Page images
PDF
EPUB

seem to creep with tedious motion. Accordingly we are confronted with a difference, not in the need of an ultimate rational causality, but in the method of action which appears to us to be followed by that causality. This is, in substance, fully conceded by the late Dr. Romanes in a popular account of 'The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution,' published in 1882. His arguments are directed, in a somewhat controversial tone, against the theory of intelligent design. manifested in creation '1; but by creation' he means something sudden, and he explains that he refers to design in the sense understood by the narrower forms of teleology, or as an immediate cause of the observed phenomena.' And then he adds, 'Whether or not there is an ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature, a causa causarum which is the final raison d'être of the cosmos, this is another question which, as I have said, I take to present no point of logical contact with Mr. Darwin's theory, or, I may add, with any of the methods and results of natural science.'2 This, I think, is the real state of the case; and one can only regret that in working out his very lucid and convincing argument he seems to confound process and cause, and to suppose that a thing is explained the moment it is brought under a general proposition. He mentions as an example Newton's simple physical explanation' of the planetary motions, which superseded Kepler's supernatural explanation that every planet was guided in its movements by some presiding angel.' But, so far as I can see, the law of gravitation explained nothing. It was simply a proposition which was universally applicable to a certain order of phenomena, and comprehended the three particular processes or laws discovered by Kepler; nor can I perceive that there was anything more suggestive of an angel in the fact that the

1 p. 12.

2 p. 15.

Dr. Romanes's latest views may be seen in the posthumous Thoughts on Religion, edited by Charles Gore, M.A., 1895.

3 p. 10.

radius vector of a planet sweeps over equal areas in equal times than in the fact that all material bodies attract one another with a force which is in proportion to the product of their masses, and in the inverse ratio of the square of their distance from one another. Such grand generalizations give a wonderful insight into the harmony of the universe, and satisfy a craving of the intellect; and, owing to this satisfaction, they may be said, in a certain popular sense, to explain what formerly appeared to be unrelated phenomena. But, in any proper sense of the term, they explain nothing, but only describe under useful formulæ the process of innumerable isolated facts. Whatever conclusion, therefore, science may reach as to the order of phenomena, the great philosophical and religious questions remain exactly where they were, except indeed that science is bringing before us continually more and more magnificent views of the work of creative Reason, and is presenting to us a universe which, at least to our imperfect apprehension, is more worthy of the infinite Being than the comparatively minute sphere which, to our forefathers' eyes, circulated daily round the earth.

The question has been asked, Why did God create the universe? It is a daring question, and one to which it seems more reverent to attempt no answer. In the days when our world loomed so large even in the eyes of science as practically to take the chief place in the universe, it was quite natural to suppose that the whole system of things stood in some special relation to man, and that the final cause of creation might be divined from the fortunes of But to fancy that the universe which we now know, in which our earth is as a speck of dust, was created for the sake of man would betray a singular incompetence to see things in their true proportions. Nevertheless, on a more limited field we may have some perception of the truth. From the ideal which woos our aspiration we may justly infer the end of our own creation; and from this we may roam into wider reaches of speculation, and accept our grandest

our race.

vision as affording us some glimpse of that which we cannot yet see as it is. If we remember that it is only a child's dream, serving to represent to our thought a reality which is past our finding out, we may venture to say that the universe issued from the infinite love of God, and that it was designed for the birth and growth of spiritual beings capable of love and worship. Paul's sublime idea that all creation in its upward struggle was waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God is not, in principle, altered by enlarging space and time. The only change is that mankind becomes an infinitesimal group in the vast concourse of those to whom God imparts of his own life.

