The reign of God, not "The reign of law".

Preface

THE author having had this work in hand for three years, and having given to it all the time that could be spared from other and important employments, has found certain convictions growing stronger with him all that time. The first is, that what is here presented is the true answer to the question pending between Christian Faith and Modern Science. The second is, that no modern* writer brings forward this truth and applies it to the facts. The third is, that religious doubt is wider spread and more threatening with every day. The last is, that the matter as here treated so as to anticipate and remove all such misconceptions as would obscure the truth, is so vast as to draw into a mighty vortex all the other great problems of thought. He must therefore quite relinquish the hope of any such complete discussion now — must but imperfectly notice several of these topics, and rather remit them

* And yet, as will be seen, it has appeared under some of the greatest names of old, bat not in this application.

IV PREFACE.

to such further discussion as may arise upon criticism of the present writing.

Yet, no such matter has been knowingly passed over, nor anything which has been or could be used in argument against the writer's conclusions been left without what has seemed to him a sufficient answer. He has carefully avoided " technical ' words of philosophy or theology. His hope has been to use such plain and simple English, that all sensible persons could follow his meaning, and at the same time not to evade the deepest matters of truth which belong to the question. That question is so deep as to require much thought; but it is none the less practical and urgent for every man, woman and child in Christendom. The writer is confident that even if he can be proved in error, he will by that very process give his critics the opportunity of making the truth more clear and useful than it is now. In any case, as his labor has been one of simple love to Him who is " the Light of the world," his only wish is that it may fare as shall please and glorify Him.

T. S. B.

CHAP. I. — Some Serious Facts and Questions. . 1

Doubt prevailing in our Day more serious than in the Eighteenth or any former Century. Causes of this. The Arguments for Religion not religious, not positive and aggressive; in different language from that of Holy Scripture ; most of all, concede the false Notion of a "Reign of Law. 1 ' The Reign of God as opposed to this. The "usual Order" of God's Works not the same as a "Reign of Law." Illustration of the Neighbors ; of a young Child. Effect of the latter Notion upon Prayer. Not a Question of Words. The essential Meaning of Law. The " Reign of Law" tends to Pantheism.

CHAP. II.— The Two "Reigns" Contrasted. . 19

The three Alternatives possible. The Reign of God does not deny the usual Order; has no Difficulties for Faith. The "Reign of Law" has; is a mere Assumption. Christian Anthropomorphism. Extract from Melville's Sermons.

CHAP. III.— Is this a Scientific or a Religious Question? 25

Science knows nothing of History. "Book of Nature." Can Men collect the Facts for such a Conclusion or reason well to it? It is not self-evident. How only we can know what God did in the beginning. The Question tried again from other Aspects.

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAP. IV. — Should it be Tried by Natural Theology? 36

What is Natural Theology ? — Tested by our own Memory and present Thought; by the Word of God. True Meaning of "Word of God. 1 ' '• Comparative -Religion.'' Beginning of religious Thought among Mankind. Continuance ever since. Growth of false Religion. Original Truth never quite perishes. Argument for Natural Theology from Romans i. 19, 20. Other Objections to it. How invented aud continued. Forbidden in God's Word. Latest Error of Detail. General ill Results and no good Effect.

CHAP. V.— Comparative Certainty op Knowledge

by "Science'* or by a " Word of God." . . 57

Two general Sources of Knowledge. Compared as to their Subjects, Importance and Certainty. Whatever can be said of the Imperfection of Language more true of Science than of God's Word. Moral and spiritual Welfare the most important. God's Word only certain as to the spiritual, and fallible as to the natural? Science incomplete. God's Word complete. Erroneous Positions of " F. D. H." and others. "Make Room for all the Facts."

