truths of
my Spiritual World, poor and scantily-furnished as it was, there seemed
to come over it the beauty of a transfiguration. The change was as great
as from the old chaotic world of Pythagoras to the symmetrical and harmonious
universe of Newton. My Spiritual World before was a chaos of facts; my
Theology, a Pythagorean system trying to make the best of Phenomena apart
from the idea of Law. I make no charge against Theology in general. I speak
of my own. And I say that I saw it to be in many essential respects centuries
behind every department of Science I knew. It was the one region still
unpossessed by Law. I saw then why men of Science distrust Theology; why
those who have learned to look upon Law as Authority grow cold to it--it
was the Great Exception.
I have alluded to the genesis of the idea
in my own mind partly for another reason--to show its naturalness. 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.
Nothing could be more artificial than to attempt this on the speculative
side; and it has been a substantial relief to me throughout that the idea
rose up thus in the course of practical work and shaped itself day by day
unconsciously. It might be charged, nevertheless, that I was all the time,
whether consciously or unconsciously, simply reading my Theology into my
Science. And as this would hopelessly vitiate the conclusions arrived at,
I must acquit myself at least of the intention. Of nothing have I been
more fearful throughout than of making Nature parallel with my own or with
any creed. The only legitimate questions one dare put to Nature are those
which concern universal human good and the Divine interpretation of things.
These I conceive may be there actually studied at first-hand, and before
their purity is soiled by human touch. We have Truth in Nature as it came
from God. And it has to be read with the same unbiassed mind, the same
open eye, the same faith, and the same reverence as all other Revelation.
All that is found there, whatever its place in Theology, whatever its orthodoxy
or heterodoxy, whatever its narrowness or its breadth, we are bound to
accept as Doctrine from which on the lines of Science there is no escape.
When this presented itself to me as a method,
I felt it to be due to it--were it only to secure, so far as that was possible,
that no former bias should interfere with the integrity of the results--to
begin again at the beginning and reconstruct my Spiritual World step by
step. The result of that inquiry, so far as its expression in systematic
form is concerned, I have not given in this book. To reconstruct a Spiritual
Religion, or a department of Spiritual Religion--for this is all the method
can pretend to--on the lines of Nature would be an attempt from which one
better equipped in both directions might well be pardoned if he shrank.
My object at present is the humbler one of venturing a simple contribution
to practical Religion along the lines indicated. What Bacon predicates
of the Natural World, Natura enim non nisi parendo vincitur, is
also true, as Christ had already told us, of the Spiritual World. And I
present a few samples of the religious teaching referred to formerly as
having been prepared under the influence of scientific ideas in the hope
that they may be useful first of all in this direction.
I would, however, carefully point out that
though their unsystematic arrangement here may create the impression that
these papers are merely isolated readings in Religion pointed by casual
scientific truths, they are organically connected by a single principle.
Nothing could be more false both to Science and to Religion than attempts
to adjust the two spheres by making out ingenious points of contact in
detail. The solution of this great question of conciliation, if one may
still refer to a problem so gratuitous, must be general rather than particular.
The basis in a common principle--the Continuity of Law--can alone save
specific applications from ranking as mere coincidences, or exempt them
from the reproach of being a hybrid between two things which must be related
by the deepest affinities or remain for ever separate.
To the objection that even a basis in Law
is no warrant for so great a trespass as the intrusion into another field
of thought of the principles of Natural Science, I would reply that in
this I find I am following a lead which in other departments has not only
been allowed but has achieved results as rich as they were unexpected.
What is the Physical Politic of Mr. Walter Bagehot but the extension of
Natural Law to the Political World? What is the Biological Sociology of
Mr. Herbert Spencer but the application of Natural Law to the Social World?
Will it be charged that the splendid achievements of such thinkers are
hybrids between things which Nature has meant to remain apart? Nature usually
solves such problems for herself. Inappropriate hybridism is checked by
the Law of Sterility. Judged by this great Law these modern developments
of our knowledge stand uncondemned. Within their own sphere the results
of Mr. Herbert Spencer are far from sterile--the application of Biology
to Political Economy is already revolutionizing the Science. If the introduction
of Natural Law into the Social sphere is no violent contradiction but a
genuine and permanent contribution, shall its further extension to the
Spiritual sphere be counted an extravagance? Does not the Principle of
Continuity demand its application in every direction? To carry it as a
working principle into so lofty a region may appear impracticable. Difficulties
lie on the threshold which may seem, at first sight, insurmountable. But
obstacles to a true method only test its validity. And he who honestly
faces the task may find relief in feeling that whatever else of crudeness
and imperfection mar it, the attempt is at least in harmony with the thought
and movement of his time.
