II.—Belief in Nature Examined.

It would be difficult, I think, to find any [unclear: for] lated terms which more exactly describe the [unclear: possi] which I shall seek to controvert to-night [unclear: than] magnificent pleading of God himself with [unclear: the] deluded people whose folly is so [unclear: graphically] tenderly exposed in the text. Israel had [unclear: drunk] living waters, but in wilful self-sufficiency [unclear: they] forsaken the one uncreated inexhaustible [unclear: source] all satisfaction and of life, for the wretched [unclear: earthier] cisterns of their own construction, which [unclear: the] rays cracked before the water had been [unclear: conveyed] to them—for they were not original sources [unclear: of] like springs, but defective tanks which [unclear: could] even hold what was put into them, or if they [unclear: he] for a while, it was only to stagnate and [unclear: putr] best. The parallel to this is found in [unclear: those] only in those, who blindly and wilfully [unclear: subs] something else for God. Hence my subject to [unclear: in] flows naturally out of the inquiry with [unclear: which] were engaged last Sunday evening. We [unclear: then] that every man must [unclear: have] some belief, how loudly he may reject creeds and dogmas, [unclear: and] question then put was, God or Baal? Our question to-night may be stated in these terms: If a [unclear: mr] page 11 ject God, what is the value of that which he substitutes? Now, if a man reject the doctrine of a Divine Creator, there is hardly anything left for him but a belief in the self-existence of what is commonly called Nature; for to consider that Nature, though owing its existence to God, may yet be put in the [unclear: place] of God—which some appear to imagine—is [unclear: simply] absurd. It is very tasteful in poetry, and [unclear: very] reverent in our common language, to speak of Nature as a person, but such expressions as "the [unclear: laws] of Nature" are very confusing to those not much accustomed to reflect; such almost always get into the way of thinking of Nature as an active [unclear: being], a sort of rival deity. I speak to-night in [unclear: stricter] language, and by Nature I mean the physical [unclear: universe] with its phenomena, so that when I speak [unclear: of] an examination of the belief in Nature as the [unclear: subject] of my address, Iimean to test the value, as far [unclear: as] I can of that trust or confidence in the physical [unclear: surprise] with its phenomena which we are so constantly [unclear: exhorted] to maintain as preferable to a similar trust [unclear: or] confidence in God. But one remark I must make [unclear: before] I proceed with my argument, lest I should [unclear: be] misunderstood by any. The poets and [unclear: artists] who in living words or illuminated canvas [unclear: pourtray] the glories of what we thus call Nature, have in me an humble but most sympathetic admirer, It could hardly be otherwise, viewing as I do the [unclear: physical] universe as the handiwork of God. Every [unclear: shawdow] upon the mountains, every glow of colour, [unclear: every] mystery of night, every height and depth, is [unclear: pregnant] with high and holy teaching; every perfect structure, every awful manifestation, has indeed a voice, a voice which may reach the soul, because thus [unclear: far] Nature has a message to deliver. She may speak [unclear: the] attributes of Him who made her, though she may page 12 not declare His will. But, to resume. It is no [unclear: education] of mine, but a proud boast we meet with [unclear: e] day, that belief in Nature is rapidly [unclear: supplanting] rendering impossible a belief in God. But if [unclear: this] so, there must be some grounds for the fact. I [unclear: this] it quite probable that nine out of every ten who [unclear: fess] to adopt a belief in Nature instead of a believe Revelation do so without much strict inquiry at but because this course promises an easy [unclear: riddany] what they want to get rid of, viz., God and [unclear: resg] sibility, and therefore of uncomfortable [unclear: thoughts;] this is mere carnal indulgence, mental and [unclear: spir] daziness, or perhaps spite, and I am not [unclear: dealing] that class of persons to-night, but rather with the who prosess to think, and to adopt their opinions liberately as the outcome of their study [unclear: and] thoughts. Such persons avow a belief in [unclear: Na] rather in Revelation on some grounds. [unclear: Either] regard it as a mere philosophical creed, or as [unclear: affor] more certainty; or it may be that, deceived by great fallacy of the age that every change [unclear: is] gress in the right direction, they seize upon this a new gospel and persuade themselves that [unclear: it] triumph and evolve blessings to the [unclear: human] Now I seek the Divine aid, which I [unclear: believed] assist my poor abilities and limited knowledge to monstrate as I proceed that belief in Natures as posed to belief in God is neither more philosophic nor more rational, that it affords no security, [unclear: and] (whatever be the value of the argument [unclear: of] novelty), this is in reality