CHAP. VI — Examination of Holy Scripture — Old Testament. . 77

Method. A Suggestion of Numbers. Prof. Jowett's Rules. The Divine Story of Creation. Objections made to it. No Mention of a '* Reign of Law." The Promise of Seed-Time and Harvest, &c. The " Bow in the Cloud." The Patriarchs. Moses and Joshua. Rest of Old Testament History. Book of Job. ll A Decree for the Rain," <fec. Psalms. " A Decree which shall not pass," &c. Proverbs, &c. tk The Lord by Wisdom," &c. How the Early Christians understood this. Teaches intellectual Humility instead of Pride. The Prophets. "Ordinances of the Moon," &c , and "My Covenant of the Day," &c. Such Passages figurative ; many more literally declare immediate Divine Will and Power.

CHAP. VIL— Examination of Holy Scripture —

New Testament. 106

Here, if anywhere, we shall find the " Reign of Law."

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vii

Supernatural Wonders of the Nativity. The Temptation. Teachings of Our Lord. Lord's Prayer. Miracles of the Gospels. The Acts. St. Paul at Athens. The Epistles. "The Counsel of His Own Will." " God giveth it a Body," &c. " Where is the Promise of His Coming?" The entire and consistent Tenor of Holy Writ. Two opposite Ideas of Man's Life. "Nature." No Notice, but actual Denial of the " Reign of Law " in New Testament. Passages of Old Testament usually cited do not teach it. Value of fixed Institutions of Religion.

CHAP. VIII.— History op the Notion of a " Reign

Different Accounts of its Origin. Plato. First Mention of "Nature" and its "Laws." Aristotle. Lucretius. The Advent of Our Lord. Christian Study of Plato. St. Paul's Notice of this aotyia.

CHAP. IX.— History Continued. . . ." 146

Greek Philosophy again studied and admired by Christians. Justin Martyr. Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Others protesting. Augustine. Chrysostom. Jerome, The Dark Ages. Saracen Philosophers. Al Ghazel. Greek Philosophy again in Europe. Rise of Natural Philosophy. The Reformation. Bacon. Des Cartes. Later Misrepresentation of him. Spinoza. Hooker. His Mistake as to " the Counsel of His Own Will." Per contra, other Words of bis which are noble and beautiful. Leibnitz. The Eighteenth Century in England. " Christianity." Nineteenth Century so far. Opposing Influence of the Church. The Book entitled the k * Reign of Law." Necessary Tendencies of this Notion. Virtual Admission of this by Christlieb.

CHAP. X. — The Question as Touching the Free Will of Man . .170

Free Will a great Mystery to be received by Faith. A "Reign of Law" forbids this Faith. The Free Will of Man would destroy a " Reign of Law." The Writer of "The Reign of Law" claims to maintain the Freedom of Man, but really denies it. God spoken of by him as " Mind " and " Will." The Ambassadors for God.

Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAP. XL — The Same as Related to the Will

and Love of God 180

The Will of God is the sole Power and Purpose of all Things. It is profane and foolish to object to this as "Arbitrary." He is essentially One in Will, Love, Work. Some Writers approach to this great Truth, but fail at last to apprehend it. " Correlation of Forces." Illustration of a Eailway Train. The "Reign of Law" makes of God only an immense Man.

CHAP. XII. — Effect of the Notion of a " Reign of Law" upon the Interpretation of Holy Scripture. 192

The Theory of a remote and brutish origin of Man. True Account in Holy Scripture. Is that to be adjusted to the New Science ? The Word of God belongs to the Church of God. That does not teach "Science," but does teach Facts. Its Purpose is Faith in God. The New Method undermines Faith.

CHAP. XIII.— This Actual Interpretation by

We ought even to go back and re-examine what has been conceded as to Creation. Principles which should govern in such Inquiry. Unwise Concession of Bishop Butler as to "Natural Religion." "Cosmogonies." Does our Age know too much for the Old Faith ?

CHAP. XIV.— The Persecution of Galileo. Is the Notion of a "Reign of Law" Necessary to Scientific Investigation? .... 213

That a contest between two scientific Parties. The Present between " Science " and obedient Faith. Some scientific Advance was made without the present Notion of "Law." One can explore the Cosmos as well with the Idea of the immediate Will of God, as of a " Reign of Law." Even if not, religious Truth more valuable than scientific Discovery.