That these papers were not designed to appear
in a collective form, or indeed to court the more public light at all,
needs no disclosure. They are published out of regard to the wish of known
and unknown friends by whom, when in a fugitive form, they were received
with so curious an interest as to make one feel already that there are
minds which such forms of truth may touch. In making the present selection,
partly from manuscript, and partly from articles already published, I have
been guided less by the wish to constitute the papers a connected series
than to exhibit the application of the principle in various directions.
They will be found, therefore, of unequal interest and value, according
to the standpoint from which they are regarded. Thus some are designed
with a directly practical and popular bearing, others being more expository,
and slightly apologetic in tone. The risks of combining two objects so
very different is somewhat serious. But, for the reason named, having taken
this responsibility, the only compensation I can offer is to indicate which
of the papers incline to the one side or to the other. "Degeneration,"
"Growth," "Mortification," "Conformity to Type,"
"Semi-Parasitism," and "Parasitism" belong to the more
practical order; and while one or two are intermediate, "Biogenesis,"
" Death," and " Eternal Life " may be offered to those
who find the atmosphere of the former uncongenial. It will not disguise
itself, however, that, owing to the circumstances in which they were prepared,
all the papers are more or less practical in their aim; so that to the
merely philosophical reader there is little to be offered except--and that
only with the greatest diffidence--the Introductory chapter.
In the Introduction, which the general reader
may do well to ignore, I have briefly stated the case for Natural Law in
the Spiritual World. The extension of Analogy to Laws, or rather the extension
of the Laws themselves, so far as known to me, is new; and I cannot hope
to have escaped the mistakes and misadventures of a first exploration in
an unsurveyed land. So general has been the survey that I have not even
paused to define specifically to what departments of the Spiritual World
exclusively the principle is to be applied. The danger of making a new
principle apply too widely inculcates here the utmost caution. One thing
is certain, and I state it pointedly, the application of Natural Law to
the Spiritual World has decided and necessary limits. And if elsewhere
with undue enthusiasm I seem to magnify the principle at stake, the exaggeration--
like the extreme amplification of the moon's disc when near the horizon--must
be charged to that almost necessary aberration of light which distorts
every new idea while it is yet slowly climbing to its zenith.
In what follows the Introduction, except
in the setting, there is nothing new. I trust there is nothing new. When
I began to follow out these lines, I had no idea where they would lead
me. I was prepared, nevertheless, at least for the time, to be loyal to
the method throughout, and share with Nature whatever consequences might
ensue. But in almost every case, after stating what appeared to be the
truth in words gathered directly from the lips of Nature, I was sooner
or later startled by a certain similarity in the general idea to something
I had heard before, and this often developed in a moment, and when I was
least expecting it, into recognition of some familiar article of faith.
I was not watching for this result. I did not begin by tabulating the doctrines,
as I did the Laws of Nature, and then proceed with the attempt to pair
them. The majority of them seemed at first too far removed from the natural
world even to suggest this. Still less did I begin with doctrines and work
downwards to find their relations in the natural sphere. It was the opposite
process entirely. I ran up the Natural Law as far as it would go, and the
appropriate doctrine seldom even loomed in sight till I had reached the
top. Then it burst into view in a single moment.
I can scarcely now say whether in those moments
I was more overcome with thankfulness that Nature was so like Revelation,
or more filled with wonder that Revelation was so like Nature. 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.
But that a derived Theology, in spite of the venerable verbiage which has
gathered round it, should be at bottom and in all cardinal respects so
faithful a transcript of "the truth as it is in Nature" came
as a surprise and to me at least as a rebuke. How, under the rigid necessity
of incorporating in its system much that seemed nearly unintelligible,
and much that was barely credible, Theology has succeeded so perfectly
in adhering through good report and ill to what in the main are truly the
lines of Nature, awakens a new admiration for those who constructed and
kept this faith. But however nobly it has held its ground, Theology must
feel to-day that the modern world calls for a further proof. Nor will the
best Theology resent this demand; it also demands it. Theology is searching
on every hand for another echo of the Voice of which Revelation also is
the echo, that out of the mouths of two witnesses its truths should be
established. That other echo can only come from Nature. Hitherto its voice
has been muffled. But now that Science has made the world around articulate,
it speaks to Religion with a twofold purpose. In the first place it offers
to corroborate Theology, in the second to purify it.
If the removal of suspicion from Theology
is of urgent moment, not less important is the removal of its adulterations.
These suspicions, many of them at least, are new; in a sense they mark
progress. But the adulterations are the artificial accumulations of centuries
of uncontrolled speculation. They are the necessary result of the old method
and the warrant for its revision--they mark the impossibility of progress
without the guiding and restraining hand of Law. The felt exhaustion of
the former method, the want of corroboration for the old evidence, the
protest of reason against the monstrous overgrowths which conceal the real
lines of truth, these summon us to the search for a surer and more scientific
system. With truths of the theological order, with dogmas which often depend
for their existence on a particular exegesis, with propositions which rest
for their evidence upon a balance of probabilities, or upon the weight
of authority; with doctrines which every age and nation may make or unmake,
which each sect may tamper with, and which even the individual may modify
for himself, a second court of appeal has become an imperative necessity.