It is involved in the creativeness of God that he is also the preserver of the universe; for the preservation of that which is altogether dependent is a kind of continuous creativeness. Were the Divine power withdrawn, the universe would cease to be. Accordingly it is one of the impulses of piety to thank God for our preservation, and this side of the Divine activity is emphasized in the teaching of Christ. God causes the sun to rise, and sends the rain; he feeds the birds, and clothes the lilies; he gives us our daily bread, and the hairs of our heads are all numbered. And yet, in a certain sense, he is the destroyer too. The falling sparrow falls not without him; and the grass which is so beautiful to-day, to-morrow is cast into the oven. The very idea of the phenomenal implies not only appearance, but disappearance. The clock ticks, and then that individual tick is buried for ever in the past. But there are other more impressive signs of destruction. I allude not now to devastating calamities, which are comparatively rare and exceptional, but to the fact that everything which lives is born to die. Even planets, so far as we can judge, must finish their course, and the sun yield up his light and heat; and already a dead and desolate moon is revolving round our globe. The phenomenal, then, is continually disappearing; and yet the universe remains, and we cannot believe

that everything is finally to lapse into an expressionless stagnation. Where, then, are we to look for the preservative action of God? We see it in the conservation of energy, and in the permanence of those laws which underlie its. changing modes of manifestation; and though we cannot see it, we trust that we shall experience it in the retention of that highest form of life which is known to us as personality. It is the lower things, those which fall under the senses, that disappear; but God preserves the higher things, those great realities which can present themselves to our thought only as invisible ideas, expressed more or less clearly through the fleeting phenomena of the world.

Connected with the doctrine of God as preserver is the question whether he created the universe by a momentary act, and then, having planted in it certain regulated forces, left it to itself to go like a machine, so that phenomena are due to secondary causes, and any immediate action of God must be regarded as a miraculous interposition. This view is closely connected with the hypothesis that Christianity is a system of truths unattainable by natural means, and that it is therefore guaranteed by miracle, and in its whole character is an exception to the normal course of events, God having intervened' to restore the broken order of the world. Neither the thought nor the religious aspiration of the present day is satisfied with this conception of a distant God, who only occasionally interferes' when things have become too much deranged; and certainly Christ, as we have seen, assumes the constant agency of God, and that he is always at hand to bless and aid his children. Paul also expresses the highest spiritual faith when he says that 'from him, and through him, and unto him are all things.'1 And yet when we look upon every phenomenon as an immediate expression of God's character and will, the problem of evil weighs upon the mind with an added burden; and I cannot help thinking there is some profound truth, suggestive 1 Rom. xi. 36.

[ocr errors]

of a sort of Divine absence, in the parable in which a man goes into a far country, and leaves his servants in trust to manage their own affairs. Certainly the undeviating regularity of natural law, which, in addition to its beneficent work, destroys sensitive creatures by millions with apparently undiscriminating violence, and often with terrible pain, is very unlike the freedom of human purpose, which, following the dictates of reason, adapts itself to changing circumstances; and may we not experience some relief amid the more appalling aspects of human life if we suppose that conscious creatures have been left, within certain limits, to fight out their own destiny under fixed conditions, which will tax all their resources, and sometimes wear the appearance of a hostile power? This slow advance through struggle and liability to suffering from the lowest form of sensation up to the free selfdetermination of personality, presents us with a far more fascinating world, and one constructed on a more heroic scale, than if everything were suited to our liking, and there were nothing to call forth resolution and endurance. We are thus brought back to the old distinction between what God does and what he permits. It is sometimes said that there is no real difference; for what he permits, and could prevent, he virtually does. But I think there is a valid distinction between the direct infliction of pain and the rendering liable to pain in a scene where we must use all our resources to avoid it. The purpose of individual pain we often find it difficult or impossible to see; but we can perceive dimly that our liability to pain may enter into the high and comprehensive purposes of supreme benevolence.

It was formerly believed that God, as Creator and Governor of the world, was surrounded by a retinue of angels, beings intermediate between God and man, whom he employed as messengers in the execution of his designs; and it is usual for writers on dogmatics to insert a section laying down a doctrine about this heavenly hierarchy. To those

« PreviousContinue »