CHAP. XV. — Moral and Spiritual Effect. . . 221 That the true Theory of the Universe which most

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

IX promotes our spiritual Good. The " Keign of God " makes men think of His Person and Love. The M Reign of Law " hinders such Thought. The Love of God the great Solution of all these Questions. The one Idea encourages, the other discourages Prayer and Praise, and Belief of Miracles. Spiritual Grace. " Interposition. " " Immutability.' 1

CHAP. XVI.—" Special Providences."

What does this mean? What God says of it. "Can we believe it?" Illustration of a Railway Accident.

CHAP. XVII.— Law 243

This not a mere Question of Words. Primary Meaning of Law. God is the Person. New Meanings. Effect of these upon the Obedience of the true Law in Religion; in Morals. "Law of"—. "Duty." "Personal Government."

CHAP. XV1IL— Results Collected. . . ' . . 259

CHAP. XIX. — Suggestions and Remonstrances. . 267

1st. To Plain People :— That they must not be disturbed in their Faith by what is said of "Laws of Nature," &c, nor pray to God and thank Him any the less. 2dly. To those with whom Argument from Holy Writ has no Force :— We have Sympathy as Seekers of Truth. Either dismiss the Assumption of a " Reign of Law," or prove it. For Truth's JSakt examine anew if the Christian Gospel be not Truth. Is it not worth while to study first why we exist? Without this all Life unmeaning. "Authority." 3dly. To my scientific Fellow Christians : —The "Ascertained Verity" that Our Lord is coming to judge the World. We must do all Things in our 41 Capacity'' as Christians. The Lord's Prayer.

Appendix A. — Effect of Metaphysics upon Christian

Doctrine 282

Appendix B. — The Method of Examining Holy Scripture pursued in this Book. 1 .... * 800

Appendix C. — Critical Discussion of Ep. to Romans I.

X TABLE OP CONTENTS.

Appendix D.— Detailed Review of the " Reign of Law M

by the Duke of Argyll. . . . . . .317

Appendix E. — Detailed Review of the " Law of Love, and Love as a Lav/," by Mark Hopkins, D. D., LL. D , &c. 348

Appendix F.~ Reflections upon the Misuse and Mischief of Abstract Terms. 364

Appendix G. — A Meditation upon the Eternity and Self-Existence of God, and the Modern Theory of " Conscience." . .... 373

THE REIGN OE GOD

NOT

" The Reign, of Lavr."

Chapter I. Some Serious Facts And Questions

ALL people in the Christendom of this age who read newspapers and new books, are thinking and arguing about one of the greatest of possible questions, viz. whether men can now rationally believe the Articles of the Christian faith, in what has at least until now seemed their plain sense. And since more people do now read and argue than ever before, and this number continually increases, and even now virtually includes all the people, the controversy never before was of such practical importance.

There is yet another fact which increases the

seriousness of the occasion. In any former like

period, as for example the days of Hume or of Paine,

the discussion was not only more than now a contest between a few literary persons, but it was scarcely known to any but the men that there was any such contest. A little of this did indeed leak out from them among women and younger people ; but the greater seclusion of these, the continuing traditions of a somewhat religious education for children, the character of all books in their hands, whether for learning or amusement (even a lingering " reverence for youth "), kept them in almost total ignorance of what was said against Christian belief. It is altogether different now. The new freedom of manners, especially among the great and busy English-speaking people, and yet more especially those of America, and the restless tendency of modern public education to remove religion from schools, combine with the wonderful multitudinousness of printing and reading in our days to remove all these barriers. Our school-boys and school-girls devour as indiscriminately as their elders the newspapers, magazines and entertaining books of the day ; and these are all alive with that great question of faith or doubt.

Therefore, let none of us too easily quiet our wise anxiety about such questions with thinking that just such threatenings of danger to faith have occurred before, and have passed away without justifying the alarms of the devout. Nothing can be more strange beyond precedent and more portentous than an unbelieving intelligence of the young. The very gateway of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and eternal life through Him is in being as a little child.

SOME SERIOUS FACTS AND QUESTIONS.

So, if in fact a generation is before our eyes passing from the best time of faith into the peculiar dangers as well as the special strength of active life, in blindness to that truth which is nobler and more necessary than all else, what can we hope for their hard and worldly later years ? And soon we shall all be gone, and they will be the teachers and examples of those to come after.

The facts are as stated, whatever our account of them or feeling about them. The writer has taken special notice of them, and he finds the same impression made upon other thoughtful observers. But lately, the custodian of the chief library in one ot our great cities said that he was anxious that in this debate the side of faith should be better maintained against its opposers. " For," said he, " doubt is increasing, especially among younger people ; I have occasion to see it here." He noticed what books were most called for and read with most eagerness and satisfaction. All our popular " periodicals " in the same way strongly reflect as well as powerfully affect general opinion. So, with the young, with those who pass for having the most 11 culture," and even with our plainer people, grows the notion that this age knows too much to be as religious as some men used to be.

As one of the thousand indications of this among the powerful people whose is the English language (for in these days nations are such rather by their common language and ideas than by governments — as the German-speaking and the English-speaking nations), observe this fact. It is now eighteen years since the celebrated il Essays and Eeviews " of certain Oxford scholars* appeared. This book was less notable for any force of its own, than as a symptom of a forcible organized effort within the Church of England to promote opinions as Christian, which would once have found no advocates among Christians. It brought forth protests, replies and refutations quite sufficient to counteract its arguments ; yet its spirit and credit are stronger this day than ever.

Certainly, if there be any recent change, "science" is more alien to Christian faith and more contemptuous towards it than ever before among the English race. Even the Christian writers of science seem more scientific than Christian ; and the others move on with an assured air of triumph which is itself half a victory over general opinion.*

Why is this, w T hen far the greater advantages for such a conflict are on the Christian side, namely, real ' truth and the favor of God ? Some of these later advocates of faith are honest, acute, and eloquent; though it must be admitted, that for simple clearness of style and accuracy of language, and for that earnest and lively elegance in serious writing of which Plato is the great example, some of the promoters of unbelief in our age are the superiors. This is in no small degree the cause of their success. Yet, what a trifling matter that is when men are deciding what they will receive as true about the great God and their immortal destiny !

* H. Spencer ; Fiske's Cosmical Philosophy, &c, passim.

SOME CURIOUS FACTS AND QUESTIONS.

We have reason, therefore, for saying that the right side of this question must have been wrongly handled. To say this as it were at the onset of the conflict — before the truth as so presented has had a reasonable time to have effect, would be unfair. But we need not and do not pass our judgment hastily. We should also allow much in the apparent result for something in the 4 will of God beyond our judgment : His purpose that sometimes these things shall turn out as we cannot account for them. Yet, the matter being so great and so threatening, let us all pause and ask if it may not be our duty to find out why this is so ; and what more, if anything, we ought to do.

Is there not something wrong in the usual, not to say universal method in which faith is now defended? The present writer thinks that there are several points in which that method needs severely plain criticism. He does not mean this for a sparkling diatribe, nor for a smart and captious " review.' ' He wishes to observe a modest deference for honorable names; to keep in mind that it is of no advantage to truth, and but a low ambition, to arraign valuable writers, expressing dissatisfaction with all they say, and holding them to a strict account for it if they have not altogether " put to flight the armies of the aliens."

Such a mean, unjust and barren purpose is not his, as will appear more fully as he proceeds. He would both search for and tell plainly what mistakes have been made in this sacred work ; and he would also propose something positive which he thus offers to the same severe criticism. The truth of God concerning the supreme welfare of man is greater than any man's or all men's names or sensibilities. So surely will all Christian thinkers agree, if now, even from some obscure source, should come any suggestion that will help in the vindication and triumph of faith. Of such mistakes he thinks he observes the following : 1st. While the argument is about religion, it is not religious. For instance, the name of God is perhaps used frequently ; but nothing indicates the thought of who He really is.* Now, reverence is not merely the absence of irreverence. Love divine is not a cold word to be tossed out like a counter in the game of debate. Language used upon these themes cannot be " scientific" in the sense of excluding that sentiment, without being false. Whatever may be true in other investigation about " dry light " or " white light," obtained by banishing all feeling, does not apply to this. Light and warmth, truth and love, are not separable here. You may separate the elements of vital air, then experiment upon and explain either one of them, and finally recombine them as air. But if you attempt the same process with the man who lives by breathing that air, and get soul and body apart so that you may investigate the latter, you no longer have the man at all, but some inert matter, and you never can make that again part of the living man. Thus, if the love of

♦That is a profound principle of the Third Commandment, of its not specifying blasphemy, bu the " taking His name in vain 11 — uttering that sacred word without a true though of its meaning and of His person.

SOME CURIOUS FACTS AND QUESTIONS.

God is excluded from thought, we shall find no light of truth upon these transcendent things. All our reasoning is mere illusion ; and while the words occupy us, the heavenly " things they signify " are to us unreal.

This intellectual folly of the Christian li men of this generation,'' would indeed produce more immediate fatal effects, but by the mercy of God there is an actual inconsistency between it and their real life. They think and write and read about God as if in the use of reason they must keep out of sight of His love (which is in tendency and in inevitable ultimate result as if there were "no God"); yet, they are in fact still under the light and warmthgiving rays of knowledge of that love as it shines in the Church and in the divine Word. And yet, if there is anything which is, as distinguished from " accident," of the essence of the conception of Him on the one hand, and of our life on the other, it is the love of God.

"Then the mind of him who has no belief in this Divine love is inaccessible to us in arguing for faith in God?" That is not so certain;* and if it were true, it would be much the less of the evils to choose between. " But this will not allow us to be logical with the reasoner who questions this faith, and ought to be answered and convinced." Then let us be true, even if we must cease being logical. We have here only one of the instances of the incapacity of

* For while we have no right ever to omit this fact from our argument, even the unloving heart feels unconsciously some of its force, and its presence takes none of their force from other reasons addressed to the mere intellect.

our reasoning faculty to deal with the highest truth.* If it be true that in some former age, and in a lower form, religious faith could exist without the idea of Divine love, because then ignorance and superstition protected it from intellectual doubts which are the weakness (not strength) of our age, the true corrective of these doubts now is, not more intellectual effort, but the vision of that Love by faith.

That there is no such ignorant narrowing of thought, when we refuse to separate the love of God from the search of truth about Him or His works, may be seen for one instance in the example of him who is justly regarded as, more than any other one man, the founder of modern science,*)* Let any one read attentively the treatise on " The Interpretation of Nature," or the opening of that on " The Advancement of Learning," and he can but see that not only the language and mode of thinking of the writer, but his express rules for these studies, are opposed in this respect to the scientific method of our time,J of Christian writers as well as non- Christian, while they accord with my suggestion. The case is indeed very much stronger when the very subject of argument is, as it is not usually in Bacon's philosophy, though all so religious in spirit — truth in religion.

(2) Our Christian " apologists " seem too literally apologists in the modern sense. They contend for

* I may use here to better purpose, Dr. Newman's motto from St. Ambrose : " Non in dialectica complacuU Deo, salvum facer e populum suum."— ' k It hath not pleased God to save His people by logic. 1 '

t And who is the author of this very distinction of lumen siccum.

% Perhaps this is one reason why Mr. Huxley is so jealously unfriendly to the great name of Bacon as a philosopher.

SOME CURIOUS FACTS AND QUESTIONS.

the faith in defence, as the poor Jews in Persia were allowed to "stand for their life" against Hainan's party ; instead of moving against all opposing opinion, in the name of God. Their utmost courage seems exhausted in insisting that religion is independent and equal within its domain to science within its. They exult in proving to their own satisfaction that it is not irrational to believe as a Christian.

The Word of God never speaks in that tone. It assumes immeasurably higher authority over all else that men think they know. It assumes such superiority both of certainty and importance. So far from asking toleration, it will not tolerate any pretended equality with itself. How can it but suggest unreality and doubt to readers of modern defences of that faith, when they hear only this cold, negative and hesitating voice, instead of that imperative and victorious tone in which the Gospel speaks for itself? We, indeed, are not prophets and apostles, but we are the heralds (preachers*) of the same Divine proclamation, and have no right to declare it to others as of less than the absolute authority that it claims. So by example for us did its first heralds proclaim it alike to the most intellectual Platonist Greeks or the plainest rustic in Galatia.

"But what if the only effect you have upon the scientific doubter is to make him smile at what seems to him the conceited positiveness of the ignorant ? " It is sorrowful to think that this is only so much the worse for him. The same truth

* Kripvxsf.

was once to just such men "foolishness"; but none the less did St. Paul hold it up to all men alike as "the wisdom of God and the power of God.' 7

(3) It is a great defect of these writers, that not only in this, but in other respects, their language is very different from that of Holy Scripture. This in part includes the faults before mentioned, and also that which is to follow. It is also in part their effect. The incongruity, however caused, and whether observed or not, sends a chill of doubt over the reader. The faith and truth of God's Word are felt (if not seen) to be in a false position. And so the arguments for them, however ingenious, are in the main sterile.

(4) But that which is most mischievous of all I have reserved for the last mention here, and it is the main subject of this enquiry. By the curious reciprocal relations and influences of what seem different things, and yet are only different aspects of the same thing — this is partly cause, partly sign, and partly effect of the others, and they of it. It is the assumption in all books of science and general literature of our day, and especially in all writings either for or against Christian faith, of something called " the reign of law." This is the hinge of the whole present controversy. It is the very chosen ground upon which the forces of unbelief form their line of battle, and upon which the soldiers of faith have descended to construct their defensive positions and make what resistance they can to the onset.

It is the purpose of the following discussion to show that this is a fatal error: that the "reign of law " is a mere gratuitous assumption, unproved and impossible of proof, indeed, contrary to our best reason, and to absolute and certain truth as God has uttered it directly to men. It is one of the signs of how far we have all drifted from older and wiser ways of thinking, that one of the latest and most generally accepted defences of Christian faith against doubt, bears this very title, " The Eeign of Law." As the danger of such false notions often lies in their concealment under ambiguous terms, it is fortunate that a well-meaning opposer of unbelief, whose position makes his example a very conspicuous one, has thus exposed so plainly the real character of the popular error, and given us the occasion to contrast it with the Divine truth in this title : " The Eeign of God not ' The Eeign of Law.' "

Upon fair and patient study .of the whole matter, we shall find that this imagined truth, which is assumed to be the highest achievement of man's thought as well as the guide and bond of all further acquirement, is a delusion — a murky cloud of falsehood, hiding from mankind in proportion as it prevails, all the bright heavens and the vision of the Divine ; blinding faith, checking prayer and chilling love. Then until this is removed, we need go no further to find why our arguments do not stop the advance of unbelief. Yet the notion is so strongly intrenched in all the language of our age, allowed on all hands, and perhaps until now disputed by no one within our knowledge, that we must agree to sit in trial upon it patiently as well as courageously.

It is indeed most true that God in His love towards mankind does all things around us in a usual order, and gives us an instinct of confidence in this ; so that we may exercise forethought about our present life, and lay up from generation to generation, increasing stores of knowledge about the material creation. That is one thing; but it is very far from the same as that notion of a " reign of law " which I condemn. The former no way confines the absolute will of God, or our apprehension of it in faith, prayer or grateful love. The latter of necessity does. If I had a poor neighbor who needed every night to pass a dark and dangerous place near me, and I, knowing this, always placed my house-lights so that they would show him past the danger, and also informed him of this arrangement, that would be no sort of obligation of law to me, but none the less useful to him. It would not abridge my freedom in my own affairs, nor my right to change this custom for other purposes or in any emergency ; nor my liberty, at my neighbor's request, to remove the light for special occasions, when that would be more for his advantage. It would not check his coming to make this request of me, especially if I had invited him to knock at my door at any time upon such errands and promised him a favorable hearing. (There can be no question that this would more promote affectionate feeling between the two parties than if the light on the poor man's way was provided by law.)