Science, therefore, may yet have to be called
upon to arbitrate at some points between conflicting creeds. And while
there are some departments of Theology where its jurisdiction cannot be
sought, there are others in which Nature may yet have to define the contents
as well as the limits of belief.
What I would desire especially is a thoughtful
consideration of the method. The applications ventured upon here may be
successful or unsuccessful. But they would more than satisfy me if they
suggested a method to others whose less clumsy hands might work it out
more profitably. For I am convinced of the fertility of such a method at
the present time. It is recognised by all that the younger and abler minds
of this age find the most serious difficulty in accepting or retaining
the ordinary forms of belief. Especially is this true of those whose culture
is scientific. And the reason is palpable. No man can study modern Science
without a change coming over his view of truth. What impresses him about
Nature is its solidity. He is there standing upon actual things, among
fixed laws. And the integrity of the scientific method so seizes him that
all other forms of truth begin to appear comparatively unstable. He did
not know before that any form of truth could so hold him; and the immediate
effect is to lessen his interest in all that stands on other bases. This
he feels in spite of himself; he struggles against it in vain; and he finds
perhaps to his alarm that he is drifting fast into what looks at first
like pure Positivism. This is an inevitable result of the scientific training.
It is quite erroneous to suppose that science ever overthrows Faith, if
by that is implied that any natural truth can oppose successfully any single
spiritual truth. Science cannot overthrow Faith; but it shakes it. Its
own doctrines, grounded in Nature, are so certain, that the truths of Religion,
resting to most men on Authority, are felt to be strangely insecure. The
difficulty, therefore, which men of Science feel about Religion is real
and inevitable, and in so far as Doubt is a conscientious tribute to the
inviolability of Nature it is entitled to respect.
None but those who have passed through it
can appreciate the radical nature of the change wrought by Science in the
whole mental attitude of its disciples. What they really cry out for in
Religion is a new standpoint--a standpoint like their own. The one hope,
therefore, for Science is more Science. Again, to quote Bacon--we shall
hear enough from the moderns by-and-by--"This I dare affirm in knowledge
of Nature, that a little natural philosophy, and the first entrance into
it, doth dispose the opinion to atheism; but, on the other side, much natural
philosophy, and wading deep into it, will bring about men's minds to religion.
The application of similia similibus curantur
was never more in point. If this is a disease, it is the disease of Nature,
and the cure is more Nature. For what is this disquiet in the breasts of
men but the loyal fear that Nature is being violated? Men must oppose with
every energy they possess what seems to them to oppose the eternal course
of things. 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 so 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. On the other hand, no one
who knows the content of Christianity, or feels the universal need of a
Religion, can stand idly by while the intellect of his age is slowly divorcing
itself from it. What is required, therefore, to draw Science and Religion
together again--for they began the centuries hand in hand--is the disclosure
of the naturalness of the supernatural. 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. No science contributes to another without
receiving a reciprocal benefit. And even as the contribution of Science
to Religion is the vindication of the naturalness of the Supernatural,
so the gift of Religion to Science is the demonstration of the supernaturalness
of the Natural. Thus, as the Supernatural becomes slowly Natural, will
also the Natural become slowly Supernatural, until in the impersonal authority
of Law men everywhere recognise the Authority of God.
To those who already find themselves fully
nourished on the older forms of truth, I do not commend these pages. They
will find them superfluous. Nor is there any reason why they should mingle
with light which is already clear the distorting rays of a foreign expression.
But to those who are feeling their way to
a Christian life, haunted now by a sense of instability in the foundations
of their faith, now brought to bay by specific doubt at one point raising,
as all doubt does, the question for the whole, I would hold up a light
which has often been kind to me. There is a sense of solidity about a Law
of Nature which belongs to nothing else in the world. Here, at last, amid
all that is shifting, is one thing sure; one thing outside ourselves, unbiassed,
unprejudiced, uninfluenced by like or dislike, by doubt or fear; one thing
that holds on its way to me eternally, incorruptible, and undefiled. This,
more than anything else, makes one eager to see the Reign of Law traced
in the Spiritual Sphere. And should this seem to some to offer only a surer,
but not a higher Faith; should the better ordering of the Spiritual World
appear to satisfy the intellect at the sacrifice of reverence, simplicity,
or love; especially should it seem to substitute a Reign of Law and a Lawgiver
for a Kingdom of Grace and a Personal God, I will say, with Browning,--
" I spoke as I saw.
I report, as a man may of God's work--all's
Love, yet all's Law.
Now I lay down the judgeship He lent me.
Each faculty tasked,
To perceive Him, has gained an abyss where
a dewdrop was asked."