the most threadbare [unclear: of] the humanly devised religions which the [unclear: blind] of men interposes in place of the voice from [unclear: He]—the message from God. I would have the [unclear: beli] in Nature to look at what he believes in. [unclear: Wh] this physical universe? Scientists and [unclear: philo] page 13 reduce it to two terms, "matter" and "force." Now, if this be the ultimate analysis, if we cannot get beyond these things, it is quite evident that we have not succeeded in driving out God, for the question yet remains—whatever matter and force may be—are they self-existent or originated? If you say the latter then there remains a God to believe in; but if the former, then you substitute for the action of an intelligent being the operation of blind force; and so philosophic systems have come to be distinguished in the last resort upon this turning point which is primary—thought or force? That is, are the forces which exist the result of intelligent determination, or is intelligence itself the product and accident of blind forces? The only other possible position is that at the bottom force and thought are the same. I cannot follow up these questions, but the important point for my present argument is that it is only by the adoption of the middle one of these three positions that philosophy appears to banish God—that is upon that supposition that intelligence is the outcome of mechanical force rather than the originator of it, since underived intelligence is a necessary part of our idea of God. But is there any certainty of this position being true? Is there even any very high probability of it? For if there be no certainty that blind force is antecedent to thought—or in other words that nature is self-existent—then there is no security for a belief in Nature rather than a belief in God; and the amount of probability in favour of such a dogma—for a dogma it is, remember—is the measure of its rationality and philosophical value. Let us go then a little closer into this, to see what the value of such a religion may be! If materialism reduces the universe to matter and physical force, the grand question then becomes, What is matter, and what is phy- page 14 sical force? I must know something of these [unclear: th] before I can put my trust in them. Now, I say [unclear: b] that you may pass down the whole row of [unclear: M] illustrious in natural philosophy, from [unclear: centuries] terior to Christianity down to our own day, [unclear: wif] finding one who will tell you what either [unclear: matter] physical force intrinsically is; but these [unclear: are] constituents of Nature, how then can I know [unclear: w] Nature is, and not knowing how can I trust [unclear: is] But some one may say the preacher [unclear: exagges] surely the great philosophers and scientists [unclear: ae] so ignorant! they have doubtless definitions [unclear: of] important terms. Hear, then, some of [unclear: them:-] and Aristotle thought that matter was [unclear: unreal.] cartes defines it as "extension." Kant [unclear: speaks] as a "necessary formula of thought," and [unclear: Hegel] "means for the self-realisation of spirit." [unclear: Hel] declares it "an abstraction," and Huxley a "[unclear: for] consciousness." Huxley gives the same [unclear: definti] force—which most authors allow to be a mere [unclear: ab] tion—that is, an idea. Du Bois-Reymond expressly of force that the term is "a sort of [unclear: rhe] artifice of the human brain." What is the [unclear: sur] meaning of all this, to some of you, I [unclear: fear], unintelligible language? It means, dear [unclear: fri] simply this—that Philosophy herself knows [unclear: not] can pronounce nothing positive about these stituent elements of Nature, matter, and force therefore, I ask, "What is the value of your [unclear: be] Nature? Is it after all more [unclear: philosophical] rational, more secure than a belief in [unclear: God?] say they have given up a belief in God [unclear: because] unknowable. I say, then, upon the same [unclear: gr] you must give up your belief in Nature [unclear: tod] here you are no better off. Dear [unclear: friends,] exactly what God himself has already told [unclear: us] page 15 text—that we should gain nothing by rejecting Him. "Hath a nation changed their gods which are yet no gods? My people have changed their glory"—the glory of knowing the true God—"for that which doth not profit. Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, . . . For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters; and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." But I can imagine some one saying, "Well, I don't understand very much of the philosophical argument which has been set forth, and no doubt it appears to cut away the ground from under the feet of the believer in Nature when dealt with so strictly; yet I think there is something else to say. I may not know much about matter and force, and I have no taste for metaphysics, but I believe in progress, and what I mean by believing in Nature is only that I entertain the notion that somehow or other things will work out right at the last for the race, and therefore for the individual, and that too by the operation of some law or principal, and therefore without my concerning myself very much about it!" Here, again, my dear friend, I think you are taking things rather too much upon trust—perhaps you have pinned your faith upon some teacher who propounds this doctrine as his substitute for the Christian religion, and you are content to accept it from him. But again I say an intelligent belief must have something to rest upon; surely you are not content to say, like a mere animal, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die!" What ground have you then for being satisfied with the position I have desribed? And you must remember that I am arguing with you to-night as a believer in Nature only. Some may say that they believe that God will bring about the final restitution of all things, that the page 16 crooked shall be made straight and the rough [unclear: ph] plain. This is a theological proposition, and [unclear: as] rests upon its own merits and evidence; [unclear: but] cannot urge it; your trust is in Nature, [unclear: whatever] mean by the term; you must find the basis [unclear: of] faith therefore in Nature, not in the character of [unclear: C] I am convinced that with very many this [unclear: trust] Nature really is a sort of half-conscious trust [unclear: in] but if so, don't confuse the two any longer—"[unclear: If] Lord be God, follow Him." But, to return. [unclear: wh] ground for this confidence does Nature afford [unclear: you?] have already shown yon, carried up to [unclear: the] analysis, you have not, and cannot have any [unclear: real] solute knowledge of Nature at all, anil therefore [unclear: y] cannot predicate anything about her or about [unclear: yourself] as part of her; but I am willing to allow that [unclear: th] is another kind of knowledge which, though [unclear: not] solute and always falling short of strict [unclear: certainty], yet great practical weight with us—I mean the [unclear: ko] ledge founded on experience and observation. [unclear: Th] is not a knowledge of intrinsic realities, but [unclear: only] knowledge of phenomona—of what we see [unclear: and] with around us. It is upon this kind of [unclear: knowledge] that all natural sciences are based; but it is [unclear: evi] that the value of such knowledge depends on [unclear: the] rectness of experiments and observations, the [unclear: du] tion of the experience, and the like; and [unclear: even] it is only a knowledge of these particular [unclear: thi] which have been the subjects of the [unclear: observation] experiments, and we have no right whatever to [unclear: say] any conclusion arrived at by observation of [unclear: one] ject to another subject not of the same kind, [unclear: however] correct that conclusion may be in relation to the [unclear: fe] subject You will see how all this applies [unclear: to] point now before us. I am asking you [unclear: why] trust that in your future existence [unclear: everything] page 17 come right, if I may so say, naturally? Most likely your reply will be—"Because I believe in evolution." But evolution is a doctrine which, after having been forgotten or neglected since the time of Anaximander, some 2500 years ago, has re-appeared in our time; and which, whether it be a true theory or a false one in regard to the special subject to which it applied—and this, as you know, is a subject of controversy—has been introduced by certain physical scientists as what appears to them to be the best way of explaining certain phenomena, i.e., appearances in a particular branch of inquiry, that is to say in natural history. But, supposing I were to go the length of allowing this to be the true explanation of those appearances—which is not for me to pronounce—you will still have no just ground for thinking you may live as you like, and trust to Nature for the future good. And why? Why? Because you have not yet got rid of God at all; you have only been considering a minute area of the realm of knowledge, a mode of operation in a particular sphere, but God may still be the Operator. You may still have to answer to Him, and so far from having banished God, I shall shew in a subsequent address, if spared, that your own argument, viz., the doctrine of evolution, affords a very strong ground of belief of His existence. But you still urge that although the doctrine of evolution does not prove there is no God—because we have yet to account for the origin of things—that it gets rid of accountability by the introduction of an almost mechanical law. Nothing of the kind. You are making the mistake of transferring conclusions arrived at from observations in one sphere to quite a different sphere, and this you have no right to do. The physical sciencist applies this doctrine to the study of bones and struc- page 18 tures and the morphology of animals and [unclear: pl] You have no right to apply his conclusions [unclear: in] field to your moral and spiritual history [unclear: and] tions. In a word, if it has pleased God to [unclear: const] your animal body upon this principle, it [unclear: does,] follow that your moral, much less your [unclear: spirit] nature are subject to the same law.

