Dear Mr. Editor, The extent to which Mr. Drummond naturalizes (one might perhaps say, materializes) 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. 22). “Thus as the Supernatural becomes slowly natural, will also the natural become slowly supernatural” (p. 23). “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. 6) 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 seaweed, 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 fort 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 irreconcilable. Happily for us all, Christianity does not need the aid of science; nor can right-minded and truehearted 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 splendor 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. 21,22). 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” (Pa. 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 unmistakable, 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 analyze. 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. 2:3-24). 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. 2:9-149But as it is written, 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. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now 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. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But 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 Corinthians 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 afterward carries out the classification consistently, making his entire system depend on it, and throughout arranging men, on the one hand as πνευματικός-spiritual, on the other as φυχικός-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 φυχικός 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.
Yours, in the Lord,
Theta