Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

fect actual and ideal that was attained for once and for all time -can there be an advance as regards perfect God and perfect man?

But to some of us it seems that the earnest and religious of different schools are too much absorbed in trying to realize the highest aspirations of spiritual thought, to give attention to the elementary questions concerning law and God, which agitate men's minds at this time. Leaders in religious thought give themselves up to the contemplation of the delicate refinements of spiritual life, or are too much engaged in working out the minute details which, according to some, constitute an essential part of public worship to consider these things. Such men appear blind to the fact that self-constituted chiefs of a philosophy neither new nor true are trying their very utmost to make people acknowledge that for Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Goodness we must substitute Law and Fate, and that the God whom our fathers worshipped has been by modern philosophic discovery reduced to a mere phantasy for fools to lean upon. Or the attributes of God are one by one ignored, denied, or explained away till Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, Omnipresence, Providence, Guiding Sustaining Power vanish altogether, or are but dimly discerned in the far-off Deity scarcely to be discovered in the ever-thickening mists raised by thoroughgoing evolutionists.

I can only venture here just to hint at the ambiguity that hangs about the word "law" in the many different senses in which that word is used. Think of the kinds and qualities of law the laws that must be obeyed and those that may be broken the inexorable laws-the permissive laws-the laws operating through all time, and the laws that become modified by other laws as time goes on-laws that are paramount, and laws that are controlled by or subordinate to other laws-God's laws-Nature's laws-physical laws-vital laws-laws particular -laws universal, and many more.

Now to consider briefly but one of the so-called laws, brought to light in our own time: Who has not heard of the law of "The survival of the fittest?" but who has discerned in that law more than the announcement of a fact, or rather a supposed fact? Is it not a fact that creatures of all sorts and of

opposite qualities have survived in the struggle for existence, if there has been such struggle? The strong and the weak, the swift and the slow, hard and soft, clever and stupid, light and heavy, active and sluggish, black and white, transparent and opaque, and so on:-all these and many more we are assured are the fittest to have survived. This, then, is what it all comes to: The creatures that have survived are the fittest because they have survived, and they have survived because they are the fittest to have survived-such is the fact, if it is a fact; and the law, if it is a law. But I venture to suggest that the advocates of the new law have yet to point out the particular characters which have rendered those creatures which have not survived unfit to have survived. So far no evolutionist appears to have considered this very important part of the general question.

What is there, we may ask, to induce a being who can think, to love, honor, or obey in that undemonstrable, unknowable abstraction, destitute of power to ordain, create, design, or change, which it is now the fashion to call law? Can law love or be loved? How can law forgive us our sins? What hope of peace or rest is offered by the contemplation of law? Fancy a little child saying its prayers to law, or a grown man putting trust in blind, passive, unintelligent and unalterable law. What a consolation to the sick to be assured that their illnesses are due to law, and how comforting to the unfortunate person experiencing exquisite pain to be assured that in obedience to law certain nerve-currents are taking the course of a right-handed spiral instead of painlessly spiralling towards the left!

And now comes a consideration of the greatest practical importance. The clergy have been told by very high authority that their great duty "at this period is to contend against infidelity." Shall I be considered too presumptuous if I submit that, in order to carry out this injunction, the exact nature of this infidelity ought to be ascertained, and the causes of its revival and spread carefully sought for? Perhaps, after all, the infidelity may be found to be of the weak and contemptible sort, an absurd rather than a serious form of infidelity, a form of infidelity that may be dissipated more effectually by a little gentle critical dissection than by too serious and solemn treatment, or by the thunders of anathema. May it not then.

[graphic]

possibly be the wiser as well as the more rational course to take: To inquire concerning the dicta and arguments advanced in favor of infidelity, to examine them carefully, and sift thoroughly the facts which are supposed to justify them, rather than simply to condemn and to preach against things which some at least suppose to be founded upon truth? Surely the first course is likely to be of more use than an attempt to qualify or modify the views upon which materialism is supposed to be based; and more advantageous to other people than it would be to assume a shocked or deploring attitude, or to sigh at the power and success of the Evil One. What if it turns out after all that the infidelity of our time rests upon absurd conjectures and groundless assertions?

But if, on the other hand, the views favoring materialism be founded upon fact and truth, they will certainly spread, and their reception by the thoughtful is only a question of time. And let it not be supposed that I would, in the slightest degree, support those who would impede inquiry.

The tendency of much that I have written will have been misinterpreted if any one has been led to think that I am not ready to go any lengths, if only I have the support of facts. Nay, I would stake all and dare all. I may shock some by the confession that my belief would be shattered if the means of making a living particle even less than the one ten-thousand th of an inch were discovered.

Such an admission will perhaps lead many to mistrust me altogether; but I cannot help that. I feel perfectly safe in my view, and I make the avowal without the slightest misgiving, for if the faith runs no risk except in the event of that contingency, it is, I am confident, secure indeed; for is not the suggestion of the possibility of the production of such a particle as monstrous as it would be to pronounce as possible the formation of a living man direct from the lifeless elements of which man's body is composed?

Whether Christianity is to be advanced by changing the views concerning some of the so-called stumbling-blocks, such as the miracles, it is not for me to decide. Whether it is the duty of men supposed to be thoughtful and religious to modify, ignore, or despise the conclusions accepted and cherished by

the best intellects the world has produced in the course of many centuries, in order that they may be made to fit in with, or, at least, not clash with the mere dicta of authorities skilled in framing conjectures, is a question in the settlement of which not a few among the laity as well as the clergy-and not only of this country (England)—will probably insist upon having a voice.

What I now venture to submit to my readers' serious consideration is this: Whether, instead of defending the faith, it might not be the better and the wiser course to attack those who are assailing it. Instead of defending religion, the right course, as it seems to me, is to attack materialism. Instead of deploring the spread of infidelity, to expose the absurd fallacies continually put forward in the name of science, but utterly unscientific. Instead of trying to determine exactly how much may be conceded and modified without altogether abandoning Christian belief, we ought to dissect and analyze the ridiculous propositions some suppose to be sufficiently cogent to subvert truth.

It is not for me, taking up the subject from the scientific side, to say one word in defence of religious truth; but I may without hesitation express my conviction that the main arguments adduced by materialists against religion will scarcely bear thoughtful examination. Many of the more recent observations are very audacious, but that is all. Of the so-called facts upon which some of the arguments are said to rest, many are not facts at all, and the less said about them the better. Still, I suppose that some who disbelieve entirely in religion could clearly state the grounds of their unbelief; but I am sure that many who have discarded religious belief because they fancied. that materialism was true, or because they believed and desired that it might turn out to be true, have been misled or have deluded themselves into the belief that certain things are demonstrable and true which are neither. Such persons have unquestionably accepted doctrines as true which can be clearly proved to rest upon erroneous and unsound data only, and have abandoned what, at any rate, has not been and cannot be demonstrated to be untrue.

I am aware that in this paper I have gone further in attack

ing some materialistic doctrines than several distinguished theologians will consider discreet or justifiable. Many may possibly concur in this opinion; but it must be borne in mind that in the remarks I have made I have not permitted myself to be influenced in the least degree by the consideration of expediency. I have simply stated what I believe to be true, and have recounted the facts and arguments which have influenced my judgment, and I think I might have gone further along the same lines of thought than I have done, and yet have found myself in company with fact and observation, following closely upon reason, and thoroughly supported by truth.

LIONEL S. BEALE.

« PredošláPokračovať »