But I must conclude. I purposed, indeed, to [unclear: say] of the Pantheistic theory, and to say more [unclear: upon] fabled natural upward tendency of things. [unclear: I] content myself with but a sentence upon these [unclear: pori] already, indeed, answered as to their [unclear: principle.] Pantheism I will only say that while it [unclear: is] Christian doctrine to say that God is [unclear: everywhere] say that everything is God is as absurd as it [unclear: is] true. The ancient atomic theory of [unclear: Democritus] the molecular theory of modern teachers, [unclear: eq] expose this, for surely a God indefinitely [unclear: and] nitely subdivided is hard to believe in, [unclear: still] that every atom or molecule contains [unclear: the] nature of God. And similarly with regard [unclear: to] upward tendency of things apart from [unclear: God] what part of matter does this upward [unclear: tends] reside? If in every particle, we come to [unclear: Panth] again; but if only in a few, how can I tell [unclear: that] of such particles exist in me, therefore [unclear: what] have I of natural advance? Trust in [unclear: Nature.] should I trust in Nature? Where do I find [unclear: ene] agement to do so? Her face is beautiful. But her heart is hard! Men from the earliest [unclear: times] worshipped her and been deceived. [unclear: Baal,] Chemosh, or Ra, were Nature under the symbol the Sun, the Lord of Day; to him they [unclear: sacri] but yet he did not always shine. Trials [unclear: and] ferings have meaning in the moral government God, but Nature is not a moral governor, [unclear: Th] page 19 she always kind, always beneficent? Here a swollen river sweeps away the villages along its banks, making men homeless, children fatherless, wives widows. Here brave mariners have struggled with ocean billows through days and nights of howling storms, only to be engulphed at last. There over the dreary plain the scorching sun has pitilessly dried up every pool, absorbed every drop of moisture, and men and beast glare upon each other, drink blood, and die. The relentless hurricane devastates half a continent, or the awful cataclysm, amid fierce thunderings and hellish glares, and darkness that may be felt, swallows up a hunded thousand fathers and mothers, and leaves, perhaps, their babes to die, unless—strange compassion!—the tidal wave should come and carry them away. Trust in Nature! Why should I? If there be no fearful doom there is decay and death, and Nature tells me nothing of what lies beyond. Trust to Nature! My fellow-men are but as demons, left alone to Nature and her passions. Not savage races only rage and slay. Within the memory of living men the citizens of a great capital of one of the foremost nations of the earth in arts and all refinements, rose in rebellion against Christ and God, and when the sacred name was banished for four whole days they fell upon their fellows, and in those days eight thousand citizens of Paris were butchered with unparallelled barbarity, the murderers singing and dancing round their palpitating victims, and drinking of their blood. Nature in most men is self, or lust, or passion. Why should I trust in these? I have looked at Nature outside and within. I have seen in herself nothing wherein to trust—no light, no certain hope. "Be astonished, O ye heavens, and be horribly afraid, and be very desolate," that any should be found to turn from God page 20 their glory to this utter darkness. Dear [unclear: breth] and friends—If for a moment you have been [unclear: tur] aside, see yet if there be not "a lie in your [unclear: r] hand." Take up these verses; read them [unclear: with] context; ponder them until from them you [unclear: seen] hear a voice sweeter than any Nature has to [unclear: utter] for she has no voice with which to speak the [unclear: spe] truths of God—the voice of the pleader [unclear: sayi] 'Return, return, backsliding children, [unclear: and] iniquity shall not be your ruin." Amen.