Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

all other living forms and their surroundings, conceivable that man alone would be endowed with powers for whose exercise no provision had been made, and for whose satisfaction no objects had been provided? Is it credible that amplest means were put within reach for the gratification of his instincts and appetites, and yet that none were furnished for that of his moral faculties? There is only one sufficient answer to such questions, an answer, however, which cannot be given without bringing into full view the steps which lead up to it. In our study of nature we meet with adaptations which imply forethought, contriving wisdom, creative personality, creative beneficence; moral elements come into play, conscience is active, there are conscious moral relations between man and the personality discovered in creation,-relations whose recognition bring with it a class of wants for which satisfaction is not to be found in nature, the scientific study of which has forced from observers the recognition of an allpervading personality, the light of whose presence has quickened and intensified the very sense of evil and the desire after good, and the search after God, which yet nature can do nothing to gratify. God recognises the wants of "his own offspring," and provides for their gratification. Thus the crowning adaptation, the adaptation between the Gospel and the spiritual constitution of man. Theism slopes upward into Christianity, and lays its lavish testimony to the manifold wisdom of God at the feet of Him to whom the wise men of old brought their gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh: "He is Lord of all." But are not Christian apologists apt to attach too great value to the mere acknowledgment of a God by some distinguished workers? What is wanted, even for their own sake, and the world's sake, and the Church's sake, is something that will put heart into their confession, set their high attainments all aglow with a light and warmth more than human, and lead to a personal consecration whose intensity and intellectual breadth would ind fittest expression in the words, " for me to live is Christ." This attitude far transcends that of theism, and the worker finds himself at home with a new doctrine, that of Christ's creatorship. Nature has a Christology whose exposition and illustration depend on the same methods as those of scripture Christology. Faith leads the observer into a sphere outside of, yet concentric with, that in which the organs of sense have scope and exercise, and in which the great and pressing question of our age, the question of the origin of all things, -finds an answer: 66 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things

1

which are seen were not made of the things which do appear." The supernatural testimony of Revelation completes that of nature to creative personality. True, the facts of Revelation are not discoverable by reason. But, while the domains of thought are enlarged, and the objects of thought multiplied, the qualities of thought are identical in both spheres. The faith which finds opportunities innumerable of exercise among the works of nature, is precisely the same power as that by which we deal with the facts of revelation. And its exercise, in the latter department, is no more inconsistent or out of harmony with reason, than its exercise is in the former, while the new standing point is in complete accord with science. In the present conditions of thought, touching the borderland between science and scripture, the importance of this cannot be over-estimated. In scientific lines, and by the method of science, the Christian student may reach a knowledge of God as true and trustworthy as the knowledge he may have of his fellow men, a knowledge which enters experience and becomes truly our own, and, as our own, is felt to be both rational and logical. Natural fitnesses, either between the individual parts of organisms, or in the relations of similar or different organisms to one another, are as good towards the inference of intelligent creative personality as corresponding fitnesses in the products of human skill are towards the inference of intelligent human personality,a personality in both cases resembling our own. We can thus acknowledge the fairness of the charge of anthropomorphism. It is made as a term of reproach, we accept it as a testimony to man's origin,-" God created man in His own image." By this, man is drawn to seek after God in His own works, and, when he finds in these proofs of thought and forethought and intention, the mental qualities which are his, as one of God's children, fit him for knowing the Father. Thus, indeed, the chief element of strength in the doctrine of final causes. [Now, when we change the point of view from theism to Christianity, and when faith accepts the New Testament doctrine of Creatorship, then, and not till then, in lines and by a method as trustworthy from the latter as from the former point of view, we may reach the inference that He who is King, eternal, immortal, and invisible, by whom "all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible," "by whom all things consist," and without whom "was not anything made that was made," is none else than He on whose cross was written, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews." But the steps of legitimate inference end not till we reach the words, "By

whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of sin." Now, would not much be gained were Christian apologists to insist that theism can only be of highest value as a starting point, a terminus à quo-a point from which to pass to the Bible views of Creator and Creation? Frankly avowing, however, that this is done to bring full in view the grand truths inseparably linked up with Christ's Creatorship, even His Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection.]

