Dear Mr. Editor,
The article in the February number of “The Bible Treasury” on Drummond's book appeared to me so sound and true that it was with a little disappointment I observed the absence in it of any purposed continuation of the subject so as to include a more general review of the work. In the spirit of that article, though wielding a less able pen, I have made the following remarks, which I venture to submit for your consideration and that of your readers. The volume before me is “Natural Law in the Spiritual World,” by Henry Drummond F.R.S.E; F.G.S. Fourteenth Edition, completing thirty-four thousand. Such a sale in comparatively so short a time is indicative of the great public interest which the work has excited, and of a very large number of readers. So far, too, as we can judge from the general tenor of the public notices, and from the individual opinions one hears expressed, a large proportion of that number entertain a high opinion of the book. Some of them, doubtless, have read it but cursorily, and scarcely understand its true nature. One knows too well the general state of the church, and of individual minds, to be surprised at such a reception, deeply as it is to be regretted. Thank God, truth is yet to be found in the church, though the church herself has well nigh forfeited all claim to be “the pillar and ground of the truth.” The Holy Spirit however still dwells in the church, and God's sovereign grace makes good that truth in the hearts of not a few.
And it is of more than usual importance, in the present case, to insist on the fact that the grace of God, where sin and sinners are in question, always is and must be, sovereign in the most absolute sense, and in no sense a matter of course. Nevertheless the flood-gates of error and of infidelity are open, the barriers which should bar and shut out error, and shut in truth, are overthrown; the whole scene is as it were deluged with error, and, more than that, the foundations are being broken up. Nor can I hesitate to express my conviction that this book is not only a result of the existing state of things, but will in no small measure expedite further progress in the same direction. Not that the work in itself is one of power, though the language, as regards mode of expression (and with a few peculiarities not worth mentioning), is clear, forcible and elegant. But I hope to show that by the time we subtract, from the work as a whole, the pages which are occupied with Science pure and simple, and on our own part give its true value to the figurative language of scripture (for which of course we shall not be indebted to Mr. Drummond)—little will be left to characterize the work as original, or towards proving the extraordinary and self-contradictory notion of Natural Law in the Spiritual World. The author with exquisite modesty says, “In what follows the Introduction, except in the setting, there is nothing new, I trust there is nothing new” (Preface, p. xvi). He need not be apprehensive on this score—there is nothing new unfortunately. For, excepting the absurd and indemonstrable notion of Natural Law in the Spiritual World, all, or nearly all, is the current error of the day, into which, unhappily, so many who profess to be Christians have fallen. I purpose examining the book, first, in a religions and doctrinal point of view, appealing to the Christian sense (1 John 2:20, 2720But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. (1 John 2:20)
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)) to judge in the matter; and, secondly, as to its scientific and argumentative character, though these two aspects cannot be altogether regarded separably. By the Duke of Argyll the “Reign of Law” has been treated in a sober, rational, and Christian manner; in this book on the contrary its treatment would be called grotesque, were not the subject too serious to be regarded in such a point of view.
The principle advocated is indeed profane, though the spirit in which it is handled is not so, and consequently I do not accuse the author of profanity. The ungodly theory of Evolution is not only held by him without a notion of its ungodliness, but is pushed even into heaven itself, and to God, as its goal. On this side it is called “Advolution.” “It is surely obvious that the complement of Evolution is Advolution” (p. 401). “Then from a mass of all but homogeneous 'protoplasm', the organism must pass through all the stages of differentiation and integration, growing in perfectness and beauty under the unfolding of the higher evolution, until it reaches the Infinite Sensibility, God” (p. 402). Were this not arrant nonsense, we should simply call it profanity; happily better motives and the utter want of logical sequence save the book, or at least its author, from such a charge. The fact however that Mr. Drummond is, doubtless, a good and a Christian man, is no excuse for doctrines and views of an anti-Christian and dangerous character. The most injurious heresies—those which have most widely and permanently corrupted the church—have owed their effect mainly to the personal character of their original propounders. Take Irvingism for instance, the poison of which heresy will probably (in a more or less diluted form) infect the church as long as it is on earth. And yet Irving himself was in the ordinary sense a good man as well as a very attractive man. And though the theory of evolution had a secular and so-called scientific origin, yet it is utterly antagonistic to divine revelation, and when accepted and propagated by Christian men, the result is terribly disastrous. It is no exaggeration to say that the state of things in the church is in the highest degree alarming, and that it fills one's mind with anxiety and solicitude, especially on behalf of the young. “Schools of thought,” and incessant conflict of opinion, tend to confuse and unsettle the mind, and to retard at least, if not finally to hinder, sound and settled conviction.
If at so early a period in the church's history it was needful for the apostle Jude to write to Christians, and exhort them “earnestly to contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” certainly it is no less necessary for “the called ones, beloved in God the Father” (Jude 11Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: (Jude 1)), to do so now. That objective faith, which was once delivered unto the saints, we still possess in the word of God, and the resource of every right-minded and true-hearted believer is still as was expressed by the Psalmist, “Concerning the works of men by the word of Thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer” (Psa. 17:44Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer. (Psalm 17:4)). For our comfort and assurance we are told also, that we are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1 Peter 1:55Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:5)). That subjective faith God will sustain in the hearts of all who look to Him and honor His word. Now faith is believing Holy Scripture because it is God's word—it is believing simply and solely upon the authority of His word, i.e. upon the authority of God Himself. It is throwing dust in people's eyes, and only deceiving oneself, to talk about rejecting human authority in this matter. The word of God in itself, by whatever channel it reaches a man, speaks to him with the authority of God; authority in the question there undoubtedly is, and cannot be got rid of, and that Personal authority will judge men in the last day. But faith is not believing because we know or understand, even though heart-knowledge and spiritual understanding are the result of believing. To make the acceptance and reception of divine truth, as revealed in Holy Scripture, contingent on knowledge (i.e. science), or understanding, is not true faith at all. And it is just in this that faith differs from intellectual belief; for all, of course (even the devils), believe what they know. And so with men when they are outside this world—it is no longer a question of faith with them, it is knowledge—they are where they know, not where knowledge can accrue simply as a matter of faith..
Again, to talk of creation as being another revelation, or a part of revelation, is mischievously false. Doubtless by creation men should discern God's “eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:2020For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20) θειότησ, not θεότης), and they are “without excuse” for not doing so; but creation is no more a revelation of God, than one of his paintings is a revelation of Gainsborough. Certain qualities of a man may be perceived by his works, whilst the man himself is wholly unknown. Much more is this the case with God, who Himself has been revealed only in Christ; as Christ is revealed by the Spirit in the written word; but neither God nor Christ is otherwise revealed. Utterly false then is the following statement (however essential it may be and is, to our author's theory): “Nature, it is true, is a part of Revelation, a much greater part doubtless than is yet believed—and one could have anticipated nothing but harmony here” (Preface, p. xvii.). This is a notion in which all mystics delight to revel, simply because they have unlimited scope to do so. But if nature is a revelation, will those who hold it to be so kindly tell us what facts or truths it teaches men? If nothing but harmony could have been anticipated here, in what does that harmony consist? If nature is a revelation, surely it appeals as such to all men and in all time. What did it teach men prior to the advent of Christianity? The wisest men, in the wisest city of the ancient world, mocked at Paul when he spoke to them of the resurrection, and even fancied he was speaking of another God; and yet if there is a truth which can be said to be clearly symbolized in nature, it is that of death and resurrection. If moreover nature is a revelation, how came the state of morals and of “religion” to be what it was in the world at the advent of Christianity? Poetic fancies, or speculative ideas, are indeed not uncommon amongst the heathen writers; but where will you find in them one spiritual truth, definitely seen, and generally accepted? What single quotation can be given, as furnishing us, in part or whole, with a heathen creel? “Harmony,” if harmony it can be called, was in abominable idolatry and wickedness, and in that alone. Alas, poor man! Not liking to retain God in their knowledge, men gave Him up—the consequence was their heart became darkened, their mind reprobate, and God in fact gave them up. Man is lost. In sovereign grace God by His gospel may and does save those who hear and believe; but though the final and judicial sentence on individuals has yet to pass the lips of Christ, the Judge of all—man is already morally and wholly lost. The Son of man came “to seek and to save that which was lost;” but the world would not have Him and cast Him out. How flatly opposed to Scripture then are our author's words, “The wicked are not really lost as yet, but they are on the sure way of it” (p. 102)! This is to confound the final and authoritative sentence, with a man's actual and moral condition.
It is from a state of complete ruin and liability to judgment, that the believer has been saved. Besides, if man is not lost, why does he need regeneration? Yet regeneration, like Christ Himself, is made much of in this book, though only in a scientific way; and so with redemption. “This,” we read, “is the final triumph of continuity, the heart-secret of creation, the unspoken prophecy of Christianity. To science, defining it as a working principle, this mighty process of amelioration is simply evolution. To Christianity discerning the end through the means, it is redemption” (p. 413). So that Evolution and Redemption both mean the same thing, and it is to be presumed that, on the principle of continuity, the process has been going on ever since evolution began. Here again is an instance of what evolution and Christianity comes to in the hands of Mr. Drummond! Are we to call it preposterous or profane? But what under these circumstances can be the place he gives atonement? The word is indeed mentioned by him (see p. 362), where, speaking of Theology, he says— “The Trinity is an intricate doctrinal problem. The Supreme Being is discussed in terms of philosophy. The atonement is a formula which is to be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid.” Now it is no doubt too easy to rest satisfied with a “form of sound words,” —with a head-knowledge of dogma; one may know and yet practice too little of the spirit of it. We are all prone to fail in this way, and few can afford to throw stones at others. Nevertheless sound doctrine, and particularly on such subjects, is of all importance; as on the other hand we are warned in scripture against “doctrines of devils,” and “damnable heresies;” and certainly there is something much more deliberate, wicked, and injurious in the propagation of bad doctrine than in faulty practice, though both should be abhorred by the Christian.
Again (p. 334), “Need we proceed to formulate objections to the parasitism of Evangelicism? Between it and the religion of the Church of Rome there is an affinity as real as it is unsuspected. For one thing these religions are spiritually disastrous as well as theologically erroneous in propagating a false conception of Christianity. The fundamental idea alike of the extreme Roman Catholic and extreme Evangelical Religions is escape Man's chief end is to 'get off.' And all factors in religion, the highest and most sacred, are degraded to this level. God for example is a great Lawyer, or He is the Almighty Enemy; it is from Him we have to 'get off.' Jesus Christ is the One who gets us off—a theological figure Who contrives so to adjust matters federally that the way is clear. The church in the one instance is a kind of conveyancing office where the transaction is duly concluded, each party accepting the other's terms, &c.” Now whatever may be the author's judgment, whatever might be a true judgment, of Evangelicism, or even of so gross an ecclesiastical system as the Church of Rome, no one who knows and values divine truth, who has felt the grace of God in the gospel, above all, no one who entertains in his heart due reverence towards the Deity, could warrantably express himself thus. Such a phenomenon can only be accounted for by supposing that it may be a tremendous rebound from rigid Scotch Presbyterianism. I should have thought that “escape” from everlasting punishment was indeed a very fundamental idea with any sober-minded person; and that the solemn truth that we owe our “escape” to the love of God, who gave His only-begotten Son to expiate our sins on the cross, should be a most powerful motive on our part to give ourselves to Him who gave Himself for us. If on the one hand a proper filial fear of God can never be absent from the heart of the true believer, yet the predominant feeling there is love and gratitude to our God and Father. But, again I say, what can be our author's sense of sin, of redemption, and of atonement, that he can write in this way?
Before closing this letter, and the first portion of my remarks, I would observe that next to redemption nothing could be of such transcendent moment to us all as creation, the divine account of which is given in Gen. 1. Whether as regards mere matter—the lower animal creation, or the creation of man, language could not be more clear and precise; nor could anything be more deliberate or more solemn than the mode in which God created our first parents, making them as He did, in His own image, after His own likeness, i.e. moral beings—rational and accountable. To make therefore anything co-eternal with God is to deny His absolute Deity. Yet our author says (p. 27), “We should be forsaking the lines of nature were we to imagine for a moment that the new creature was to be formed out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil-nothing can be made out of nothing. Matter is untreatable and indestructible!” This is simple heathenism, and in reference to evolution (which abominable theory is the very gist of this book), he says, “There is no intention here to countenance the old doctrine of the permanence of species” (p. 292, note)! And what has become of divine revelation, and of the Christianity it teaches, if the following is true? “All that has been said since, from Marcus Aurelius to Swedenborg, from Augustine to Schleiermacher, of a besetting God as the final complement of humanity, is but a repetition of the Hebrew poet's faith. And even the New Testament has nothing higher to offer than this!”
The fact is that, as regards Evolution, none are so utterly inconsistent as those who profess to believe the Bible, and yet attribute evolution to God as His plan and method. God has told us as plainly as it can be written that He created man from the dust of the ground; and there is no more difficulty in believing this than in believing that in the resurrection He will raise man from the dust. To attribute evolution to Him, therefore, is simply to contradict Him. Avowed infidelity is honest compared with this, and much less inconsistent. In short, our author's book is rejected alike by incredulity if honest, and by honest Christianity. He has fallen between two stools—much to his own injury and not a little to the injury of others.
I am, dear Mr. Editor,
Yours, in our Lord,
Theta