The CHAIRMAN (Right Honourable Lord Grimthorpe).—Our thanks are due to Professor Duns for his paper, which has been so admirably read by Mr. Cadman Jones. I need not say that the subject dealt with is a very important one. With regard to the paper itself, I hardly know what to say. To say that I agree with it in general would be to say nothing, and I am afraid I cannot say I agree with it in all its details. I agree with some of the general propositions, such as that which asserts that theism without Christianity is very imperfect, and a good deal more which I need not repeat. But the question which occurs to me on reading papers of this sort is, What good are they likely to do? What practical lesson is to be drawn from this paper, and what is to be carried away by those who have heard it? Do you believe any more or any less in either of the two propositions which Professor Duns has rightly stated as the only alternatives? I must say I was struck with this. In one part of the paper the author says:-"But we are asked, 'Do you really believe that every plant and animal is a special creation, the result of a special act of Divine interposition ?'” and then he says "The question is not fair." I really do not see why it is not fair. The answer may be easy, or difficult, or there may be several answers; but the man who propounds any kind of scientific theory is bound to be prepared to answer any question which is not absurd or demonstrably unfair. A question is not made unfair by saying it is so. Dr. Whewell, one of the most distinguished men of his time, and opposed to Darwinism then, faced this very question, and said distinctly that he thought it was fair, because there were only two alternatives they must accept,—either transformation or creation. As Dr. Whewell answered the question, "transformation means what is commonly alled evolution." There is another remark I would make on this paper, and that is that there is a good deal of unnecessary verbal criticism in it. What, I ask, can it signify whether

[ocr errors]

Darwin's book is properly called the Origin of Species or not? No doubt, if we had discussed the matter with Darwin himself, he, the most candid of men,-might have said, "Whether it is the right term or not, what I mean is, 'the cause of the change of species or of the production of new species.' But Darwin expressly disavowed the intention of tracing all species up to their origin; and so he said over and over again. Indeed, I cannot help thinking that a good many people do not, or will not, recollect what Darwin himself frequently said. Take the last sentence in his Origin of Species:-"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one." Is anybody here prepared to deny that? People very often confound Darwin with such mischievous writers as Haeckel and Spencer, who assume everything they want, and whose logic is as illogical as possible. I am glad to see that Darwin had in his heart much the same opinion of Spencer's philosophy as I expressed in this room four years ago. He said he could not understand Spencer; which meant a great deal, from him. He suspected Spencer's "principles," by inventing a few of which he pretended to generate the world. You will see from that paper of mine what prodigious folly that leads to; and, as I have shown, Darwin did not believe in Spencer's so-called principles a bit. Haeckel and the atheists, and the persistent-force men, say the weak part of the Darwinian theory is that Darwin did not agree with them; that he recognised the necessity for a Creator. Therefore, when Professor Duns and others talk about Darwin and Darwinism, they should remember what Darwinism means. There may be people who are a great deal more Darwinian,-if one may use the term, though it is wrong,— than Darwin; or rather, who are more revolutionary or evolutionary than Darwin. People fancied that Darwin's views and theories led necessarily or logically to atheism; but Darwin said they did not; and this will be seen not only from the passage I have read to you, but from another which I take from a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, where he says:—“I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from DESIGNED LAWS, with the details, good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance,"-though elsewhere he explains that chance only means the necessary result of the laws in one direction or another, and he adds, "Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical." Nothing could be more decisive or clear than

1

this. Then he goes on to say, "I can see no reason why a man or any
other animal may not have been aboriginally produced by laws
which may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator,
who foresaw every future event and consequence." You will see in
various parts of Paley's Natural Theology,-a book which I never
open without wonder at its logical and scientific power, considering
how much has been learned since, that he anticipated "the possi-
bility of its being proved that things are produced with mechanical
dispositions fixed beforehand by intelligent appointment," besides
demonstrating the impossibility of their existing without it. Paley
had a kind of instinct (and he was a great mathematician and
natural, as well as moral, philosopher), which led him to think the
time might come when it would be seen that there must be con-
tinual creation by changes going on from time to time, producing
one animal of one species at one period and another at another, and
all produced by mechanical laws made by the Creator whenever
the world began, or rather, before it could begin. I see no differ-
ence between Paley and Darwin as to this. We know that Darwin
gradually slid out of a belief in Christianity, because he would
not believe in miracles,-not out of a belief in a Creator,
but out of a belief in Revelation; but that has no relation
to this question. Carrying on the same line of argument, I
cannot help thinking that Dr. Duns has rather overlooked some
necessary things in giving his catalogue of great men who are
satisfied with the theory of special creation, taken in its common
sense. He says,
"It satisfied Newton and Brewster." How could
it help satisfying them when no other theory was before the world?
Darwin's theory was founded on an enormous collection of facts,—
and not on facts alone, but on inferences from them. Some one
must make the collection, and Darwin began it in reality during his
voyage in the Beagle. Newton, Linnæus, and Cuvier had them not.
I think Agassiz, who differed from Darwin, was by no means so
great a philosopher as some who agreed with him. To talk of
Butler and Chalmers is out of the question. Butler was the
greatest reasoner of the day on the facts then known; while Chalmers
was only a theologian and preacher, though a great one. Clerk
Maxwell did not live to see a great deal that has been discovered
since. This paper asserts that nothing has been discovered since
Darwin confirming his views. For my part I have read enough
to believe that every discovery made in the direction of Darwin is
made in the direction of transformation of species under laws of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »