{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_23334/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_23334","id":"gutenberg_23334","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23334","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Natural theology","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Stephen Blundell and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n           NATURAL LAW\n\n              IN THE\n\n         SPIRITUAL WORLD.\n\n\n                BY\n\n HENRY DRUMMOND. F.R.S.E.: F.G.S.\n\n\n\n            NEW YORK:\n     HURST & CO., PUBLISHERS,\n          122 NASSAU ST.\n\n\n\n\n ARGYLE PRESS\n PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING,\n 24 & 26 WOOSTER ST., N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n    Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Greek\n    text has been transliterated and is shown between {braces}. The oe\n    ligature has been transcribed as [oe].\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                     PAGE\n PREFACE,                               5\n INTRODUCTION,                         21\n BIOGENESIS,                           59\n DEGENERATION,                         83\n GROWTH,                               99\n DEATH,                               111\n MORTIFICATION,                       133\n ETERNAL LIFE,                        149\n ENVIRONMENT,                         181\n CONFORMITY TO TYPE,                  203\n SEMI-PARASITISM,                     223\n PARASITISM,                          237\n CLASSIFICATION,                      255\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nNo class of works is received with more suspicion, I had almost said\nderision, than those which deal with Science and Religion. Science is\ntired of reconciliations between two things which never should have been\ncontrasted; Religion is offended by the patronage of an ally which it\nprofesses not to need; and the critics have rightly discovered that, in\nmost cases where Science is either pitted against Religion or fused with\nit, there is some fatal misconception to begin with as to the scope and\nprovince of either. But although no initial protest, probably, will save\nthis work from the unhappy reputation of its class, the thoughtful mind\nwill perceive that the fact of its subject-matter being Law--a property\npeculiar neither to Science nor to Religion--at once places it on a\nsomewhat different footing.\n\nThe real problem I have set myself may be stated in a sentence. Is there\nnot reason to believe that many of the Laws of the Spiritual World,\nhitherto regarded as occupying an entirely separate province, are simply\nthe Laws of the Natural World? Can we identify the Natural Laws, or any\none of them, in the Spiritual sphere? That vague lines everywhere run\nthrough the Spiritual World is already beginning to be recognized. Is it\npossible to link them with those great lines running through the visible\nuniverse which we call the Natural Laws, or are they fundamentally\ndistinct? In a word, Is the Supernatural natural or unnatural?\n\nI may, perhaps, be allowed to answer these questions in the form in\nwhich they have answered themselves to myself. And I must apologize at\nthe outset for personal references which, but for the clearness they may\nlend to the statement, I would surely avoid.\n\nIt has been my privilege for some years to address regularly two very\ndifferent audiences on two very different themes. On week days I have\nlectured to a class of students on the Natural Sciences, and on Sundays\nto an audience consisting for the most part of working men on subjects\nof a moral and religious character. I cannot say that this collocation\never appeared as a difficulty to myself, but to certain of my friends it\nwas more than a problem. It was solved to me, however, at first, by what\nthen seemed the necessities of the case--I must keep the two departments\nentirely by themselves. They lay at opposite poles of thought; and for a\ntime I succeeded in keeping the Science and the Religion shut off from\none another in two separate compartments of my mind. But gradually the\nwall of partition showed symptoms of giving way. The two fountains of\nknowledge also slowly began to overflow, and finally their waters met\nand mingled. The great change was in the compartment which held the\nReligion. It was not that the well there was dried; still less that the\nfermenting waters were washed away by the flood of Science. The actual\ncontents remained the same. But the crystals of former doctrine were\ndissolved; and as they precipitated themselves once more in definite\nforms, I observed that the Crystalline System was changed. New channels\nalso for outward expression opened, and some of the old closed up; and I\nfound the truth running out to my audience on the Sundays by the\nweek-day outlets. In other words, the subject-matter Religion had taken\non the method of expression of Science, and I discovered myself\nenunciating Spiritual Law in the exact terms of Biology and Physics.\n\nNow this was not simply a scientific coloring given to Religion, the\nmere freshening of the theological air with natural facts and\nillustrations. It was an entire re-casting of truth. And when I came\nseriously to consider what it involved, I saw, or seemed to see, that it\nmeant essentially the introduction of Natural Law into the Spiritual\nWorld. It was not, I repeat, that new and detailed analogies of\n_Phenomena_ rose into view--although material for Parable lies unnoticed\nand unused on the field of recent Science in inexhaustible profusion.\nBut Law has a still grander function to discharge toward Religion than\nParable. There is a deeper unity between the two Kingdoms than the\nanalogy of their Phenomena--a unity which the poet's vision, more quick\nthan the theologian's, has already dimly seen:--\n\n    \"And verily many thinkers of this age,\n    Aye, many Christian teachers, half in heaven,\n    Are wrong in just my sense, who understood\n    Our natural world too insularly, as if\n    No spiritual counterpart completed it,\n    Consummating its meaning, rounding all\n    To justice and perfection, _line by line,\n    Form by form, nothing single nor alone_,\n    The great below clenched by the great above.\"[1]\n\nThe function of Parable in religion is to exhibit \"form by form.\" Law\nundertakes the profounder task of comparing \"line by line.\" Thus Natural\nPhenomena serve mainly an illustrative function in Religion. Natural\nLaw, on the other hand, could it be traced in the Spiritual World, would\nhave an important scientific value--it would offer Religion a new\ncredential. The effect of the introduction of Law among the scattered\nPhenomena of Nature has simply been to make Science, to transform\nknowledge into eternal truth. The same crystallizing touch is needed in\nReligion. Can it be said that the Phenomena of the Spiritual World are\nother than scattered? Can we shut our eyes to the fact that the\nreligious opinions of mankind are in a state of flux? And when we regard\nthe uncertainty of current beliefs, the war of creeds, the havoc of\ninevitable as well as of idle doubt, the reluctant abandonment of early\nfaith by those who would cherish it longer if they could, is it not\nplain that the one thing thinking men are waiting for is the\nintroduction of Law among the Phenomena of the Spiritual World? When\nthat comes we shall offer to such men a truly scientific theology. And\nthe Reign of Law will transform the whole Spiritual World as it has\nalready transformed the Natural World.\n\nI confess that even when in the first dim vision, the organizing hand of\nLaw moved among the unordered truths of my Spiritual World, poor and\nscantily-furnished as it was, there seemed to come over it the beauty of\na transfiguration. The change was as great as from the old chaotic world\nof Pythagoras to the symmetrical and harmonious universe of Newton. My\nSpiritual World before was a chaos of facts; my Theology, a Pythagorean\nsystem trying to make the best of Phenomena apart from the idea of Law.\nI make no charge against Theology in general. I speak of my own. And I\nsay that I saw it to be in many essential respects centuries behind\nevery department of Science I knew. It was the one region still\nunpossessed by Law. I saw then why men of Science distrust Theology; why\nthose who have learned to look upon Law as Authority grow cold to it--it\nwas the Great Exception.\n\nI have alluded to the genesis of the idea in my own mind partly for\nanother reason--to show its naturalness. Certainly I never premeditated\nanything to myself so objectionable and so unwarrantable in itself, as\neither to read Theology into Science or Science into Theology. Nothing\ncould be more artificial than to attempt this on the speculative side;\nand it has been a substantial relief to me throughout that the idea rose\nup thus in the course of practical work and shaped itself day by day\nunconsciously. It might be charged, nevertheless, that I was all the\ntime, whether consciously or unconsciously, simply reading my Theology\ninto my Science. And as this would hopelessly vitiate the conclusions\narrived at, I must acquit myself at least of the intention. Of nothing\nhave I been more fearful throughout than of making Nature parallel with\nmy own or with any creed. The only legitimate questions one dare put to\nNature are those which concern universal human good and the Divine\ninterpretation of things. These I conceive may be there actually studied\nat first-hand, and before their purity is soiled by human touch. We have\nTruth in Nature as it came from God. And it has to be read with the same\nunbiased mind, the same open eye, the same faith, and the same reverence\nas all other Revelation. All that is found there, whatever its place in\nTheology, whatever its orthodoxy or heterodoxy, whatever its narrowness\nor its breadth, we are bound to accept as Doctrine from which on the\nlines of Science there is no escape.\n\nWhen this presented itself to me as a method, I felt it to be due to\nit--were it only to secure, so far as that was possible, that no former\nbias should interfere with the integrity of the results--to begin again\nat the beginning and reconstruct my Spiritual World step by step. The\nresult of that inquiry, so far as its expression in systematic form is\nconcerned, I have not given in this book. To reconstruct a Spiritual\nReligion, or a department of Spiritual Religion--for this is all the\nmethod can pretend to--on the lines of Nature would be an attempt from\nwhich one better equipped in both directions might well be pardoned if\nhe shrank. My object at present is the humbler one of venturing a simple\ncontribution to practical Religion along the lines indicated. What Bacon\npredicates of the Natural World, _Natura enim non nisi parendo\nvincitur_, is also true, as Christ had already told us, of the Spiritual\nWorld. And I present a few samples of the religious teaching referred to\nformerly as having been prepared under the influence of scientific ideas\nin the hope that they may be useful first of all in this direction.\n\nI would, however, carefully point out that though their unsystematic\narrangement here may create the impression that these papers are merely\nisolated readings in Religion pointed by casual scientific truths, they\nare organically connected by a single principle. Nothing could be more\nfalse both to Science and to Religion than attempts to adjust the two\nspheres by making out ingenious points of contact in detail. The\nsolution of this great question of conciliation, if one may still refer\nto a problem so gratuitous, must be general rather than particular. The\nbasis in a common principle--the Continuity of Law--can alone save\nspecific applications from ranking as mere coincidences, or exempt them\nfrom the reproach of being a hybrid between two things which must be\nrelated by the deepest affinities or remain forever separate.\n\nTo the objection that even a basis in Law is no warrant for so great a\ntrespass as the intrusion into another field of thought of the\nprinciples of Natural Science, I would reply that in this I find I am\nfollowing a lead which in other departments has not only been allowed\nbut has achieved results as rich as they were unexpected. What is the\nPhysical Politic of Mr. Walter Bagehot but the extension of Natural Law\nto the Political World? What is the Biological Sociology of Mr. Herbert\nSpencer but the application of Natural Law to the Social World? Will it\nbe charged that the splendid achievements of such thinkers are hybrids\nbetween things which Nature has meant to remain apart? Nature usually\nsolves such problems for herself. Inappropriate hybridism is checked by\nthe Law of Sterility. Judged by this great Law these modern developments\nof our knowledge stand uncondemned. Within their own sphere the results\nof Mr. Herbert Spencer are far from sterile--the application of Biology\nto Political Economy is already revolutionizing the Science. If the\nintroduction of Natural Law into the Social sphere is no violent\ncontradiction but a genuine and permanent contribution, shall its\nfurther extension to the Spiritual sphere be counted an extravagance?\nDoes not the Principle of Continuity demand its application in every\ndirection? To carry it as a working principle into so lofty a region may\nappear impracticable. Difficulties lie on the threshold which may seem,\nat first sight, insurmountable. But obstacles to a true method only test\nits validity. And he who honestly faces the task may find relief in\nfeeling that whatever else of crudeness and imperfection mar it, the\nattempt is at least in harmony with the thought and movement of his\ntime.\n\nThat these papers were not designed to appear in a collective form, or\nindeed to court the more public light at all, needs no disclosure. They\nare published out of regard to the wish of known and unknown friends by\nwhom, when in a fugitive form, they were received with so curious an\ninterest as to make one feel already that there are minds which such\nforms of truth may touch. In making the present selection, partly from\nmanuscript, and partly from articles already published, I have been\nguided less by the wish to constitute the papers a connected series than\nto exhibit the application of the principle in various directions. They\nwill be found, therefore, of unequal interest and value, according to\nthe standpoint from which they are regarded. Thus some are designed with\na directly practical and popular bearing, others being more expository,\nand slightly apologetic in tone. The risk of combining two objects so\nvery different is somewhat serious. But, for the reason named, having\ntaken this responsibility, the only compensation I can offer is to\nindicate which of the papers incline to the one side or to the other.\n\"Degeneration,\" \"Growth,\" \"Mortification,\" \"Conformity to Type,\"\n\"Semi-Parasitism,\" and \"Parasitism\" belong to the more practical order;\nand while one or two are intermediate, \"Biogenesis,\" \"Death,\" and\n\"Eternal Life\" may be offered to those who find the atmosphere of the\nformer uncongenial. It will not disguise itself, however, that, owing to\nthe circumstances in which they were prepared, all the papers are more\nor less practical in their aim; so that to the merely philosophical\nreader there is little to be offered except--and that only with the\ngreatest diffidence--the Introductory chapter.\n\nIn the Introduction, which the general reader may do well to ignore, I\nhave briefly stated the case for Natural Law in the Spiritual World. The\nextension of Analogy to Laws, or rather the extension of the Laws\nthemselves so far as known to me, is new; and I cannot hope to have\nescaped the mistakes and misadventures of a first exploration in an\nunsurveyed land. So general has been the survey that I have not even\npaused to define specially to what departments of the Spiritual World\nexclusively the principle is to be applied. The danger of making a new\nprinciple apply too widely inculcates here the utmost caution. One thing\nis certain, and I state it pointedly, the application of Natural Law to\nthe Spiritual World has decided and necessary limits. And if elsewhere\nwith undue enthusiasm I seem to magnify the principle at stake, the\nexaggeration--like the extreme amplification of the moon's disc when\nnear the horizon--must be charged to that almost necessary aberration of\nlight which distorts every new idea while it is yet slowly climbing to\nits zenith.\n\nIn what follows the Introduction, except in the setting there is nothing\nnew. I trust there is nothing new. When I began to follow out these\nlines, I had no idea where they would lead me. I was prepared,\nnevertheless, at least for the time, to be loyal to the method\nthroughout, and share with nature whatever consequences might ensue. But\nin almost every case, after stating what appeared to be the truth in\nwords gathered directly from the lips of Nature, I was sooner or later\nstartled by a certain similarity in the general idea to something I had\nheard before, and this often developed in a moment, and when I was least\nexpecting it, into recognition of some familiar article of faith. I was\nnot watching for this result. I did not begin by tabulating the\ndoctrines, as I did the Laws of Nature, and then proceed with the\nattempt to pair them. The majority of them seemed at first too far\nremoved from the natural world even to suggest this. Still less did I\nbegin with doctrines and work downward to find their relations in the\nnatural sphere. It was the opposite process entirely. I ran up the\nNatural Law as far as it would go, and the appropriate doctrine seldom\neven loomed in sight till I had reached the top. Then it burst into view\nin a single moment.\n\nI can scarcely now say whether in those moments I was more overcome with\nthankfulness that Nature was so like Revelation, or more filled with\nwonder that Revelation was so like Nature. Nature, it is true, is a part\nof Revelation--a much greater part doubtless than is yet believed--and\none could have anticipated nothing but harmony here. But that a derived\nTheology, in spite of the venerable verbiage which has gathered round\nit, should be at bottom and in all cardinal respects so faithful a\ntranscript of \"the truth as it is in Nature\" came as a surprise and to\nme at least as a rebuke. How, under the rigid necessity of incorporating\nin its system much that seemed nearly unintelligible, and much that was\nbarely credible, Theology has succeeded so perfectly in adhering through\ngood report and ill to what in the main are truly the lines of Nature,\nawakens a new admiration for those who constructed and kept this faith.\nBut however nobly it has held its ground, Theology must feel to-day that\nthe modern world calls for a further proof. Nor will the best Theology\nresent this demand; it also demands it. Theology is searching on every\nhand for another echo of the Voice of which Revelation also is the echo,\nthat out of the mouths of two witnesses its truths should be\nestablished. That other echo can only come from Nature. Hitherto its\nvoice has been muffled. But now that Science has made the world around\narticulate, it speaks to Religion with a twofold purpose. In the first\nplace it offers to corroborate Theology, in the second to purify it.\n\nIf the removal of suspicion from Theology is of urgent moment, not less\nimportant is the removal of its adulterations. These suspicions, many of\nthem at least, are new; in a sense they mark progress. But the\nadulterations are the artificial accumulations of centuries of\nuncontrolled speculation. They are the necessary result of the old\nmethod and the warrant for its revision--they mark the impossibility of\nprogress without the guiding and restraining hand of Law. The felt\nexhaustion of the former method, the want of corroboration for the old\nevidence, the protest of reason against the monstrous overgrowths which\nconceal the real lines of truth, these summon us to the search for a\nsurer and more scientific system. With truths of the theological order,\nwith dogmas which often depend for their existence on a particular\nexegesis, with propositions which rest for their evidence upon a balance\nof probabilities, or upon the weight of authority; with doctrines which\nevery age and nation may make or unmake, which each sect may tamper\nwith, and which even the individual may modify for himself, a second\ncourt of appeal has become an imperative necessity.\n\nScience, therefore, may yet have to be called upon to arbitrate at some\npoints between conflicting creeds. And while there are some departments\nof Theology where its jurisdiction cannot be sought, there are others in\nwhich Nature may yet have to define the contents as well as the limits\nof belief.\n\nWhat I would desire especially is a thoughtful consideration of the\nmethod. The applications ventured upon here may be successful or\nunsuccessful. But they would more than satisfy me if they suggested a\nmethod to others whose less clumsy hands might work it out more\nprofitably. For I am convinced of the fertility of such a method at the\npresent time. It is recognized by all that the younger and abler minds\nof this age find the most serious difficulty in accepting or retaining\nthe ordinary forms or belief. Especially is this true of those whose\nculture is scientific. And the reason is palpable. No man can study\nmodern Science without a change coming over his view of truth. What\nimpresses him about Nature is its solidity. He is there standing upon\nactual things, among fixed laws. And the integrity of the scientific\nmethod so seizes him that all other forms of truth begins to appear\ncomparatively unstable. He did not know before that any form of truth\ncould so hold him; and the immediate effect is to lessen his interest in\nall that stands on other bases. This he feels in spite of himself; he\nstruggles against it in vain; and he finds perhaps to his alarm that he\nis drifting fast into what looks at first like pure Positivism. This is\nan inevitable result of the scientific training. It is quite erroneous\nto suppose that science ever overthrows Faith, if by that is implied\nthat any natural truth can oppose successfully any single spiritual\ntruth. Science cannot overthrow Faith; but it shakes it. Its own\ndoctrines, grounded in Nature, are so certain, that the truths of\nReligion, resting to most men on Authority, are felt to be strangely\ninsecure. The difficulty, therefore, which men of Science feel about\nReligion is real and inevitable, and in so far as Doubt is a\nconscientious tribute to the inviolability of Nature it is entitled to\nrespect.\n\nNone but those who have passed through it can appreciate the radical\nnature of the change wrought by Science in the whole mental attitude of\nits disciples. What they really cry out for in Religion is a new\nstandpoint--a standpoint like their own. The one hope, therefore, for\nScience is more Science. Again, to quote Bacon--we shall hear enough\nfrom the moderns by-and-by--\"This I dare affirm in knowledge of Nature,\nthat a little natural philosophy, and the first entrance into it, doth\ndispose the opinion to atheism; but, on the other side, much natural\nphilosophy, and wading deep into it, will bring about men's minds to\nreligion.\"[2]\n\nThe application of _similia similibus curantur_ was never more in point.\nIf this is a disease, it is the disease of Nature, and the cure is more\nNature. For what is this disquiet in the breasts of men but the loyal\nfear that Nature is being violated? Men must oppose with every energy\nthey possess what seems to them to oppose the eternal course of things.\nAnd the first step in their deliverance must be not to \"reconcile\"\nNature and Religion, but to exhibit Nature in Religion. Even to convince\nthem that there is no controversy between Religion and Science is\ninsufficient. A mere flag of truce, in the nature of the case, is here\nimpossible; at least, it is only possible so long as neither party is\nsincere. No man who knows the splendor of scientific achievement or\ncares for it, no man who feels the solidity of its method or works with\nit, can remain neutral with regard to Religion. He must either extend\nhis method into it, or, if that is impossible, oppose it to the knife.\nOn the other hand, no one who knows the content of Christianity, or\nfeels the universal need of a Religion, can stand idly by while the\nintellect of his age is slowly divorcing itself from it. What is\nrequired, therefore, to draw Science and Religion together again--for\nthey began the centuries hand in hand--is the disclosure of the\nnaturalness of the supernatural. Then, and not till then, will men see\nhow true it is, that to be loyal to all of Nature, they must be loyal to\nthe part defined as Spiritual. No science contributes to another without\nreceiving a reciprocal benefit. And even as the contribution of Science\nto Religion is the vindication of the naturalness of the Supernatural,\nso the gift of Religion to Science is the demonstration of the\nsupernaturalness of the Natural. Thus, as the Supernatural becomes\nslowly Natural, will also the Natural become slowly Supernatural, until\nin the impersonal authority of Law men everywhere recognize the\nAuthority of God.\n\nTo those who already find themselves fully nourished on the older forms\nof truth, I do not commend these pages. They will find them superfluous.\nNor is there any reason why they should mingle with light which is\nalready clear the distorting rays of a foreign expression.\n\nBut to those who are feeling their way to a Christian life, haunted now\nby a sense of instability in the foundation of their faith, now brought\nto bay by specific doubt at one point raising, as all doubt does, the\nquestion for the whole, I would hold up a light which has often been\nkind to me. There is a sense of solidity about a Law of Nature which\nbelongs to nothing else in the world. Here, at last, amid all that is\nshifting, is one thing sure; one thing outside ourselves, unbiased,\nunprejudiced, uninfluenced by like or dislike, by doubt or fear; one\nthing that holds on its way to me eternally, incorruptible, and\nundefiled. This more than anything else, makes one eager to see the\nReign of Law traced in the Spiritual Sphere. And should this seem to\nsome to offer only a surer, but not a higher Faith; should the better\nordering of the Spiritual World appear to satisfy the intellect at the\nsacrifice of reverence, simplicity, or love; especially should it seem\nto substitute a Reign of Law and a Lawgiver for a Kingdom of Grace and a\nPersonal God, I will say, with Browning,--\n\n                                    \"I spoke as I saw.\n    I report, as a man may of God's work--_all's love, yet all's Law_.\n    Now I lay down the judgeship He lent me. Each faculty tasked,\n    To perceive Him, has gained an abyss where a dewdrop was asked.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Aurora Leigh.\n\n[2] \"Meditationes Sacrae,\" x.\n\n\n\n\nANALYSIS OF INTRODUCTION.\n\n    [For the sake of the general reader who may desire to pass at once\n    to the practical applications, the following outline of the\n    Introduction--devoted rather to general principles--is here\n    presented.]\n\n\nPART I.\n\nNATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL SPHERE.\n\n 1. The growth of the Idea of Law.\n\n 2. Its gradual extension throughout every department of Knowledge.\n\n 3. Except one. Religion hitherto the Great Exception. Why so?\n\n 4. Previous attempts to trace analogies between the Natural and\n      Spiritual spheres. These have been limited to analogies between\n      _Phenomena_; and are useful mainly as illustrations. Analogies of\n      _Law_ would also have a Scientific value.\n\n 5. Wherein that value would consist. (1) The Scientific demand of the\n      age would be met; (2) Greater clearness would be introduced into\n      Religion practically; (3) Theology, instead of resting on\n      Authority, would rest equally on Nature.\n\n\nPART II.\n\nTHE LAW OF CONTINUITY.\n\n_A priori_ argument for Natural Law in the spiritual world.\n\n 1. The Law Discovered.\n\n 2.    \"    Defined.\n\n 3.    \"    Applied.\n\n 4. The objection answered that the _material_ of the Natural and\n      Spiritual worlds being different they must be under different\n      Laws.\n\n 5. The existence of Laws in the Spiritual world other than the Natural\n      Laws (1) improbable, (2) unnecessary, (3) unknown. Qualification.\n\n 6. The Spiritual not the projection upward of the Natural; but the\n      Natural the projection downward of the Spiritual.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n    \"This method turns aside from hypotheses not to be tested by any\n    known logical canon familiar to science, whether the hypothesis\n    claims support from intuition, aspiration or general plausibility.\n    And, again, this method turns aside from ideal standards which avow\n    themselves to be lawless, which profess to transcend the field of\n    law. We say, life and conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis\n    of law, and must rest entirely in that region of science (not\n    physical, but moral and social science), where we are free to use\n    our intelligence in the methods known to us as intelligible logic,\n    methods which the intellect can analyze. When you confront us with\n    hypotheses, however sublime and however affecting, if they cannot be\n    stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are disparate\n    to that world of sequence and sensation which to us is the ultimate\n    base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and turn\n    aside.\"--_Frederick Harrison._\n\n    \"Ethical science is already forever completed, so far as her general\n    outline and main principles are concerned, and has been, as it were,\n    waiting for physical science to come up with her.\"--_Paradoxical\n    Philosophy._\n\n\nPART I.\n\nNatural Law is a new word. It is the last and the most magnificent\ndiscovery of science. No more telling proof is open to the modern world\nof the greatness of the idea than the greatness of the attempts which\nhave always been made to justify it. In the earlier centuries, before\nthe birth of science, Phenomena were studied alone. The world then was a\nchaos, a collection of single, isolated, and independent facts. Deeper\nthinkers saw, indeed, that relations must subsist between these facts,\nbut the Reign of Law was never more to the ancients than a far-off\nvision. Their philosophies, conspicuously those of the Stoics and\nPythagoreans, heroically sought to marshal the discrete materials of the\nuniverse into thinkable form, but from these artificial and fantastic\nsystems nothing remains to us now but an ancient testimony to the\ngrandeur of that harmony which they failed to reach.\n\nWith Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler the first regular lines of the\nuniverse began to be discerned. When Nature yielded to Newton her great\nsecret, Gravitation was felt to be not greater as a fact in itself than\nas a revelation that Law was fact. And thenceforth the search for\nindividual Phenomena gave way before the larger study of their\nrelations. The pursuit of Law became the passion of science.\n\nWhat that discovery of Law has done for Nature, it is impossible to\nestimate. As a mere spectacle the universe to-day discloses a beauty so\ntranscendent that he who disciplines himself by scientific work finds it\nan overwhelming reward simply to behold it. In these Laws one stands\nface to face with truth, solid and unchangeable. Each single Law is an\ninstrument of scientific research, simple in its adjustments, universal\nin its application, infallible in its results. And despite the\nlimitations of its sphere on every side Law is still the largest,\nrichest, and surest source of human knowledge.\n\nIt is not necessary for the present to more than lightly touch on\ndefinitions of Natural Law. The Duke of Argyll[3] indicates five senses\nin which the word is used, but we may content ourselves here by taking\nit in its most simple and obvious significance. The fundamental\nconception of Law is an ascertained working sequence or constant order\namong the Phenomena of Nature. This impression of Law as order it is\nimportant to receive in its simplicity, for the idea is often corrupted\nby having attached to it erroneous views of cause and effect. In its\ntrue sense Natural Law predicates nothing of causes. The Laws of Nature\nare simply statements of the orderly condition of things in Nature, what\nis found in Nature by a sufficient number of competent observers. What\nthese Laws are in themselves is not agreed. That they have any absolute\nexistence even is far from certain. They are relative to man in his many\nlimitations, and represent for him the constant expression of what he\nmay always expect to find in the world around him. But that they have\nany causal connection with the things around him is not to be conceived.\nThe Natural Laws originate nothing, sustain nothing; they are merely\nresponsible for uniformity in sustaining what has been originated and\nwhat is being sustained. They are modes of operation, therefore, not\noperators; processes, not powers. The Law of Gravitation, for instance,\nspeaks to science only of process. It has no light to offer as to\nitself. Newton did not discover Gravity--that is not discovered yet. He\ndiscovered its Law, which is Gravitation, but tells us nothing of its\norigin, of its nature or of its cause.\n\nThe Natural Laws then are great lines running not only through the\nworld, but, as we now know, through the universe, reducing it like\nparallels of latitude to intelligent order. In themselves, be it once\nmore repeated, they may have no more absolute existence than parallels\nof latitude. But they exist for us. They are drawn for us to understand\nthe part by some Hand that drew the whole; so drawn, perhaps, that,\nunderstanding the part, we too in time may learn to understand the\nwhole. Now the inquiry we propose to ourselves resolves itself into the\nsimple question, Do these lines stop with what we call the Natural\nsphere? Is it not possible that they may lead further? Is it probable\nthat the Hand which ruled them gave up the work where most of all they\nwere required? Did that Hand divide the world into two, a cosmos and a\nchaos, the higher being the chaos? With Nature as the symbol of all of\nharmony and beauty that is known to man, must we still talk of the\nsuper-natural, not as a convenient word, but as a different order of\nworld, an unintelligible world, where the Reign of Mystery supersedes\nthe Reign of Law?\n\nThis question, let it be carefully observed, applies to Laws not to\nPhenomena. That the Phenomena of the Spiritual World are in analogy with\nthe Phenomena of the Natural World requires no restatement. Since Plato\nenunciated his doctrine of the Cave or of the twice-divided line; since\nChrist spake in parables; since Plotinus wrote of the world as an image;\nsince the mysticism of Swedenborg; since Bacon and Pascal; since \"Sartor\nResartus\" and \"In Memoriam,\" it has been all but a commonplace with\nthinkers that \"the invisible things of God from the creation of the\nworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.\"\nMilton's question--\n\n                              \"What if earth\n    Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein\n    Each to other like more than on earth is thought?\"\n\nis now superfluous. \"In our doctrine of representations and\ncorrespondences,\" says Swedenborg, \"we shall treat of both these\nsymbolical and typical resemblances, and of the astonishing things that\noccur, I will not say in the living body only, but throughout Nature,\nand which correspond so entirely to supreme and spiritual things, that\none would swear that the physical world was purely symbolical of the\nspiritual world.\"[4] And Carlyle: \"All visible things are emblems. What\nthou seest is not there on its own account; strictly speaking is not\nthere at all. Matter exists only spiritually, and to represent some idea\nand body it forth.\"[5]\n\nBut the analogies of Law are a totally different thing from the\nanalogies of Phenomena and have a very different value. To say\ngenerally, with Pascal, that--\"La nature est une image de la grace,\" is\nmerely to be poetical. The function of Hervey's \"Meditations in a Flower\nGarden,\" or, Flavel's \"Husbandry Spiritualized,\" is mainly homiletical.\nThat such works have an interest is not to be denied. The place of\nparable in teaching, and especially after the sanction of the greatest\nof Teachers, must always be recognized. The very necessities of language\nindeed demand this method of presenting truth. The temporal is the husk\nand framework of the eternal, and thoughts can be uttered only through\nthings.[6]\n\nBut analogies between Phenomena bear the same relation to analogies of\nLaw that Phenomena themselves bear to Law. The light of Law on truth, as\nwe have seen, is an immense advance upon the light of Phenomena. The\ndiscovery of Law is simply the discovery of Science. And if the\nanalogies of Natural Law can be extended to the Spiritual World, that\nwhole region at once falls within the domain of science and secures a\nbasis as well as an illumination in the constitution and course of\nNature. All, therefore, that has been claimed for parable can be\npredicated _a fortiori_ of this--with the addition that a proof on the\nbasis of Law would want no criterion possessed by the most advanced\nscience.\n\nThat the validity of analogy generally has been seriously questioned one\nmust frankly own. Doubtless there is much difficulty and even liability\nto gross error in attempting to establish analogy in specific cases. The\nvalue of the likeness appears differently to different minds, and in\ndiscussing an individual instance questions of relevancy will invariably\ncrop up. Of course, in the language of John Stuart Mill, \"when the\nanalogy can be proved, the argument founded upon it cannot be\nresisted.\"[7] But so great is the difficulty of proof that many are\ncompelled to attach the most inferior weight to analogy as a method of\nreasoning. \"Analogical evidence is generally more successful in\nsilencing objections than in evincing truth. Though it rarely refutes it\nfrequently repels refutation; like those weapons which though they\ncannot kill the enemy, will ward his blows.... It must be allowed that\nanalogical evidence is at least but a feeble support, and is hardly ever\nhonored with the name of proof.\"[8] Other authorities on the other hand,\nsuch as Sir William Hamilton, admit analogy to a primary place in logic\nand regard it as the very basis of induction.\n\nBut, fortunately, we are spared all discussion on this worn subject, for\ntwo cogent reasons. For one thing, we do not demand of Nature directly\nto prove Religion. That was never its function. Its function is to\ninterpret. And this, after all, is possibly the most fruitful proof. The\nbest proof of a thing is that we _see_ it; if we do not see it, perhaps\nproof will not convince us of it. It is the want of the discerning\nfaculty, the clairvoyant power of seeing the eternal in the temporal,\nrather than the failure of the reason, that begets the sceptic. But\nsecondly, and more particularly, a significant circumstance has to be\ntaken into account, which, though it will appear more clearly afterward,\nmay be stated here at once. The position we have been led to take up is\nnot that the Spiritual Laws are analogous to the Natural Laws, but that\n_they are the same Laws_. It is not a question of analogy but of\n_Identity_. The Natural Laws are not the shadows or images of the\nSpiritual in the same sense as autumn is emblematical of Decay, or the\nfalling leaf of Death. The Natural Laws, as the Law of Continuity might\nwell warn us, do not stop with the visible and then give place to a new\nset of Laws bearing a strong similitude to them. The Laws of the\ninvisible are the same Laws, projections of the natural not\nsupernatural. Analogous Phenomena are not the fruit of parallel Laws,\nbut of the same Laws--Laws which at one end, as it were, may be dealing\nwith Matter, at the other end with Spirit. As there will be some\ninconvenience, however, in dispensing with the word analogy, we shall\ncontinue occasionally to employ it. Those who apprehend the real\nrelation will mentally substitute the larger term.\n\nLet us now look for a moment at the present state of the question. Can\nit be said that the Laws of the Spiritual World are in any sense\nconsidered even to have analogies with the Natural World? Here and there\ncertainly one finds an attempt, and a successful attempt, to exhibit on\na rational basis one or two of the great Moral Principles of the\nSpiritual World. But the Physical World has not been appealed to. Its\nmagnificent system of Laws remains outside, and its contribution\nmeanwhile is either silently ignored or purposely set aside. The\nPhysical, it is said, is too remote from the Spiritual. The Moral World\nmay afford a basis for religious truth, but even this is often the\nbaldest concession; while the appeal to the Physical universe is\neverywhere dismissed as, on the face of it, irrelevant and unfruitful.\nFrom the scientific side, again, nothing has been done to court a closer\nfellowship. Science has taken theology at its own estimate. It is a\nthing apart. The Spiritual World is not only a different world, but a\ndifferent kind of world, a world arranged on a totally different\nprinciple, under a different governmental scheme.\n\nThe Reign of Law has gradually crept into every department of Nature,\ntransforming knowledge everywhere into Science. The process goes on, and\nNature slowly appears to us as one great unity, until the borders of the\nSpiritual World are reached. There the Law of Continuity ceases, and the\nharmony breaks down. And men who have learned their elementary lessons\ntruly from the alphabet of the lower Laws, going on to seek a higher\nknowledge, are suddenly confronted with the Great Exception.\n\nEven those who have examined most carefully the relations of the Natural\nand the Spiritual, seem to have committed themselves deliberately to a\nfinal separation in matters of Law. It is a surprise to find such a\nwriter as Horace Bushnell, for instance, describing the Spiritual World\nas \"another system of nature incommunicably separate from ours,\" and\nfurther defining it thus: \"God has, in fact, erected another and higher\nsystem, that of spiritual being and government for which nature exists;\na system not under the law of cause and effect, but ruled and marshaled\nunder other kinds of laws.\"[9] Few men have shown more insight than\nBushnell in illustrating Spiritual truth from the Natural World; but he\nhas not only failed to perceive the analogy with regard to Law, but\nemphatically denies it.\n\nIn the recent literature of this whole region there nowhere seems any\nadvance upon the position of \"Nature and the Supernatural.\" All are\nagreed in speaking of Nature _and_ the Supernatural. Nature _in_ the\nSupernatural, so far as Laws are concerned, is still an unknown truth.\n\n\"The Scientific Basis of Faith\" is a suggestive title. The accomplished\nauthor announces that the object of his investigation is to show that\n\"the world of nature and mind, as made known by science, constitute a\nbasis and a preparation for that highest moral and spiritual life of\nman, which is evoked by the self-revelation of God.\"[10] On the whole,\nMr. Murphy seems to be more philosophical and more profound in his view\nof the relation of science and religion than any writer of modern times.\nHis conception of religion is broad and lofty, his acquaintance with\nscience adequate.\n\nHe makes constant, admirable, and often original use of analogy; and\nyet, in spite of the promise of this quotation, he has failed to find\nany analogy in that department of Law where surely, of all others, it\nmight most reasonably be looked for. In the broad subject even of the\nanalogies of what he defines as \"evangelical religion\" with Nature, Mr.\nMurphy discovers nothing. Nor can this be traced either to short-sight\nor over-sight. The subject occurs to him more than once, and he\ndeliberately dismisses it--dismisses it not merely as unfruitful, but\nwith a distinct denial of its relevancy. The memorable paragraph from\nOrigen which forms the text of Butler's \"Analogy,\" he calls \"this\nshallow and false saying.\"[11] He says: \"The designation of Butler's\nscheme of religious philosophy ought then to be _the analogy of\nreligion, legal and evangelical, to the constitution of nature_. But\ndoes this give altogether a true meaning? Does this double analogy\nreally exist? If justice is natural law among beings having a moral\nnature, there is the closest analogy between the constitution of nature\nand merely legal religion. Legal religion is only the extension of\nnatural justice into a future life.... But is this true of evangelical\nreligion? Have the doctrines of Divine grace any similar support in the\nanalogies of nature? I trow not.\"[12] And with reference to a specific\nquestion, speaking of immortality, he asserts that \"the analogies of\nmere nature are opposed to the doctrine of immortality.\"[13]\n\nWith regard to Butler's great work in this department, it is needless at\nthis time of day to point out that his aims did not lie exactly in this\ndirection. He did not seek to indicate analogies _between_ religion and\nthe constitution and course of Nature. His theme was, \"The Analogy _of_\nReligion _to_ the constitution and course of Nature.\" And although he\npointed out direct analogies of Phenomena, such as those between the\nmetamorphoses of insects and the doctrine of a future state; and\nalthough he showed that \"the natural and moral constitution and\ngovernment of the world are so connected as to make up together but one\nscheme,\"[14] his real intention was not so much to construct arguments\nas to repel objections. His emphasis accordingly was laid upon the\ndifficulties of the two schemes rather than on their positive lines; and\nso thoroughly has he made out this point that as is well known, the\neffect upon many has been, not to lead them to accept the Spiritual\nWorld on the ground of the Natural, but to make them despair of both.\nButler lived at a time when defence was more necessary than\nconstruction, when the materials for construction were scarce and\ninsecure, and when, besides, some of the things to be defended were\nquite incapable of defence. Notwithstanding this, his influence over the\nwhole field since has been unparalleled.\n\nAfter all, then, the Spiritual World, as it appears at this moment, is\noutside Natural Law. Theology continues to be considered, as it has\nalways been, a thing apart. It remains still a stupendous and splendid\nconstruction, but on lines altogether its own. Nor is Theology to be\nblamed for this. Nature has been long in speaking; even yet its voice is\nlow, sometimes inaudible. Science is the true defaulter, for Theology\nhad to wait patiently for its development. As the highest of the\nsciences, Theology in the order of evolution should be the last to fall\ninto rank. It is reserved for it to perfect the final harmony. Still, if\nit continues longer to remain a thing apart, with increasing reason will\nbe such protests as this of the \"Unseen Universe,\" when, in speaking of\na view of miracles held by an older Theology, it declares:--\"If he\nsubmits to be guided by such interpreters, each intelligent being will\nforever continue to be baffled in any attempt to explain these\nphenomena, because they are said to have no physical relation to\nanything that went before or that followed after; in fine, they are made\nto form a universe within a universe, a portion cut off by an\ninsurmountable barrier from the domain of scientific inquiry.\"[15]\n\nThis is the secret of the present decadence of Religion in the world of\nScience. For Science can hear nothing of a Great Exception.\nConstructions on unique lines, \"portions cut off by an insurmountable\nbarrier from the domain of scientific inquiry,\" it dare not recognize.\nNature has taught it this lesson, and Nature is right. It is the\nprovince of Science to vindicate Nature here at any hazard. But in\nblaming Theology for its intolerance, it has been betrayed into an\nintolerance less excusable. It has pronounced upon it too soon. What if\nReligion be yet brought within the sphere of Law? Law is the revelation\nof time. One by one slowly through the centuries the Sciences have\ncrystallized into geometrical form, each form not only perfect in\nitself, but perfect in its relation to all other forms. Many forms had\nto be perfected before the form of the Spiritual. The Inorganic has to\nbe worked out before the Organic, the Natural before the Spiritual.\nTheology at present has merely an ancient and provisional philosophic\nform. By-and-by it will be seen whether it be not susceptible of\nanother. For Theology must pass through the necessary stages of\nprogress, like any other science. The method of science-making is now\nfully established. In almost all cases the natural history and\ndevelopment are the same. Take, for example, the case of Geology. A\ncentury ago there was none. Science went out to look for it, and brought\nback a Geology which, if Nature were a harmony, had falsehood written\nalmost on its face. It was the Geology of Catastrophism, a Geology so\nout of line with Nature as revealed by the other sciences, that on _a\npriori_ grounds a thoughtful mind might have been justified in\ndismissing it as a final form of any science. And its fallacy was soon\nand thoroughly exposed. The advent of modified uniformitarian principles\nall but banished the word catastrophe from science, and marked the birth\nof Geology as we know it now. Geology, that is to say, had fallen at\nlast into the great scheme of Law. Religious doctrines, many of them at\nleast, have been up to this time all but as _catastrophic_ as the old\nGeology. They are not on the lines of Nature as we have learned to\ndecipher her. If any one feel, as Science complains that it feels, that\nthe lie of things in the Spiritual World as arranged by Theology is not\nin harmony with the world around, is not, in short, scientific, he is\nentitled to raise the question whether this be really the final form of\nthose departments of Theology to which his complaint refers. He is\njustified, moreover, in demanding a new investigation with all modern\nmethods and resources; and Science is bound by its principles not less\nthan by the lessons of its own past, to suspend judgment till the last\nattempt is made. The success of such an attempt will be looked forward\nto with hopefulness or fearfulness just in proportion to one's\nconfidence in Nature--in proportion to one's belief in the divinity of\nman and in the divinity of things. If there is any truth in the unity of\nNature, in that supreme principle of Continuity which is growing in\nsplendor with every discovery of science, the conclusion is foregone. If\nthere is any foundation for Theology, if the phenomena of the Spiritual\nWorld are real, in the nature of things they ought to come into the\nsphere of Law. Such is at once the demand of Science upon Religion and\nthe prophecy that it can and shall be fulfilled.\n\nThe Botany of Linnaeus, a purely artificial system, was a splendid\ncontribution to human knowledge, and did more in its day to enlarge the\nview of the vegetable kingdom than all that had gone before. But all\nartificial systems must pass away. None knew better than the great\nSwedish naturalist himself that his system, being artificial, was but\nprovisional. Nature must be read in its own light. And as the botanical\nfield became more luminous, the system of Jussieu and De Candolle slowly\nemerged as a native growth, unfolded itself as naturally as the petals\nof one of its own flowers, and forcing itself upon men's intelligence as\nthe very voice of Nature, banished the Linnaean system forever. It were\nunjust to say that the present Theology is as artificial as the system\nof Linnaeus; in many particulars it wants but a fresh expression to make\nit in the most modern sense scientific. But if it has a basis in the\nconstitution and course of Nature, that basis has never been adequately\nshown. It has depended on Authority rather than on Law; and a new basis\nmust be sought and found if it is to be presented to those with whom Law\nalone is Authority.\n\nIt is not of course to be inferred that the scientific method will ever\nabolish the radical distinctions of the Spiritual World. True science\nproposes to itself no such general leveling in any department. Within\nthe unity of the whole there must always be room for the characteristic\ndifferences of the parts, and those tendencies of thought at the present\ntime which ignore such distinctions, in their zeal for simplicity really\ncreate confusion. As has been well said by Mr. Hutton: \"Any attempt to\nmerge the distinctive characteristic of a higher science in a lower--of\nchemical changes in mechanical--of physiological in chemical--above all,\nof mental changes in physiological--is a neglect of the radical\nassumption of all science, because it is an attempt to deduce\nrepresentations--or rather misrepresentations--of one kind of phenomena\nfrom a conception of another kind which does not contain it, and must\nhave it implicitly and illicitly smuggled in before it can be extracted\nout of it. Hence, instead of increasing our means of representing the\nuniverse to ourselves without the detailed examination of particulars,\nsuch a procedure leads to misconstructions of fact on the basis of an\nimported theory, and generally ends in forcibly perverting the\nleast-known science to the type of the better known.\"[16]\n\nWhat is wanted is simply a unity of conception, but not such a unity of\nconception as should be founded on an absolute identity of phenomena.\nThis latter might indeed be a unity, but it would be a very tame one.\nThe perfection of unity is attained where there is infinite variety of\nphenomena, infinite complexity of relation, but great simplicity of\nLaw. Science will be complete when all known phenomena can be arranged\nin one vast circle in which a few well known Laws shall form the\nradii--these radii at once separating and uniting, separating into\nparticular groups, yet uniting all to a common center. To show that the\nradii for some of the most characteristic phenomena of the Spiritual\nWorld are already drawn within that circle by science is the main object\nof the papers which follow. There will be found an attempt to restate a\nfew of the more elementary facts of the Spiritual Life in terms of\nBiology. Any argument for Natural Law in the Spiritual World may be best\ntested in the _a posteriori_ form. And although the succeeding pages are\nnot designed in the first instance to prove a principle, they may yet be\nentered here as evidence. The practical test is a severe one, but on\nthat account all the more satisfactory.\n\nAnd what will be gained if the point be made out? Not a few things. For\none, as partly indicated already, the scientific demand of the age will\nbe satisfied. That demand is that all that concerns life and conduct\nshall be placed on a scientific basis. The only great attempt to meet\nthat at present is Positivism.\n\nBut what again is a scientific basis? What exactly is this demand of the\nage? \"By Science I understand,\" says Huxley, \"all knowledge which rests\nupon evidence and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our\nassent to ordinary scientific propositions; and if any one is able to\nmake good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and\nsound reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology must take its\nplace as a part of science.\" That the assertion has been already made\ngood is claimed by many who deserve to be heard on questions of\nscientific evidence. But if more is wanted by some minds, more not\nperhaps of a higher kind but of a different kind, at least the attempt\ncan be made to gratify them. Mr. Frederick Harrison,[17] in name of the\nPositive method of thought, \"turns aside from ideal standards which avow\nthemselves to be _lawless_ [the italics are Mr. Harrison's], which\nprofess to transcend the field of law. We say, life and conduct shall\nstand for us wholly on a basis of law, and must rest entirely in that\nregion of science (not physical, but moral and social science) where we\nare free to use our intelligence, in the methods known to us as\nintelligible logic, methods which the intellect can analyze. When you\nconfront us with hypotheses, however sublime and however affecting, if\nthey cannot be stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are\ndisparate to that world of sequence and sensation which to us is the\nultimate base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and\nturn aside.\" This is a most reasonable demand, and we humbly accept the\nchallenge. We think religious truth, or at all events certain of the\nlargest facts of the Spiritual Life, can be stated \"in terms of the rest\nof our knowledge.\"\n\nWe do not say, as already hinted, that the proposal includes an attempt\nto prove the existence of the Spiritual World. Does that need proof? And\nif so, what sort of evidence would be considered in court? The facts of\nthe Spiritual World are as real to thousands as the facts of the Natural\nWorld--and more real to hundreds. But were one asked to prove that the\nSpiritual World can be discerned by the appropriate faculties, one would\ndo it precisely as one would attempt to prove the Natural World to be an\nobject of recognition to the senses--and with as much or as little\nsuccess. In either instance probably the fact would be found incapable\nof demonstration, but not more in the one case than in the other. Were\none asked to prove the existence of Spiritual Life, one would also do it\nexactly as one would seek to prove Natural Life. And this perhaps might\nbe attempted with more hope. But this is not on the immediate\nprogramme. Science deals with known facts; and accepting certain known\nfacts in the Spiritual World we proceed to arrange them, to discover\ntheir Laws, to inquire if they can be stated \"in terms of the rest of\nour knowledge.\"\n\nAt the same time, although attempting no philosophical proof of the\nexistence of a Spiritual Life and a Spiritual World, we are not without\nhope that the general line of thought here may be useful to some who are\nhonestly inquiring in these directions. The stumbling-block to most\nminds is perhaps less the mere existence of the unseen than the want of\ndefinition, the apparently hopeless vagueness, and not least, the\ndelight in this vagueness as mere vagueness by some who look upon this\nas the mark of quality in Spiritual things. It will be at least\nsomething to tell earnest seekers that the Spiritual World is not a\ncastle in the air, of an architecture unknown to earth or heaven, but a\nfair ordered realm furnished with many familiar things and ruled by\nwell-remembered Laws.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to emphasize under a second head the gain in\nclearness. The Spiritual World as it stands is full of perplexity. One\ncan escape doubt only by escaping thought. With regard to many important\narticles of religion perhaps the best and the worst course at present\nopen to a doubter is simple credulity. Who is to answer for this state\nof things? It comes as a necessary tax for improvement on the age in\nwhich we live. The old ground of faith, Authority, is given up; the new,\nScience, has not yet taken its place. Men did not require to _see_ truth\nbefore; they only needed to believe it. Truth, therefore, had not been\nput by Theology in a seeing form--which, however, was its original form.\nBut now they ask to see it. And when it is shown them they start back in\ndespair. We shall not say what they see. But we shall say what they\nmight see. If the Natural Laws were run through the Spiritual World,\nthey might see the great lines of religious truth as clearly and simply\nas the broad lines of science. As they gazed into that Natural-Spiritual\nWorld they would say to themselves, \"We have seen something like this\nbefore. This order is known to us. It is not arbitrary. This Law here is\nthat old Law there, and this Phenomenon here, what can it be but that\nwhich stood in precisely the same relation to that Law yonder?\" And so\ngradually from the new form everything assumes new meaning. So the\nSpiritual World becomes slowly Natural; and, what is of all but equal\nmoment, the Natural World becomes slowly Spiritual. Nature is not a mere\nimage or emblem of the Spiritual. It is a working model of the\nSpiritual. In the Spiritual World the same wheels revolve--but without\nthe iron. The same figures flit across the stage, the same processes of\ngrowth go on, the same functions are discharged, the same biological\nlaws prevail--only with a different quality of {bios}. Plato's prisoner,\nif not out of the Cave, has at least his face to the light.\n\n    \"The earth is cram'd with heaven,\n    And every common bush afire with God.\"\n\nHow much of the Spiritual World is covered by Natural law we do not\npropose at present to inquire. It is certain, at least, that the whole\nis not covered. And nothing more lends confidence to the method than\nthis. For one thing, room is still left for mystery. Had no place\nremained for mystery it had proved itself both unscientific and\nirreligious. A Science without mystery is unknown; a Religion without\nmystery is absurd. This is no attempt to reduce Religion to a question\nof mathematics, or demonstrate God in biological formulae. The\nelimination of mystery from the universe is the elimination of Religion.\nHowever far the scientific method may penetrate the Spiritual World,\nthere will always remain a region to be explored by a scientific faith.\n\"I shall never rise to the point of view which wishes to 'raise' faith\nto knowledge. To me, the way of truth is to come through the knowledge\nof my ignorance to the submissiveness of faith, and then, making that\nmy starting place, to raise my knowledge into faith.\"[18]\n\nLest this proclamation of mystery should seem alarming, let us add that\nthis mystery also is scientific. The one subject on which all scientific\nmen are agreed, the one theme on which all alike become eloquent, the\none strain of pathos in all their writing and speaking and thinking,\nconcerns that final uncertainty, that utter blackness of darkness\nbounding their work on every side. If the light of Nature is to\nilluminate for us the Spiritual Sphere, there may well be a black\nUnknown, corresponding, at least at some points, to this zone of\ndarkness round the Natural World.\n\nBut the final gain would appear in the department of Theology. The\nestablishment of the Spiritual Laws on \"the solid ground of Nature,\" to\nwhich the mind trusts \"which builds for aye,\" would offer a new basis\nfor certainty in Religion. It has been indicated that the authority of\nAuthority is waning. This is a plain fact. And it was inevitable.\nAuthority--man's Authority, that is--is for children. And there\nnecessarily comes a time when they add to the question, What shall I do?\nor, What shall I believe? the adult's interrogation--Why? Now this\nquestion is sacred, and must be answered.\n\n\"How truly its central position is impregnable,\" Herbert Spencer has\nwell discerned, \"religion has never adequately realized. In the\ndevoutest faith, as we habitually see it, there lies hidden an innermost\ncore of scepticism; and it is this scepticism which causes that dread of\ninquiry displayed by religion when face to face with science.\"[19]\n\nTrue indeed; Religion has never realized how impregnable are many of its\npositions. It has not yet been placed on that basis which would make\nthem impregnable. And in a transition period like the present, holding\nAuthority with one hand, the other feeling all around in the darkness\nfor some strong new support, Theology is surely to be pitied. Whence\nthis dread when brought face to face with Science? It cannot be dread of\nscientific fact. No single fact in Science has ever discredited a fact\nin Religion. The theologian knows that, and admits that he has no fear\nof facts. What then has Science done to make Theology tremble? It is its\nmethod. It is its system. It is its Reign of Law. It is its harmony and\ncontinuity. The attack is not specific. No one point is assailed. It is\nthe whole system which when compared with the other and weighed in its\nbalance is found wanting. An eye which has looked at the first cannot\nlook upon this. To do that, and rest in the contemplation, it has first\nto uncentury itself.\n\nHerbert Spencer points out further, with how much truth need not now be\ndiscussed, that the purification of Religion has always come from\nScience. It is very apparent at all events that an immense debt must\nsoon be contracted. The shifting of the furnishings will be a work of\ntime. But it must be accomplished. And not the least result of the\nprocess will be the effect upon Science itself. No department of\nknowledge ever contributes to another without receiving its own again\nwith usury--witness the reciprocal favors of Biology and Sociology. From\nthe time that Comte defined the analogy between the phenomena exhibited\nby aggregations of associated men and those of animal colonies, the\nScience of Life and the Science of Society have been so contributing to\none another that their progress since has been all but hand-in-hand. A\nconception borrowed by the one has been observed in time finding its way\nback, and always in an enlarged form, to further illuminate and enrich\nthe field it left. So must it be with Science and Religion. If the\npurification of Religion comes from Science, the purification of\nScience, in a deeper sense, shall come from Religion. The true ministry\nof Nature must at last be honored, and Science take its place as the\ngreat expositor. To Men of Science, not less than to Theologians,\n\n                              \"Science then\n    Shall be a precious visitant; and then,\n    And only then, be worthy of her name;\n    For then her heart shall kindle, her dull eye,\n    Dull and inanimate, no more shall hang\n    Chained to its object in brute slavery;\n    But taught with patient interest to watch\n    The process of things, and serve the cause\n    Of order and distinctness, not for this\n    Shall it forget that its most noble use,\n    Its most illustrious province, must be found\n    In furnishing clear guidance, a support,\n    Not treacherous, to the mind's _excursive_ power.\"[20]\n\nBut the gift of Science to Theology shall be not less rich. With the\ninspiration of Nature to illuminate what the inspiration of Revelation\nhas left obscure, heresy in certain whole departments shall become\nimpossible. With the demonstration of the naturalness of the\nsupernatural, scepticism even may come to be regarded as unscientific.\nAnd those who have wrestled long for a few bare truths to ennoble life\nand rest their souls in thinking of the future will not be left in\ndoubt.\n\nIt is impossible to believe that the amazing succession of revelations\nin the domain of Nature during the last few centuries, at which the\nworld has all but grown tired wondering, are to yield nothing for the\nhigher life. If the development of doctrine is to have any meaning for\nthe future, Theology must draw upon the further revelation of the seen\nfor the further revelation of the unseen. It need, and can, add nothing\nto fact; but as the vision of Newton rested on a clearer and richer\nworld than that of Plato, so, though seeing the same things in the\nSpiritual World as our fathers, we may see them clearer and richer. With\nthe work of the centuries upon it, the mental eye is a finer instrument,\nand demands a more ordered world. Had the revelation of Law been given\nsooner, it had been unintelligible. Revelation never volunteers anything\nthat man could discover for himself--on the principle, probably, that it\nis only when he is capable of discovering it that he is capable of\nappreciating it. Besides, children do not need Laws, except Laws in the\nsense of commandments. They repose with simplicity on authority, and ask\nno questions. But there comes a time, as the world reaches its manhood,\nwhen they will ask questions, and stake, moreover, everything on the\nanswers. That time is now. Hence we must exhibit our doctrines, not\nlying athwart the lines of the world's thinking, in a place reserved,\nand therefore shunned, for the Great Exception; but in their kinship to\nall truth and in their Law-relation to the whole of Nature. This is,\nindeed, simply following out the system of teaching begun by Christ\nHimself. And what is the search for spiritual truth in the Laws of\nNature but an attempt to utter the parables which have been hid so long\nin the world around without a preacher, and to tell men at once more\nthat the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto this and to that?\n\n\nPART II.\n\nThe Law of Continuity having been referred to already as a prominent\nfactor in this inquiry, it may not be out of place to sustain the plea\nfor Natural Law in the Spiritual Sphere by a brief statement and\napplication of this great principle. The Law of Continuity furnishes an\n_a priori_ argument for the position we are attempting to establish of\nthe most convincing kind--of such a kind, indeed, as to seem to our mind\nfinal. Briefly indicated, the ground taken up is this, that if Nature be\na harmony, Man in all his relations--physical, mental, moral, and\nspiritual--falls to be included within its circle. It is altogether\nunlikely that man spiritual should be violently separated in all the\nconditions of growth, development, and life, from man physical. It is\nindeed difficult to conceive that one set of principles should guide the\nnatural life, and these at a certain period--the very point where they\nare needed--suddenly give place to another set of principles altogether\nnew and unrelated. Nature has never taught us to expect such a\ncatastrophe. She has nowhere prepared us for it. And Man cannot in the\nnature of things, in the nature of thought, in the nature of language,\nbe separated into two such incoherent halves.\n\nThe spiritual man, it is true, is to be studied in a different\ndepartment of science from the natural man. But the harmony established\nby science is not a harmony within specific departments. It is the\nuniverse that is the harmony, the universe of which these are but parts.\nAnd the harmonies of the parts depend for all their weight and interest\non the harmony of the whole. While, therefore, there are many\nharmonies, there is but one harmony. The breaking up of the phenomena of\nthe universe into carefully guarded groups, and the allocation of\ncertain prominent Laws to each, it must never be forgotten, and however\nmuch Nature lends herself to it, are artificial. We find an evolution in\nBotany, another in Geology, and another in Astronomy, and the effect is\nto lead one insensibly to look upon these as three distinct evolutions.\nBut these sciences, of course, are mere departments created by ourselves\nto facilitate knowledge--reductions of Nature to the scale of our own\nintelligence. And we must beware of breaking up Nature except for this\npurpose. Science has so dissected everything, that it becomes a mental\ndifficulty to put the puzzle together again; and we must keep ourselves\nin practice by constantly thinking of Nature as a whole, if science is\nnot to be spoiled by its own refinements. Evolution being found in so\nmany different sciences, the likelihood is that it is a universal\nprinciple. And there is no presumption whatever against this Law and\nmany others being excluded from the domain of the spiritual life. On the\nother hand, there are very convincing reasons why the Natural Laws\nshould be continuous through the Spiritual Sphere--not changed in any\nway to meet the new circumstances, but continuous as they stand.\n\nBut to the exposition. One of the most striking generalizations of\nrecent science is that even Laws have their Law. Phenomena first, in the\nprogress of knowledge, were grouped together, and Nature shortly\npresented the spectacle of a cosmos, the lines of beauty being the great\nNatural Laws. So long, however, as these Laws were merely great lines\nrunning through Nature, so long as they remained isolated from one\nanother, the system of Nature was still incomplete. The principle which\nsought Law among phenomena had to go further and seek a Law among the\nLaws. Laws themselves accordingly came to be treated as they treated\nphenomena, and found themselves finally grouped in a still narrower\ncircle. That inmost circle is governed by one great Law, the Law of\nContinuity. It is the Law for Laws.\n\nIt is perhaps significant that few exact definitions of Continuity are\nto be found. Even in Sir W. R. Grove's famous paper,[21] the\nfountain-head of the modern form of this far from modern truth, there is\nno attempt at definition. In point of fact, its sweep is so magnificent,\nit appeals so much more to the imagination than to the reason, that men\nhave preferred to exhibit rather than to define it. Its true greatness\nconsists in the final impression it leaves on the mind with regard to\nthe uniformity of Nature. For it was reserved for the Law of Continuity\nto put the finishing touch to the harmony of the universe.\n\nProbably the most satisfactory way to secure for one's self a just\nappreciation of the Principle of Continuity is to try to conceive the\nuniverse without it. The opposite of a continuous universe would be a\ndiscontinuous universe, an incoherent and irrelevant universe--as\nirrelevant in all its ways of doing things as an irrelevant person. In\neffect, to withdraw Continuity from the universe would be the same as to\nwithdraw reason from an individual. The universe would run deranged; the\nworld would be a mad world.\n\nThere used to be a children's book which bore the fascinating title of\n\"The Chance World.\" It described a world in which everything happened by\nchance. The sun might rise or it might not; or it might appear at any\nhour, or the moon might come up instead. When children were born they\nmight have one head or a dozen heads, and those heads might not be on\ntheir shoulders--there might be no shoulders--but arranged about the\nlimbs. If one jumped up in the air it was impossible to predict whether\nhe would ever come down again. That he came down yesterday was no\nguarantee that he would do it next time. For every day antecedent and\nconsequent varied, and gravitation and everything else changed from\nhour to hour. To-day a child's body might be so light that it was\nimpossible for it to descend from its chair to the floor; but to-morrow,\nin attempting the experiment again, the impetus might drive it through a\nthree-story house and dash it to pieces somewhere near the center of the\nearth. In this chance world cause and effect were abolished. Law was\nannihilated. And the result to the inhabitants of such a world could\nonly be that reason would be impossible. It would be a lunatic world\nwith a population of lunatics.\n\nNow this is no more than a real picture of what the world would be\nwithout Law, or the universe without Continuity. And hence we come in\nsight of the necessity of some principle of Law according to which Laws\nshall be, and be \"continuous\" throughout the system. Man as a rational\nand moral being demands a pledge that if he depends on Nature for any\ngiven result on the ground that Nature has previously led him to expect\nsuch a result, his intellect shall not be insulted, nor his confidence\nin her abused. If he is to trust Nature, in short, it must be guaranteed\nto him that in doing so he will \"never be put to confusion.\" The authors\nof the _Unseen Universe_ conclude their examination of this principle by\nsaying that \"assuming the existence of a supreme Governor of the\nuniverse, the Principle of Continuity may be said to be the definite\nexpression in words of our trust that He will not put us to permanent\nintellectual confusion, and we can easily conceive similar expressions\nof trust with reference to the other faculties of man.\"[22] Or, as it\nhas been well put elsewhere, Continuity is the expression of \"the Divine\nVeracity in Nature.\"[23] The most striking examples of the\ncontinuousness of Law are perhaps those furnished by Astronomy,\nespecially in connection with the more recent applications of spectrum\nanalysis. But even in the case of the simpler Laws the demonstration is\ncomplete. There is no reason apart from Continuity to expect that\ngravitation for instance should prevail outside our world. But wherever\nmatter has been detected throughout the entire universe, whether in the\nform of star or planet, comet or meteorite, it is found to obey that\nLaw. \"If there were no other indication of unity than this, it would be\nalmost enough. For the unity which is implied in the mechanism of the\nheavens is indeed a unity which is all-embracing and complete. The\nstructure of our own bodies, with all that depends upon it, is a\nstructure governed by, and therefore adapted to, the same force of\ngravitation which has determined the form and the movements of myriads\nof worlds. Every part of the human organism is fitted to conditions\nwhich would all be destroyed in a moment if the forces of gravitation\nwere to change or fail.\"[24]\n\nBut it is unnecessary to multiply illustrations. Having defined the\nprinciple we may proceed at once to apply it. And the argument may be\nsummed up in a sentence. As the Natural Laws are continuous through the\nuniverse of matter and of space, so will they be continuous through the\nuniverse of spirit.\n\nIf this be denied, what then? Those who deny it must furnish the\ndisproof. The argument is founded on a principle which is now\nacknowledged to be universal; and the _onus_ of disproof must lie with\nthose who may be bold enough to take up the position that a region\nexists where at last the Principle of Continuity fails. To do this one\nwould first have to overturn Nature, then science, and last, the human\nmind.\n\nIt may seem an obvious objection that many of the Natural Laws have no\nconnection whatever with the Spiritual World, and as a matter of fact\nare not continued through it. Gravitation for instance--what direct\napplication has that in the Spiritual World? The reply is threefold.\nFirst, there is no proof that it does not hold there. If the spirit be\nin any sense material it certainly must hold. In the second place,\ngravitation may hold for the Spiritual Sphere although it cannot be\ndirectly proved. The spirit may be armed with powers which enable it to\nrise superior to gravity. During the action of these powers gravity need\nbe no more suspended than in the case of a plant which rises in the air\nduring the process of growth. It does this in virtue of a higher Law and\nin apparent defiance of the lower. Thirdly, if the spiritual be not\nmaterial it still cannot be said that gravitation ceases at that point\nto be continuous. It is not gravitation that ceases--it is matter.\n\nThis point, however, will require development for another reason. In the\ncase of the plant just referred to, there is a principle of growth or\nvitality at work superseding the attraction of gravity. Why is there no\ntrace of that Law in the Inorganic world? Is not this another instance\nof the discontinuousness of Law? If the Law of vitality has so little\nconnection with the Inorganic kingdom--less even than gravitation with\nthe Spiritual, what becomes of Continuity? Is it not evident that each\nkingdom of Nature has its own set of Laws which continue possibly\nuntouched for the specific kingdom but never extend beyond it?\n\nIt is quite true that when we pass from the Inorganic to the Organic, we\ncome upon a new set of Laws. But the reason why the lower set do not\nseem to act in the higher sphere is not that they are annihilated, but\nthat they are overruled. And the reason why the higher Laws are not\nfound operating in the lower is not because they are not continuous\ndownward, but because there is nothing for them there to act upon. It is\nnot Law that fails, but opportunity. The biological Laws are continuous\nfor life. Wherever there is life, that is to say, they will be found\nacting, just as gravitation acts wherever there is matter.\n\nWe have purposely, in the last paragraph, indulged in a fallacy. We\nhave said that the biological Laws would certainly be continuous in the\nlower or mineral sphere were there anything there for them to act upon.\nNow Laws do not act upon anything. It has been stated already, although\napparently it cannot be too abundantly emphasized, that Laws are only\nmodes of operation, not themselves operators. The accurate statement,\ntherefore, would be that the biological Laws would be continuous in the\nlower sphere were there anything there for them, not to act upon, but to\nkeep in order. If there is no acting going on, if there is nothing being\nkept in order, the responsibility does not lie with Continuity. The Law\nwill always be at its post, not only when its services are required, but\nwherever they are possible.\n\nAttention is drawn to this, for it is a correction one will find one's\nself compelled often to make in his thinking. It is so difficult to keep\nout of mind the idea of substance in connection with the Natural Laws,\nthe idea that they are the movers, the essences, the energies, that one\nis constantly on the verge of falling into false conclusions. Thus a\nhasty glance at the present argument on the part of any one\nill-furnished enough to confound Law with substance or with cause would\nprobably lead to its immediate rejection. For, to continue the same line\nof illustration, it might next be urged that such a Law as Biogenesis,\nwhich, as we hope to show afterward, is the fundamental Law of life for\nboth the natural and spiritual worlds, can have no application\nwhatsoever in the latter sphere. The _life_ with which it deals in the\nNatural World does not enter at all into the Spiritual World, and\ntherefore, it might be argued, the Law of Biogenesis cannot be capable\nof extension into it. The Law of Continuity seems to be snapped at the\npoint where the natural passes into the spiritual. The vital principle\nof the body is a different thing from the vital principle of the\nspiritual life. Biogenesis deals with {bios}, with the natural life,\nwith cells and germs, and as there are no exactly similar cells and\ngerms in the Spiritual World, the Law cannot therefore apply. All which\nis as true as if one were to say that the fifth proposition of the First\nBook of Euclid applies when the figures are drawn with chalk upon a\nblackboard, but fails with regard to structures of wood or stone.\n\nThe proposition is continuous for the whole world, and, doubtless,\nlikewise for the sun and moon and stars. The same universality may be\npredicated likewise for the Law of life. Wherever there is life we may\nexpect to find it arranged, ordered, governed according to the same Law.\nAt the beginning of the natural life we find the Law that natural life\ncan only come from preexisting natural life; and at the beginning of the\nspiritual life we find that the spiritual life can only come from\npreexisting spiritual life. But there are not two Laws; there is\none--Biogenesis. At one end the Law is dealing with matter, at the other\nwith spirit. The qualitative terms natural and spiritual make no\ndifference. Biogenesis is the Law for all life and for all kinds of\nlife, and the particular substance with which it is associated is as\nindifferent to Biogenesis as it is to Gravitation. Gravitation will act\nwhether the substance be suns and stars, or grains of sand, or\nraindrops. Biogenesis, in like manner, will act wherever there is life.\n\nThe conclusion finally is, that from the nature of Law in general, and\nfrom the scope of the Principle of Continuity in particular, the Laws of\nthe natural life must be those of the spiritual life. This does not\nexclude, observe, the possibility of there being new Laws in addition\nwithin the Spiritual Sphere; nor does it even include the supposition\nthat the old Laws will be the conspicuous Laws of the Spiritual World,\nboth which points will be dealt with presently. It simply asserts that\nwhatever else may be found, these must be found there; that they must be\nthere though they may not be seen there; and that they must project\nbeyond there if there be anything beyond there. If the Law of Continuity\nis true, the only way to escape the conclusion that the Laws of the\nnatural life are the Laws, or at least are Laws, of the spiritual life,\nis to say that there is no spiritual life. It is really easier to give\nup the phenomena than to give up the Law.\n\nTwo questions now remain for further consideration--one bearing on the\npossibility of new Law in the spiritual; the other, on the assumed\ninvisibility or inconspicuousness of the old Laws on account of their\nsubordination to the new.\n\nLet us begin by conceding that there may be new Laws. The argument might\nthen be advanced that since, in Nature generally, we come upon new Laws\nas we pass from lower to higher kingdoms, the old still remaining in\nforce, the newer Laws which one would expect to meet in the Spiritual\nWorld would so transcend and overwhelm the older as to make the analogy\nor identity, even if traced, of no practical use. The new Laws would\nrepresent operations and energies so different, and so much more\nelevated, that they would afford the true keys to the Spiritual World.\nAs Gravitation is practically lost sight of when we pass into the domain\nof life, so Biogenesis would be lost sight of as we enter the Spiritual\nSphere.\n\nWe must first separate in this statement the old confusion of Law and\nenergy. Gravitation is not lost sight of in the organic world. Gravity\nmay be, to a certain extent, but not Gravitation; and gravity only where\na higher power counteracts its action. At the same time it is not to be\ndenied that the conspicuous thing in Organic Nature is not the great\nInorganic Law.\n\nBut the objection turns upon the statement that reasoning from analogy\nwe should expect, in turn, to lose sight of Biogenesis as we enter the\nSpiritual Sphere. One answer to which is that, as a matter of fact, we\ndo not lose sight of it. So far from being invisible, it lies across the\nvery threshold of the Spiritual World, and, as we shall see, pervades it\neverywhere. What we lose sight of, to a certain extent, is the natural\n{bios}. In the Spiritual World that is not the conspicuous thing, and it\nis obscure there just as gravity becomes obscure in the Organic, because\nsomething higher, more potent, more characteristic of the higher plane,\ncomes in. That there are higher energies, so to speak, in the Spiritual\nWorld is, of course, to be affirmed alike on the ground of analogy and\nof experience; but it does not follow that these necessitate other Laws.\nA Law has nothing to do with potency. We may lose sight of a substance,\nor of an energy, but it is an abuse of language to talk of losing sight\nof Laws.\n\nAre there, then, no other Laws in the Spiritual World except those which\nare the projections or extensions of Natural Laws? From the number of\nNatural Laws which are found in the higher sphere, from the large\nterritory actually embraced by them, and from their special prominence\nthroughout the whole region, it may at least be answered that the margin\nleft for them is small. But if the objection is pressed that it is\ncontrary to the analogy, and unreasonable in itself, that there should\nnot be new Laws for this higher sphere, the reply is obvious. Let these\nLaws be produced. If the spiritual nature, in inception, growth, and\ndevelopment, does not follow natural principles, let the true principles\nbe stated and explained. We have not denied that there may be new Laws.\nOne would almost be surprised if there were not. The mass of material\nhanded over from the natural to the spiritual, continuous, apparently,\nfrom the natural to the spiritual, is so great that till that is worked\nout it will be impossible to say what space is still left unembraced by\nLaws that are known. At present it is impossible even approximately to\nestimate the size of that supposed _terra incognita_. From one point of\nview it ought to be vast, from another extremely small. But however\nlarge the region governed by the suspected new Laws may be that cannot\ndiminish by a hair's-breadth the size of the territory where the old\nLaws still prevail. That territory itself, relatively to us though\nperhaps not absolutely, must be of great extent. The size of the key\nwhich is to open it, that is, the size of all the Natural Laws which can\nbe found to apply, is a guarantee that the region of the knowable in the\nSpiritual World is at least as wide as these regions of the Natural\nWorld which by the help of these Laws have been explored. No doubt also\nthere yet remain some Natural Laws to be discovered, and these in time\nmay have a further light to shed on the spiritual field. Then we may\nknow all that is? By no means. We may only know all that may be known.\nAnd that may be very little. The Sovereign Will which sways the scepter\nof that invisible empire must be granted a right of freedom--that\nfreedom which by putting it into our wills He surely teaches us to honor\nin His. In much of His dealing with us also, in what may be called the\npaternal relation, there may seem no special Law--no Law except the\nhighest of all, that Law of which all other Laws are parts, that Law\nwhich neither Nature can wholly reflect nor the mind begin to\nfathom--the Law of Love. He adds nothing to that, however, who loses\nsight of all other Laws in that, nor does he take from it who finds\nspecific Laws everywhere radiating from it.\n\nWith regard to the supposed new Laws of the Spiritual World--those Laws,\nthat is, which are found for the first time in the Spiritual World, and\nhave no analogies lower down--there is this to be said, that there is\none strong reason against exaggerating either their number or\nimportance--their importance at least for our immediate needs. The\nconnection between language and the Law of Continuity has been referred\nto incidentally already. It is clear that we can only express the\nSpiritual Laws in language borrowed from the visible universe. Being\ndependent for our vocabulary on images, if an altogether new and foreign\nset of Laws existed in the Spiritual World, they could never take shape\nas definite ideas from mere want of words. The hypothetical new Laws\nwhich may remain to be discovered in the domain of Natural or Mental\nScience may afford some index of these hypothetical higher Laws, but\nthis would of course mean that the latter were no longer foreign but in\nanalogy, or, likelier still, identical. If, on the other hand, the\nNatural Laws of the future have nothing to say of these higher Laws,\nwhat can be said of them? Where is the language to come from in which to\nframe them? If their disclosure could be of any practical use to us, we\nmay be sure the clue to them, the revelation of them, in some way would\nhave been put into Nature. If, on the contrary, they are not to be of\nimmediate use to man, it is better they should not embarrass him. After\nall, then, our knowledge of higher Law must be limited by our knowledge\nof the lower. The Natural Laws as at present known, whatever additions\nmay yet be made to them, give a fair rendering of the facts of Nature.\nAnd their analogies or their projections in the Spiritual sphere may\nalso be said to offer a fair account of that sphere, or of one or two\nconspicuous departments of it. The time has come for that account to be\ngiven. The greatest among the theological Laws are the Laws of Nature in\ndisguise. It will be the splendid task of the theology of the future to\ntake off the mask and disclose to a waning scepticism the naturalness of\nthe supernatural.\n\nIt is almost singular that the identification of the Laws of the\nSpiritual World with the Laws of Nature should so long have escaped\nrecognition. For apart from the probability on _a priori_ grounds, it is\ninvolved in the whole structure of Parable. When any two Phenomena in\nthe two spheres are seen to be analogous, the parallelism must depend\nupon the fact that the Laws governing them are not analogous but\nidentical. And yet this basis for Parable seems to have been overlooked.\nThus Principal Shairp:--\"This seeing of Spiritual truths mirrored in the\nface of Nature rests not on any fancied, but in a real analogy between\nthe natural and the spiritual worlds. They are _in some sense which\nscience has not ascertained_, but which the vital and religious\nimagination can perceive, counterparts one of the other.\"[25] But is not\nthis the explanation, that parallel Phenomena depend upon identical\nLaws? It is a question indeed whether one can speak of Laws at all as\nbeing analogous. Phenomena are parallel, Laws which make them so are\nthemselves one.\n\nIn discussing the relations of the Natural and Spiritual kingdom, it has\nbeen all but implied hitherto that the Spiritual Laws were framed\noriginally on the plan of the Natural; and the impression one might\nreceive in studying the two worlds for the first time from the side of\nanalogy would naturally be that the lower world was formed first, as a\nkind of scaffolding on which the higher and Spiritual should be\nafterward raised. Now the exact opposite has been the case. The first in\nthe field was the Spiritual World.\n\nIt is not necessary to reproduce here in detail the argument which has\nbeen stated recently with so much force in the \"Unseen Universe.\" The\nconclusion of that work remains still unassailed, that the visible\nuniverse has been developed from the unseen. Apart from the general\nproof from the Law of Continuity, the more special grounds of such a\nconclusion are, first, the fact insisted upon by Herschel and\nClerk-Maxwell that the atoms of which the visible universe is built up\nbear distinct marks of being manufactured articles; and, secondly, the\norigin in time of the visible universe is implied from known facts with\nregard to the dissipation of energy. With the gradual aggregation of\nmass the energy of the universe has been slowly disappearing, and this\nloss of energy must go on until none remains. There is, therefore, a\npoint in time when the energy of the universe must come to an end; and\nthat which has its end in time cannot be infinite, it must also have had\na beginning in time. Hence the unseen existed before the seen.\n\nThere is nothing so especially exalted therefore in the Natural Laws in\nthemselves as to make one anxious to find them blood relations of the\nSpiritual. It is not only because these Laws are on the ground, more\naccessible therefore to us who are but groundlings; not only, as the\n\"Unseen Universe\" points out in another connection, \"because they are at\nthe bottom of the list--are in fact the simplest and lowest--that they\nare capable of being most readily grasped by the finite intelligences of\nthe universe.\"[26] But their true significance lies in the fact that\nthey are on the list at all, and especially in that the list is the same\nlist. Their dignity is not as Natural Laws, but as Spiritual Laws, Laws\nwhich, as already said, at one end are dealing with Matter, and at the\nother with Spirit. \"The physical properties of matter form the alphabet\nwhich is put into our hands by God, the study of which, if properly\nconducted, will enable us more perfectly to read that great book which\nwe call the 'Universe.'\"[27] But, over and above this, the Natural Laws\nwill enable us to read that great duplicate which we call the \"Unseen\nUniverse,\" and to think and live in fuller harmony with it. After all,\nthe true greatness of Law lies in its vision of the Unseen. Law in the\nvisible is the Invisible in the visible. And to speak of Laws as Natural\nis to define them in their application to a part of the universe, the\nsense-part, whereas a wider survey would lead us to regard all Law as\nessentially Spiritual. To magnify the Laws of Nature, as Laws of this\nsmall world of ours, is to take a provincial view of the universe. Law\nis great not because the phenomenal world is great, but because these\nvanishing lines are the avenues into the eternal Order. \"It is less\nreverent to regard the universe as an illimitable avenue which leads up\nto God, than to look upon it as a limited area bounded by an\nimpenetrable wall, which, if we could only pierce it would admit us at\nonce into the presence of the Eternal?\"[28] Indeed the authors of the\n\"Unseen Universe\" demur even to the expression _material universe_,\nsince, as they tell us \"Matter is (though it may seem paradoxical to say\nso) the less important half of the material of the physical\nuniverse.\"[29] And even Mr. Huxley, though in a different sense, assures\nus, with Descartes, \"that we know more of mind than we do of body; that\nthe immaterial world is a firmer reality than the material.\"[30]\n\nHow the priority of the Spiritual improves the strength and meaning of\nthe whole argument will be seen at once. The lines of the Spiritual\nexisted first, and it was natural to expect that when the \"Intelligence\nresident in the 'Unseen'\" proceeded to frame the material universe He\nshould go upon the lines already laid down. He would, in short, simply\nproject the higher Laws downward, so that the Natural World would become\nan incarnation, a visible representation, a working model of the\nspiritual. The whole function of the material world lies here. The world\nis only a thing that is; it is not. It is a thing that teaches, yet not\neven a thing--a show that shows, a teaching shadow. However useless the\ndemonstration otherwise, philosophy does well in proving that matter is\na non-entity. We work with it as the mathematician with an _x_. The\nreality is alone the Spiritual. \"It is very well for physicists to speak\nof 'matter,' but for men generally to call this 'a material world' is an\nabsurdity. Should we call it an _x_-world it would mean as much, viz.,\nthat we do not know what it is.\"[31] When shall we learn the true\nmysticism of one who was yet far from being a mystic--\"We look not at\nthe things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the\nthings which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen\nare eternal?\"[32] The visible is the ladder up to the invisible; the\ntemporal is but the scaffolding of the eternal. And when the last\nimmaterial souls have climbed through this material to God, the\nscaffolding shall be taken down, and the earth dissolved with fervent\nheat--not because it was base, but because its work is done.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] \"Reign of Law,\" chap. ii.\n\n[4] \"Animal Kingdom.\"\n\n[5] \"Sartor Resartus,\" 1858 Ed., p. 43.\n\n[6] Even parable, however, has always been considered to have attached\nto it a measure of evidential as well as of illustrative value. Thus:\n\"The parable or other analogy to spiritual truth appropriated from the\nworld of nature or man, is not merely illustrative, but also in some\nsort proof. It is not merely that these analogies assist to make the\ntruth intelligible or, if intelligible before, present it more vividly\nto the mind, which is all that some will allow them. Their power lies\ndeeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by all men, and\nwhich all deeper minds have delighted to trace, between the natural and\nspiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be\nsomething more than illustrations happily but yet arbitrarily chosen.\nThey are arguments, and may be alleged as witnesses; the world of nature\nbeing throughout a witness for the world of spirit, proceeding from the\nsame hand, growing out of the same root, and being constituted for that\nvery end.\"--(Archbishop Trench: \"Parables,\" pp. 12, 13.)\n\n[7] Mill's \"Logic,\" vol. ii. p. 96.\n\n[8] Campbell's \"Rhetoric,\" vol. i. p. 114.\n\n[9] \"Nature and the Supernatural,\" p. 19.\n\n[10] \"The Scientific Basis of Faith.\" By J. J. Murphy, p. 466.\n\n[11] Op. cit., p. 333.\n\n[12] _Ibid._, p. 333.\n\n[13] _Ibid._, p. 331.\n\n[14] \"Analogy,\" chap. vii.\n\n[15] \"Unseen Universe,\" 6th Ed., pp. 89, 90.\n\n[16] \"Essays,\" vol. i. p. 40.\n\n[17] \"A Modern Symposium.\"--_Nineteenth Century_, vol. i. p. 625.\n\n[18] Beck: \"Bib. Psychol.,\" Clark's Tr., Pref., 2d Ed., p. xiii.\n\n[19] \"First Principles,\" p. 161.\n\n[20] Wordsworth's _Excursion_, Book iv.\n\n[21] \"The Correlation of Physical Forces,\" 6th Ed., p. 181 _et seq._\n\n[22] \"Unseen Universe,\" 6th Ed., p. 88.\n\n[23] \"Old Faiths in New Light,\" by Newman Smith. Unwin's English\nedition, p. 252.\n\n[24] The Duke of Argyll: _Contemporary Review_, Sept., 1880, p. 358.\n\n[25] \"Poetic Interpretation of Nature,\" p. 115.\n\n[26] 6th edition, p. 235.\n\n[27] _Ibid._, p. 286.\n\n[28] \"Unseen Universe,\" p. 96.\n\n[29] \"Unseen Universe,\" p. 100.\n\n[30] \"Science and Culture,\" p. 259.\n\n[31] Hinton's \"Philosophy and Religion,\" p. 40.\n\n[32] 2 Cor. iv. 18.\n\n\n\n\nBIOGENESIS.\n\n    \"What we require is no new Revelation, but simply an adequate\n    conception of the true essence of Christianity. And I believe that,\n    as time goes on, the work of the Holy Spirit will be continuously\n    shown in the gradual insight which the human race will attain into\n    the true essence of the Christian religion. I am thus of opinion\n    that a standing miracle exists, and that it has ever existed--a\n    direct and continued influence exerted by the supernatural on the\n    natural.\"--_Paradoxical Philosophy._\n\n    \"He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son of God\n    hath not Life.\"--_John._\n\n    \"Omne vivum ex vivo.\"--_Harvey._\n\n\nFor two hundred years the scientific world has been rent with\ndiscussions upon the Origin of Life. Two great schools have defended\nexactly opposite views--one that matter can spontaneously generate life,\nthe other that life can only come from preexisting life. The doctrine of\nSpontaneous Generation, as the first is called, has been revived within\nrecent years by Dr. Bastian, after a series of elaborate experiments on\nthe Beginnings of Life. Stated in his own words, his conclusion is this:\n\"Both observation and experiment unmistakably testify to the fact that\nliving matter is constantly being formed _de novo_, in obedience to the\nsame laws and tendencies which determined all the more simple chemical\ncombinations.\"[33] Life, that is to say, is not the Gift of Life. It is\ncapable of springing into being of itself. It can be Spontaneously\nGenerated.\n\nThis announcement called into the field a phalanx of observers, and the\nhighest authorities in biological science engaged themselves afresh\nupon the problem. The experiments necessary to test the matter can be\nfollowed or repeated by any one possessing the slightest manipulative\nskill. Glass vessels are three-parts filled with infusions of hay or any\norganic matter. They are boiled to kill all germs of life, and\nhermetically sealed to exclude the outer air. The air inside, having\nbeen exposed to the boiling temperature for many hours, is supposed to\nbe likewise dead; so that any life which may subsequently appear in the\nclosed flasks must have sprung into being of itself. In Bastian's\nexperiments, after every expedient to secure sterility, life did appear\ninside in myriad quantity. Therefore, he argued, it was spontaneously\ngenerated.\n\nBut the phalanx of observers found two errors in this calculation.\nProfessor Tyndall repeated the same experiment, only with a precaution\nto insure absolute sterility suggested by the most recent science--a\ndiscovery of his own. After every care, he conceived there might still\nbe undestroyed germs in the air inside the flasks. If the air were\nabsolutely germless and pure, would the myriad-life appear? He\nmanipulated his experimental vessels in an atmosphere which under the\nhigh test of optical purity--the most delicate known test--was\nabsolutely germless. Here not a vestige of life appeared. He varied the\nexperiment in every direction, but matter in the germless air never\nyielded life.\n\nThe other error was detected by Mr. Dallinger. He found among the lower\nforms of life the most surprising and indestructible vitality. Many\nanimals could survive much higher temperatures than Dr. Bastian had\napplied to annihilate them. Some germs almost refused to be\nannihilated--they were all but fire-proof.\n\nThese experiments have practically closed the question. A decided and\nauthoritative conclusion has now taken its place in science. So far as\nscience can settle anything, this question is settled. The attempt to\nget the living out of the dead has failed. Spontaneous Generation has\nhad to be given up. And it is now recognized on every hand that Life can\nonly come from the touch of Life. Huxley categorically announces that\nthe doctrine of Biogenesis, or life only from life, is \"victorious along\nthe whole line at the present day.\"[34] And even while confessing that\nhe wishes the evidence were the other way, Tyndall is compelled to say,\n\"I affirm that no shred of trustworthy experimental testimony exists to\nprove that life in our day has ever appeared independently of antecedent\nlife.\"[35]\n\nFor much more than two hundred years a similar discussion has dragged\nits length through the religious world. Two great schools here also have\ndefended exactly opposite views--one that the Spiritual Life in man can\nonly come from preexisting Life, the other that it can Spontaneously\nGenerate itself. Taking its stand upon the initial statement of the\nAuthor of the Spiritual Life, one small school, in the face of derision\nand opposition, has persistently maintained the doctrine of Biogenesis.\nAnother, larger and with greater pretension to philosophic form, has\ndefended Spontaneous Generation. The weakness of the former school\nconsists--though this has been much exaggerated--in its more or less\ngeneral adherence to the extreme view that religion had nothing to do\nwith the natural life; the weakness of the latter lay in yielding to the\nmore fatal extreme that it had nothing to do with anything else. That\nman, being a worshiping animal by nature, ought to maintain certain\nrelations to the Supreme Being, was indeed to some extent conceded by\nthe naturalistic school, but religion itself we looked upon as a thing\nto be spontaneously generated by the evolution of character in the\nlaboratory of common life.\n\nThe difference between the two positions is radical. Translating from\nthe language of Science into that of Religion, the theory of\nSpontaneous Generation is simply that a man may become gradually better\nand better until in course of the process he reaches that quantity of\nreligious nature known as Spiritual Life. This Life is not something\nadded _ab extra_ to the natural man; it is the normal and appropriate\ndevelopment of the natural man. Biogenesis opposes to this the whole\ndoctrine of Regeneration. The Spiritual Life is the gift of the Living\nSpirit. The spiritual man is no mere development of the natural man. He\nis a New Creation born from Above. As well expect a hay infusion to\nbecome gradually more and more living until in course of the process it\nreached Vitality, as expect a man by becoming better and better to\nattain the Eternal Life.\n\nThe advocates of Biogenesis in Religion have founded their argument\nhitherto all but exclusively on Scripture. The relation of the doctrine\nto the constitution and course of Nature was not disclosed. Its\nimportance, therefore, was solely as a dogma; and being directly\nconcerned with the Supernatural, it was valid for those alone who chose\nto accept the Supernatural.\n\nYet it has been keenly felt by those who attempt to defend this doctrine\nof the origin of the Spiritual Life, that they have nothing more to\noppose to the rationalistic view than the _ipse dixit_ of Revelation.\nThe argument from experience, in the nature of the case, is seldom easy\nto apply, and Christianity has always found at this point a genuine\ndifficulty in meeting the challenge of Natural Religions. The direct\nauthority of Nature, using Nature in its limited sense, was not here to\nbe sought for. On such a question its voice was necessarily silent; and\nall that the apologist could look for lower down was a distant echo or\nanalogy. All that is really possible, indeed, is such an analogy; and if\nthat can now be found in Biogenesis, Christianity in its most central\nposition secures at length a support and basis in the Laws of Nature.\n\nUp to the present time the analogy required has not been forthcoming.\nThere was no known parallel in Nature for the spiritual phenomena in\nquestion. But now the case is altered. With the elevation of Biogenesis\nto the rank of a scientific fact, all problems concerning the Origin of\nLife are placed on a different footing. And it remains to be seen\nwhether Religion cannot at once reaffirm and re-shape its argument in\nthe light of this modern truth.\n\nIf the doctrine of the Spontaneous Generation of Spiritual Life can be\nmet on scientific grounds, it will mean the removal of the most serious\nenemy Christianity has to deal with, and especially within its own\nborders, at the present day. The religion of Jesus has probably always\nsuffered more from those who have misunderstood than from those who have\nopposed it. Of the multitudes who confess Christianity at this hour how\nmany have clear in their minds the cardinal distinction established by\nits Founder between \"born of the flesh\" and \"born of the Spirit?\" By how\nmany teachers of Christianity even is not this fundamental postulate\npersistently ignored? A thousand modern pulpits every seventh day are\npreaching the doctrine of Spontaneous Generation. The finest and best of\nrecent poetry is colored with this same error. Spontaneous Generation is\nthe leading theology of the modern religious or irreligious novel; and\nmuch of the most serious and cultured writing of the day devotes itself\nto earnest preaching of this impossible gospel. The current conception\nof the Christian religion in short--the conception which is held not\nonly popularly but by men of culture--is founded upon a view of its\norigin which, if it were true, would render the whole scheme abortive.\n\nLet us first place vividly in our imagination the picture of the two\ngreat Kingdoms of Nature, the inorganic and organic, as these now stand\nin the light of the Law of Biogenesis. What essentially is involved in\nsaying that there is no Spontaneous Generation of Life? It is meant that\nthe passage from the mineral world to the plant or animal world is\nhermetically sealed on the mineral side. This inorganic world is staked\noff from the living world by barriers which have never yet been crossed\nfrom within. No change of substance, no modification of environment, no\nchemistry, no electricity, nor any form of energy, nor any evolution can\nendow any single atom of the mineral world with the attribute of Life.\nOnly by the bending down into this dead world of some living form can\nthese dead atoms be gifted with the properties of vitality, without this\npreliminary contact with Life they remain fixed in the inorganic sphere\nforever. It is a very mysterious Law which guards in this way the\nportals of the living world. And if there is one thing in Nature more\nworth pondering for its strangeness it is the spectacle of this vast\nhelpless world of the dead cut off from the living by the Law of\nBiogenesis and denied forever the possibility of resurrection within\nitself. So very strange a thing, indeed, is this broad line in Nature,\nthat Science has long and urgently sought to obliterate it. Biogenesis\nstands in the way of some forms of Evolution with such stern persistency\nthat the assaults upon this Law for number and thoroughness have been\nunparalleled. But, as we have seen, it has stood the test. Nature, to\nthe modern eye, stands broken in two. The physical Laws may explain the\ninorganic world; the biological Laws may account for the development of\nthe organic. But of the point where they meet, of that strange\nborderland between the dead and the living, Science is silent. It is as\nif God had placed everything in earth and heaven in the hands of Nature,\nbut reserved a point at the genesis of Life for His direct appearing.\n\nThe power of the analogy, for which we are laying the foundations, to\nseize and impress the mind, will largely depend on the vividness with\nwhich one realizes the gulf which Nature places between the living and\nthe dead.[36] But those who, in contemplating Nature, have found their\nattention arrested by this extraordinary dividing-line severing the\nvisible universe eternally into two; those who in watching the progress\nof science have seen barrier after barrier disappear--barrier between\nplant and plant, between animal and animal, and even between animal and\nplant--but this gulf yawn more hopelessly wide with every advance of\nknowledge, will be prepared to attach a significance to the Law of\nBiogenesis and its analogies more profound perhaps than to any other\nfact or law in Nature. If, as Pascal says, Nature is an image of grace;\nif the things that are seen are in any sense the images of the unseen,\nthere must lie in this great gulf fixed, this most unique and startling\nof all natural phenomena, a meaning of peculiar moment.\n\nWhere now in the Spiritual spheres shall we meet a companion phenomena\nto this? What in the Unseen shall be likened to this deep dividing-line,\nor where in human experience is another barrier which never can be\ncrossed?\n\nThere is such a barrier. In the dim but not inadequate vision of the\nSpiritual World presented in the Word of God, the first thing that\nstrikes the eye is a great gulf fixed. The passage from the Natural\nWorld to the Spiritual World is hermetically sealed on the natural side.\nThe door from the inorganic to the organic is shut, no mineral can open\nit; so the door from the natural to the spiritual is shut, and no man\ncan open it. This world of natural men is staked off from the Spiritual\nWorld by barriers which have never yet been crossed from within. No\norganic change, no modification of environment, no mental energy, no\nmoral effort, no evolution of character, no progress of civilization can\nendow any single human soul with the attribute of Spiritual Life. The\nSpiritual World is guarded from the world next in order beneath it by a\nlaw of Biogenesis--_except a man be born again ... except a man be born\nof water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God_.\n\nIt is not said, in this enunciation of the law, that if the condition be\nnot fulfilled the natural man _will not_ enter the Kingdom of God. The\nword is _cannot_. For the exclusion of the spiritually inorganic from\nthe Kingdom of the spiritually organic is not arbitrary. Nor is the\nnatural man refused admission on unexplained grounds. His admission is a\nscientific impossibility. Except a mineral be born \"from above\"--from\nthe Kingdom just _above_ it--it cannot enter the Kingdom just above it.\nAnd except a man be born \"from above,\" by the same law, he cannot enter\nthe Kingdom just above him. There being no passage from one Kingdom to\nanother, whether from inorganic to organic, or from organic to\nspiritual, the intervention of Life is a scientific necessity if a stone\nor a plant or an animal or a man is to pass from a lower to a higher\nsphere. The plant stretches down to the dead world beneath it, touches\nits minerals and gases with its mystery of Life, and brings them up\nennobled and transformed to the living sphere. The breath of God,\nblowing where it listeth, touches with its mystery of Life the dead\nsouls of men, bears them across the bridgeless gulf between the natural\nand the spiritual, between the spiritually inorganic and the spiritually\norganic, endows them with its own high qualities, and develops within\nthem these new and secret faculties, by which those who are born again\nare said to _see the Kingdom of God_.\n\nWhat is the evidence for this great gulf fixed at the portals of the\nSpiritual World? Does Science close this gate, or Reason, or Experience,\nor Revelation? We reply, all four. The initial statement, it is not to\nbe denied, reaches us from Revelation. But is not this evidence here in\ncourt? Or shall it be said that any argument deduced from this is a\ntransparent circle--that after all we simply come back to the\nunsubstantiality of the _ipse dixit_? Not altogether, for the analogy\nlends an altogether new authority to the _ipse dixit_. How substantial\nthat argument really is, is seldom realized. We yield the point here\nmuch too easily. The right of the Spiritual World to speak of its own\nphenomena is as secure as the right of the Natural World to speak of\nitself. What is Science but what the Natural World has said to natural\nmen? What is Revelation but what the Spiritual World has said to\nSpiritual men? Let us at least ask what Revelation has announced with\nreference to this Spiritual Law of Biogenesis; afterward we shall\ninquire whether Science, while indorsing the verdict, may not also have\nsome further vindication of its title to be heard.\n\nThe words of Scripture which preface this inquiry contain an explicit\nand original statement of the Law of Biogenesis for the Spiritual Life.\n\"He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son of God\nhath not Life.\" Life, that is to say, depends upon contact with Life. It\ncannot spring up of itself. It cannot develop out of anything that is\nnot Life. There is no Spontaneous Generation in religion any more than\nin Nature. Christ is the source of Life in the Spiritual World; and he\nthat hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son, whatever else\nhe may have, hath not Life. Here, in short, is the categorical denial of\nAbiogenesis and the establishment in this high field of the classical\nformula _Omne vivum ex vivo_--no Life without antecedent Life. In this\nmystical theory of the Origin of Life the whole of the New Testament\nwriters are agreed. And, as we have already seen, Christ Himself founds\nChristianity upon Biogenesis stated in its most literal form. \"Except a\nman be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom\nof God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born\nof the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, ye must be\nborn again.\"[37] Why did He add _Marvel not_? Did He seek to allay the\nfear in the bewildered ruler's mind that there was more in this novel\ndoctrine than a simple analogy from the first to the second birth?\n\nThe attitude of the natural man, again, with reference to the Spiritual,\nis a subject on which the New Testament is equally pronounced. Not only\nin his relation to the spiritual man, but to the whole Spiritual World,\nthe natural man is regarded as _dead_. He is as a crystal to an\norganism. The natural world is to the Spiritual as the inorganic to the\norganic. \"To be carnally minded is _Death_.\"[38] \"Thou hast a name to\nlive, but art _Dead_.\"[39] \"She that liveth in pleasure is _Dead_ while\nshe liveth.\"[40] \"To you he Hath given Life which were _Dead_ in\ntrespasses and sins.\"[41]\n\nIt is clear that a remarkable harmony exists here between the Organic\nWorld as arranged by Science and the Spiritual World as arranged by\nScripture. We find one great Law guarding the thresholds of both worlds,\nsecuring that entrance from a lower sphere shall only take place by a\ndirect regenerating act, and that emanating from the world next in order\nabove. There are not two laws of Biogenesis, one for the natural, the\nother for the Spiritual; one law is for both. Wherever there is Life,\nLife of any kind, this same law holds. The analogy, therefore, is only\namong the phenomena; between laws there is no analogy--there is\nContinuity. In either case, the first step in peopling these worlds\nwith the appropriate living forms is virtually miracle. Nor in one case\nis there less of mystery in the act than in the other. The second birth\nis scarcely less perplexing to the theologian than the first to the\nembryologist.\n\nA moment's reflection ought now to make it clear why in the Spiritual\nWorld there had to be added to this mystery the further mystery of its\nproclamation through the medium of Revelation. This is the point at\nwhich the scientific man is apt to part company with the theologian. He\ninsists on having all things materialized before his eyes in Nature. If\nNature cannot discuss this with him, there is nothing to discuss. But\nNature can discuss this with him--only she cannot open the discussion or\nsupply all the material to begin with. If Science averred that she could\ndo this, the theologian this time must part company with such Science.\nFor any Science which makes such a demand is false to the doctrines of\nBiogenesis. What is this but the demand that a lower world, hermetically\nsealed against all communication with a world above it, should have a\nmature and intelligent acquaintance with its phenomena and laws? Can the\nmineral discourse to me of animal Life? Can it tell me what lies beyond\nthe narrow boundary of its inert being? Knowing nothing of other than\nthe chemical and physical laws, what is its criticism worth of the\nprinciples of Biology? And even when some visitor from the upper world,\nfor example some root from a living tree, penetrating its dark recess,\nhonors it with a touch, will it presume to define the form and purpose\nof its patron, or until the bioplasm has done its gracious work can it\neven know that it is being touched? The barrier which separates Kingdoms\nfrom one another restricts mind not less than matter. Any information of\nthe Kingdoms above it that could come to the mineral world could only\ncome by a communication from above. An analogy from the lower world\nmight make such communication intelligible as well as credible, but the\ninformation in the first instance must be vouchsafed as a _revelation_.\nSimilarly if those in the organic Kingdom are to know anything of the\nSpiritual World, that knowledge must at least begin as Revelation. Men\nwho reject this source of information, by the Law of Biogenesis, can\nhave no other. It is no spell of ignorance arbitrarily laid upon certain\nmembers of the Organic Kingdom that prevents them reading the secrets of\nthe Spiritual World. It is a scientific necessity. No exposition of the\ncase could be more truly scientific than this: \"The natural man\nreceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness\nunto him: _neither can he know them_, because they are spiritually\ndiscerned.\"[42] The verb here, it will be again observed, is potential.\nThis is not a dogma of theology, but a necessity of Science. And\nScience, for the most part, has consistently accepted the situation. It\nhas always proclaimed its ignorance of the Spiritual World. When Mr.\nHerbert Spencer affirms, \"Regarding Science as a gradually increasing\nsphere we may say that every addition to its surface does but bring it\ninto wider contact with surrounding nescience,\"[43] from his standpoint\nhe is quite correct. The endeavors of well-meaning persons to show that\nthe Agnostic's position, when he asserts his ignorance of the Spiritual\nWorld, is only a pretence; the attempts to prove that he really knows a\ngreat deal about it if he would only admit it, are quite misplaced. He\nreally does not know. The verdict that the natural man receiveth not the\nthings of the Spirit of God, that they are foolishness unto him, that\n_neither can he_ know them, is final as a statement of scientific\ntruth--a statement on which the entire Agnostic literature is simply one\nlong commentary.\n\nWe are now in a better position to follow out the more practical\nbearings of Biogenesis. There is an immense region surrounding\nRegeneration, a dark and perplexing region where men would be thankful\nfor any light. It may well be that Biogenesis in its many ramifications\nmay yet reach down to some of the deeper mysteries of the Spiritual\nLife. But meantime there is much to define even on the surface. And for\nthe present we shall content ourselves by turning its light upon one or\ntwo points of current interest.\n\nIt must long ago have appeared how decisive is the answer of Science to\nthe practical question with which we set out as to the possibility of a\nSpontaneous Development of Spiritual Life in the individual soul. The\ninquiry into the Origin of Life is the fundamental question alike of\nBiology and Christianity. We can afford to enlarge upon it, therefore,\neven at the risk of repetition. When men are offering us a Christianity\nwithout a living Spirit, and a personal religion without _conversion_,\nno emphasis or reiteration can be extreme. Besides, the clearness as\nwell as the definiteness of the Testimony of Nature to any Spiritual\ntruth is of immense importance. Regeneration has not merely been an\noutstanding difficulty, but an overwhelming obscurity. Even to earnest\nminds the difficulty of grasping the truth at all has always proved\nextreme. Philosophically one scarcely sees either the necessity or the\npossibility of being born again. Why a virtuous man should not simply\ngrow better and better until in his own right he enter the Kingdom of\nGod is what thousands honestly and seriously fail to understand. Now\nPhilosophy cannot help us here. Her arguments are, if anything, against\nus. But Science answers to the appeal at once. If it be simply pointed\nout that this is the same absurdity as to ask why a stone should not\ngrow more and more living till it enters the Organic World, the point is\nclear in an instant.\n\nWhat now, let us ask specifically, distinguishes a Christian man from a\nnon-Christian man? Is it that he has certain mental characteristics not\npossessed by the other? Is it that certain faculties have been trained\nin him, that morality assumes special and higher manifestations, and\ncharacter a nobler form? Is the Christian merely an ordinary man who\nhappens from birth to have been surrounded with a peculiar set of ideas?\nIs his religion merely that peculiar quality of the moral life defined\nby Mr. Matthew Arnold as \"morality touched by emotion?\" And does the\npossession of a high ideal, benevolent sympathies, a reverent spirit,\nand a favorable environment account for what men call his Spiritual\nLife?\n\nThe distinction between them is the same as that between the Organic and\nthe Inorganic, the living and the dead. What is the difference between a\ncrystal and an organism, a stone and a plant? They have much in common.\nBoth are made of the same atoms. Both display the same properties of\nmatter. Both are subject to the Physical Laws. Both may be very\nbeautiful. But besides possessing all that the crystal has, the plant\npossesses something more--a mysterious something called Life. This Life\nis not something which existed in the crystal only in a less developed\nform. There is nothing at all like it in the crystal. There is nothing\nlike the first beginning of it in the crystal, not a trace or symptom of\nit. This plant is tenanted by something new, an original and unique\npossession added over and above all the properties common to both. When\nfrom vegetable Life we rise to animal Life, here again we find something\noriginal and unique--unique at least as compared with the mineral. From\nanimal Life we ascend again to Spiritual Life. And here also is\nsomething new, something still more unique. He who lives the Spiritual\nLife has a distinct kind of Life added to all the other phases of Life\nwhich he manifests--a kind of Life infinitely more distinct than is the\nactive Life of a plant from the inertia of a stone. The Spiritual man is\nmore distinct in point of fact than is the plant from the stone. This is\nthe one possible comparison in Nature, for it is the widest distinction\nin Nature; but compared with the difference between the Natural and the\nSpiritual the gulf which divides the organic from the inorganic is a\nhair's-breadth. The natural man belongs essentially to this present\norder of things. He is endowed simply with a high quality of the natural\nanimal Life. But it is Life of so poor a quality that it is not Life at\nall. He that hath not the Son _hath not Life_; but he that hath the Son\nhath Life--a new and distinct and supernatural endowment. He is not of\nthis world. He is of the timeless state, of Eternity. _It doth not yet\nappear what he shall be._\n\nThe difference between the Spiritual man and the Natural man is not a\ndifference of development, but of generation. It is a distinction of\nquality not of quantity. A man cannot rise by any natural development\nfrom \"morality touched by emotion,\" to \"morality touched by Life.\" Were\nwe to construct a scientific classification, Science would compel us to\narrange all natural men, moral or immoral, educated or vulgar, as one\nfamily. One might be high in the family group, another low; yet,\npractically, they are marked by the same set of characteristics--they\neat, sleep, work, think, live, die. But the Spiritual man is removed\nfrom this family so utterly by the possession of an additional\ncharacteristic that a biologist, fully informed of the whole\ncircumstances, would not hesitate a moment to classify him elsewhere.\nAnd if he really entered into these circumstances it would not be in\nanother family but in another Kingdom. It is an old-fashioned theology\nwhich divides the world in this way--which speaks of men as Living and\nDead, Lost and Saved--a stern theology all but fallen into disuse. This\ndifference between the Living and the Dead in souls is so unproved by\ncasual observation, so impalpable in itself, so startling as a doctrine,\nthat schools of culture have ridiculed or denied the grim distinction.\nNevertheless the grim distinction must be retained. It is a scientific\ndistinction. \"He that hath not the Son hath not Life.\"\n\nNow it is this great Law which finally distinguishes Christianity from\nall other religions. It places the religion of Christ upon a footing\naltogether unique. There is no analogy between the Christian religion\nand, say, Buddhism or the Mohammedan religion. There is no true sense in\nwhich a man can say, He that hath Buddha hath Life. Buddha has nothing\nto do with Life. He may have something to do with morality. He may\nstimulate, impress, teach, guide, but there is no distinct new thing\nadded to the souls of those who profess Buddhism. These religions _may_\nbe developments of the natural, mental, or moral man. But Christianity\nprofesses to be more. It is the mental or moral man _plus_ something\nelse or some One else. It is the infusion into the Spiritual man of a\nNew Life, of a quality unlike anything else in Nature. This constitutes\nthe separate Kingdom of Christ, and gives to Christianity alone of all\nthe religions of mankind the strange mark of Divinity.\n\nShall we next inquire more precisely what is this something extra which\nconstitutes Spiritual Life? What is this strange and new endowment in\nits nature and vital essence? And the answer is brief--it is Christ. He\nthat hath _the Son_ hath Life.\n\nAre we forsaking the lines of Science in saying so? Yes and No. Science\nhas drawn for us the distinction. It has no voice as to the nature of\nthe distinction except this--that the new endowment is a something\ndifferent from anything else with which it deals. It is not ordinary\nVitality, it is not intellectual, it is not moral, but something beyond.\nAnd Revelation steps in and names what it is--it is Christ. Out of the\nmultitude of sentences where this announcement is made, these few may be\nselected: \"Know ye not your own selves how that _Jesus Christ is in\nyou_?\"[44] \"Your bodies are the members of Christ.\"[45] \"At that day ye\nshall know that I am in the Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.\"[46] \"We\nwill come unto him and make our abode with him.\"[47] \"I am the Vine, ye\nare the branches.\"[48] \"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live,\nyet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\"[49]\n\nThree things are clear from these statements: First, they are not mere\nfigures of rhetoric. They are explicit declarations. If language means\nanything these words announce a literal fact. In some of Christ's own\nstatements the literalism is if possible still more impressive. For\ninstance, \"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His\nblood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My\nblood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My\nflesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My\nflesh and drinketh My blood _dwelleth in Me and I in him_.\"\n\nIn the second place, Spiritual Life is not something outside ourselves.\nThe idea is not that Christ is in heaven and that we can stretch out\nsome mysterious faculty and deal with Him there. This is the vague form\nin which many conceive the truth, but it is contrary to Christ's\nteaching and to the analogy of nature. Vegetable Life is not contained\nin a reservoir somewhere in the skies, and measured out spasmodically at\ncertain seasons. The Life is _in_ every plant and tree, inside its own\nsubstance and tissue, and continues there until it dies. This\nlocalization of Life in the individual is precisely the point where\nVitality differs from the other forces of nature, such as magnetism and\nelectricity. Vitality has much in common with such forces as magnetism\nand electricity, but there is one inviolable distinction between\nthem--that Life is permanently fixed and rooted in the organism. The\ndoctrines of conservation and transformation of energy, that is to say,\ndo not hold for Vitality. The electrician can demagnetize a bar of iron,\nthat is, he can transform its energy of magnetism into something\nelse--heat, or motion, or light--and then re-form these back into\nmagnetism. For magnetism has no root, no individuality, no fixed\nindwelling. But the biologist cannot devitalize a plant or an animal and\nrevivify it again.[50] Life is not one of the homeless forces which\npromiscuously inhabit space, or which can be gathered like electricity\nfrom the clouds and dissipated back again into space. Life is definite\nand resident; and Spiritual Life is not a visit from a force, but a\nresident tenant in the soul.\n\nThis is, however, to formulate the statement of the third point, that\nSpiritual Life is not an ordinary form of energy or force. The analogy\nfrom Nature indorses this, but here Nature stops. It cannot say what\nSpiritual Life is. Indeed what natural Life is remains unknown, and the\nword Life still wanders through Science without a definition. Nature is\nsilent, therefore, and must be as to Spiritual Life. But in the absence\nof natural light we fall back upon that complementary revelation which\nalways shines, when truth is necessary and where Nature fails. We ask\nwith Paul when this Life first visited him on the Damascus road, What is\nthis? \"Who art Thou, Lord?\" And we hear, \"I am Jesus.\"[51]\n\nWe must expect to find this denied. Besides a proof from Revelation,\nthis is an argument from experience. And yet we shall still be told that\nthis Spiritual Life is a force. But let it be remembered what this means\nin Science, it means the heresy of confounding Force with Vitality. We\nmust also expect to be told that this Spiritual Life is simply a\ndevelopment of ordinary Life--just as Dr. Bastian tells us that natural\nLife is formed according to the same laws which determine the more\nsimple chemical combinations. But remember what this means in Science.\nIt is the heresy of Spontaneous Generation, a heresy so thoroughly\ndiscredited now that scarcely an authority in Europe will lend his name\nto it. Who art Thou, Lord? Unless we are to be allowed to hold\nSpontaneous Generation there is no alternative: Life can only come from\nLife: \"I am Jesus.\"\n\nA hundred other questions now rush into the mind about this Life: How\ndoes it come? Why does it come? How is it manifested? What faculty does\nit employ? Where does it reside? Is it communicable? What are its\nconditions? One or two of these questions may be vaguely answered, the\nrest bring us face to face with mystery. Let it not be thought that the\nscientific treatment of a Spiritual subject has reduced religion to a\nproblem of physics, or demonstrated God by the laws of biology. A\nreligion without mystery is an absurdity. Even Science has its\nmysteries, none more inscrutable than around this Science of Life. It\ntaught us sooner or later to expect mystery, and now we enter its\ndomain. Let it be carefully marked, however, that the cloud does not\nfall and cover us till we have ascertained the most momentous truth of\nReligion--that Christ is in the Christian.\n\nNot that there is anything new in this. The Churches have always held\nthat Christ was the source of Life. No spiritual man ever claims that\nhis spirituality is his own. \"I live,\" he will tell you; \"nevertheless\nit is not I, but Christ liveth in me.\" Christ our Life has indeed been\nthe only doctrine in the Christian Church from Paul to Augustine, from\nCalvin to Newman. Yet, when the Spiritual man is cross-examined upon\nthis confession it is astonishing to find what uncertain hold it has\nupon his mind. Doctrinally he states it adequately and holds it\nunhesitatingly. But when pressed with the literal question he shrinks\nfrom the answer. We do not really believe that the Living Christ has\ntouched us, that He makes His abode in us. Spiritual Life is not as\nreal to us as natural Life. And we cover our retreat into unbelieving\nvagueness with a plea of reverence, justified, as we think, by the \"Thus\nfar and no farther\" of ancient Scriptures. There is often a great deal\nof intellectual sin concealed under this old aphorism. When men do not\nreally wish to go farther they find it an honorable convenience\nsometimes to sit down on the outermost edge of the Holy Ground on the\npretext of taking off their shoes. Yet we must be certain that, making a\nvirtue of reverence, we are not merely excusing ignorance; or, under the\nplea of mystery, evading a truth which has been stated in the New\nTestament a hundred times, in the most literal form, and with all but\nmonotonous repetition. The greatest truths are always the most loosely\nheld. And not the least of the advantages of taking up this question\nfrom the present standpoint is that we may see how a confused doctrine\ncan really bear the luminous definition of Science and force itself upon\nus with all the weight of Natural Law.\n\nWhat is mystery to many men, what feeds their worship, and at the same\ntime spoils it, is that area round all great truth which is really\ncapable of illumination, and into which every earnest mind is permitted\nand commanded to go with a light. We cry mystery long before the region\nof mystery comes. True mystery casts no shadows around. It is a sudden\nand awful gulf yawning across the field of knowledge; its form is\nirregular, but its lips are clean cut and sharp, and the mind can go to\nthe very verge and look down the precipice into the dim abyss--\n\n          \"Where writhing clouds unroll,\n    Striving to utter themselves in shapes.\"\n\nWe have gone with a light to the very verge of this truth. We have seen\nthat the Spiritual Life is an endowment from the Spiritual World, and\nthat the Living Spirit of Christ dwells in the Christian. But now the\ngulf yawns black before us. What more does Science know of life?\nNothing. It knows nothing further about its origin in detail. It knows\nnothing about its ultimate nature. It cannot even define it. There is a\nhelplessness in scientific books here, and a continual confession of it\nwhich to thoughtful minds is almost touching. Science, therefore, has\nnot eliminated the true mysteries from our faith, but only the false.\nAnd it has done more. It has made true mystery scientific. Religion in\nhaving mystery is in analogy with all around it. Where there is\nexceptional mystery in the Spiritual world it will generally be found\nthat there is a corresponding mystery in the natural world. And, as\nOrigen centuries ago insisted, the difficulties of Religion are simply\nthe difficulties of Nature.\n\nOne question more we may look at for a moment. What can be gathered on\nthe surface as to the process of Regeneration in the individual soul?\nFrom the analogies of Biology we should expect three things: First, that\nthe New Life should dawn suddenly; Second, that it should come \"without\nobservation;\" Third, that it should develop gradually. On two of these\npoints there can be little controversy. The gradualness of growth is a\ncharacteristic which strikes the simplest observer. Long before the word\nEvolution was coined Christ applied it in this very connection--\"First\nthe blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.\" It is well\nknown also to those who study the parables of Nature that there is an\nascending scale of slowness as we rise in the scale of Life. Growth is\nmost gradual in the highest forms. Man attains his maturity after a\nscore of years; the monad completes its humble cycle in a day. What\nwonder if development be tardy in the Creature of Eternity? A\nChristian's sun has sometimes set, and a critical world has seen as yet\nno corn in the ear. As yet? \"As yet,\" in this long Life, has not begun.\nGrant him the years proportionate to his place in the scale of Life.\n\"The time of harvest is _not yet_.\"\n\nAgain, in addition to being slow, the phenomena of growth are secret.\nLife is invisible. When the New Life manifests itself it is a surprise.\n_Thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth._ When the\nplant lives whence has the Life come? When it dies whither has it gone?\n_Thou canst not tell ... so is every one that is born of the Spirit. For\nthe kingdom of God cometh without observation._\n\nYet once more--and this is a point of strange and frivolous\ndispute--this Life comes suddenly. This is the only way in which Life\ncan come. Life cannot come gradually--health can, structure can, but not\nLife. A new theology has laughed at the Doctrine of Conversion. Sudden\nConversion especially has been ridiculed as untrue to philosophy and\nimpossible to human nature. We may not be concerned in buttressing any\ntheology because it is old. But we find that this old theology is\nscientific. There may be cases--they are probably in the majority--where\nthe moment of contact with the Living Spirit though sudden has been\nobscure. But the real moment and the conscious moment are two different\nthings. Science pronounces nothing as to the conscious moment. If it did\nit would probably say that that was seldom the real moment--just as in\nthe natural Life the conscious moment is not the real moment. The moment\nof birth in the natural world is not a conscious moment--we do not know\nwe are born till long afterward. Yet there are men to whom the Origin of\nthe New Life in time has been no difficulty. To Paul, for instance,\nChrist seems to have come at a definite period of time, the exact moment\nand second of which could have been known. And this is certainly, in\ntheory at least, the normal Origin of Life, according to the principles\nof Biology. The line between the living and the dead is a sharp line.\nWhen the dead atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, are seized\nupon by Life, the organism at first is very lowly. It possesses few\nfunctions. It has little beauty. Growth is the work of time. But Life is\nnot. That comes in a moment. At one moment it was dead; the next it\nlived. This is conversion, the \"passing,\" as the Bible calls it, \"from\nDeath unto Life.\" Those who have stood by another's side at the solemn\nhour of this dread possession have been conscious sometimes of an\nexperience which words are not allowed to utter--a something like the\nsudden snapping of a chain, the waking from a dream.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] \"Beginnings of Life.\" By H. C. Bastian, M.A., M.D., F.R.S.\nMacmillan, vol. ii. p. 633.\n\n[34] \"Critiques and Addresses.\" T. H. Huxley. F.R.S., p. 239.\n\n[35] _Nineteenth Century_, 1878, p. 507.\n\n[36] This being the crucial point it may not be inappropriate to\nsupplement the quotations already given in the text with the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"We are in the presence of the one incommunicable gulf--the gulf of all\ngulfs--that gulf which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as powerless to efface\nas any other material expedient that has ever been suggested since the\neyes of men first looked into it--the mighty gulf between death and\nlife.\"--\"As Regards Protoplasm.\" By J. Hutchinson Stirling, LL.D., p.\n42.\n\n\"The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the\nliving and the not-living.\"--Huxley, \"Encyclopaedia Britannica\" (new\nEd.). Art. \"Biology.\"\n\n\"Whoever recalls to mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts made\nvery recently to discover a decided support for the _generatio aequivoca_\nin the lower forms of transition from the inorganic to the organic\nworld, will feel it doubly serious to demand that this theory, so\nutterly discredited, should be in any way accepted as the basis of all\nour views of life.\"--Virchow: \"The Freedom of Science in the Modern\nState.\"\n\n\"All really scientific experience tells us that life can be produced\nfrom a living antecedent only.\"--\"The Unseen Universe,\" 6th Ed., p. 229.\n\n[37] John iii.\n\n[38] Rom. viii. 6.\n\n[39] Rev. iii. 1.\n\n[40] 1 Tim. v. 6.\n\n[41] Eph. ii. 1, 5.\n\n[42] 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[43] \"First Principles,\" 2d Ed., p. 17.\n\n[44] 2 Cor. xii. 5.\n\n[45] 1 Cor. vi. 15.\n\n[46] John xiv. 20.\n\n[47] John xiv. 21-23.\n\n[48] John xv. 4.\n\n[49] Gal. ii. 20.\n\n[50] One must not be misled by popular statements in this connection,\nsuch as this of Professor Owen's: \"There are organisms which we can\ndevitalize and revitalize--devive and revive--many times.\" (_Monthly\nMicroscopical Journal_, May, 1869, p. 294.) The reference is of course\nto the extraordinary capacity for _resuscitation_ possessed by many of\nthe Protozoa and other low forms of life.\n\n[51] Acts ix. 5.\n\n\n\n\nDEGENERATION.\n\n    \"I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man\n    void of understanding; and lo, it was all grown over with thorns,\n    and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof\n    was broken down. Then I saw and considered it well; I looked upon it\n    and received instruction.\"--_Solomon._\n\n    \"How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?\"--_Hebrews._\n\n    \"We have as possibilities either Balance, or Elaboration, or\n    Degeneration.\"--_E. Ray Lankester._\n\n\nIn one of his best known books, Mr. Darwin brings out a fact which may\nbe illustrated in some such way as this: Suppose a bird fancier collects\na flock of tame pigeons distinguished by all the infinite ornamentations\nof their race. They are of all kinds, of every shade of color, and\nadorned with every variety of marking. He takes them to an uninhabited\nisland and allows them to fly off wild into the woods. They found a\ncolony there, and after the lapse of many years the owner returns to the\nspot. He will find that a remarkable change has taken place in the\ninterval. The birds, or their descendants rather, have all become\nchanged into the same color. The black, the white and the dun, the\nstriped, the spotted, and the ringed, are all metamorphosed into one--a\ndark slaty blue. Two plain black bands monotonously repeat themselves\nupon the wings of each, and the loins beneath are white; but all the\nvariety, all the beautiful colors, all the old graces of form it may be,\nhave disappeared. These improvements were the result of care and nature,\nof domestication, of civilization; and now that these influences are\nremoved, the birds themselves undo the past and lose what they had\ngained. The attempt to elevate the race has been mysteriously thwarted.\nIt is as if the original bird, the far remote ancestor of all doves, had\nbeen blue, and these had been compelled by some strange law to discard\nthe badges of their civilization and conform to the ruder image of the\nfirst. The natural law by which such a change occurs is called _The\nPrinciple of Reversion to Type_.\n\nIt is a proof of the universality of this law that the same thing will\nhappen with a plant. A garden is planted, let us say, with strawberries\nand roses, and for a number of years is left alone. In process of time\nit will run to waste. But this does not mean that the plants will really\nwaste away, but that they will change into something else, and, as it\ninvariably appears, into something worse; in the one case, namely, into\nthe small, wild strawberry of the woods, and in the other into the\nprimitive dog-rose of the hedges.\n\nIf we neglect a garden plant, then, a natural principle of deterioration\ncomes in, and changes it into a worse plant. And if we neglect a bird,\nby the same imperious law it will be gradually changed into an uglier\nbird. Or if we neglect almost any of the domestic animals, they will\nrapidly revert to wild and worthless forms again.\n\nNow the same thing exactly would happen in the case of you or me. Why\nshould Man be an exception to any of the laws of Nature? Nature knows\nhim simply as an animal--Sub-kingdom _Vertebrata_, Class _Mammalia_,\nOrder _Bimana_. And the law of Reversion to Type runs through all\ncreation. If a man neglect himself for a few years he will change into a\nworse man and a lower man. If it is his body that he neglects, he will\ndeteriorate into a wild and bestial savage--like the de-humanized men\nwho are discovered sometimes upon desert islands. If it is his mind, it\nwill degenerate into imbecility and madness--solitary confinement has\nthe power to unmake men's minds and leave them idiots. If he neglect his\nconscience, it will run off into lawlessness and vice. Or, lastly, if\nit is his soul, it must inevitably atrophy, drop off in ruin and decay.\n\nWe have here, then, a thoroughly natural basis for the question before\nus. If we neglect, with this universal principle staring us in the face,\nhow shall we escape? If we neglect the ordinary means of keeping a\ngarden in order, how shall it escape running to weeds and waste? Or, if\nwe neglect the opportunities for cultivating the mind, how shall it\nescape ignorance and feebleness? So, if we neglect the soul, how shall\nit escape the natural retrograde movement, the inevitable relapse into\nbarrenness and death?\n\nIt is not necessary, surely, to pause for proof that there is such a\nretrograde principle in the being of every man. It is demonstrated by\nfacts, and by the analogy of all Nature. Three possibilities of life,\naccording to Science, are open to all living organisms--Balance,\nEvolution, and Degeneration. The first denotes the precarious\npersistence of a life along what looks like a level path, a character\nwhich seems to hold its own alike against the attacks of evil and the\nappeals of good. It implies a set of circumstances so balanced by choice\nor fortune that they neither influence for better nor for worse. But\nexcept in theory this state of equilibrium, normal in the inorganic\nkingdom, is really foreign to the world of life; and what seems inertia\nmay be a true Evolution unnoticed from its slowness, or likelier still a\nmovement of Degeneration subtly obliterating as it falls the very traces\nof its former height. From this state of apparent Balance, Evolution is\nthe escape in the upward direction, Degeneration in the lower. But\nDegeneration, rather than Balance or Elaboration, is the possibility of\nlife embraced by the majority of mankind. And the choice is determined\nby man's own nature. The life of Balance is difficult. It lies on the\nverge of continual temptation, its perpetual adjustments become\nfatiguing, its measured virtue is monotonous and uninspiring. More\ndifficult still, apparently, is the life of ever upward growth. Most men\nattempt it for a time, but growth is slow; and despair overtakes them\nwhile the goal is far away. Yet none of these reasons fully explains the\nfact that the alternative which remains is adopted by the majority of\nmen. That Degeneration is easy only half accounts for it. Why is it\neasy? Why but that already in each man's very nature this principle is\nsupreme? He feels within his soul a silent drifting motion impelling him\ndownward with irresistible force. Instead of aspiring to Conversion to a\nhigher Type he submits by a law of his nature to Reversion to a lower.\nThis is Degeneration--that principle by which the organism, failing to\ndevelop itself, failing even to keep what it has got, deteriorates, and\nbecomes more and more adapted to a degraded form of life.\n\nAll men who know themselves are conscious that this tendency,\ndeep-rooted and active, exists within their nature. Theologically it is\ndescribed as a gravitation, a bias toward evil. The Bible view is that\nman is conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. And experience tells him\nthat he will shape himself into further sin and ever deepening iniquity\nwithout the smallest effort, without in the least intending it, and in\nthe most natural way in the world if he simply let his life run. It is\non this principle that, completing the conception, the wicked are said\nfurther in the Bible to be lost. They are not really lost as yet, but\nthey are on the sure way to it. The bias of their lives is in full\naction. There is no drag on anywhere. The natural tendencies are having\nit all their own way; and although the victims may be quite unconscious\nthat all this is going on, it is patent to every one who considers even\nthe natural bearings of the case that \"the end of these things is\nDeath.\" When we see a man fall from the top of a five-story house, we\nsay the man is lost. We say that before he has fallen a foot; for the\nsame principle that made him fall the one foot will undoubtedly make him\ncomplete the descent by falling another eighty or ninety feet. So that\nhe is a dead man, or a lost man from the very first. The gravitation of\nsin in a human soul acts precisely in the same way. Gradually, with\ngathering momentum it sinks a man further and further from God and\nrighteousness, and lands him, by the sheer action of a natural law, in\nthe hell of a neglected life.\n\nBut the lesson is not less clear from analogy. Apart even from the law\nof Degeneration, apart from Reversion to Type, there is in every living\norganism a law of Death. We are wont to imagine that Nature is full of\nLife. In reality it is full of Death. One cannot say it is natural for a\nplant to live. Examine its nature fully, and you have to admit that its\nnatural tendency is to die. It is kept from dying by a mere temporary\nendowment which gives it an ephemeral dominion over the elements--gives\nit power to utilize for a brief span the rain, the sunshine, and the\nair. Withdraw this temporary endowment for a moment and its true nature\nis revealed. Instead of overcoming Nature it is overcome. The very\nthings which appeared to minister to its growth and beauty now turn\nagainst it and make it decay and die. The sun which warmed it, withers\nit; the air and rain which nourished it, rot it. It is the very forces\nwhich we associate with life which, when their true nature appears, are\ndiscovered to be really the ministers of death.\n\nThis law, which is true for the whole plant-world, is also valid for the\nanimal and for man. Air is not life, but corruption--so literally\ncorruption that the only way to keep out corruption, when life has\nebbed, is to keep out air. Life is merely a temporary suspension of\nthese destructive powers; and this is truly one of the most accurate\ndefinitions of life we have yet received--\"the sum total of the\nfunctions which resist death.\"\n\nSpiritual life, in like manner, is the sum total of the functions which\nresist sin. The soul's atmosphere is the daily trial, circumstance, and\ntemptation of the world. And as it is life alone which gives the plant\npower to utilize the elements, and as, without it, they utilize it, so\nit is the spiritual life alone which gives the soul power to utilize\ntemptation and trial; and without it they destroy the soul. How shall we\nescape if we refuse to exercise these functions--in other words, if we\nneglect?\n\nThis destroying process, observe, goes on quite independently of God's\njudgment on sin. God's judgment on sin is another and a more awful fact\nof which this may be a part. But it is a distinct fact by itself, which\nwe can hold and examine separately, that on purely natural principles\nthe soul that is left to itself unwatched, uncultivated, unredeemed,\nmust fall away into death by its own nature. The soul that sinneth \"it\nshall die.\" It shall die, not necessarily because God passes sentence of\ndeath upon it, but because it cannot help dying. It has neglected \"the\nfunctions which resist death\" and has always been dying. The punishment\nis in its very nature, and the sentence is being gradually carried out\nall along the path of life by ordinary processes which enforce the\nverdict with the appalling faithfulness of law.\n\nThere is an affectation that religious truths lie beyond the sphere of\nthe comprehension which serves men in ordinary things. This question at\nleast must be an exception. It lies as near the natural as the\nspiritual. If it makes no impression on a man to know that God will\nvisit his iniquities upon him, he cannot blind himself to the fact that\nNature will. Do we not all know what it is to be punished by Nature for\ndisobeying her? We have looked round the wards of a hospital, a prison,\nor a madhouse, and seen there Nature at work squaring her accounts with\nsin. And we knew as we looked that if no Judge sat on the throne of\nheaven at all there was a Judgment there, where an inexorable Nature was\ncrying aloud for justice, and carrying out her heavy sentences for\nviolated laws.\n\nWhen God gave Nature the law into her own hands in this way, He seems to\nhave given her two rules upon which her sentences were to be based. The\none is formally enunciated in this sentence, \"WHATSOEVER A MAN SOWETH\nTHAT SHALL HE ALSO REAP.\" The other is informally expressed in this, \"IF\nWE NEGLECT HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE?\"\n\nThe first is the positive law, and deals with sins of commission. The\nother, which we are now discussing, is the negative, and deals with sins\nof omission. It does not say anything about sowing but about not sowing.\nIt takes up the case of souls which are lying fallow. It does not say,\nif we sow corruption we shall reap corruption. Perhaps we would not be\nso unwise, so regardless of ourselves, of public opinion, as to sow\ncorruption. It does not say, if we sow tares we shall reap tares. We\nmight never do anything so foolish as sow tares. But if we sow nothing,\nit says, we shall reap nothing. If we put nothing into the field, we\nshall take nothing out. If we neglect to cultivate in summer, how shall\nwe escape starving in winter?\n\nNow the Bible raises this question, but does not answer it--because it\nis too obvious to need answering. How shall we escape if we neglect? The\nanswer is, we cannot. In the nature of things we cannot. We cannot\nescape any more than a man can escape drowning who falls into the sea\nand has neglected to learn to swim. In the nature of things he cannot\nescape--nor can he escape who has neglected the great salvation.\n\nNow why should such fatal consequences follow a simple process like\nneglect? The popular impression is that a man, to be what is called\nlost, must be an open and notorious sinner. He must be one who has\nabandoned all that is good and pure in life, and sown to the flesh with\nall his might and main. But this principle goes further. It says simply,\n\"If we neglect.\" Any one may see the reason why a notoriously wicked\nperson should not escape; but why should not all the rest of us escape?\nWhat is to hinder people who are not notoriously wicked escaping--people\nwho never sowed anything in particular? Why is it such a sin to sow\nnothing in particular?\n\nThere must be some hidden and vital relation between these three words,\nSalvation, Neglect, and Escape--some reasonable, essential, and\nindissoluble connection. Why are these words so linked together as to\nweight this clause with all the authority and solemnity of a sentence of\ndeath?\n\nThe explanation has partly been given already. It lies still further,\nhowever, in the meaning of the word Salvation. And this, of course, is\nnot at all Salvation in the ordinary sense of forgiveness of sin. This\nis one great meaning of Salvation, the first and the greatest. But this\nis spoken to people who are supposed to have had this. It is the broader\nword, therefore, and includes not only forgiveness of sin but salvation\nor deliverance from the downward bias of the soul. It takes in that\nwhole process of rescue from the power of sin and selfishness that\nshould be going on from day to day in every human life. We have seen\nthat there is a natural principle in man lowering him, deadening him,\npulling him down by inches to the mere animal plane, blinding reason,\nsearing conscience, paralyzing will. This is the active destroying\nprinciple, or Sin. Now to counteract this, God has discovered to us\nanother principle which will stop this drifting process in the soul,\nsteer it round, and make it drift the other way. This is the active\nsaving principle, or Salvation. If a man find the first of these powers\nfuriously at work within him, dragging his whole life downward to\ndestruction, there is only one way to escape his fate--to take resolute\nhold of the upward power, and be borne by it to the opposite goal. And\nas this second power is the only one in the universe which has the\nslightest real effect upon the first, how shall a man escape if he\nneglect it? To neglect it is to cut off the only possible chance of\nescape. In declining this he is simply abandoning himself with his eyes\nopen to that other and terrible energy which is already there, and\nwhich, in the natural course of things, is bearing him every moment\nfurther and further from escape.\n\nFrom the very nature of Salvation, therefore, it is plain that the only\nthing necessary to make it of no effect is neglect. Hence the Bible\ncould not fail to lay strong emphasis on a word so vital. It was not\nnecessary for it to say, how shall we escape if we trample upon the\ngreat salvation, or doubt, or despise, or reject it. A man who has been\npoisoned only need neglect the antidote and he will die. It makes no\ndifference whether he dashes it on the ground, or pours it out of the\nwindow, or sets it down by his bedside, and stares at it all the time he\nis dying. He will die just the same, whether he destroys it in a\npassion, or coolly refuses to have anything to do with it. And as a\nmatter of fact probably most deaths, spiritually, are gradual\ndissolutions of the last class rather than rash suicides of the first.\n\nThis, then, is the effect of neglecting salvation from the side of\nsalvation itself; and the conclusion is that from the very nature of\nsalvation escape is out of the question. Salvation is a definite\nprocess. If a man refuse to submit himself to that process, clearly he\ncannot have the benefits of it. _As many as received Him to them gave\nHe_ power _to become the sons of God._ He does not avail himself of this\npower. It may be mere carelessness or apathy. Nevertheless the neglect\nis fatal. He cannot escape because he will not.\n\nTurn now to another aspect of the case--to the effect upon the soul\nitself. Neglect does more for the soul than make it miss salvation. It\ndespoils it of its capacity for salvation. Degeneration in the spiritual\nsphere involves primarily the impairing of the faculties of salvation\nand ultimately the loss of them. It really means that the very soul\nitself becomes piecemeal destroyed until the very capacity for God and\nrighteousness is gone.\n\nThe soul, in its highest sense, is a vast capacity for God. It is like a\ncurious chamber added on to being, and somehow involving being, a\nchamber with elastic and contractile walls, which can be expanded, with\nGod as its guest, illimitably, but which without God shrinks and\nshrivels until every vestige of the Divine is gone, and God's image is\nleft without God's Spirit. One cannot call what is left a soul; it is a\nshrunken, useless organ, a capacity sentenced to death by disuse, which\ndroops as a withered hand by the side, and cumbers nature like a rotted\nbranch. Nature has her revenge upon neglect as well as upon\nextravagance. Misuse, with her, is as mortal a sin as abuse.\n\nThere are certain burrowing animals--the mole for instance--which have\ntaken to spending their lives beneath the surface of the ground. And\nNature has taken her revenge upon them in a thoroughly natural way--she\nhas closed up their eyes. If they mean to live in darkness, she argues,\neyes are obviously a superfluous function. By neglecting them these\nanimals made it clear they do not want them. And as one of Nature's\nfixed principles is that nothing shall exist in vain, the eyes are\npresently taken away, or reduced to a rudimentary state. There are\nfishes also which have had to pay the same terrible forfeit for having\nmade their abode in dark caverns where eyes can never be required. And\nin exactly the same way the spiritual eye must die and lose its power by\npurely natural law if the soul choose to walk in darkness rather than in\nlight.\n\nThis is the meaning of the favorite paradox of Christ, \"From him that\nhath not shall be taken away even that which he hath;\" \"take therefore\nthe talent from him.\" The religious faculty is a talent, the most\nsplendid and sacred talent we possess. Yet it is subject to the natural\nconditions and laws. If any man take his talent and hide it in a napkin,\nalthough it is doing him neither harm nor good apparently, God will not\nallow him to have it. Although it is lying there rolled up in the\ndarkness, not conspicuously affecting any one, still God will not allow\nhim to keep it. He will not allow him to keep it any more than Nature\nwould allow the fish to keep their eyes. Therefore, He says, \"take the\ntalent from him.\" And Nature does it.\n\nThis man's crime was simply neglect--\"thou wicked and _slothful_\nservant.\" It was a wasted life--a life which failed in the holy\nstewardship of itself. Such a life is a peril to all who cross its path.\nDegeneration compasses Degeneration. It is only a character which is\nitself developing that can aid the Evolution of the world and so fulfill\nthe end of life. For this high usury each of our lives, however small\nmay seem our capital, was given us by God. And it is just the men whose\ncapital seems small who need to choose the best investments. It is\nsignificant that it was the man who had only one talent who was guilty\nof neglecting it. Men with ten talents, men of large gifts and burning\nenergies, either direct their powers nobly and usefully, or misdirect\nthem irretrievably. It is those who belong to the rank and file of life\nwho need this warning most. Others have an abundant store and sow to the\nspirit or the flesh with a lavish hand. But we, with our small gift,\nwhat boots our sowing? Our temptation as ordinary men is to neglect to\nsow at all. The interest on our talent would be so small that we excuse\nourselves with the reflection that it is not worth while.\n\nIt is no objection to all this to say that we are unconscious of this\nneglect or misdirection of our powers. That is the darkest feature in\nthe case. If there were uneasiness there might be hope. If there were,\nsomewhere about our soul, a something which was not gone to sleep like\nall the rest; if there were a contending force anywhere; if we would let\neven that work instead of neglecting it, it would gain strength from\nhour to hour, and waken up one at a time each torpid and dishonored\nfaculty till our whole nature became alive with strivings against self,\nand every avenue was open wide for God. But the apathy, the numbness of\nthe soul, what can be said of such a symptom but that it means the\ncreeping on of death? There are accidents in which the victims feel no\npain. They are well and strong they think. But they are dying. And if\nyou ask the surgeon by their side what makes him give this verdict, he\nwill say it is this numbness over the frame which tells how some of the\nparts have lost already the very capacity for life.\n\nNor is it the least tragic accompaniment of this process that its\neffects may even be concealed from others. The soul undergoing\nDegeneration, surely by some arrangement with Temptation planned in the\nuttermost hell, possesses the power of absolute secrecy. When all within\nis festering decay and rottenness, a Judas, without anomaly, may kiss\nhis Lord. This invisible consumption, like its fell analogue in the\nnatural world, may even keep its victim beautiful while slowly slaying\nit. When one examines the little _Crustacea_ which have inhabited for\ncenturies the lakes of the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, one is at first\nastonished to find these animals apparently endowed with perfect eyes.\nThe pallor of the head is broken by two black pigment specks,\nconspicuous indeed as the only bits of color on the whole blanched body;\nand these, even to the casual observer, certainly represent well-defined\norgans of vision. But what do they with eyes in these Stygian waters?\nThere reigns an everlasting night. Is the law for once at fault? A swift\nincision with the scalpel, a glance with a lens, and their secret is\nbetrayed. The eyes are a mockery. Externally they are organs of\nvision--the front of the eye is perfect; behind, there is nothing but a\nmass of ruins. The optic nerve is a shrunken, atrophied and insensate\nthread. These animals have organs of vision, and yet they have no\nvision. They have eyes, but they see not.\n\nExactly what Christ said of men: They had eyes, but no vision. And the\nreason is the same. It is the simplest problem of natural history. The\n_Crustacea_ of the Mammoth Cave have chosen to abide in darkness.\nTherefore they have become fitted for it. By refusing to see they have\nwaived the right to see. And Nature has grimly humored them. Nature had\nto do it by her very constitution. It is her defence against waste that\ndecay of faculty should immediately follow disuse of function. He that\nhath ears to hear, he whose ears have not degenerated, let him hear.\n\nMen tell us sometimes there is no such thing as an atheist. There must\nbe. There are some men to whom it is true that there is no God. They\ncannot see God because they have no eye. They have only an abortive\norgan, atrophied by neglect.\n\nAll this, it is commonplace again to insist, is not the effect of\nneglect when we die, but while we live. The process is in full career\nand operation now. It is useless projecting consequences into the future\nwhen the effects may be measured now. We are always practicing these\nlittle deceptions upon ourselves, postponing the consequences of our\nmisdeeds as if they were to culminate some other day about the time of\ndeath. It makes us sin with a lighter hand to run an account with\nretribution, as it were, and delay the reckoning time with God. But\nevery day is a reckoning day. Every soul is a Book of Judgment and\nNature, as a recording angel, marks there every sin. As all will be\njudged by the great Judge some day, all are judged by Nature now. The\nsin of yesterday, as part of its penalty, has the sin of to-day. All\nfollow us in silent retribution on our past, and go with us to the\ngrave. We cannot cheat Nature. No sleight-of-heart can rob religion of\n_a present_, the immortal nature of a _now_. The poet sings--\n\n    \"I looked behind to find my past,\n    And lo, it had gone before.\"\n\nBut no, not all. The unforgiven sins are not away in keeping somewhere\nto be let loose upon us when we die; they are here, within us, now.\nTo-day brings the resurrection of their past, to-morrow of to-day. And\nthe powers of sin, to the exact strength that we have developed them,\nnearing their dreadful culmination with every breath we draw, are here,\nwithin us, now. The souls of some men are already honey-combed through\nand through with the eternal consequences of neglect, so that taking the\nnatural and rational view of their case _just now_, it is simply\ninconceivable that there is any escape _just now_. What a fearful thing\nit is to fall into the hands of the living God! A fearful thing even if,\nas the philosopher tells us, \"the hands of the Living God are the Laws\nof Nature.\"\n\nWhatever hopes of a \"heaven\" a neglected soul may have, can be shown to\nbe an ignorant and delusive dream. How is the soul to escape to heaven\nif it has neglected for a lifetime the means of escape from the world\nand self? And where is the capacity for heaven to come from if it be not\ndeveloped on earth? Where, indeed, is even the smallest spiritual\nappreciation of God and heaven to come from when so little of\nspirituality has ever been known or manifested here? If every Godward\naspiration of the soul has been allowed to become extinct, and every\ninlet that was open to heaven to be choked, and every talent for\nreligious love and trust to have been persistently neglected and\nignored, where are the faculties to come from that would ever find the\nfaintest relish in such things as God and heaven give?\n\nThese three words, Salvation, Escape, and Neglect, then, are not\ncasually, but organically and necessarily connected. Their doctrine is\nscientific, not arbitrary. Escape means nothing more than the gradual\nemergence of the higher being from the lower, and nothing less. It means\nthe gradual putting off of all that cannot enter the higher state, or\nheaven, and simultaneously the putting on of Christ. It involves the\nslow completing of the soul and the development of the capacity for God.\n\nShould any one object that from this scientific standpoint the opposite\nof salvation is annihilation, the answer is at hand. From this\nstandpoint there is no such word.\n\nIf, then, escape is to be open to us, it is not to come to us somehow,\nvaguely. We are not to hope for anything startling or mysterious. It is\na definite opening along certain lines which are definitely marked by\nGod, which begin at the Cross of Christ, and lead direct to Him. Each\nman in the silence of his own soul must work out this salvation for\nhimself with fear and trembling--with fear, realizing the momentous\nissues of his task; with trembling, lest before the tardy work be done\nthe voice of Death should summon him to stop.\n\nWhat these lines are may, in closing, be indicated in a word. The true\nproblem of the spiritual life may be said to be, do the opposite of\nNeglect. Whatever this is, do it, and you shall escape. It will just\nmean that you are so to cultivate the soul that all its powers will open\nout to God, and in beholding God be drawn away from sin. The idea really\nis to develop among the ruins of the old a new \"creature\"--a new\ncreature which, while the old is suffering Degeneration from Neglect, is\ngradually to unfold, to escape away and develop on spiritual lines to\nspiritual beauty and strength. And as our conception of spiritual being\nmust be taken simply from natural being, our ideas of the lines along\nwhich the new religious nature is to run must be borrowed from the known\nlines of the old.\n\nThere is, for example, a Sense of Sight in the religious nature. Neglect\nthis, leave it undeveloped and you never miss it. You simply see\nnothing. But develop it and you see God. And the line along which to\ndevelop it is known to us. Become pure in heart. The pure in heart shall\nsee God. Here, then, is one opening for soul-culture--the avenue through\npurity of heart to the spiritual seeing of God.\n\nThen there is a Sense of Sound. Neglect this, leave it undeveloped, and\nyou never miss it. You simply hear nothing. Develop it, and you hear\nGod. And the line along which to develop it is known to us. Obey Christ.\nBecome one of Christ's flock. \"The sheep hear His voice, and He calleth\nthem by name.\" Here, then, is another opportunity for the culture of the\nsoul--a gateway through the Shepherd's fold to hear the Shepherd's\nvoice.\n\nAnd there is a Sense of Touch to be acquired--such a sense as the woman\nhad who touched the hem of Christ's garment, that wonderful electric\ntouch called faith, which moves the very heart of God.\n\nAnd there is a Sense of Taste--a spiritual hunger after God; a something\nwithin which tastes and sees that He is good. And there is the Talent\nfor Inspiration. Neglect that, and all the scenery of the spiritual\nworld is flat and frozen. But cultivate it, and it penetrates the whole\nsoul with sacred fire, and illuminates creation with God. And last of\nall there is the great capacity for Love, even for the love of God--the\nexpanding capacity for feeling more and more its height and depth, its\nlength and breadth. Till that is felt no man can really understand that\nword, \"so great salvation,\" for what is its measure but that other \"so\"\nof Christ--God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son?\nVerily, how shall we escape if we neglect that?[52]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[52] For the scientific basis of this spiritual law the following works\nmay be consulted:--\n\n\"The Origin of Species.\" By Charles Darwin, F.R.S. London: John Murray.\n1872.\n\n\"Degeneration.\" By E. Ray Lankester, F.R.S. London: Macmillan. 1880.\n\n\"Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere und das Princip des Functions Wechsels.\"\nDr. A. Dorhn. Leipzig: 1875.\n\n\"Lessons from Nature.\" By St. George Mivart, F.R.S. London: John Murray.\n1876.\n\n\"The Natural Conditions of Existence as they Affect Animal Life.\" Karl\nSemper. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1881.\n\n\n\n\nGROWTH.\n\n    \"Is not the evidence of Ease on the very front of all the greatest\n    works in existence? Do they not say plainly to us, not 'there has\n    been a great _effort_ here,' but 'there has been a great _power_\n    here?' It is not the weariness of mortality but the strength of\n    divinity, which we have to recognize in all mighty things; and that\n    is just what we now never recognize, but think that we are to do\n    great things by help of iron bars and perspiration; alas! we shall\n    do nothing that way, but lose some pounds of our own\n    weight.\"--_Ruskin._\n\n    \"Consider the lilies of the field how they grow.\"--_The Sermon on\n    the Mount._\n\n    \"Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.\"--_Juvenal._\n\n\nWhat gives the peculiar point to this object-lesson from the lips of\nJesus is, that He not only made the illustration, but made the lilies.\nIt is like an inventor describing his own machine. He made the lilies\nand He made me--both on the same broad principle. Both together, man and\nflower, He planted deep in the Providence of God; but as men are dull at\nstudying themselves He points to this companion-phenomenon to teach us\nhow to live a free and natural life, a life which God will unfold for\nus, without our anxiety, as He unfolds the flower. For Christ's words\nare not a general appeal to consider nature. Men are not to consider the\nlilies simply to admire their beauty, to dream over the delicate\nstrength and grace of stem and leaf. The point they were to consider was\n_how they grew_--how without anxiety or care the flower woke into\nloveliness, how without weaving these leaves were woven, how without\ntoiling these complex tissues spun themselves, and how without any\neffort or friction the whole slowly came ready-made from the loom of God\nin its more than Solomon-like glory. \"So,\" He says, making the\napplication beyond dispute, \"you care-worn, anxious men must grow. You,\ntoo, need take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye\nshall drink or what ye shall put on. For if God so clothe the grass of\nthe field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall\nHe not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?\"\n\nThis nature-lesson was a great novelty in its day; but all men now who\nhave even a \"little faith\" have learned this Christian secret of a\ncomposed life. Apart even from the parable of the lily, the failures of\nthe past have taught most of us the folly of disquieting ourselves in\nvain, and we have given up the idea that by taking thought we can add a\ncubit to our stature.\n\nBut no sooner has our life settled down to this calm trust in God than a\nnew and graver anxiety begins. This time it is not for the body we are\nin travail, but for the soul. For the temporal life we have considered\nthe lilies, but how is the spiritual life to grow. How are we to become\nbetter men? How are we to grow in grace? By what thought shall we add\nthe cubits to the spiritual stature and reach the fullness of the\nPerfect Man? And because we know ill how to do this, the old anxiety\ncomes back again and our inner life is once more an agony of conflict\nand remorse. After all, we have but transferred our anxious thoughts\nfrom the body to the soul. Our efforts after Christian growth seem only\na succession of failures, and instead of rising into the beauty of\nholiness our life is a daily heartbreak and humiliation.\n\nNow the reason of this is very plain. We have forgotten the parable of\nthe lily. Violent efforts to grow are right in earnestness, but wholly\nwrong in principle. There is but one principle of growth both for the\nnatural and spiritual, for animal and plant, for body and soul. For all\ngrowth is an organic thing. And the principle of growing in grace is\nonce more this, \"Consider the lilies _how they grow_.\"\n\nIn seeking to extend the analogy from the body to the soul there are two\nthings about the lilies' growth, two characteristics of all growth, on\nwhich one must fix attention. These are--\n\nFirst, Spontaneousness.\n\nSecond, Mysteriousness.\n\nI. Spontaneousness. There are three lines along which one may seek for\nevidence of the spontaneousness of growth. The first is Science. And the\nargument here could not be summed up better than in the words of Jesus.\nThe lilies grow, He says, of themselves; they toil not, neither do they\nspin. They grow, that is, automatically, spontaneously, without trying,\nwithout fretting, without thinking. Applied in any direction, to plant,\nto animal, to the body or to the soul this law holds. A boy grows, for\nexample, without trying. One or two simple conditions are fulfilled, and\nthe growth goes on. He thinks probably as little about the condition as\nabout the result; he fulfills the conditions by habit, the result\nfollows by nature. Both processes go steadily on from year to year apart\nfrom himself and all but in spite of himself. One would never think of\n_telling_ a boy to grow. A doctor has no prescription for growth. He can\ntell me how growth may be stunted or impaired, but the process itself is\nrecognized as beyond control--one of the few, and therefore very\nsignificant, things which Nature keeps in her own hands. No physician of\nsouls, in like manner, has any prescription for spiritual growth. It is\nthe question he is most often asked and most often answers wrongly. He\nmay prescribe more earnestness, more prayer, more self-denial, or more\nChristian work. These are prescriptions for something, but not for\ngrowth. Not that they may not encourage growth; but the soul grows as\nthe lily grows, without trying, without fretting, without ever thinking.\nManuals of devotion, with complicated rules for getting on in the\nChristian life, would do well sometimes to return to the simplicity of\nnature; and earnest souls who are attempting sanctification by struggle\ninstead of sanctification by faith might be spared much humiliation by\nlearning the botany of the Sermon on the Mount. There _can_ indeed be no\nother principle of growth than this. It is a vital act. And to try to\n_make_ a thing grow is as absurd as to help the tide to come in or the\nsun rise.\n\nAnother argument for the spontaneousness of growth is universal\nexperience. A boy not only grows without trying, but he cannot grow if\nhe tries. No man by taking thought has ever added a cubit to his\nstature; nor has any man by mere working at his soul ever approached\nnearer to the stature of the Lord Jesus. The stature of the Lord Jesus\nwas not itself reached by work, and he who thinks to approach its\nmystical height by anxious effort is really receding from it. Christ's\nlife unfolded itself from a divine germ, planted centrally in His\nnature, which grew as naturally as a flower from a bud. This flower may\nbe imitated; but one can always tell an artificial flower. The human\nform may be copied in wax, yet somehow one never fails to detect the\ndifference. And this precisely is the difference between a native growth\nof Christian principle and the moral copy of it. The one is natural, the\nother mechanical. The one is a growth, the other an accretion. Now this,\naccording to modern biology, is the fundamental distinction between the\nliving and the not living, between an organism and a crystal. The living\norganism grows, the dead crystal increases. The first grows vitally from\nwithin, the last adds new particles from the outside. The whole\ndifference between the Christian and the moralist lies here. The\nChristian works from the center, the moralist from the circumference.\nThe one is an organism, in the center of which is planted by the living\nGod a living germ. The other is a crystal, very beautiful it may be; but\nonly a crystal--it wants the vital principle of growth.\n\nAnd one sees here also, what is sometimes very difficult to see, why\nsalvation in the first instance is never connected directly with\nmorality. The reason is not that salvation does not demand morality, but\nthat it demands so much of it that the moralist can never reach up to\nit. The end of Salvation is perfection, the Christ-like mind, character\nand life. Morality is on the way to this perfection; it may go a\nconsiderable distance toward it, but it can never reach it. Only Life\ncan do that. It requires something with enormous power of movement, of\ngrowth, of overcoming obstacles, to attain the perfect. Therefore the\nman who has within himself this great formative agent, Life, is nearer\nthe end than the man who has morality alone. The latter can never reach\nperfection; the former _must_. For the Life must develop out according\nto its type; and being a germ of the Christ-life, it must unfold into _a\nChrist_. Morality, at the utmost, only develops the character in one or\ntwo directions. It may perfect a single virtue here and there, but it\ncannot perfect all. And especially it fails always to give that rounded\nharmony of parts, that perfect tune to the whole orchestra, which is the\nmarked characteristic of life. Perfect life is not merely the possessing\nof perfect functions, but of perfect functions perfectly adjusted to\neach other and all conspiring to a single result, the perfect working of\nthe whole organism. It is not said that the character will develop in\nall its fullness in this life. That were a time too short for an\nEvolution so magnificent. In this world only the cornless ear is seen;\nsometimes only the small yet still prophetic blade. The sneer at the\ngodly man for his imperfections is ill-judged. A blade is a small thing.\nAt first it grows very near the earth. It is often soiled and crushed\nand downtrodden. But it is a living thing. That great dead stone beside\nit is more imposing; only it will never be anything else than a stone.\nBut this small blade--_it doth not yet appear what it shall be_.\n\nSeeing now that Growth can only be synonymous with a living automatic\nprocess, it is all but superfluous to seek a third line of argument from\nScripture. Growth there is always described in the language of\nphysiology. The regenerate soul is a new creature. The Christian is a\nnew man in Christ Jesus. He adds the cubits to his stature just as the\nold man does. He is rooted and built up in Christ; he abides in the\nvine, and so abiding, not toiling or spinning, brings forth fruit. The\nChristian in short, like the poet, is born not made; and the fruits of\nhis character are not manufactured things but living things, things\nwhich have grown from the secret germ, the fruits of the living Spirit.\nThey are not the produce of this climate, but exotics from a sunnier\nland.\n\nII. But, secondly, besides this Spontaneousness there is this other\ngreat characteristic of Growth--Mysteriousness. Upon this quality\ndepends the fact, probably, that so few men ever fathom its real\ncharacter. We are most unspiritual always in dealing with the simplest\nspiritual things. A lily grows mysteriously, pushing up its solid weight\nof stem and leaf in the teeth of gravity. Shaped into beauty by secret\nand invisible fingers, the flower develops we know not how. But we do\nnot wonder at it. Every day the thing is done; it is Nature, it is God.\nWe are spiritual enough at least to understand that. But when the soul\nrises slowly above the world, pushing up its delicate virtues in the\nteeth of sin, shaping itself mysteriously into the image of Christ, we\ndeny that the power is not of man. A strong will, we say, a high ideal,\nthe reward of virtue, Christian influence--these will account for it.\nSpiritual character is merely the product of anxious work, self-command,\nand self-denial. We allow, that is to say, a miracle to the lily, but\nnone to the man. The lily may grow; the man must fret and toil and spin.\n\nNow grant for a moment that by hard work and self-restraint a man may\nattain to a very high character. It is not denied that this can be done.\nBut what is denied is that this is growth, and that this process is\nChristianity. The fact that you can account for it proves that it is not\ngrowth. For growth is mysterious; the peculiarity of it is that you\ncannot account for it. Mysteriousness, as Mozley has well observed, is\n\"the test of spiritual birth.\" And this was Christ's test. \"The wind\nbloweth where it listeth. Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not\ntell whence it cometh or whither it goeth, _so is every one that is born\nof the Spirit_.\" The test of spirituality is that you cannot tell whence\nit cometh or whither it goeth. If you can tell, if you can account for\nit on philosophical principles, on the doctrine of influence, on\nstrength of will, on a favorable environment, it is not growth. It may\nbe so far a success, it may be a perfectly honest, even remarkable, and\npraiseworthy imitation, but it is not the real thing. The fruits are\nwax, the flowers artificial--you can tell whence it cometh and whither\nit goeth.\n\nThe conclusion is, then, that the Christian is a unique phenomenon. You\ncannot account for him. And if you could he would not be a Christian.\nMozley has drawn the two characters for us in graphic words: \"Take an\nordinary man of the world--what he thinks and what he does, his whole\nstandard of duty is taken from the society in which he lives. It is a\nborrowed standard: he is as good as other people are; he does, in the\nway of duty, what is generally considered proper and becoming among\nthose with whom his lot is thrown. He reflects established opinion on\nsuch points. He follows its lead. His aims and objects in life again are\ntaken from the world around him, and from its dictation. What it\nconsiders honorable, worth having, advantageous and good, he thinks so\ntoo and pursues it. His motives all come from a visible quarter. It\nwould be absurd to say that there is any mystery in such a character as\nthis, because it is formed from a known external influence--the\ninfluence of social opinion and the voice of the world. 'Whence such a\ncharacter cometh' we see; we venture to say that the source and origin\nof it is open and palpable, and we know it just as we know the physical\ncauses of many common facts.\"\n\nThen there is the other. \"There is a certain character and disposition\nof mind of which it is true to say that 'thou canst not tell whence it\ncometh or whither it goeth.' ... There are those who stand out from\namong the crowd, which reflects merely the atmosphere of feeling and\nstandard of society around it, with an impress upon them which bespeaks\na heavenly birth.... Now, when we see one of those characters, it is a\nquestion which we ask ourselves. How has the person become possessed of\nit? Has he caught it from society around him? That cannot be, because it\nis wholly different from that of the world around him. Has he caught it\nfrom the inoculation of crowds and masses, as the mere religious zealot\ncatches his character? That cannot be either, for the type is altogether\ndifferent from that which masses of men, under enthusiastic impulses,\nexhibit. There is nothing gregarious in this character; it is the\nindividual's own; it is not borrowed, it is not a reflection of any\nfashion or tone of the world outside; it rises up from some fount\nwithin, and it is a creation of which the text says, We know not whence\nit cometh.\"[53]\n\nNow we have all met these two characters--the one eminently respectable,\nupright, virtuous, a trifle cold perhaps, and generally, when critically\nexamined, revealing somehow the mark of the tool; the other with God's\nbreath still upon it, an inspiration; not more virtuous, but differently\nvirtuous; not more humble, but different, wearing the meek and quiet\nspirit artlessly as to the manner born. The other-worldliness of such a\ncharacter is the thing that strikes you; you are not prepared for what\nit will do or say or become next, for it moves from a far-off center,\nand in spite of its transparency and sweetness that presence fills you\nalways with awe. A man never feels the discord of his own life, never\nhears the jar of the machinery by which he tries to manufacture his own\ngood points, till he has stood in the stillness of such a presence. Then\nhe discerns the difference between growth and work. He has considered\nthe lilies, how they grow.\n\nWe have now seen that spiritual growth is a process maintained and\nsecured by a spontaneous and mysterious inward principle. It is a\nspontaneous principle even in its origin, for it bloweth where it\nlisteth; mysterious in its operation, for we can never tell whence it\ncometh; obscure in its destination, for we cannot tell whence it goeth.\nThe whole process therefore transcends us; we do not work, we are taken\nin hand--\"it is God which worketh in us, both to will and to do of His\ngood pleasure.\" We do not plan--we are \"created in Christ Jesus unto\ngood works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.\"\n\nThere may be an obvious objection to all this. It takes away all\nconflict from the Christian life? It makes man, does it not, mere clay\nin the hands of the potter? It crushes the old character to make a new\none, and destroys man's responsibility for his own soul?\n\nNow we are not concerned here in once more striking the time-honored\n\"balance between faith and works.\" We are considering how lilies grow,\nand in a specific connection, namely, to discover the attitude of mind\nwhich the Christian should preserve regarding his spiritual growth. That\nattitude, primarily, is to be free from care. We are not lodging a plea\nfor inactivity of the spiritual energies, but for the tranquillity of\nthe spiritual mind. Christ's protest is not against work, but against\nanxious thought; and rather, therefore, than complement the lesson by\nshowing the other side, we take the risk of still further extending the\nplea in the original direction.\n\nWhat is the relation, to recur again to analogy, between growth and work\nin a boy? Consciously, there is no relation at all. The boy never thinks\nof connecting his work with his growth. Work in fact is one thing and\ngrowth another, and it is so in the spiritual life. If it be asked\ntherefore, Is the Christian wrong in these ceaseless and agonizing\nefforts after growth? the answer is, Yes, he is quite wrong, or at\nleast, he is quite mistaken. When a boy takes a meal or denies himself\nindigestible things, he does not say, \"All this will minister to my\ngrowth;\" or when he runs a race he does not say, \"This will help the\nnext cubit of my stature.\" It may or it may not be true that these\nthings will help his stature, but, if he thinks of this, his idea of\ngrowth is morbid. And this is the point we are dealing with. His anxiety\nhere is altogether irrelevant and superfluous. Nature is far more\nbountiful than we think. When she gives us energy she asks none of it\nback to expend on our own growth. She will attend to that. \"Give your\nwork,\" she says, \"and your anxiety to others; trust me to add the cubits\nto your stature.\" If God is adding to our spiritual stature, unfolding\nthe new nature within us, it is a mistake to keep twitching at the\npetals with our coarse fingers. We must seek to let the Creative Hand\nalone. \"It is God which giveth the increase.\" Yet we never know how\nlittle we have learned of the fundamental principle of Christianity till\nwe discover how much we are all bent on supplementing God's free grace.\nIf God is spending work upon a Christian, let him be still and know that\nit is God. And if he wants work, he will find it there--in the being\nstill.\n\nNot that there is no work for him who would grow, to do. There is work,\nand severe work--work so great that the worker deserves to have himself\nrelieved of all that is superfluous during his task. If the amount of\nenergy lost in trying to grow were spent in fulfilling rather the\nconditions of growth, we should have many more cubits to show for our\nstature. It is with these conditions that the personal work of the\nChristian is chiefly concerned. Observe for a moment what they are, and\ntheir exact relation. For its growth the plant needs heat, light, air,\nand moisture. A man, therefore, must go in search of these, or their\nspiritual equivalents, and this is his work? By no means. The\nChristian's work is not yet. Does the plant go in search of its\nconditions? Nay, the conditions come to the plant. It no more\nmanufactures the heat, light, air, and moisture, than it manufactures\nits own stem. It finds them all around it in Nature. It simply stands\nstill with its leaves spread out in unconscious prayer, and Nature\nlavishes upon it these and all other bounties, bathing it in sunshine,\npouring the nourishing air over and over it, reviving it graciously with\nits nightly dew. Grace, too, is as free as the air. The Lord God is a\nSun. He is as the Dew to Israel. A man has no more to manufacture these\nthan he has to manufacture his own soul. He stands surrounded by them,\nbathed in them, beset behind and before by them. He lives and moves and\nhas his being in them. How then shall he go in search of them? Do not\nthey rather go in search of him? Does he not feel how they press\nthemselves upon him? Does he not know how unweariedly they appeal to\nhim? Has he not heard how they are sorrowful when he will not have them?\nHis work, therefore, is not yet. The voice still says, \"Be still.\"\n\nThe conditions of growth, then, and the inward principle of growth being\nboth supplied by Nature, the thing man has to do, the little junction\nleft for him to complete, is to apply the one to the other. He\nmanufactures nothing; he earns nothing; he need be anxious for nothing;\nhis one duty is _to be in_ these conditions, to abide in them, to allow\ngrace to play over him, to be still therein and know that this is God.\n\nThe conflict begins and prevails in all its life-long agony the moment a\nman forgets this. He struggles to grow himself instead of struggling to\nget back again into position. He makes the church into a workshop when\nGod meant it to be a beautiful garden. And even in his closet, where\nonly should reign silence--a silence as of the mountains whereon the\nlilies grow--is heard the roar and tumult of machinery. True, a man\nwill often have to wrestle with his God--but not for growth. The\nChristian life is a composed life. The Gospel is Peace. Yet the most\nanxious people in the world are Christians--Christians who misunderstand\nthe nature of growth. Life is a perpetual self-condemning because they\nare not growing. And the effect is not only the loss of tranquillity to\nthe individual. The energies which are meant to be spent on the work of\nChrist are consumed in the soul's own fever. So long as the Church's\nactivities are spent on growing there is nothing to spare for the world.\nA soldier's time is not spent in earning the money to buy his armor, in\nfinding food and raiment, in seeking shelter. His king provides these\nthings that he may be the more at liberty to fight his battles. So, for\nthe soldier of the Cross all is provided. His Government has planned to\nleave him free for the Kingdom's work.\n\nThe problem of the Christian life finally is simplified to this--man has\nbut to preserve the right attitude. To abide in Christ, to be in\nposition, that is all. Much work is done on board a ship crossing the\nAtlantic. Yet none of it is spent on making the ship go. The sailor but\nharnesses his vessel to the wind. He puts his sail and rudder in\nposition, and lo, the miracle is wrought. So everywhere God creates, man\nutilizes. All the work of the world is merely a taking advantage of\nenergies already there.[54] God gives the wind, and the water, and the\nheat; man but puts himself in the way of the wind, fixes his water-wheel\nin the way of the river, puts his piston in the way of the steam; and so\nholding himself in position before God's Spirit, all the energies of\nOmnipotence course within his soul. He is like a tree planted by a river\nwhose leaf is green and whose fruits fail not. Such is the deeper lesson\nto be learned from considering the lily. It is the voice of Nature\nechoing the whole evangel of Jesus, \"Come unto Me, and I will give you\nrest.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[53] University Sermons, pp. 234-241.\n\n[54] See Bushnell's \"New Life.\"\n\n\n\n\nDEATH.\n\n    \"What could be easier than to form a catena of the most\n    philosophical defenders of Christianity, who have exhausted language\n    in declaring the impotence of the unassisted intellect? Comte has\n    not more explicitly enounced the incapacity of man to deal with the\n    Absolute and the Infinite than the whole series of orthodox writers.\n    Trust your reason, we have been told till we are tired of the\n    phrase, and you will become Atheists or Agnostics. We take you at\n    your word; we become Agnostics.\"--_Leslie Stephen._\n\n    \"To be carnally minded is Death.\"--_Paul._\n\n    \"I do not wonder at what men suffer, but I wonder often at what they\n    lose.\"--_Ruskin._\n\n\n\"Death,\" wrote Faber, \"is an unsurveyed land, an unarranged Science.\"\nPoetry draws near Death only to hover over it for a moment and withdraw\nin terror. History knows it simply as a universal fact. Philosophy finds\nit among the mysteries of being, the one great mystery of being not. All\ncontributions to this dead theme are marked by an essential vagueness,\nand every avenue of approach seems darkened by impenetrable shadow.\n\nBut modern Biology has found it part of its work to push its way into\nthis silent land, and at last the world is confronted with a scientific\ntreatment of Death. Not that much is added to the old conception, or\nmuch taken from it. What it is, this certain Death with its uncertain\nissues, we know as little as before. But we can define more clearly and\nattach a narrower meaning to the momentous symbol.\n\nThe interest of the investigation here lies in the fact that Death is\none of the outstanding things in Nature which has an acknowledged\nspiritual equivalent. The prominence of the word in the vocabulary of\nRevelation cannot be exaggerated. Next to Life the most pregnant symbol\nin religion is its antithesis, Death. And from the time that \"If thou\neatest thereof thou shalt surely die\" was heard in Paradise, this solemn\nword has been linked with human interests of eternal moment.\n\nNotwithstanding the unparalleled emphasis upon this term in the\nChristian system, there is none more feebly expressive to the ordinary\nmind. That mystery which surrounds the word in the natural world shrouds\nonly too completely its spiritual import. The reluctance which prevents\nmen from investigating the secrets of the King of Terrors is for a\ncertain length entitled to respect. But it has left theology with only\nthe vaguest materials to construct a doctrine which, intelligently\nenforced, ought to appeal to all men with convincing power and lend the\nmost effective argument to Christianity. Whatever may have been its\ninfluence in the past, its threat is gone for the modern world. The word\nhas grown weak. Ignorance has robbed the Grave of all its terror, and\nplatitude despoiled Death of its sting. Death itself is ethically dead.\nWhich of us, for example, enters fully into the meaning of words like\nthese: \"She that liveth in pleasure is _dead_ while she liveth?\" Who\nallows adequate weight to the metaphor in the Pauline phrase, \"To be\ncarnally minded is _Death_;\" or in this, \"The wages of sin is _Death_?\"\nOr what theology has translated into the language of human life the\nterrific practical import of \"Dead in trespasses and sins?\" To seek to\nmake these phrases once more real and burning; to clothe time-worn\nformulae with living truth; to put the deepest ethical meaning into the\ngravest symbol of Nature, and fill up with its full consequence the\ndarkest threat of Revelation--these are the objects before us now.\n\nWhat, then, is Death? Is it possible to define it and embody its\nessential meaning in an intelligible proposition?\n\nThe most recent and the most scientific attempt to investigate Death we\nowe to the biological studies of Mr. Herbert Spencer. In his search for\nthe meaning of Life the word Death crosses his path, and he turns aside\nfor a moment to define it. Of course what Death is depends upon what\nLife is. Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition of Life, it is well known, has\nbeen subjected to serious criticism. While it has shed much light on\nmany of the phenomena of Life, it cannot be affirmed that it has taken\nits place in science as the final solution of the fundamental problem of\nbiology. No definition of Life, indeed, that has yet appeared can be\nsaid to be even approximately correct. Its mysterious quality evades us;\nand we have to be content with outward characteristics and\naccompaniments, leaving the thing itself an unsolved riddle. At the same\ntime Mr. Herbert Spencer's masterly elucidation of the chief phenomena\nof Life has placed philosophy and science under many obligations, and in\nthe paragraphs which follow we shall have to incur a further debt on\nbehalf of religion.\n\nThe meaning of Death depending, as has been said, on the meaning of\nLife, we must first set ourselves to grasp the leading characteristics\nwhich distinguish living things. To a physiologist the living organism\nis distinguished from the not-living by the performance of certain\nfunctions. These functions are four in number--Assimilation, Waste,\nReproduction, and Growth. Nothing could be a more interesting task than\nto point out the co-relatives of these in the spiritual sphere, to show\nin what ways the discharge of these functions represent the true\nmanifestations of spiritual life, and how the failure to perform them\nconstitutes spiritual Death. But it will bring us more directly to the\nspecific subject before us if we follow rather the newer biological\nlines of Mr. Herbert Spencer. According to his definition, Life is \"The\ndefinite combination of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and\nsuccessive, in correspondence with external co-existences and\nsequences,\"[55] or more shortly \"The continuous adjustment of internal\nrelations to external relations.\"[56] An example or two will render\nthese important statements at once intelligible.\n\nThe essential characteristic of a living organism, according to these\ndefinitions, is that it is in vital connection with its general\nsurroundings. A human being, for instance, is in direct contact with the\nearth and air, with all surrounding things, with the warmth of the sun,\nwith the music of birds, with the countless influences and activities of\nnature and of his fellow-men. In biological language he is said thus to\nbe \"in correspondence with his environment.\" He is, that is to say, in\nactive and vital connection with them, influencing them possibly, but\nespecially being influenced by them. Now it is in virtue of this\ncorrespondence that he is entitled to be called alive. So long as he is\nin correspondence with any given point of his environment, he lives. To\nkeep up this correspondence is to keep up life. If his environment\nchanges he must instantly adjust himself to the change. And he continues\nliving only as long as he succeeds in adjusting himself to the\n\"simultaneous and successive changes in his environment\" as these occur.\nWhat is meant by a change in his environment may be understood from an\nexample, which will at the same time define more clearly the intimacy of\nthe relation between environment and organism. Let us take the case of a\ncivil-servant whose environment is a district in India. It is a region\nsubject to occasional and prolonged droughts resulting in periodical\nfamines. When such a period of scarcity arises, he proceeds immediately\nto adjust himself to this external change. Having the power of\nlocomotion, he may remove himself to a more fertile district, or,\npossessing the means of purchase, he may add to his old environment by\nimportation the \"external relations\" necessary to continued life. But if\nfrom any cause he fails to adjust himself to the altered circumstances,\nhis body is thrown out of correspondence with his environment, his\n\"internal relations\" are no longer adjusted to his \"external\nrelations,\" and his life must cease.\n\nIn ordinary circumstances, and in health, the human organism is in\nthorough correspondence with its surroundings; but when any part of the\norganism by disease or accident is thrown out of correspondence, it is\nin that relation dead.\n\nThis Death, this want of correspondence, may be either partial or\ncomplete. Part of the organism may be dead to a part of the environment,\nor the whole to the whole. Thus the victim of famine may have a certain\nnumber of his correspondences arrested by the change in his environment,\nbut not all. Luxuries which he once enjoyed no longer enter the country,\nanimals which once furnished his table are driven from it. These still\nexist, but they are beyond the limit of his correspondence. In relation\nto these things therefore he is dead. In one sense it might be said that\nit was the environment which played him false; in another, that it was\nhis own organization--that he was unable to adjust himself, or did not.\nBut, however caused, he pays the penalty with partial Death.\n\nSuppose next the case of a man who is thrown out of correspondence with\na part of his environment by some physical infirmity. Let it be that by\ndisease or accident he has been deprived of the use of his ears. The\ndeaf man, in virtue of this imperfection, is thrown out of _rapport_\nwith a large and well-defined part of the environment, namely, its\nsounds. With regard to that \"external relation,\" therefore, he is no\nlonger living. Part of him may truly be held to be insensible or \"Dead.\"\nA man who is also blind is thrown out of correspondence with another\nlarge part of his environment. The beauty of sea and sky, the forms of\ncloud and mountain, the features and gestures of friends, are to him as\nif they were not. They are there, solid and real, but not to him; he is\nstill further \"Dead.\" Next, let it be conceived, the subtle finger of\ncerebral disease lays hold of him. His whole brain is affected, and the\nsensory nerves, the medium of communication with the environment, cease\naltogether to acquaint him with what is doing in the outside world. The\noutside world is still there, but not to him; he is still further\n\"Dead.\" And so the death of parts goes on. He becomes less and less\nalive. \"Were the animal frame not the complicated machine we have seen\nit to be, death might come as a simple and gradual dissolution, the\n'sans everything' being the last stage of the successive loss of\nfundamental powers.\"[57] But finally some important part of the mere\nanimal framework that remains breaks down. The correlation with the\nother parts is very intimate, and the stoppage of correspondence with\none means an interference with the work of the rest. Something central\nhas snapped, and all are thrown out of work. The lungs refuse to\ncorrespond with the air, the heart with the blood. There is now no\ncorrespondence whatever with environment--the thing, for it is now a\nthing, is Dead.\n\nThis then is Death; \"part of the framework breaks down,\" \"something has\nsnapped\"--these phrases by which we describe the phases of death yield\ntheir full meaning. They are different ways of saying that\n\"correspondence\" has ceased. And the scientific meaning of Death now\nbecomes clearly intelligible. Dying is that breakdown in an organism\nwhich throws it out of correspondence with some necessary part of the\nenvironment. Death is the result produced, the want of correspondence.\nWe do not say that this is all that is involved. But this is the root\nidea of Death--Failure to adjust internal relations to external\nrelations, failure to repair the broken inward connection sufficiently\nto enable it to correspond again with the old surroundings. These\npreliminary statements may be fitly closed with the words of Mr. Herbert\nSpencer: \"Death by natural decay occurs because in old age the\nrelations between assimilation, oxidation, and genesis of force going\non in the organism gradually fall out of correspondence with the\nrelations between oxygen and food and absorption of heat by the\nenvironment. Death from disease arises either when the organism is\ncongenitally defective in its power to balance the ordinary external\nactions by the ordinary internal actions, or when there has taken place\nsome unusual external action to which there was no answering internal\naction. Death by accident implies some neighboring mechanical changes of\nwhich the causes are either unnoticed from inattention, or are so\nintricate that their results cannot be foreseen, and consequently\ncertain relations in the organism are not adjusted to the relations in\nthe environment.\"[58]\n\nWith the help of these plain biological terms we may now proceed to\nexamine the parallel phenomenon of Death in the spiritual world. The\nfactors with which we have to deal are two in number as before--Organism\nand Environment. The relation between them may once more be denominated\nby \"correspondence.\" And the truth to be emphasized resolves itself into\nthis, that Spiritual Death is a want of correspondence between the\norganism and the spiritual environment.\n\nWhat is the spiritual environment? This term obviously demands some\nfurther definition. For Death is a relative term. And before we can\ndefine Death in the spiritual world we must first apprehend the\nparticular relation with reference to which the expression is to be\nemployed. We shall best reach the nature of this relation by considering\nfor a moment the subject of environment generally. By the natural\nenvironment we mean the entire surroundings of the natural man, the\nentire external world in which he lives and moves and has his being. It\nis not involved in the idea that either with all or part of the\nenvironment he is in immediate correspondence. Whether he correspond\nwith it or not, it is there. There is in fact a conscious environment\nand an environment of which he is not conscious; and it must be borne in\nmind that the conscious environment is not all the environment that is.\nAll that surrounds him, all that environs him, conscious or unconscious,\nis environment. The moon and stars are part of it, though in the daytime\nhe may not see them. The polar regions are parts of it, though he is\nseldom aware of their influence. In its widest sense environment simply\nmeans all else that is.\n\nNow it will next be manifest that different organisms correspond with\nthis environment in varying degrees of completeness or incompleteness.\nAt the bottom of the biological scale we find organisms which have only\nthe most limited correspondence with their surroundings. A tree, for\nexample, corresponds with the soil about its stem, with the sunlight,\nand with the air in contact with its leaves. But it is shut off by its\ncomparatively low development from a whole world to which higher forms\nof life have additional access. The want of locomotion alone\ncircumscribes most seriously its area of correspondence, so that to a\nlarge part of surrounding nature it may truly be said to be dead. So far\nas consciousness is concerned, we should be justified indeed in saying\nthat it was not alive at all. The murmur of the stream which bathes its\nroots affects it not. The marvelous insect-life beneath its shadow\nexcites in it no wonder. The tender maternity of the bird which has its\nnest among its leaves stirs no responsive sympathy. It cannot correspond\nwith those things. To stream and insect and bird it is insensible,\ntorpid, dead. For this is Death, this irresponsiveness.\n\nThe bird, again, which is higher in the scale of life, corresponds with\na wider environment. The stream is real to it, and the insect. It knows\nwhat lies behind the hill; it listens to the love-song of its mate. And\nto much besides beyond the simple world of the tree this higher\norganism is alive. The bird we should say is more living than the tree;\nit has a correspondence with a larger area of environment. But this\nbird-life is not yet the highest life. Even within the immediate\nbird-environment there is much to which the bird must still be held to\nbe dead. Introduce a higher organism, place man himself within this same\nenvironment, and see how much more living he is. A hundred things which\nthe bird never saw in insect, stream, and tree appeal to him. Each\nsingle sense has something to correspond with. Each faculty finds an\nappropriate exercise. Man is a mass of correspondences, and because of\nthese, because he is alive to countless objects and influences to which\nlower organisms are dead, he is the most living of all creatures.\n\nThe relativity of Death will now have become sufficiently obvious. Man\nbeing left out of account, all organisms are seen as it were to be\npartly living and partly dead. The tree, in correspondence with a narrow\narea of environment, is to that extent alive; to all beyond, to the all\nbut infinite area beyond, it is dead. A still wider portion of this vast\narea is the possession of the insect and the bird. Their's also,\nnevertheless, is but a little world, and to an immense further area\ninsect and bird are dead. All organisms likewise are living and\ndead--living to all within the circumference of their correspondences,\ndead to all beyond. As we rise in the scale of life, however, it will be\nobserved that the sway of Death is gradually weakened. More and more of\nthe environment becomes accessible as we ascend, and the domain of life\nin this way slowly extends in ever-widening circles. But until man\nappears there is no organism to correspond with the whole environment.\nTill then the outermost circles have no correspondents. To the\ninhabitants of the innermost spheres they are as if they were not.\n\nNow follows a momentous question. Is man in correspondence with the\nwhole environment? When we reach the highest living organism, is the\nfinal blow dealt to the kingdom of Death? Has the last acre of the\ninfinite area been taken in by his finite faculties? Is his conscious\nenvironment the whole environment? Or is there, among these outermost\ncircles, one which with his multitudinous correspondences he fails to\nreach? If so, this is Death. The question of Life or Death to him is the\nquestion of the amount of remaining environment he is able to compass.\nIf there be one circle or one segment of a circle which he yet fails to\nreach, to correspond with, to know, to be influenced by, he is, with\nregard to that circle or segment, dead.\n\nWhat then, practically, is the state of the case? Is man in\ncorrespondence with the whole environment or is he not? There is but one\nanswer. He is not. Of men generally it cannot be said that they are in\nliving contact with that part of the environment which is called the\nspiritual world. In introducing this new term spiritual world, observe,\nwe are not interpolating a new factor. This is an essential part of the\nold idea. We have been following out an ever-widening environment from\npoint to point, and now we reach the outermost zones. The spiritual\nworld is simply the outermost segment, circle, or circles of the natural\nworld. For purposes of convenience we separate the two just as we\nseparate the animal world from the plant. But the animal world and the\nplant world are the same world. They are different parts of one\nenvironment. And the natural and spiritual are likewise one. The inner\ncircles are called the natural, the outer the spiritual. And we call\nthem spiritual simply because they are beyond us or beyond a part of us.\nWhat we have correspondence with, that we call natural; what we have\nlittle or no correspondence with, that we call spiritual. But when the\nappropriate corresponding organism appears, the organism, that is, which\ncan freely communicate with these outer circles, the distinction\nnecessarily disappears. The spiritual to it becomes the outer circle of\nthe natural.\n\nNow of the great mass of living organisms, of the great mass of men, is\nit not to be affirmed that they are out of correspondence with this\nouter circle? Suppose, to make the final issue more real, we give this\noutermost circle of environment a name. Suppose we call it God. Suppose\nalso we substitute a word for \"correspondence\" to express more\nintimately the personal relation. Let us call it Communion. We can now\ndetermine accurately the spiritual relation of different sections of\nmankind. Those who are in communion with God live, those who are not are\ndead.\n\nThe extent or depth of this communion, the varying degrees of\ncorrespondence in different individuals, and the less or more abundant\nlife which these result in, need not concern us for the present. The\ntask we have set ourselves is to investigate the essential nature of\nSpiritual Death. And we have found it to consist in a want of communion\nwith God. The unspiritual man is he who lives in the circumscribed\nenvironment of this present world. \"She that liveth in pleasure is Dead\nwhile she liveth.\" \"To be carnally minded is Death.\" To be carnally\nminded, translated into the language of science, is to be limited in\none's correspondences to the environment of the natural man. It is no\nnecessary part of the conception that the mind should be either\npurposely irreligious, or directly vicious. The mind of the flesh,\n{phronema tes sarkos}, by its very nature, limited capacity, and\ntime-ward tendency, is {thanatos}, Death. This earthly mind may be of\nnoble caliber, enriched by culture, high toned, virtuous and pure. But\nif it know not God? What though its correspondences reach to the stars\nof heaven or grasp the magnitudes of Time and Space? The stars of heaven\nare not heaven. Space is not God. This mind certainly, has life, life up\nto its level. There is no trace of Death. Possibly, too, it carries its\ndeprivation lightly, and, up to its level, lies content. We do not\npicture the possessor of this carnal mind as in any sense a monster. We\nhave said he may be high-toned, virtuous, and pure. The plant is not a\nmonster because it is dead to the voice of the bird; nor is he a monster\nwho is dead to the voice of God. The contention at present simply is\nthat he is _Dead_.\n\nWe do not need to go to Revelation for the proof of this. That has been\nrendered unnecessary by the testimony of the Dead themselves. Thousands\nhave uttered themselves upon their relation to the Spiritual World, and\nfrom their own lips we have the proclamation of their Death. The\nlanguage of theology in describing the state of the natural man is often\nregarded as severe. The Pauline anthropology has been challenged as an\ninsult to human nature. Culture has opposed the doctrine that \"The\nnatural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are\nfoolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are\nspiritually discerned.\" And even some modern theologies have refused to\naccept the most plain of the aphorisms of Jesus, that \"Except a man be\nborn again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.\" But this stern doctrine of\nthe spiritual deadness of humanity is no mere dogma of a past theology.\nThe history of thought during the present century proves that the world\nhas come round spontaneously to the position of the first. One of the\nablest philosophical schools of the day erects a whole antichristian\nsystem on this very doctrine. Seeking by means of it to sap the\nfoundation of spiritual religion, it stands unconsciously as the most\nsignificant witness for its truth. What is the creed of the Agnostic,\nbut the confession of the spiritual numbness of humanity? The negative\ndoctrine which it reiterates with such sad persistency, what is it but\nthe echo of the oldest of scientific and religious truths? And what are\nall these gloomy and rebellious infidelities, these touching, and too\nsincere confessions of universal nescience, but a protest against this\nancient law of Death?\n\nThe Christian apologist never further misses the mark than when he\nrefuses the testimony of the Agnostic to himself. When the Agnostic\ntells me he is blind and deaf, dumb, torpid and dead to the spiritual\nworld, I must believe him. Jesus tells me that. Paul tells me that.\nScience tells me that. He knows nothing of this outermost circle; and we\nare compelled to trust his sincerity as readily when he deplores it as\nif, being a man without an ear, he professed to know nothing of a\nmusical world, or being without taste, of a world of art. The nescience\nof the Agnostic philosophy is the proof from experience that to be\ncarnally minded is Death. Let the theological value of the concession be\nduly recognized. It brings no solace to the unspiritual man to be told\nhe is mistaken. To say he is self-deceived is neither to compliment him\nnor Christianity. He builds in all sincerity who raises his altar to the\n_Unknown_ God. He does not know God. With all his marvelous and complex\ncorrespondences, he is still one correspondence short.\n\nIt is a point worthy of special note that the proclamation of this truth\nhas always come from science rather than from religion. Its general\nacceptance by thinkers is based upon the universal failure of a\nuniversal experiment. The statement, therefore, that the natural man\ndiscerneth not the things of the spirit, is never to be charged against\nthe intolerance of theology. There is no point at which theology has\nbeen more modest than here. It has left the preaching of a great\nfundamental truth almost entirely to philosophy and science. And so very\nmoderate has been its tone, so slight has been the emphasis placed upon\nthe paralysis of the natural with regard to the spiritual, that it may\nseem to some to have been intolerant. No harm certainly could come now,\nno offence could be given to science, if religion asserted more clearly\nits right to the spiritual world. Science has paved the way for the\nreception of one of the most revolutionary doctrines of Christianity;\nand if Christianity refuses to take advantage of the opening it will\nmanifest a culpable want of confidence in itself. There never was a time\nwhen its fundamental doctrines could more boldly be proclaimed, or when\nthey could better secure the respect and arrest the interest of Science.\n\nTo all this, and apparently with force, it may, however, be objected\nthat to every man who truly studies Nature there is a God. Call Him by\nwhatever name--a Creator, a Supreme Being, a Great First Cause, a Power\nthat makes for Righteousness--Science has a God; and he who believes in\nthis, in spite of all protest, possesses a theology. \"If we will look at\nthings, and not merely at words, we shall soon see that the scientific\nman has a theology and a God, a most impressive theology, a most awful\nand glorious God. I say that man believes in a God who feels himself in\nthe presence of a Power which is not himself, and is immeasurably above\nhimself, a Power in the contemplation of which he is absorbed, in the\nknowledge of which he finds safety and happiness. And such now is Nature\nto the scientific man.\"[59] Such now, we humbly submit, is Nature to the\nvery few. Their own confession is against it. That they are \"absorbed\"\nin the contemplation we can well believe. That they might \"find safety\nand happiness\" in the knowledge of Him is also possible--if they had it.\nBut this is just what they tell us they have not. What they deny is not\na God. It is the correspondence. The very confession of the Unknowable\nis itself the dull recognition of an Environment beyond themselves, and\nfor which they feel they lack the correspondence. It is this want that\nmakes their God the Unknown God. And it is this that makes them _dead_.\n\nWe have not said, or implied, that there is not a God of Nature. We have\nnot affirmed that there is no Natural Religion. We are assured there is.\nWe are even assured that without a Religion of Nature Religion is only\nhalf complete; that without a God of Nature the God of Revelation is\nonly half intelligible and only partially known. God is not confined to\nthe outermost circle of environment, He lives and moves and has His\nbeing in the whole. Those who only seek Him in the further zone can\nonly find a part. The Christian who knows not God in Nature, who does\nnot, that is to say, correspond with the whole environment, most\ncertainly is partially dead. The author of \"Ecce Homo\" may be partially\nright when he says: \"I think a bystander would say that though\nChristianity had in it something far higher and deeper and more\nennobling, yet the average scientific man worships just at present a\nmore awful, and, as it were, a greater Deity than the average Christian.\nIn so many Christians the idea of God has been degraded by childish and\nlittle-minded teaching; the Eternal and the Infinite and the\nAll-embracing has been represented as the head of the clerical interest,\nas a sort of clergyman, as a sort of schoolmaster, as a sort of\nphilanthropist. But the scientific man knows Him to be eternal; in\nastronomy, in geology, he becomes familiar with the countless\nmillenniums of His lifetime. The scientific man strains his mind\nactually to realize God's infinity. As far off as the fixed stars he\ntraces Him, 'distance inexpressible by numbers that have name.'\nMeanwhile, to the theologian, infinity and eternity are very much of\nempty words when applied to the object of his worship. He does not\nrealize them in actual facts and definite computations.\"[60] Let us\naccept this rebuke. The principle that want of correspondence is Death\napplies all round. He who knows not God in Nature only partially lives.\nThe converse of this, however, is not true; and that is the point we are\ninsisting on. He who knows God only in Nature lives not. There is no\n\"correspondence\" with an Unknown God, no \"continuous adjustment\" to a\nfixed First Cause. There is no \"assimilation\" of Natural Law; no growth\nin the Image of \"the All-embracing.\" To correspond with the God of\nScience assuredly is not to live. \"This is Life Eternal, to know Thee,\n_the true God_, and _Jesus Christ_ Whom Thou hast sent.\"\n\nFrom the service we have tried to make natural science render to our\nreligion, we might be expected possibly to take up the position that the\nabsolute contribution of Science to Revelation was very great. On the\ncontrary, it is very small. The _absolute_ contribution, that is, is\nvery small. The contribution on the whole is immense, vaster than we\nhave yet any idea of. But without the aid of the higher Revelation this\nmany-toned and far-reaching voice had been forever dumb. The light of\nNature, say the most for it, is dim--how dim we ourselves, with the\nglare of other Light upon the modern world, can only realize when we\nseek among the pagan records of the past for the groupings after truth\nof those whose only light was this. Powerfully significant and touching\nas these efforts were in their success, they are far more significant\nand touching in their failure. For they did fail. It requires no\nphilosophy now to speculate on the adequacy or inadequacy of the\nReligion of Nature. For us who could never weigh it rightly in the\nscales of Truth it has been tried in the balance of experience and found\nwanting. Theism is the easiest of all religions to get, but the most\ndifficult to keep. Individuals have kept it, but nations never. Socrates\nand Aristotle, Cicero and Epictetus had a theistic religion; Greece and\nRome had none. And even after getting what seems like a firm place in\nthe minds of men, its unstable equilibrium sooner or later betrays\nitself. On the one hand theism has always fallen into the wildest\npolytheism, or on the other into the blankest atheism. \"It is an\nindubitable historical fact that, outside of the sphere of special\nrevelation, man has never obtained such a knowledge of God as a\nresponsible and religious being plainly requires. The wisdom of the\nheathen world, at its very best, was utterly inadequate to the\naccomplishment of such a task as creating a due abhorrence of sin,\ncontrolling the passions, purifying the heart, and ennobling the\nconduct.\"[61]\n\nWhat is the inference? That this poor rush-light by itself was never\nmeant to lend the ray by which man should read the riddle of the\nuniverse. The mystery is too impenetrable and remote for its uncertain\nflicker to more than make the darkness deeper. What indeed if this were\nnot a light at all, but only part of a light--the carbon point, the\nfragment of calcium, the reflector in the great Lantern which contains\nthe Light of the World?\n\nThis is one inference. But the most important is that the absence of the\ntrue Light means moral Death. The darkness of the natural world to the\nintellect is not all. What history testifies to is, first the partial,\nand then the total eclipse of virtue that always follows the abandonment\nof belief in a personal God. It is not, as has been pointed out a\nhundred times, that morality in the abstract disappears, but the motive\nand sanction are gone. There is nothing to raise it from the dead. Man's\nattitude to it is left to himself. Grant that morals have their own base\nin human life; grant that Nature has a Religion whose creed is Science;\nthere is yet nothing apart from God to save the world from moral Death.\nMorality has the power to dictate but none to move. Nature directs but\ncannot control. As was wisely expressed in one of many pregnant\nutterances during a recent _Symposium_, \"Though the decay of religion\nmay leave the institutes of morality intact, it drains off their inward\npower. The devout faith of men expresses and measures the intensity of\ntheir moral nature, and it cannot be lost without a remission of\nenthusiasm, and under this low pressure, the successful reentrance of\nimportunate desires and clamorous passions which had been driven back.\nTo believe in an ever-living and perfect Mind, supreme over the\nuniverse, is to invest moral distinctions with immensity and eternity,\nand lift them from the provincial stage of human society to the\nimperishable theater of all being. When planted thus in the very\nsubstance of things, they justify and support the ideal estimates of\nthe conscience; they deepen every guilty shame; they guarantee every\nrighteous hope; and they help the will with a Divine casting-vote in\nevery balance of temptation.\"[62] That morality has a basis in human\nsociety, that Nature has a Religion, surely makes the Death of the soul\nwhen left to itself all the more appalling. It means that, between them,\nNature and morality provide all for virtue--except the Life to live it.\n\nIt is at this point accordingly that our subject comes into intimate\ncontact with Religion. The proposition that \"to be carnally minded is\nDeath\" even the moralist will assent to. But when it is further\nannounced that \"the carnal mind is _enmity against God_\" we find\nourselves in a different region. And when we find it also stated that\n\"the wages of _sin_ is Death,\" we are in the heart of the profoundest\nquestions of theology. What before was merely \"enmity against society\"\nbecomes \"enmity against God;\" and what was \"vice\" is \"sin.\" The\nconception of a God gives an altogether new color to worldliness and\nvice. Worldliness it changes into heathenism, vice into blasphemy. The\ncarnal mind, the mind which is turned away from God, which will not\ncorrespond with God--this is not moral only but spiritual Death. And\nSin, that which separates from God, which disobeys God, which _can_ not\nin that state correspond with God--this is hell.\n\nTo the estrangement of the soul from God the best of theology traces the\nultimate cause of sin. Sin is simply apostasy from God, unbelief in God.\n\"Sin is manifest in its true character when the demand of holiness in\nthe conscience, presenting itself to the man as one of loving submission\nto God, is put from him with aversion. Here sin appears as it really is,\na turning away from God; and while the man's guilt is enhanced, there\nensues a benumbing of the heart resulting from the crushing of those\nhigher impulses. This is what is meant by the reprobate state of those\nwho reject Christ and will not believe the Gospel, so often spoken of in\nthe New Testament; this unbelief is just the closing of the heart\nagainst the highest love.\"[63] The other view of sin, probably the more\npopular at present, that sin consists in selfishness, is merely this\nfrom another aspect. Obviously if the mind turns away from one part of\nthe environment it will only do so under some temptation to correspond\nwith another. This temptation, at bottom, can only come from one\nsource--the love of self. The irreligious man's correspondences are\nconcentrated upon himself. He worships himself. Self-gratification\nrather than self-denial; independence rather than submission--these are\nthe rules of life. And this is at once the poorest and the commonest\nform of idolatry.\n\nBut whichever of these views of sin we emphasize, we find both equally\nconnected with Death. If sin is estrangement from God, this very\nestrangement is Death. It is a want of correspondence. If sin is\nselfishness, it is conducted at the expense of life. Its wages are\nDeath--\"he that loveth his life,\" said Christ, \"shall lose it.\"\n\nYet the paralysis of the moral nature apart from God does not only\ndepend for its evidence upon theology or even upon history. From the\nanalogies of Nature one would expect this result as a necessary\nconsequence. The development of any organism in any direction is\ndependent on its environment. A living cell cut off from air will die. A\nseed-germ apart from moisture and an appropriate temperature will make\nthe ground its grave for centuries. Human nature, likewise, is subject\nto similar conditions. It can only develop in presence of its\nenvironment. No matter what its possibilities may be, no matter what\nseeds of thought or virtue, what germs of genius or of art, lie latent\nin its breast, until the appropriate environment present itself the\ncorrespondence is denied, the development discouraged, the most splendid\npossibilities of life remain unrealized, and thought and virtue, genius\nand art, are dead. The true environment of the moral life is God. Here\nconscience wakes. Here kindles love. Duty here becomes heroic; and that\nrighteousness begins to live which alone is to live forever. But if this\nAtmosphere is not, the dwarfed soul must perish for mere want of its\nnative air. And its Death is a strictly natural Death. It is not an\nexceptional judgment upon Atheism. In the same circumstances, in the\nsame averted relation to their environment, the poet, the musician, the\nartist, would alike perish to poetry, to music, and to art. Every\nenvironment is a cause. Its effect upon me is exactly proportionate to\nmy correspondence with it. If I correspond with part of it, part of\nmyself is influenced. If I correspond with more, more of myself is\ninfluenced; if with all, all is influenced. If I correspond with the\nworld, I become worldly; if with God, I become Divine. As without\ncorrespondence of the scientific man with the natural environment there\ncould be no Science and no action founded on the knowledge of Nature, so\nwithout communion with the spiritual Environment there can be no\nReligion. To refuse to cultivate the religious relation is to deny to\nthe soul its highest right--the right to a further evolution.[64] We\nhave already admitted that he who knows not God may not be a monster; we\ncannot say he will not be a dwarf. This precisely, and on perfectly\nnatural principles, is what he must be. You can dwarf a soul just as\nyou can dwarf a plant, by depriving it of a full environment. Such a\nsoul for a time may have \"a name to live.\" Its character may betray no\nsign of atrophy. But its very virtue somehow has the pallor of a flower\nthat is grown in darkness, or as the herb which has never seen the sun,\nno fragrance breathes from its spirit. To morality, possibly, this\norganism offers the example of an irreproachable life; but to science it\nis an instance of arrested development; and to religion it presents the\nspectacle of a corpse--a living Death. With Ruskin, \"I do not wonder at\nwhat men suffer, but I wonder often at what they lose.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[55] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. i, p. 74.\n\n[56] _Ibid._\n\n[57] Foster's \"Physiology,\" p. 642.\n\n[58] Op. cit., pp. 88, 89.\n\n[59] \"Natural Religion,\" p. 19.\n\n[60] \"Natural Religion,\" p. 20.\n\n[61] Prof. Flint, \"Theism,\" p. 805.\n\n[62] Martineau. _Vide_ the whole Symposium on \"The Influences upon\nMorality of a Decline in Religious Belief.\"--_Nineteenth Century_, vol.\ni. pp. 331, 531.\n\n[63] Mueller: \"Christian Doctrine of Sin.\" 2d Ed., vol i. p 131.\n\n[64] It would not be difficult to show, were this the immediate subject,\nthat it is not only a right but a duty to exercise the spiritual\nfaculties, a duty demanded not by religion merely, but by science. Upon\nbiological principles man owes his full development to himself, to\nnature, and to his fellow-men. Thus Mr. Herbert Spencer affirms, \"The\nperformance of every function is, in a sense, a moral obligation. It is\nusually thought that morality requires us only to restrain such vital\nactivities as, in our present state, are often pushed to excess, or such\nas conflict with average welfare, special or general: but it also\nrequires us to carry on these vital activities up to their normal\nlimits. All the animal functions, in common with all the higher\nfunctions, have, as thus understood, their imperativeness.\"--\"The Data\nof Ethics,\" 2d Ed., p. 76.\n\n\n\n\nMORTIFICATION.\n\n    \"If, by tying its main artery, we stop most of the blood going to a\n    limb, then, for as long as the limb performs its functions, those\n    parts which are called into play must be wasted faster than they are\n    repaired: whence eventual disablement. The relation between due\n    receipt of nutritive matters through its arteries, and due discharge\n    of its duties by the limb, is a part of the physical order. If\n    instead of cutting off the supply to a particular limb, we bleed the\n    patient largely, so drafting away the materials needed for repairing\n    not one limb but all limbs, and not limbs only but viscera, there\n    results both a muscular debility and an enfeeblement of the vital\n    functions. Here, again, cause and effect are necessarily related....\n    Pass now to those actions more commonly thought of as the occasions\n    for rules of conduct.\"--_Herbert Spencer._\n\n    \"Mortify therefore your members which are upon earth.\"--_Paul._\n\n        \"O Star-eyed Science! hast thou wandered there\n        To waft us home the message of despair?\"--_Campbell._\n\n\nThe definition of Death which science has given us is this: _A falling\nout of correspondence with environment._ When, for example, a man loses\nthe sight of his eyes, his correspondence with the environing world is\ncurtailed. His life is limited in an important direction; he is less\nliving than he was before. If, in addition, he loses the senses of touch\nand hearing, his correspondences are still further limited; he is\ntherefore still further dead. And when all possible correspondences have\nceased, when the nerves decline to respond to any stimulus, when the\nlungs close their gates against the air, when the heart refuses to\ncorrespond with the blood by so much as another beat, the insensate\ncorpse is wholly and forever dead. The soul, in like manner, which has\nno correspondence with the spiritual environment is spiritually dead. It\nmay be that it never possessed the spiritual eye or the spiritual ear,\nor a heart which throbbed in response to the love of God. If so, having\nnever lived, it cannot be said to have died. But not to have these\ncorrespondences is to be in the state of Death. To the spiritual world,\nto the Divine Environment, it is dead--as a stone which has never lived\nis dead to the environment of the organic world.\n\nHaving already abundantly illustrated this use of the symbol Death, we\nmay proceed to deal with another class of expressions where the same\nterm is employed in an exactly opposite connection. It is a proof of the\nradical nature of religion that a word so extreme should have to be used\nagain and again in Christian teaching, to define in different directions\nthe true spiritual relations of mankind. Hitherto we have concerned\nourselves with the condition of the natural man with regard to the\nspiritual world. We have now to speak of the relations of the spiritual\nman with regard to the natural world. Carrying with us the same\nessential principle--want of correspondence--underlying the meaning of\nDeath, we shall find that the relation of the spiritual man to the\nnatural world, or at least to part of it, is to be that of Death.\n\nWhen the natural man becomes the spiritual man, the great change is\ndescribed by Christ as a passing from Death unto Life. Before the\ntransition occurred, the practical difficulty was this, how to get into\ncorrespondence with the new Environment? But no sooner is this\ncorrespondence established than the problem is reversed. The question\nnow is, how to get out of correspondence with the old environment? The\nmoment the new life is begun there comes a genuine anxiety to break with\nthe old. For the former environment has now become embarrassing. It\nrefuses its dismissal from consciousness. It competes doggedly with the\nnew Environment for a share of the correspondences. And in a hundred\nways the former traditions, the memories and passions of the past, the\nfixed associations and habits of the earlier life, now complicate the\nnew relation. The complex and bewildered soul, in fact, finds itself in\ncorrespondence with two environments, each with urgent but yet\nincompatible claims. It is a dual soul living in a double world, a world\nwhose inhabitants are deadly enemies, and engaged in perpetual\ncivil-war.\n\nThe position of things is perplexing. It is clear that no man can\nattempt to live both lives. To walk both in the flesh and in the spirit\nis morally impossible. \"No man,\" as Christ so often emphasized, \"can\nserve two masters.\" And yet, as matter of fact, here is the new-born\nbeing in communication with both environments? With sin and purity,\nlight and darkness, time and Eternity, God and Devil, the confused and\nundecided soul is now in correspondence. What is to be done in such an\nemergency? How can the New Life deliver itself from the still-persistent\npast?\n\nA ready solution of the difficulty would be _to die_. Were one to die\norganically, to die and \"go to heaven,\" all correspondence with the\nlower environment would be arrested at a stroke. For Physical Death of\ncourse simply means the final stoppage of all natural correspondences\nwith this sinful world.\n\nBut this alternative, fortunately or unfortunately, is not open. The\ndetention here of body and spirit for a given period is determined for\nus, and we are morally bound to accept the situation. We must look then\nfor a further alternative.\n\nActual Death being denied us, we must ask ourselves if there is nothing\nelse resembling it--no artificial relation, no imitation or semblance of\nDeath which would serve our purpose. If we cannot yet die absolutely,\nsurely the next best thing will be to find a temporary substitute. If we\ncannot die altogether, in short, the most we can do is to die as much as\nwe can. And we now know this is open to us, and how. To die to any\nenvironment is to withdraw correspondence with it, to cut ourselves off,\nso far as possible, from all communication with it. So that the solution\nof the problem will simply be this, for the spiritual life to reverse\ncontinuously the processes of the natural life. The spiritual man having\npassed from Death unto Life, the natural man must next proceed to pass\nfrom Life unto Death. Having opened the new set of correspondences, he\nmust deliberately close up the old. Regeneration in short must be\naccompanied by Degeneration.\n\nNow it is no surprise to find that this is the process everywhere\ndescribed and recommended by the founders of the Christian system. Their\nproposal to the natural man, or rather to the natural part of the\nspiritual man, with regard to a whole series of inimical relations, is\nprecisely this. If he cannot really die, he must make an adequate\napproach to it by \"reckoning himself dead.\" Seeing that, until the cycle\nof his organic life is complete he cannot die physically, he must\nmeantime die morally, reckoning himself morally dead to that environment\nwhich, by competing for his correspondences, has now become an obstacle\nto his spiritual life.\n\nThe variety of ways in which the New Testament writers insist upon this\nsomewhat extraordinary method is sufficiently remarkable. And although\nthe idea involved is essentially the same throughout, it will clearly\nillustrate the nature of the act if we examine separately three\ndifferent modes of expression employed in the later Scriptures in this\nconnection. The methods by which the spiritual man is to withdraw\nhimself from the old environment--or from that part of it which will\ndirectly hinder the spiritual life--are three in number:--\n\n    First, Suicide.\n    Second, Mortification.\n    Third, Limitation.\n\nIt will be found in practice that these different methods are adapted,\nrespectively, to meet three different forms of temptation; so that we\npossess a sufficient warrant for giving a brief separate treatment to\neach.\n\nFirst, Suicide. Stated in undisguised phraseology, the advice of Paul to\nthe Christian, with regard to a part of his nature, is to commit\nsuicide. If the Christian is to \"live unto God,\" he must \"die unto sin.\"\nIf he does not kill sin, sin will inevitably kill him. Recognizing this,\nhe must set himself to reduce the number of his correspondences--retaining\nand developing those which lead to a fuller life, unconditionally\nwithdrawing those which in any way tend in an opposite direction. This\nstoppage of correspondences is a voluntary act, a crucifixion of the\nflesh, a suicide.\n\nNow the least experience of life will make it evident that a large class\nof sins can only be met, as it were, by Suicide. The peculiar feature of\nDeath by Suicide is that it is not only self-inflicted but sudden. And\nthere are many sins which must either be dealt with suddenly or not at\nall. Under this category, for instance, are to be included generally all\nsins of the appetites and passions. Other sins, from their peculiar\nnature, can only be treated by methods less abrupt, but the sudden\noperation of the knife is the only successful means of dealing with\nfleshly sins. For example, the correspondence of the drunkard with his\nwine is a thing which can be broken off by degrees only in the rarest\ncases. To attempt it gradually may in an isolated case succeed, but even\nthen the slightly prolonged gratification is no compensation for the\nslow torture of a gradually diminishing indulgence. \"If thine appetite\noffend thee cut it off,\" may seem at first but a harsh remedy; but when\nwe contemplate on the one hand the lingering pain of the gradual\nprocess, on the other its constant peril, we are compelled to admit that\nthe principle is as kind as it is wise. The expression \"total\nabstinence\" in such a case is a strictly biological formula. It implies\nthe sudden destruction of a definite portion of environment by the total\nwithdrawal of all the connecting links. Obviously of course total\nabstinence ought thus to be allowed a much wider application than to\ncases of \"intemperance.\" It's the only decisive method of dealing with\nany sin of the flesh; The very nature of the relations makes it\nabsolutely imperative that every victim of unlawful appetite, in\nwhatever direction, shall totally abstain. Hence Christ's apparently\nextreme and peremptory language defines the only possible, as well as\nthe only charitable, expedient: \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it\nout, and cast it from thee. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it\noff, and cast it from thee.\"\n\nThe humanity of what is called \"sudden conversion\" has never been\ninsisted on as it deserves. In discussing \"Biogenesis\"[65] it has been\nalready pointed out that while growth is a slow and gradual process, the\nchange from Death to Life alike in the natural and spiritual spheres is\nthe work of a moment. Whatever the conscious hour of the second birth\nmay be--in the case of an adult it is probably defined by the first real\nvictory over sin--it is certain that on biological principles the real\nturning-point is literally a moment. But on moral and humane grounds\nthis misunderstood, perverted, and therefore despised doctrine is\nequally capable of defence. Were any reformer, with an adequate\nknowledge of human life, to sit down and plan a scheme for the salvation\nof sinful men, he would probably come to the conclusion that the best\nway after all, perhaps indeed the only way, to turn a sinner from the\nerror of his ways would be to do it suddenly.\n\nSuppose a drunkard were advised to take off one portion from his usual\nallowance the first week, another the second, and so on! Or suppose at\nfirst, he only allowed himself to become intoxicated in the evenings,\nthen every second evening, then only on Saturday nights, and finally\nonly every Christmas? How would a thief be reformed if he slowly reduced\nthe number of his burglaries, or a wife-beater by gradually diminishing\nthe number of his blows? The argument ends with an _ad absurdum_. \"Let\nhim that stole _steal no more_,\" is the only feasible, the only moral,\nand the only humane way. This may not apply to every case, but when any\npart of man's sinful life can be dealt with by immediate Suicide, to\nmake him reach the end, even were it possible, by a lingering death,\nwould be a monstrous cruelty. And yet it is this very thing in \"sudden\nconversion,\" that men object to--the sudden change, the decisive stand,\nthe uncompromising rupture with the past, the precipitate flight from\nsin as of one escaping for his life. Men surely forget that this is an\nescaping for one's life. Let the poor prisoner run--madly and blindly if\nhe like, for the terror of Death is upon him. God knows, when the pause\ncomes, how the chains will gall him still.\n\nIt is a peculiarity of the sinful state, that as a general rule men are\nlinked to evil mainly by a single correspondence. Few men break the\nwhole law. Our natures, fortunately, are not large enough to make us\nguilty of all, and the restraints of circumstances are usually such as\nto leave a loophole in the life of each individual for only a single\nhabitual sin. But it is very easy to see how this reduction of our\nintercourse with evil to a single correspondence blinds us to our true\nposition. Our correspondences, as a whole, are not with evil, and in our\ncalculations as to our spiritual condition we emphasize the many\nnegatives rather than the single positive. One little weakness, we are\napt to fancy, all men must be allowed, and we even claim a certain\nindulgence for that apparent necessity of nature which we call our\nbesetting sin. Yet to break with the lower environment at all, to many,\nis to break at this single point. It is the only important point at\nwhich they touch it, circumstances or natural disposition making\nhabitual contact at other places impossible. The sinful environment, in\nshort, to them means a small but well-defined area. Now if contact at\nthis point be not broken off, they are virtually in contact still with\nthe whole environment. There may be only one avenue between the new life\nand the old, it may be but a small and _subterranean passage_, but this\nis sufficient to keep the old life in. So long as that remains the\nvictim is not \"dead unto sin,\" and therefore he cannot \"live unto God.\"\nHence the reasonableness of the words, \"Whatsoever shall keep the whole\nlaw, and yet offend at one point, he is guilty of all.\" In the natural\nworld it only requires a single vital correspondence of the body to be\nout of order to insure Death. It is not necessary to have consumption,\ndiabetes, and an aneurism to bring the body to the grave if it have\nheart-disease. He who is fatally diseased in one organ necessarily pays\nthe penalty with his life, though all the others be in perfect health.\nAnd such, likewise, are the mysterious unity and correlation of\nfunctions in the spiritual organism that the disease of one member may\ninvolve the ruin of the whole. The reason, therefore, with which Christ\nfollows up the announcement of His Doctrine of Mutilation, or local\nSuicide, finds here at once its justification and interpretation: \"If\nthy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: _for_ it\nis profitable for thee that _one_ of thy members should perish, and not\nthat thy _whole body_ should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand\noffend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: _for_ it is profitable\nfor thee that _one_ of thy members should perish, and not that thy\n_whole body_ should be cast into hell.\"\n\nSecondly, Mortification. The warrant for the use of this expression is\nfound in the well-known phrases of Paul, \"If ye through the Spirit do\nmortify the deeds of the body ye shall live,\" and \"Mortify therefore\nyour members which are upon earth.\" The word mortify here is, literally,\nto make to die. It is used, of course, in no specially technical sense;\nand to attempt to draw a detailed moral from the pathology of\nmortification would be equally fantastic and irrelevant. But without in\nany way straining the meaning it is obvious that we have here a slight\naddition to our conception of dying to sin. In contrast with Suicide,\nMortification implies a gradual rather than a sudden process. The\ncontexts in which the passages occur will make this meaning so clear,\nand are otherwise so instructive in the general connection, that we may\nquote them, from the New Version, at length: \"They that are after the\nflesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the\nSpirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but\nthe mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh\nis enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither\nindeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But\nye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of\nGod dwell in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is\nnone of His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin;\nbut the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of\nHim that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, He that raised\nup Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies\nthrough His Spirit that dwelleth in you. So then, brethren, we are\ndebtors not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after\nthe flesh ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye mortify the doings\n(marg.) of the body, ye shall live.\"[66]\n\nAnd again, \"If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things\nthat are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God. Set\nyour mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon\nthe earth. For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When\nChrist, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with\nHim be manifested in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are\nupon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and\ncovetousness, the which is idolatry; for which things' sake cometh the\nwrath of God upon the sons of disobedience; in the which ye also walked\naforetime, when ye lived in these things. But now put ye also away all\nthese; anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your\nmouth: lie not one to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man\nwith his doings, and have put on the new man, which is being renewed\nunto knowledge after the image of Him that created him.\"[67]\n\nFrom the nature of the case as here stated it is evident that no sudden\nprocess could entirely transfer a man from the old into the new\nrelation. To break altogether, and at every point, with the old\nenvironment, is a simple impossibility. So long as the regenerate man is\nkept in this world, he must find the old environment at many points a\nsevere temptation. Power over very many of the commonest temptations is\nonly to be won by degrees, and however anxious one might be to apply the\nsummary method to every case, he soon finds it impossible in practice.\nThe difficulty in these cases arises from a peculiar feature of the\ntemptation. The difference between a sin of drunkenness, and, let us\nsay, a sin of temper, is that in the former case the victim who would\nreform has mainly to deal with the environment, but in the latter with\nthe correspondence. The drunkard's temptation is a known and definite\nquantity. His safety lies in avoiding some external and material\nsubstance. Of course, at bottom, he is really dealing with the\ncorrespondence every time he resists; he is distinctly controlling\nappetite. Nevertheless it is less the appetite that absorbs his mind\nthan the environment. And so long as he can keep himself clear of the\n\"external relation,\" to use Mr. Herbert Spencer's phraseology, he has\nmuch less difficulty with the \"internal relation.\" The ill-tempered\nperson, on the other hand, can make very little of his environment.\nHowever he may attempt to circumscribe it in certain directions, there\nwill always remain a wide and ever-changing area to stimulate his\nirascibility. His environment, in short, is an inconstant quantity, and\nhis most elaborate calculations and precautions must often and suddenly\nfail him.\n\nWhat he has to deal with, then, mainly is the correspondence, the\ntemper itself. And that, he well knows, involves a long and humiliating\ndiscipline. The case now is not at all a surgical but a medical one, and\nthe knife is here of no more use than in a fever. A specific irritant\nhas poisoned his veins. And the acrid humors that are breaking out all\nover the surface of his life are only to be subdued by a gradual\nsweetening of the inward spirit. It is now known that the human body\nacts toward certain fever-germs as a sort of soil. The man whose blood\nis pure has nothing to fear. So he whose spirit is purified and\nsweetened becomes proof against these germs of sin. \"Anger, wrath,\nmalice and railing\" in such a soil can find no root.\n\nThe difference between this and the former method of dealing with sin\nmay be illustrated by another analogy. The two processes depend upon two\ndifferent natural principles. The Mutilation of a member, for instance,\nfinds its analogue in the horticultural operation of _pruning_, where\nthe object is to divert life from a useless into a useful channel. A\npart of a plant which previously monopolized a large share of the vigor\nof the total organism, but without yielding any adequate return, is\nsuddenly cut off, so that the vital processes may proceed more actively\nin some fruitful parts. Christ's use of this figure is well-known:\n\"Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He purgeth it that it may\nbring forth more fruit.\" The strength of the plant, that is, being given\nto the formation of mere wood, a number of useless correspondences have\nto be abruptly closed while the useful connections are allowed to\nremain. The Mortification of a member, again, is based on the Law of\nDegeneration. The useless member here is not cut off, but simply\nrelieved as much as possible of all exercise. This encourages the\ngradual decay of the parts, and as it is more and more neglected it\nceases to be a channel for life at all. So an organism \"mortifies\" its\nmembers.\n\nThirdly, Limitation. While a large number of correspondences between man\nand his environment can be stopped in these ways, there are many more\nwhich neither can be reduced by a gradual Mortification nor cut short by\nsudden Death. One reason for this is that to tamper with these\ncorrespondences might involve injury to closely related vital parts. Or,\nagain, there are organs which are really essential to the normal life of\nthe organism, and which therefore the organism cannot afford to lose\neven though at times they act prejudicially. Not a few correspondences,\nfor instance, are not wrong in themselves but only in their extremes. Up\nto a certain point they are lawful and necessary; beyond that point they\nmay become not only unnecessary but sinful. The appropriate treatment in\nthese and similar cases consists in a process of Limitation. The\nperformance of this operation, it must be confessed, requires a most\ndelicate hand. It is an art, moreover, which no one can teach another.\nAnd yet, if it is not learned by all who are trying to lead the\nChristian life, it cannot be for want of practice. For, as we shall see,\nthe Christian is called upon to exercise few things more frequently.\n\nAn easy illustration of a correspondence which is only wrong when\ncarried to an extreme, is the love of money. The love of money up to a\ncertain point is a necessity; beyond that it may become one of the worst\nof sins. Christ said: \"Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.\" The two\nservices, at a definite point, become incompatible, and hence\ncorrespondence with one must cease. At what point, however, it must\ncease each man has to determine for himself. And in this consists at\nonce the difficulty and the dignity of Limitation.\n\nThere is another class of cases where the adjustments are still more\ndifficult to determine. Innumerable points exist in our surroundings\nwith which it is perfectly legitimate to enjoy, and even to cultivate,\ncorrespondence, but which privilege, at the same time, it were better on\nthe whole that we did not use. Circumstances are occasionally such--the\ndemands of others upon us, for example, may be so clamant--that we have\nvoluntarily to reduce the area of legitimate pleasure. Or, instead of\nit coming from others, the claim may come from a still higher direction.\nMan's spiritual life consists in the number and fullness of his\ncorrespondences with God. In order to develop these he may be\nconstrained to insulate them, to inclose them from the other\ncorrespondences, to shut himself in with them. In many ways the\nlimitation of the natural life is the necessary condition of the full\nenjoyment of the spiritual life.\n\nIn this principle lies the true philosophy of self-denial. No man is\ncalled to a life of self-denial for its own sake. It is in order to a\ncompensation which, though sometimes difficult to see, is always real\nand always proportionate. No truth, perhaps, in practical religion is\nmore lost sight of. We cherish somehow a lingering rebellion against the\ndoctrine of self-denial--as if our nature, or our circumstances, or our\nconscience, dealt with us severely in loading us with the daily cross.\nBut is it not plain after all that the life of self-denial is the more\nabundant life--more abundant just in proportion to the ampler\ncrucifixion of the narrower life? Is it not a clear case of exchange--an\nexchange however where the advantage is entirely on our side? We give up\na correspondence in which there is a little life to enjoy a\ncorrespondence in which there is an abundant life. What though we\nsacrifice a hundred such correspondences? We make but the more room for\nthe great one that is left. The lesson of self-denial, that is to say of\nLimitation, is _concentration_. Do not spoil your life, it says, at the\noutset with unworthy and impoverishing correspondences; and if it is\ngrowing truly rich and abundant, be very jealous of ever diluting its\nhigh eternal quality with anything of earth. To concentrate upon a few\ngreat correspondences, to oppose to the death the perpetual petty\nlarceny of our life by trifles--these are the conditions for the highest\nand happiest life. It is only Limitation which can secure the\nIllimitable.\n\nThe penalty of evading self-denial also is just that we get the lesser\ninstead of the larger good. The punishment of sin is inseparably bound\nup with itself. To refuse to deny one's self is just to be left with\nthe self undenied. When the balance of life is struck, the self will be\nfound still there. The discipline of life was meant to destroy this\nself, but that discipline having been evaded--and we all to some extent\nhave opportunities, and too often exercise them, of taking the narrow\npath by the shortest cuts--its purpose is balked. But the soul is the\nloser. In seeking to gain its life it has really lost it. This is what\nChrist meant when He said: \"He that loveth his life shall lose it, and\nhe that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.\"\n\nWhy does Christ say: \"Hate Life?\" Does He mean that life is a sin? No.\nLife is not a sin. Still, He says we must hate it. But we must live. Why\nshould we hate what we must do? For this reason: Life is not a sin, but\nthe love of life may be a sin. And the best way not to love life is to\nhate it. Is it a sin then to love life? Not a sin exactly, but a\nmistake. It is a sin to love some life, a mistake to love the rest.\nBecause that love is lost. All that is lavished on it is lost. Christ\ndoes not say it is wrong to love life. He simply says it is _loss_. Each\nman has only a certain amount of life, of time, of attention--a definite\nmeasurable quantity. If he gives any of it to this life solely it is\nwasted. Therefore Christ says, Hate life, limit life, lest you steal\nyour love for it from something that deserves it more.\n\nNow this does not apply to all life. It is \"life in this world\" that is\nto be hated. For life in this world implies conformity to this world. It\nmay not mean pursuing worldly pleasures, or mixing with worldly sets;\nbut a subtler thing than that--a silent deference to worldly opinion; an\nalmost unconscious lowering of religious tone to the level of the\nworldly-religious world around; a subdued resistance to the soul's\ndelicate promptings to greater consecration, out of deference to\n\"breadth\" or fear of ridicule. These, and such things, are what Christ\ntells us we must hate. For these things are of the very essence of\nworldliness. \"If any man love the world,\" even in this sense, \"the love\nof the Father is not in him.\"\n\nThere are two ways of hating life, a true and a false. Some men hate\nlife because it hates them. They have seen through it, and it has turned\nround upon them. They have drunk it, and come to the dregs; therefore\nthey hate it. This is one of the ways in which the man who loves his\nlife literally loses it. He loves it till he loses it, then he hates it\nbecause it has fooled him. The other way is the religious. For religious\nreasons a man deliberately braces himself to the systematic hating of\nhis life. \"No man can serve two masters, for either he must hate the one\nand love the other, or else he must hold to the one and despise the\nother.\" Despising the other--this is hating life, limiting life. It is\nnot misanthropy, but Christianity.\n\nThis principle, as has been said, contains the true philosophy of\nself-denial. It also holds the secret by which self-denial may be most\neasily borne. A common conception of self-denial is that there are a\nmultitude of things about life which are to be put down with a high hand\nthe moment they make their appearance. They are temptations which are\nnot to be tolerated, but must be instantly crushed out of being with\npang and effort.\n\nSo life comes to be a constant and sore cutting off of things which we\nlove as our right hand. But now suppose one tried boldly to hate these\nthings? Suppose we deliberately made up our minds as to what things we\nwere henceforth to allow to become our life? Suppose we selected a given\narea of our environment and determined once for all that our\ncorrespondences should go to that alone, fencing in this area all round\nwith a morally impassable wall? True, to others, we should seem to live\na poorer life; they would see that our environment was circumscribed,\nand call us narrow because it was narrow. But, well-chosen, this limited\nlife would be really the fullest life; it would be rich in the highest\nand worthiest, and poor in the smallest and basest correspondences. The\nwell-defined spiritual life is not only the highest life, but it is also\nthe most easily lived. The whole cross is more easily carried than the\nhalf. It is the man who tries to make the best of both worlds who makes\nnothing of either. And he who seeks to serve two masters misses the\nbenediction of both. But he who has taken his stand, who has drawn a\nboundary line, sharp and deep about his religious life, who has marked\noff all beyond as forever forbidden ground to him, finds the yoke easy\nand the burden light. For this forbidden environment comes to be as if\nit were not. His faculties falling out of correspondence, slowly lose\ntheir sensibilities. And the balm of Death numbing his lower nature\nreleases him for the scarce disturbed communion of a higher life. So\neven here to die is gain.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[65] Page 80.\n\n[66] Rom. viii. 5-13.\n\n[67] Col. iii. 1-10.\n\n\n\n\nETERNAL LIFE.\n\n    \"Supposing that man, in some form, is permitted to remain on the\n    earth for a long series of years, we merely lengthen out the period,\n    but we cannot escape the final catastrophe. The earth will gradually\n    lose its energy of relation, as well as that of revolution round the\n    sun. The sun himself will wax dim and become useless as a source of\n    energy, until at last the favorable conditions of the present solar\n    system will have quite disappeared.\n\n    \"But what happens to our system will happen likewise to the whole\n    visible universe, which will, if finite, become a lifeless mass, if\n    indeed it be not doomed to utter dissolution. In fine, it will\n    become old and effete, no less truly than the individual. It is a\n    glorious garment, this visible universe, but not an immortal one. We\n    must look elsewhere if we are to be clothed with immortality as with\n    a garment.\"--_The Unseen Universe._\n\n    \"This is Life Eternal--that they might know Thee, the True God, and\n    Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.\"--_Jesus Christ._\n\n    \"Perfect correspondence would be perfect life. Were there no changes\n    in the environment but such as the organism had adapted changes to\n    meet, and were it never to fail in the efficiency with which it met\n    them, there would be eternal existence and eternal\n    knowledge.\"--_Herbert Spencer._\n\n\nOne of the most startling achievements of recent science is a definition\nof Eternal Life. To the religious mind this is a contribution of immense\nmoment. For eighteen hundred years only one definition of Life Eternal\nwas before the world. Now there are two.\n\nThrough all these centuries revealed religion had this doctrine to\nitself. Ethics had a voice, as well as Christianity, on the question of\nthe _summum bonum_; Philosophy ventured to speculate on the Being of a\nGod. But no source outside Christianity contributed anything to the\ndoctrine of Eternal Life. Apart from Revelation, this great truth was\nunguaranteed. It was the one thing in the Christian system that most\nneeded verification from without, yet none was forthcoming. And never\nhas any further light been thrown upon the question why in its very\nnature the Christian Life should be Eternal. Christianity itself even\nupon this point has been obscure. Its decision upon the bare fact is\nauthoritative and specific. But as to what there is in the Spiritual\nLife necessarily endowing it with the element of Eternity, the maturest\ntheology is all but silent.\n\nIt has been reserved for modern biology at once to defend and illuminate\nthis central truth of the Christian faith. And hence in the interests of\nreligion, practical and evidential, this second and scientific\ndefinition of Eternal Life is to be hailed as an announcement of\ncommanding interest. Why it should not yet have received the recognition\nof religious thinkers--for already it has lain some years unnoticed--is\nnot difficult to understand. The belief in Science as an aid to faith is\nnot yet ripe enough to warrant men in searching there for witnesses to\nthe highest Christian truths. The inspiration of Nature, it is thought,\nextends to the humbler doctrines alone. And yet the reverent inquirer\nwho guides his steps in the right direction may find even now in the\nstill dim twilight of the scientific world much that will illuminate and\nintensify his sublimest faith. Here, at least, comes, and comes\nunbidden, the opportunity of testing the most vital point of the\nChristian system. Hitherto the Christian philosopher has remained\ncontent with the scientific evidence against Annihilation. Or, with\nButler, he has reasoned from the Metamorphoses of Insects to a future\nlife. Or again, with the authors of \"The Unseen Universe,\" the apologist\nhas constructed elaborate, and certainly impressive, arguments upon the\nLaw of Continuity. But now we may draw nearer. For the first time\nScience touches Christianity _positively_ on the doctrine of\nImmortality. It confronts us with an actual definition of an Eternal\nLife, based on a full and rigidly accurate examination of the necessary\nconditions. Science does not pretend that it can fulfill these\nconditions. Its votaries make no claim to possess the Eternal Life. It\nsimply postulates the requisite conditions without concerning itself\nwhether any organism should ever appear, or does now exist, which might\nfulfill them. The claim of religion, on the other hand, is that there\nare organisms which possess Eternal Life. And the problem for us to\nsolve is this: Do those who profess to possess Eternal Life fulfill the\nconditions required by Science, or are they different conditions? In a\nword, Is the Christian conception of Eternal Life scientific?\n\nIt may be unnecessary to notice at the outset that the definition of\nEternal Life drawn up by Science was framed without reference to\nreligion. It must indeed have been the last thought with the thinker to\nwhom we chiefly owe it, that in unfolding the conception of a Life in\nits very nature necessarily eternal, he was contributing to Theology.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer--for it is to him we owe it--would be the first to\nadmit the impartiality of his definition; and from the connection in\nwhich it occurs in his writings, it is obvious that religion was not\neven present to his mind. He is analyzing with minute care the relations\nbetween Environment and Life. He unfolds the principle according to\nwhich Life is high or low, long or short. He shows why organisms live\nand why they die. And finally he defines a condition of things in which\nan organism would never die--in which it would enjoy a perpetual and\nperfect Life. This to him is, of course, but a speculation. Life Eternal\nis a biological conceit. The conditions necessary to an Eternal Life do\nnot exist in the natural world. So that the definition is altogether\nimpartial and independent. A Perfect Life, to Science, is simply a thing\nwhich is theoretically possible--like a Perfect Vacuum.\n\nBefore giving, in so many words, the definition of Mr. Herbert Spencer,\nit will render it fully intelligible if we gradually lead up to it by a\nbrief rehearsal of the few and simple biological facts on which it is\nbased. In considering the subject of Death, we have formerly seen that\nthere are degrees of Life. By this is meant that some lives have more\nand fuller correspondence with Environment than others. The amount of\ncorrespondence, again, is determined by the greater or less complexity\nof the organism. Thus a simple organism like the Amoeba is possessed of\nvery few correspondences. It is a mere sac of transparent structureless\njelly for which organization has done almost nothing, and hence it can\nonly communicate with the smallest possible area of Environment. An\ninsect, in virtue of its more complex structure, corresponds with a\nwider area. Nature has endowed it with special faculties for reaching\nout to the Environment on many sides; it has more life than the Amoeba.\nIn other words, it is a higher animal. Man again, whose body is still\nfurther differentiated, or broken up into different correspondences,\nfinds himself _en rapport_ with his surroundings to a further extent.\nAnd therefore he is higher still, more living still. And this law, that\nthe degree of Life varies with the degree of correspondence, holds to\nthe minutest detail throughout the entire range of living things. Life\nbecomes fuller and fuller, richer and richer, more and more sensitive\nand responsive to an ever-widening Environment as we arise in the chain\nof being.\n\nNow it will speedily appear that a distinct relation exists, and must\nexist, between complexity and longevity. Death being brought about by\nthe failure of an organism to adjust itself to some change in the\nEnvironment, it follows that those organisms which are able to adjust\nthemselves most readily and successfully will live the longest. They\nwill continue time after time to effect the appropriate adjustment, and\ntheir power of doing so will be exactly proportionate to their\ncomplexity--that is, to the amount of Environment they can control with\ntheir correspondences. There are, for example, in the Environment of\nevery animal certain things which are directly or indirectly dangerous\nto Life. If its equipment of correspondences is not complete enough to\nenable it to avoid these dangers in all possible circumstances, it must\nsooner or later succumb. The organism then with the most perfect set of\ncorrespondences, that is, the highest and most complex organism, has an\nobvious advantage over less complex forms. It can adjust itself more\nperfectly and frequently. But this is just the biological way of saying\nthat it can live the longest. And hence the relation between complexity\nand longevity may be expressed thus--the most complex organisms are the\nlongest lived.\n\nTo state and illustrate the proposition conversely may the point still\nfurther clear. The less highly organized an animal is, the less will be\nits chance of remaining in lengthened correspondence with its\nEnvironment. At some time or other in its career circumstances are sure\nto occur to which the comparatively immobile organism finds itself\nstructurally unable to respond. Thus a _Medusa_ tossed ashore by a wave,\nfinds itself so out of correspondence with its new surroundings that its\nlife must pay the forfeit. Had it been able by internal change to adapt\nitself to external change--to correspond sufficiently with the new\nenvironment, as for example to crawl, as an eel would have done, back\ninto that environment with which it had completer correspondence--its\nlife might have been spared. But had this happened it would continue to\nlive henceforth only so long as it could continue in correspondence with\nall the circumstances in which it might find itself. Even if, however,\nit became complex enough to resist the ordinary and direct dangers of\nits environment, it might still be out of correspondence with others. A\nnaturalist for instance, might take advantage of its want of\ncorrespondence with particular sights and sounds to capture it for his\ncabinet, or the sudden dropping of a yacht's anchor or the turn of a\nscrew might cause its untimely death.\n\nAgain, in the case of a bird, in virtue of its more complex\norganization, there is command over a much larger area of environment.\nIt can take precautions such as the _Medusa_ could not; it has increased\nfacilities for securing food; its adjustments all round are more\ncomplex; and therefore it ought to be able to maintain its Life for a\nlonger period. There is still a large area, however, over which it has\nno control. Its power of internal change is not complete enough to\nafford it perfect correspondence with all external changes, and its\ntenure of Life is to that extent insecure. Its correspondence, moreover,\nis limited even with regard to those external conditions with which it\nhas been partially established. Thus a bird in ordinary circumstances\nhas no difficulty in adapting itself to changes of temperature, but if\nthese are varied beyond the point at which its capacity of adjustment\nbegins to fail--for example, during an extreme winter--the organism\nbeing unable to meet the condition must perish. The human organism, on\nthe other hand, can respond to this external condition, as well as to\ncountless other vicissitudes under which lower forms would inevitably\nsuccumb. Man's adjustments are to the largest known area of Environment,\nand hence he ought to be able furthest to prolong his Life.\n\nIt becomes evident, then, that as we ascend in the scale of Life we rise\nalso in the scale of longevity. The lowest organisms are, as a rule,\nshort-lived, and the rate of mortality diminishes more or less regularly\nas we ascend in the animal scale. So extraordinary indeed is the\nmortality among lowly-organized forms that in most cases a compensation\nis actually provided, nature endowing them with a marvelously increased\nfertility in order to guard against absolute extinction. Almost all\nlower forms are furnished not only with great reproductive powers, but\nwith different methods of propagation, by which, in various\ncircumstances, and in an incredibly short time, the species can be\nindefinitely multiplied. Ehrenberg found that by the repeated\nsubdivisions of a single _Paramecium_, no fewer than 268,000,000\nsimilar organisms might be produced in one month. This power steadily\ndecreases as we rise higher in the scale, until forms are reached in\nwhich one, two, or at most three, come into being at a birth. It\ndecreases, however, because it is no longer needed. These forms have a\nmuch longer lease of Life. And it may be taken as a rule, although it\nhas exceptions, that complexity in animal organisms is always associated\nwith longevity.\n\nIt may be objected that these illustrations are taken merely from morbid\nconditions. But whether the Life be cut short by accident or by disease\nthe principle is the same. All dissolution is brought about practically\nin the same way. A certain condition in the Environment fails to be met\nby a corresponding condition in the organism, and this is death. And\nconversely the more an organism in virtue of its complexity can adapt\nitself to all the parts of its Environment, the longer it will live. \"It\nis manifest _a priori_,\" says Mr. Herbert Spencer, \"that since changes\nin the physical state of the environment, as also those mechanical\nactions and those variations of available food which occur in it, are\nliable to stop the processes going on in the organism; and since the\nadaptive changes in the organism have the effects of directly or\nindirectly counterbalancing these changes in the environment, it follows\nthat the life of the organism will be short or long, low or high,\naccording to the extent to which changes in the environment are met by\ncorresponding changes in the organism. Allowing a margin for\nperturbations, the life will continue only while the correspondence\ncontinues; the completeness of the life will be proportionate to the\ncompleteness of the correspondence; and the life will be perfect only\nwhen the correspondence is perfect.\"[68]\n\nWe are now all but in sight of our scientific definitions of Eternal\nLife. The desideratum is an organism with a correspondence of a very\nexceptional kind. It must lie beyond the reach of those \"mechanical\nactions\" and those \"variations of available food,\" which are \"liable to\nstop the processes going on in the organism.\" Before we reach an Eternal\nLife we must pass beyond that point at which all ordinary\ncorrespondences inevitably cease. We must find an organism so high and\ncomplex, that at some point in its development it shall have added a\ncorrespondence which organic death is powerless to arrest. We must in\nshort pass beyond that definite region where the correspondences depend\non evanescent and material media, and enter a further region where the\nEnvironment corresponded with is itself Eternal. Such an Environment\nexists. The Environment of the Spiritual world is outside the influence\nof these \"mechanical actions,\" which sooner or later interrupt the\nprocesses going on in all finite organisms. If then we can find an\norganism which has established a correspondence with the spiritual\nworld, that correspondence will possess the elements of\neternity--provided only one other condition be fulfilled.\n\nThat condition is that the Environment be perfect. If it is not perfect,\nif it is not the highest, if it is endowed with the finite quality of\nchange, there can be no guarantee that the Life of its correspondents\nwill be eternal. Some change might occur in it which the correspondents\nhad no adaptive changes to meet, and Life would cease. But grant a\nspiritual organism in perfect correspondence with a perfect spiritual\nEnvironment, and the conditions necessary to Eternal Life are satisfied.\n\nThe exact terms of Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition of Eternal Life may\nnow be given. And it will be seen that they include essentially the\nconditions here laid down. \"Perfect correspondence would be perfect\nlife. Were there no changes in the environment but such as the organism\nhad adapted changes to meet, and were it never to fail in the efficiency\nwith which it met them, there would be eternal existence and eternal\nknowledge.\"[69] Reserving the question as to the possible fulfillment of\nthese conditions, let us turn for a moment to the definition of Eternal\nLife laid down by Christ. Let us place it alongside the definition of\nScience, and mark the points of contact. Uninterrupted correspondence\nwith a perfect Environment is Eternal Life according to Science. \"This\nis Life Eternal,\" said Christ, \"that they may know Thee, the only true\nGod, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.\"[70] Life Eternal is to know\nGod. To know God is to \"correspond\" with God. To correspond with God is\nto correspond with a Perfect Environment. And the organism which attains\nto this, in the nature of things must live forever. Here is \"eternal\nexistence and eternal knowledge.\"\n\nThe main point of agreement between the scientific and the religious\ndefinition is that Life consists in a peculiar and personal relation\ndefined as a \"correspondence.\" This conception, that Life consists in\ncorrespondences, has been so abundantly illustrated already that it is\nnow unnecessary to discuss it further. All Life indeed consists\nessentially in correspondences with various Environments. The artist's\nlife is a correspondence with art; the musician's with music. To cut\nthem off from these Environments is in that relation to cut off their\nLife. To be cut off from all Environment is death. To find a new\nEnvironment again and cultivate relation with it is to find a new Life.\nTo live is to correspond, and to correspond is to live. So much is true\nin Science. But it is also true in Religion. And it is of great\nimportance to observe that to Religion also the conception of Life is a\ncorrespondence. No truth of Christianity has been more ignorantly or\nwillfully travestied than the doctrine of Immortality. The popular idea,\nin spite of a hundred protests, is that Eternal Life is to live forever.\nA single glance at the _locus classicus_ might have made this error\nimpossible. There we are told that Life Eternal is not to live. This is\nLife Eternal--_to know_. And yet--and it is a notorious instance of the\nfact that men who are opposed to Religion will take their conceptions of\nits profoundest truths from mere vulgar perversions--this view still\nrepresents to many cultivated men the Scriptural doctrine of Eternal\nLife. From time to time the taunt is thrown at Religion, not unseldom\nfrom lips which Science ought to have taught more caution, that the\nFuture Life of Christianity is simply a prolonged existence, an eternal\nmonotony, a blind and indefinite continuance of being. The Bible never\ncould commit itself to any such empty platitudes; nor could Christianity\never offer to the world a hope so colorless. Not that Eternal Life has\nnothing to do with everlastingness. That is part of the conception. And\nit is this aspect of the question that first arrests us in the field of\nScience. But even Science has more in its definition than longevity. It\nhas a correspondence and an Environment; and although it cannot fill up\nthese terms for Religion, it can indicate at least the nature of the\nrelation, the kind of thing that is meant by Life. Science speaks to us\nindeed of much more than numbers of years. It defines degrees of Life.\nIt explains a widening Environment. It unfolds the relation between a\nwidening Environment and increasing complexity in organisms. And if it\nhas no absolute contribution to the content of Religion, its analogies\nare not limited to a point. It yields to Immortality, and this is the\nmost that Science can do in any case, the board framework for a\ndoctrine.\n\nThe further definition, moreover, of this correspondence as _knowing_ is\nin the highest degree significant. Is not this the precise quality in an\nEternal correspondence which the analogies of Science would prepare us\nto look for? Longevity is associated with complexity. And complexity in\norganisms is manifested by the successive addition of correspondences,\neach richer and larger than those which have gone before. The\ndifferentiation, therefore, of the spiritual organism ought to be\nsignalized by the addition of the highest possible correspondence. It is\nnot essential to the idea that the correspondence should be altogether\nnovel; it is necessary rather that it should not. An altogether new\ncorrespondence appearing suddenly without shadow or prophecy would be a\nviolation of continuity. What we should expect would be something new,\nand yet something that we were already prepared for. We should look for\na further development in harmony with current developments; the\nextension of the last and highest correspondence in a new and higher\ndirection. And this is exactly what we have. In the world with which\nbiology deals, Evolution culminates in Knowledge.\n\nAt whatever point in the zoological scale this correspondence, or set of\ncorrespondences, begins, it is certain there is nothing higher. In its\nstunted infancy merely, when we meet with its rudest beginnings in\nanimal intelligence, it is a thing so wonderful, as to strike every\nthoughtful and reverent observer with awe. Even among the invertebrates\nso marvelously are these or kindred powers displayed, that naturalists\ndo not hesitate now, on the ground of intelligence at least, to classify\nsome of the humblest creatures next to man himself.[71] Nothing in\nnature, indeed, is so unlike the rest of nature, so prophetic of what is\nbeyond it, so supernatural. And as manifested in Man who crowns creation\nwith his all-embracing consciousness, there is but one word to describe\nhis knowledge: it is Divine. If then from this point there is to be any\nfurther Evolution, this surely must be the correspondence in which it\nshall take place? This correspondence is great enough to demand\ndevelopment; and yet it is little enough to need it. The magnificence of\nwhat it has achieved relatively, is the pledge of the possibility of\nmore; the insignificance of its conquest absolutely involves the\nprobability of still richer triumphs. If anything, in short, in humanity\nis to go on it must be this. Other correspondences may continue\nlikewise; others, again, we can well afford to leave behind. But this\ncannot cease. This correspondence--or this set of correspondences, for\nit is very complex--is it not that to which men with one consent would\nattach Eternal Life? Is there anything else to which they would attach\nit? Is anything better conceivable, anything worthier, fuller, nobler,\nanything which would represent a higher form of Evolution or offer a\nmore perfect ideal for an Eternal Life?\n\nBut these are questions of quality; and the moment we pass from quantity\nto quality we leave Science behind. In the vocabulary of Science,\nEternity is only the fraction of a word. It means mere everlastingness.\nTo Religion, on the other hand, Eternity has little to do with time. To\ncorrespond with the God of Science, the Eternal Unknowable, would be\neverlasting existence; to correspond with \"the true God and Jesus\nChrist,\" is Eternal Life. The quality of the Eternal Life alone makes\nthe heaven; mere everlastingness might be no boon. Even the brief span\nof the temporal life is too long for those who spend its years in\nsorrow. Time itself, let alone Eternity, is all but excruciating to\nDoubt. And many besides Schopenhauer have secretly regarded\nconsciousness as the hideous mistake and malady of Nature. Therefore we\nmust not only have quantity of years, to speak in the language of the\npresent, but quality of correspondence. When we leave Science behind,\nthis correspondence also receives a higher name. It becomes communion.\nOther names there are for it, religious and theological. It may be\nincluded in a general expression, Faith; or we may call it by a personal\nand specific term, Love. For the knowing of a Whole so great involves\nthe co-operation of many parts.\n\nCommunion with God--can it be demonstrated in terms of Science that this\nis a correspondence which will never break? We do not appeal to Science\nfor such a testimony. We have asked for its conception of an Eternal\nLife; and we have received for answer that Eternal Life would consist in\na correspondence which should never cease, with an Environment which\nshould never pass away. And yet what would Science demand of a perfect\ncorrespondence that is not met by this, _the knowing of God_? There is\nno other correspondence which could satisfy one at least of the\nconditions. Not one could be named which would not bear on the face of\nit the mark and pledge of its mortality. But this, to know God, stands\nalone. To know God, to be linked with God, to be linked with\nEternity--if this is not the \"eternal existence\" of biology, what can\nmore nearly approach it? And yet we are still a great way off--to\nestablish a communication with the Eternal is not to secure Eternal\nLife. It must be assumed that the communication could be sustained. And\nto assume this would be to beg the question. So that we have still to\nprove Eternal Life. But let it be again repeated, we are not here\nseeking proofs. We are seeking light. We are merely reconnoitring from\nthe furthest promontory of Science if so be that through the haze we may\ndiscern the outline of a distant coast and come to some conclusion as to\nthe possibility of landing.\n\nBut, it may be replied, it is not open to any one handling the question\nof Immortality from the side of Science to remain neutral as to the\nquestion of fact. It is not enough to announce that he has no addition\nto make to the positive argument. This may be permitted with reference\nto other points of contact between Science and Religion, but not with\nthis. We are told this question is settled--that there is no positive\nside. Science meets the entire conception of Immortality with a direct\nnegative. In the face of a powerful consensus against even the\npossibility of a Future Life, to content one's self with saying that\nScience pretended to no argument in favor of it would be at once\nimpertinent and dishonest. We must therefore devote ourselves for a\nmoment to the question of possibility.\n\nThe problem is, with a material body and a mental organization\ninseparably connected with it, to bridge the grave. Emotion, volition,\nthought itself, are functions of the brain. When the brain is impaired,\nthey are impaired. When the brain is not, they are not. Everything\nceases with the dissolution of the material fabric; muscular activity\nand mental activity perish alike. With the pronounced positive\nstatements on this point from many departments of modern Science we are\nall familiar. The fatal verdict is recorded by a hundred hands and with\nscarcely a shadow of qualification. \"Unprejudiced philosophy is\ncompelled to reject the idea of an individual immortality and of a\npersonal continuance after death. With the decay and dissolution of its\nmaterial substratum, through which alone it has acquired a conscious\nexistence and become a person, and upon which it was dependent, the\nspirit must cease to exist.\"[72] To the same effect Vogt: \"Physiology\ndecides definitely and categorically against individual immortality, as\nagainst any special existence of the soul. The soul does not enter the\nf[oe]tus like the evil spirit into persons possessed, but is a product\nof the development of the brain, just as muscular activity is a product\nof muscular development, and secretion a product of glandular\ndevelopment.\" After a careful review of the position of recent Science\nwith regard to the whole doctrine, Mr. Graham sums up thus: \"Such is the\nargument of Science, seemingly decisive against a future life. As we\nlisten to her array of syllogisms, our hearts die within us. The hopes\nof men, placed in one scale to be weighed, seem to fly up against the\nmassive weight of her evidence, placed in the other. It seems as if all\nour arguments were vain and unsubstantial, as if our future\nexpectations were the foolish dreams of children, as if there could not\nbe any other possible verdict arrived at upon the evidence brought\nforward.\"[73]\n\nCan we go on in the teeth of so real an obstruction? Has not our own\nweapon turned against us, Science abolishing with authoritative hand the\nvery truth we are asking it to define?\n\nWhat the philosopher has to throw into the other scale can be easily\nindicated. Generally speaking, he demurs to the dogmatism of the\nconclusion. That mind and brain react, that the mental and the\nphysiological processes are related, and very intimately related, is\nbeyond controversy. But how they are related, he submits, is still\naltogether unknown. The correlation of mind and brain do not involve\ntheir identity. And not a few authorities accordingly have consistently\nhesitated to draw any conclusion at all. Even Buechner's statement turns\nout, on close examination, to be tentative in the extreme. In prefacing\nhis chapter on Personal Continuance, after a single sentence on the\ndependence of the soul and its manifestations upon a material\nsubstratum, he remarks, \"Though we are unable to form a definite idea as\nto the _how_ of this connection, we are still by these facts justified\nin asserting, that the mode of this connection renders it _apparently_\nimpossible that they should continue to exist separately.\"[74] There is,\ntherefore, a flaw at this point in the argument for materialism. It may\nnot help the spiritualist in the least degree positively. He may be as\nfar as ever from a theory of how consciousness could continue without\nthe material tissue. But his contention secures for him the right of\nspeculation. The path beyond may lie in hopeless gloom; but it is not\nbarred. He may bring forward his theory if he will. And this is\nsomething. For a permission to go on is often the most that Science can\ngrant to Religion.\n\nMen have taken advantage of this loophole in various ways. And though\nit cannot be said that these speculations offer us more than a\nprobability, this is still enough to combine with the deep-seated\nexpectation in the bosom of mankind and give fresh luster to the hope of\na future life. Whether we find relief in the theory of a simple dualism;\nwhether with Ulrici we further define the soul as an invisible\nenswathement of the body, material yet non-atomic; whether, with the\n\"Unseen Universe,\" we are helped by the spectacle of known forms of\nmatter shading off into an ever-growing subtilty, mobility, and\nimmateriality; or whether, with Wundt, we regard the soul as \"the\nordered unity of many elements,\" it is certain that shapes can be given\nto the conception of a correspondence which shall bridge the grave such\nas to satisfy minds too much accustomed to weigh evidence to put\nthemselves off with fancies.\n\nBut whether the possibilities of physiology or the theories of\nphilosophy do or do not substantially assist us in realizing\nImmortality, is to Religion, to Religion at least regarded from the\npresent point of view, of inferior moment. The fact of Immortality rests\nfor us on a different basis. Probably, indeed, after all the Christian\nphilosopher never engaged himself in a more superfluous task than in\nseeking along physiological lines to find room for a soul. The theory of\nChristianity has only to be fairly stated to make manifest its thorough\nindependence of all the usual speculations on Immortality. The theory is\nnot that thought, volition, or emotion, as such are to survive the\ngrave. The difficulty of holding a doctrine in this form, in spite of\nwhat has been advanced to the contrary, in spite of the hopes and wishes\nof mankind, in spite of all the scientific and philosophical attempts to\nmake it tenable, is still profound. No secular theory of personal\ncontinuance, as even Butler acknowledged, does not equally demand the\neternity of the brute. No secular theory defines the point in the chain\nof Evolution at which organisms became endowed with Immortality. No\nsecular theory explains the condition of the endowment, nor indicates\nits goal. And if we have nothing more to fan hope than the unexplored\nmystery of the whole region, or the unknown remainders among the\npotencies of Life, then, as those who have \"hope only in this world,\" we\nare \"of all men the most miserable.\"\n\nWhen we turn, on the other hand, to the doctrine as it came from the\nlips of Christ, we find ourselves in an entirely different region. He\nmakes no attempt to project the material into the immaterial. The old\nelements, however refined and subtle as to their matter, are not in\nthemselves to inherit the Kingdom of God. That which is flesh is flesh.\nInstead of attaching Immortality to the natural organism, He introduces\na new and original factor which none of the secular, and few even of the\ntheological theories, seem to take sufficiently into account. To\nChristianity, \"he that hath the Son of God hath Life, and he that hath\nnot the Son hath not Life.\" This, as we take it, defines the\ncorrespondence which is to bridge the grave. This is the clue to the\nnature of the Life that lies at the back of the spiritual organism. And\nthis is the true solution of the mystery of Eternal Life.\n\nThere lies a something at the back of the correspondences of the\nspiritual organism--just as there lies a something at the back of the\nnatural correspondences. To say that Life is a correspondence is only to\nexpress the partial truth. There is something behind. Life manifests\nitself in correspondences. But what determines them? The organism\nexhibits a variety of correspondences. What organizes them? As in the\nnatural, so in the spiritual, there is a Principle of Life. We cannot\nget rid of that term. However clumsy, however provisional, however much\na mere cloak for ignorance, Science as yet is unable to dispense with\nthe idea of a Principle of Life. We must work with the word till we get\na better. Now that which determines the correspondence of the spiritual\norganism is a Principle of Spiritual Life. It is a new and Divine\nPossession. He that hath the Son hath Life; conversely, he that hath\nLife hath the Son. And this indicates at once the quality and the\nquantity of the correspondence which is to bridge the grave. He that\nhath Life hath _the Son_. He possesses the Spirit of a Son. That spirit\nis, so to speak, organized within him by the Son. It is the\nmanifestation of the new nature--of which more anon. The fact to note at\npresent is that this is not an organic correspondence, but a spiritual\ncorrespondence. It comes not from generation, but from regeneration. The\nrelation between the spiritual man and his Environment is, in\ntheological language, a filial relation. With the new Spirit, the filial\ncorrespondence, he knows the Father--and this is Life Eternal. This is\nnot only the real relation, but the only possible relation: \"Neither\nknoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son\nwill reveal Him.\" And this on purely natural grounds. It takes the\nDivine to know the Divine--but in no more mysterious sense than it takes\nthe human to understand the human. The analogy, indeed, for the whole\nfield here has been finely expressed already by Paul: \"What man,\" he\nasks, \"knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in\nhim? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.\nNow we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which\nis of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of\nGod.\"[75]\n\nIt were idle, such being the quality of the new relation, to add that\nthis also contains the guarantee of its eternity. Here at last is a\ncorrespondence which will never cease. Its powers in bridging the grave\nhave been tried. The correspondence of the spiritual man possesses the\nsupernatural virtues of the Resurrection and the Life. It is known by\nformer experiment to have survived the \"changes in the physical state of\nthe environment,\" and those \"mechanical actions\" and \"variations of\navailable food,\" which Mr. Herbert Spencer tells us are \"liable to stop\nthe processes going on in the organism.\" In short, this is a\ncorrespondence which at once satisfies the demands of Science and\nReligion. In mere quantity it is different from every other\ncorrespondence known. Setting aside everything else in Religion,\neverything adventitious, local, and provisional; dissecting in to the\nbone and marrow we find this--a correspondence which can never break\nwith an Environment which can never change. Here is a relation\nestablished with Eternity. The passing years lay no limiting hand on it.\nCorruption injures it not. It survives Death. It, and it only, will\nstretch beyond the grave and be found inviolate--\n\n    \"When the moon is old,\n    And the stars are cold,\n    And the books of the Judgment-day unfold.\"\n\nThe misgiving which will creep sometimes over the brightest faith has\nalready received its expression and its rebuke: \"Who shall separate us\nfrom the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,\nor famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?\" Shall these \"changes in\nthe physical state of the environment\" which threaten death to the\nnatural man destroy the spiritual? Shall death, or life, or angels, or\nprincipalities, or powers, arrest or tamper with his eternal\ncorrespondences? \"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors\nthrough Him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor\nlife, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,\nnor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall\nbe able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus\nour Lord.\"[76]\n\nIt may seem an objection to some that the \"perfect correspondence\"\nshould come to man in so extraordinary a way. The earlier stages in the\ndoctrine are promising enough; they are entirely in line with Nature.\nAnd if Nature had also furnished the \"perfect correspondence\" demanded\nfor an Eternal Life the position might be unassailable. But this sudden\nreference to a something outside the natural Environment destroys the\ncontinuity, and discovers a permanent weakness in the whole theory?\n\nTo which there is a twofold reply. In the first place, to go outside\nwhat we call Nature is not to go outside Environment. Nature, the\nnatural Environment, is only a part of Environment. There is another\nlarge part which, though some profess to have no correspondence with it,\nis not on that account unreal, or even unnatural. The mental and moral\nworld is unknown to the plant. But it is real. It cannot be affirmed\neither that it is unnatural to the plant; although it might be said that\nfrom the point of view of the Vegetable Kingdom it was _supernatural_.\nThings are natural or supernatural simply according to where one stands.\nMan is supernatural to the mineral; God is supernatural to the man. When\na mineral is seized upon by the living plant and elevated to the organic\nkingdom, no trespass against Nature is committed. It merely enters a\nlarger Environment, which before was supernatural to it, but which now\nis entirely natural. When the heart of a man, again, is seized upon by\nthe quickening Spirit of God, no further violence is done to natural\nlaw. It is another case of the inorganic, so to speak, passing into the\norganic.\n\nBut in the second place, it is complained as if it were an enormity in\nitself that the spiritual correspondence should be furnished from the\nspiritual world. And to this the answer lies in the same direction.\nCorrespondence in any case is the gift of Environment. The natural\nEnvironment gives men their natural faculties; the spiritual affords\nthem their spiritual faculties. It is natural for the spiritual\nEnvironment to supply the spiritual faculties; it would be quite\nunnatural for the natural Environment to do it. The natural law of\nBiogenesis forbids it; the moral fact that the finite cannot comprehend\nthe Infinite is against it; the spiritual principle that flesh and\nblood cannot inherit the kingdom of God renders it absurd. Not, however,\nthat the spiritual faculties are, as it were, manufactured in the\nspiritual world and supplied ready-made to the spiritual\norganism--forced upon it as an external equipment. This certainly is not\ninvolved in saying that the spiritual faculties are furnished by the\nspiritual world. Organisms are not added to by accretion, as in the case\nof minerals, but by growth. And the spiritual faculties are organized in\nthe spiritual protoplasm of the soul, just as other faculties are\norganized in the protoplasm of the body. The plant is made of materials\nwhich have once been inorganic. An organizing principle not belonging to\ntheir kingdom lays hold of them and elaborates them until they have\ncorrespondences with the kingdom to which the organizing principle\nbelonged. Their original organizing principle, if it can be called by\nthis name, was Crystallization; so that we have now a distinctly foreign\npower organizing in totally new and higher directions. In the spiritual\nworld, similarly, we find an organizing principle at work among the\nmaterials of the organic kingdom, performing a further miracle, but not\na different kind of miracle, producing organizations of a novel kind,\nbut not by a novel method. The second process, in fact, is simply what\nan enlightened evolutionist would have expected from the first. It marks\nthe natural and legitimate progress of the development. And this in the\nline of the true Evolution--not the _linear_ Evolution, which would look\nfor the development of the natural man through powers already inherent,\nas if one were to look to Crystallization to accomplish the development\nof the mineral into the plant--but that larger form of Evolution which\nincludes among its factors the double Law of Biogenesis and the immense\nfurther truth that this involves.\n\nWhat is further included in this complex correspondence we shall have\nopportunity to illustrate afterward.[77] Meantime let it be noted on\nwhat the Christian argument for Immortality really rests. It stands upon\nthe pedestal on which the theologian rests the whole of historical\nChristianity--the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.\n\nIt ought to be placed in the forefront of all Christian teaching that\nChrist's mission on earth was to give men Life. \"I am come,\" He said,\n\"that ye might have Life, and that ye might have it more abundantly.\"\nAnd that He meant literal Life, literal spiritual and Eternal Life, is\nclear from the whole course of His teaching and acting. To impose a\nmetaphorical meaning on the commonest word of the New Testament is to\nviolate every canon of interpretation, and at the same time to charge\nthe greatest of teachers with persistently mystifying His hearers by an\nunusual use of so exact a vehicle for expressing definite thought as the\nGreek language, and that on the most momentous subject of which He ever\nspoke to men. It is a canon of interpretation, according to Alford, that\n\"a figurative sense of words is never admissible except when required by\nthe context.\" The context, in most cases, is not only directly\nunfavorable to a figurative meaning, but in innumerable instances in\nChrist's teaching Life is broadly contrasted with Death. In the teaching\nof the apostles, again, we find that, without exception, they accepted\nthe term in its simple literal sense. Reuss defines the apostolic belief\nwith his usual impartiality when--and the quotation is doubly pertinent\nhere--he discovers in the apostle's conception of Life, first, \"the idea\nof a real existence, an existence such as is proper to God and to the\nWord; an imperishable existence--that is to say, not subject to the\nvicissitudes and imperfections of the finite world. This primary idea is\nrepeatedly expressed, at least in a negative form; it leads to a\ndoctrine of immortality, or, to speak more correctly, of life, far\nsurpassing any that had been expressed in the formulas of the current\nphilosophy or theology, and resting upon premises and conceptions\naltogether different. In fact, it can dispense both with the\nphilosophical thesis of the immateriality or indestructibility of the\nhuman soul, and with the theological thesis of a miraculous corporeal\nreconstruction of our person; theses, the first of which is altogether\nforeign to the religion of the Bible, and the second absolutely opposed\nto reason.\" Second, \"the idea of life, as it is conceived in this\nsystem, implies the idea of a power, an operation, a communication,\nsince this life no longer remains, so to speak, latent or passive in God\nand in the Word, but through them reaches the believer. It is not a\nmental somnolent thing; it is not a plant without fruit; it is a germ\nwhich is to find fullest development.\"[78]\n\nIf we are asked to define more clearly what is meant by this mysterious\nendowment of Life, we again hand over the difficulty to Science. When\nScience can define the Natural Life and the Physical Force we may hope\nfor further clearness on the nature and action of the Spiritual Powers.\nThe effort to detect the living Spirit must be at least as idle as the\nattempt to subject protoplasm to microscopic examination in the hope of\ndiscovering Life. We are warned, also, not to expect too much. \"Thou\ncanst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth.\" This being its\nquality, when the Spiritual Life is discovered in the laboratory it will\npossibly be time to give it up altogether. It may say, as Socrates of\nhis soul, \"You may bury me--if you can catch me.\"\n\nScience never corroborates a spiritual truth without illuminating it.\nThe threshold of Eternity is a place where many shadows meet. And the\nlight of Science here, where everything is so dark, is welcome a\nthousand times. Many men would be religious if they knew where to begin;\nmany would be more religious if they were sure where it would end. It is\nnot indifference that keeps some men from God, but ignorance. \"Good\nMaster, what must I do to inherit Eternal Life?\" is still the deepest\nquestion of the age. What is Religion? What am I to believe? What seek\nwith all my heart and soul and mind?--this is the imperious question\nsent up to consciousness from the depths of being in all earnest hours;\nsent down again, alas, with many of us, time after time, unanswered.\nInto all our thought and work and reading this question pursues us. But\nthe theories are rejected one by one; the great books are returned sadly\nto their shelves, the years pass, and the problem remains unsolved. The\nconfusion of tongues here is terrible. Every day a new authority\nannounces himself. Poets, philosophers, preachers try their hand on us\nin turn. New prophets arise, and beseech us for our soul's sake to give\near to them--at last in an hour of inspiration they have discovered the\nfinal truth. Yet the doctrine of yesterday is challenged by a fresh\nphilosophy to-day: and the creed of to-day will fall in turn before the\ncriticism of to-morrow. Increase of knowledge increaseth sorrow. And at\nlength the conflicting truths, like the beams of light in the laboratory\nexperiment, combine in the mind to make total darkness.\n\nBut here are two outstanding authorities agreed--not men, not\nphilosophers, not creeds. Here is the voice of God and the voice of\nNature. I cannot be wrong if I listen to them. Sometimes when uncertain\nof a voice from its very loudness, we catch the missing syllable in the\necho. In God and Nature we have Voice and Echo. When I hear both, I am\nassured. My sense of hearing does not betray me twice. I recognize the\nVoice in the Echo, the Echo makes me certain of the Voice; I listen and\nI know. The question of a Future Life is a biological question. Nature\nmay be silent on other problems of Religion; but here she has a right to\nspeak. The whole confusion around the doctrine of Eternal Life has\narisen from making it a question of Philosophy. We shall do ill to\nrefuse a hearing to any speculation of Philosophy; the ethical relations\nhere especially are intimate and real. But in the first instance\nEternal Life, as a question of _Life_, is a problem for Biology. The\nsoul is a living organism. And for any question as to the soul's Life we\nmust appeal to Life-science. And what does the Life-science teach? That\nif I am to inherit Eternal Life, I must cultivate a correspondence with\nthe Eternal. This is a simple proposition, for Nature is always simple.\nI take this proposition, and, leaving Nature, proceed to fill it in. I\nsearch everywhere for a clue to the Eternal. I ransack literature for a\ndefinition of a correspondence between man and God. Obviously that can\nonly come from one source. And the analogies of Science permits us to\napply to it. All knowledge lies in Environment. When I want to know\nabout minerals I go to minerals. When I want to know about flowers I go\nto flowers. And they tell me. In their own way they speak to me, each in\nits own way, and each for itself--not the mineral for the flower, which\nis impossible, nor the flower for the mineral, which is also impossible.\nSo if I want to know about Man, I go to his part of the Environment. And\nhe tells me about himself, not as the plant or the mineral, for he is\nneither, but in his own way. And if I want to know about God, I go to\nHis part of the Environment. And He tells me about Himself, not as a\nMan, for He is not Man, but in His own way. And just as naturally as the\nflower and the mineral and the Man, each in their own way, tell me about\nthemselves, He tells me about Himself. He very strangely condescends\nindeed in making things plain to me, actually assuming for a time the\nForm of a Man that I at my poor level may better see Him. This is my\nopportunity to know Him. This incarnation is God making Himself\naccessible to human thought--God opening to man the possibility of\ncorrespondence through Jesus Christ. And this correspondence and this\nEnvironment are those I seek. He Himself assures me, \"This is Life\nEternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ\nwhom Thou hast sent.\"\n\nDo I not now discern the deeper meaning in \"_Jesus Christ whom Thou hast\nsent_?\" Do I not better understand with what vision and rapture the\nprofoundest of the disciples exclaims, \"The Son of God is come, and hath\ngiven us an understanding that we might know Him that is True?\"[79]\n\nHaving opened correspondence with the Eternal Environment, the\nsubsequent stages are in the line of all other normal development. We\nhave but to continue, to deepen, to extend, and to enrich the\ncorrespondence that has been begun. And we shall soon find to our\nsurprise that this is accompanied by another and parallel process. The\naction is not all upon our side. The Environment also will be found to\ncorrespond. The influence of Environment is one of the greatest and most\nsubstantial of modern biological doctrines. Of the power of Environment\nto form or transform organisms, of its ability to develop or suppress\nfunction, of its potency in determining growth, and generally of its\nimmense influence in Evolution, there is no need now to speak. But\nEnvironment is now acknowledged to be one of the most potent factors in\nthe Evolution of Life. The influence of Environment too seems to\nincrease rather than diminish as we approach the higher forms of being.\nThe highest forms are the most mobile; their capacity of change is the\ngreatest; they are, in short, most easily acted on by Environment. And\nnot only are the highest organisms the most mobile, but the highest part\nof the highest organisms are more mobile than the lower. Environment can\ndo little, comparatively, in the direction of inducing variation in the\nbody of a child: but how plastic is its mind! How infinitely sensitive\nis its soul! How infallibly can it be turned to music or to dissonance\nby the moral harmony or discord of its outward lot! How decisively\nindeed are we not all formed and moulded, made or unmade, by external\ncircumstance! Might we not all confess with Ulysses--\n\n    \"I am a part of all that I have met.\"\n\nMuch more, then, shall we look for the influence of Environment on the\nspiritual nature of him who has opened correspondence with God. Reaching\nout his eager and quickened faculties to the spiritual world around him,\nshall he not become spiritual? In vital contact with Holiness, shall he\nnot become holy? Breathing now an atmosphere of ineffable Purity, shall\nhe miss becoming pure? Walking with God from day to day, shall he fail\nto be taught of God?\n\nGrowth in grace is sometimes described as a strange, mystical, and\nunintelligible process. It is mystical, but neither strange nor\nunintelligible. It proceeds according to Natural Law, and the leading\nfactor in sanctification is Influence of Environment. The possibility of\nit depends upon the mobility of the organism; the result, on the extent\nand frequency of certain correspondences. These facts insensibly lead on\nto a further suggestion. Is it not possible that these biological truths\nmay carry with them the clue to still profounder philosophy--even that\nof Regeneration?\n\nEvolutionists tell us that by the influence of environment certain\naquatic animals have become adapted to a terrestrial mode of life.\nBreathing normally by gills, as the result and reward of a continued\neffort carried on from generation to generation to inspire the air of\nheaven direct, they have slowly acquired the lung-function. In the young\norganism, true to the ancestral type, the gill still persists--as in the\ntadpole of the common frog. But as maturity approaches the true lung\nappears; the gill gradually transfers its task to the higher organ. It\nthen becomes atrophied and disappears, and finally respiration in the\nadult is conducted by lungs alone.[80] We may be far, in the meantime,\nfrom saying that this is proved. It is for those who accept it to deny\nthe justice of the spiritual analogy. Is religion to them unscientific\nin its doctrine of Regeneration? Will the evolutionist who admits the\nregeneration of the frog under the modifying influence of a continued\ncorrespondence with a new environment, care to question the possibility\nof the soul acquiring such a faculty as that of Prayer, the marvelous\nbreathing-function of the new creature, when in contact with the\natmosphere of a besetting God? Is the change from the earthly to the\nheavenly more mysterious than the change from the aquatic to the\nterrestrial mode of life? Is Evolution to stop with the organic? If it\nbe objected that it has taken ages to perfect the function in the\nbatrachian, the reply is, that it will take ages to perfect the function\nin the Christian. For every thousand years the natural evolution will\nallow for the development of its organism, the Higher Biology will grant\nits product millions. We have indeed spoken of the spiritual\ncorrespondence as already perfect--but it is perfect only as the bud is\nperfect. \"It doth not yet appear what it shall be,\" any more than it\nappeared a million years ago what the evolving batrachian would be.\n\nBut to return. We have been dealing with the scientific aspects of\ncommunion with God. Insensibly, from quantity we have been led to speak\nof quality. And enough has now been advanced to indicate generally the\nnature of that correspondence with which is necessarily associated\nEternal Life. There remain but one or two details to which we must\nlastly, and very briefly, address ourselves.\n\nThe quality of everlastingness belongs, as we have seen, to a single\ncorrespondence, or rather to a single set of correspondences. But it is\napparent that before this correspondence can take full and final effect\na further process is necessary. By some means it must be separated from\nall the other correspondences of the organism which do not share its\npeculiar quality. In this life it is restrained by these other\ncorrespondences. They may contribute to it, or hinder it; but they are\nessentially of a different order. They belong not to Eternity but to\nTime, and to this present world; and, unless some provision is made for\ndealing with them, they will detain the aspiring organism in this\npresent world till Time is ended. Of course, in a sense, all that\nbelongs to Time belongs also to Eternity; but these lower\ncorrespondences are in their nature unfitted for an Eternal Life. Even\nif they were perfect in their relation to their Environment, they would\nstill not be Eternal. However opposed, apparently, to the scientific\ndefinition of Eternal Life, it is yet true that perfect correspondence\nwith Environment is not Eternal Life. A very important word in the\ncomplete definition is, in this sentence, omitted. On that word it has\nnot been necessary hitherto, and for obvious reasons, to place any\nemphasis, but when we come to deal with false pretenders to Immortality\nwe must return to it. Were the definition complete as it stands, it\nmight, with the permission of the psycho-physiologist, guarantee the\nImmortality of every living thing. In the dog, for instance, the\nmaterial framework giving way at death might leave the released canine\nspirit still free to inhabit the old Environment. And so with every\ncreature which had ever established a conscious relation with\nsurrounding things. Now the difficulty in framing a theory of Eternal\nLife has been to construct one which will exclude the brute creation,\ndrawing the line rigidly at man, or at least, somewhere within the human\nrace. Not that we need object to the Immortality of the dog, or of the\nwhole inferior creation. Nor that we need refuse a place to any\nintelligible speculation which would people the earth to-day with the\ninvisible forms of all things that have ever lived. Only we still insist\nthat this is not Eternal Life. And why? Because their Environment is not\nEternal. Their correspondence, however firmly established, is\nestablished with that which shall pass away. An Eternal Life demands an\nEternal Environment.\n\nThe demand for a perfect Environment as well as for a perfect\ncorrespondence is less clear in Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition than it\nmight be. But it is an essential factor. An organism might remain true\nto its Environment, but what if the Environment played it false? If the\norganism possessed the power to change, it could adapt itself to\nsuccessive changes in the Environment. And if this were guaranteed we\nshould also have the conditions for Eternal Life fulfilled. But what if\nthe Environment passed away altogether? What if the earth swept suddenly\ninto the sun? This is a change of Environment against which there could\nbe no precaution and for which there could be as little provision. With\na changing Environment even, there must always remain the dread and\npossibility of a falling out of correspondence. At the best, Life would\nbe uncertain. But with a changeless Environment--such as that possessed\nby the spiritual organism--the perpetuity of the correspondence, so far\nas the external relation is concerned, is guaranteed. This quality of\npermanence in the Environment distinguishes the religious relation from\nevery other. Why should not the musician's life be an Eternal Life?\nBecause, for one thing, the musical world, the Environment with which he\ncorresponds, is not eternal. Even if his correspondence in itself could\nlast, eternally, the environing material things with which he\ncorresponds must pass away. His soul might last forever--but not his\nviolin. So the man of the world might last forever--but not the world.\nHis Environment is not eternal; nor are even his correspondences--the\nworld passeth away _and the lust thereof_.\n\nWe find then that man, or the spiritual man, is equipped with two sets\nof correspondences. One set possesses the quality of everlastingness,\nthe other is temporal. But unless these are separated by some means the\ntemporal will continue to impair and hinder the eternal. The final\npreparation, therefore, for the inheriting of Eternal Life must consist\nin the abandonment of the non-eternal elements. These must be unloosed\nand dissociated from the higher elements. And this is effected by a\nclosing catastrophe--Death.\n\nDeath ensues because certain relations in the organism are not adjusted\nto certain relations in the Environment. There will come a time in each\nhistory when the imperfect correspondences of the organism will betray\nthemselves by a failure to compass some necessary adjustment. This is\nwhy Death is associated with Imperfection. Death is the necessary result\nof Imperfection, and the necessary end of it. Imperfect correspondence\ngives imperfect and uncertain Life. \"Perfect correspondence,\" on the\nother hand, according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, would be \"perfect Life.\"\nTo abolish Death, therefore, all that would be necessary would be to\nabolish Imperfection. But it is the claim of Christianity that it can\nabolish Death. And it is significant to notice that it does so by\nmeeting this very demand of Science--it abolishes Imperfection.\n\nThe part of the organism which begins to get out of correspondence with\nthe Organic Environment is the only part which is in vital\ncorrespondence with it. Though a fatal disadvantage to the natural man\nto be thrown out of correspondence with this Environment, it is of\ninestimable importance to the spiritual man. For so long as it is\nmaintained the way is barred for a further Evolution. And hence the\ncondition necessary for the further Evolution is that the spiritual be\nreleased from the natural. That is to say, the condition of the further\nEvolution is Death. _Mors janua Vitae_, therefore, becomes a scientific\nformula. Death, being the final shifting of all the correspondences, is\nthe indispensable factor of the higher Life. In the language of Science,\nnot less than of Scripture, \"To die is gain.\"\n\nThe shifting of the correspondences is done by Nature. This is its last\nand greatest contribution to mankind. Over the mouth of the grave the\nperfect and the imperfect submit to their final separation. Each goes to\nits own--earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, Spirit to Spirit.\n\"The dust shall return to the earth as it was; and the Spirit shall\nreturn unto God who gave it.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[68] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 82.\n\n[69] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 88.\n\n[70] John xvii.\n\n[71] _Vide_ Sir John Lubbock's \"Ants, Bees, and Wasps,\" pp. 1-181.\n\n[72] Buechner: \"Force and Matter,\" 3d Ed., p. 232.\n\n[73] \"The Creed of Science,\" p. 169.\n\n[74] \"Force and Matter,\" p. 231.\n\n[75] 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12.\n\n[76] Rom. viii. 35-39.\n\n[77] _Vide_ \"Conformity to Type,\" page 287.\n\n[78] \"History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,\" vol. ii. p.\n496.\n\n[79] 1 John v. 20.\n\n[80] _Vide_ also the remarkable experiments of Fraeulein v. Chauvin on\nthe Transformation of the Mexican Axolotl into Amblystoma.--Weismann's\n\"Studies in the Theory of Descent,\" vol. ii. pt. iii.\n\n\n\n\nENVIRONMENT.\n\n    \"When I talked with an ardent missionary and pointed out to him that\n    his creed found no support in my experience, he replied: 'It is not\n    so in your experience, but is so in the other world.' I answered:\n    'Other world! There is no other world. God is one and omnipresent;\n    here or nowhere is the whole fact.'\"--_Emerson._\n\n    \"Ye are complete in Him.\"--_Paul._\n\n    \"Whatever amount of power an organism expends in any shape is the\n    correlate and equivalent of a power that was taken into it from\n    without.\"--_Herbert Spencer._\n\n\nStudents of Biography will observe that in all well-written Lives\nattention is concentrated for the first few chapters upon two points. We\nare first introduced to the family to which the subject of memoir\nbelonged. The grandparents, or even the more remote ancestors, are\nbriefly sketched and their chief characteristics brought prominently\ninto view. Then the parents themselves are photographed in detail. Their\nappearance and physique, their character, their disposition, their\nmental qualities, are set before us in a critical analysis. And finally\nwe are asked to observe how much the father and the mother respectively\nhave transmitted of their peculiar nature to their offspring. How\nfaithfully the ancestral lines have met in the latest product, how\nmysteriously the joint characteristics of body and mind have blended,\nand how unexpected yet how entirely natural a recombination is the\nresult--these points are elaborated with cumulative effect until we\nrealize at last how little we are dealing with an independent unit, how\nmuch with a survival and reorganization of what seemed buried in the\ngrave.\n\nIn the second place, we are invited to consider more external\ninfluences--schools and schoolmasters, neighbors, home, pecuniary\ncircumstances, scenery, and, by-and-by, the religious and political\natmosphere of the time. These also we are assured have played their part\nin making the individual what he is. We can estimate these early\ninfluences in any particular case with but small imagination if we fail\nto see how powerfully they also have moulded mind and character, and in\nwhat subtle ways they have determined the course of the future life.\n\nThis twofold relation of the individual, first, to his parents, and\nsecond, to his circumstances, is not peculiar to human beings. These two\nfactors are responsible for making all living organisms what they are.\nWhen a naturalist attempts to unfold the life-history of any animal, he\nproceeds precisely on these same lines. Biography is really a branch of\nNatural History; and the biographer who discusses his hero as the\nresultant of these two tendencies, follows the scientific method as\nrigidly as Mr. Darwin in studying \"Animals and Plants under\nDomestication.\"\n\nMr. Darwin, following Weismann, long ago pointed out that there are two\nmain factors in all Evolution--the nature of the organism and the nature\nof the conditions. We have chosen our illustration from the highest or\nhuman species in order to define the meaning of these factors in the\nclearest way; but it must be remembered that the development of man\nunder these directive influences is essentially the same as that of any\nother organism in the hands of Nature. We are dealing therefore with\nuniversal Law. It will still further serve to complete the conception of\nthe general principle if we now substitute for the casual phrases by\nwhich the factors have been described the more accurate terminology of\nScience. Thus what Biography describes as parental influences, Biology\nwould speak of as Heredity; and all that is involved in the second\nfactor--the action of external circumstances and surroundings--the\nnaturalist would include under the single term Environment. These two,\nHeredity and Environment, are the master-influences of the organic\nworld. These have made all of us what we are. These forces are still\nceaselessly playing upon all our lives. And he who truly understands\nthese influences; he who has decided how much to allow to each; he who\ncan regulate new forces as they arise, or adjust them to the old, so\ndirecting them as at one moment to make them cooeperate, at another to\ncounteract one another, understands the rationale of personal\ndevelopment. To seize continuously the opportunity of more and more\nperfect adjustment to better and higher conditions, to balance some\ninward evil with some purer influence acting from without, in a word to\nmake our Environment at the same time that it is making us--these are\nthe secrets of a well-ordered and successful life.\n\nIn the spiritual world, also, the subtle influences which form and\ntransform the soul are Heredity and Environment. And here especially\nwhere all is invisible, where much that we feel to be real is yet so\nill-defined, it becomes of vital practical moment to clarify the\natmosphere as far as possible with conceptions borrowed from the natural\nlife. Few things are less understood than the conditions of the\nspiritual life. The distressing incompetence of which most of us are\nconscious in trying to work out our spiritual experience is due perhaps\nless to the diseased will which we commonly blame for it than to\nimperfect knowledge of the right conditions. It does not occur to us how\nnatural the spiritual is. We still strive for some strange transcendent\nthing; we seek to promote life by methods as unnatural as they prove\nunsuccessful; and only the utter incomprehensibility of the whole region\nprevents us seeing fully--what we already half-suspect--how completely\nwe are missing the road. Living in the spiritual world, nevertheless, is\njust as simple as living in the natural world; and it is the same kind\nof simplicity. It is the same kind of simplicity for it is the same kind\nof world--there are not two kinds of worlds. The conditions of life in\nthe one are the conditions of life in the other. And till these\nconditions are sensibly grasped, as the conditions of all life, it is\nimpossible that the personal effort after the highest life should be\nother than a blind struggle carried on in fruitless sorrow and\nhumiliation.\n\nOf these two universal factors, Heredity and Environment, it is\nunnecessary to balance the relative importance here. The main influence,\nunquestionably, must be assigned to the former. In practice, however,\nand for an obvious reason, we are chiefly concerned with the latter.\nWhat Heredity has to do for us is determined outside ourselves. No man\ncan select his own parents. But every man to some extent can choose his\nown Environment. His relation to it, however largely determined by\nHeredity in the first instance, is always open to alteration. And so\ngreat is his control over Environment and so radical its influence over\nhim, that he can so direct it as either to undo, modify, perpetuate or\nintensify the earlier hereditary influence within certain limits. But\nthe aspects of Environment which we have now to consider do not involve\nus in questions of such complexity. In what high and mystical sense,\nalso, Heredity applies to the spiritual organism we need not just now\ninquire. In the simpler relations of the more external factor we shall\nfind a large and fruitful field for study.\n\nThe influence of Environment may be investigated in two main aspects.\nFirst, one might discuss the modern and very interesting question as to\nthe power of Environment to induce what is known to recent science as\nVariation. A change in the surroundings of any animal, it is now\nwell-known, can so react upon it as to cause it to change. By the\nattempt, conscious or unconscious, to adjust itself to the new\nconditions, a true physiological change is gradually wrought within the\norganism. Hunter, for example, in a classical experiment, so changed the\nEnvironment of a sea-gull by keeping it in captivity that it could only\nsecure a grain diet. The effect was to modify the stomach of the bird,\nnormally adapted to a fish diet, until in time it came to resemble in\nstructure the gizzard of an ordinary grain-feeder such as the pigeon.\nHolmgren again reversed this experiment by feeding pigeons for a\nlengthened period on a meat-diet, with the result that the gizzard\nbecame transformed into the carnivorous stomach. Mr. Alfred Russel\nWallace mentions the case of a Brazilian parrot which changes its color\nfrom green to red or yellow when fed on the fat of certain fishes. Not\nonly changes of food, however, but changes of climate and of\ntemperature, changes in surrounding organisms, in the case of marine\nanimals even changes of pressure, of ocean currents, of light, and of\nmany other circumstances, are known to exert a powerful modifying\ninfluence upon living organisms. These relations are still being worked\nout in many directions, but the influence of Environment as a prime\nfactor in Variation is now a recognized doctrine of science.[81]\n\nEven the popular mind has been struck with the curious adaptation of\nnearly all animals to their _habitat_, for example in the matter of\ncolor. The sandy hue of the sole and flounder, the white of the polar\nbear with its suggestion of Arctic snows, the stripes of the Bengal\ntiger--as if the actual reeds of its native jungle had nature-printed\nthemselves on its hide;--these, and a hundred others which will occur to\nevery one, are marked instances of adaptation to Environment, induced by\nNatural Selection or otherwise, for the purpose, obviously in these\ncases at least, of protection.\n\nTo continue the investigation of the modifying action of Environment\ninto the moral and spiritual spheres, would be to open a fascinating and\nsuggestive inquiry. One might show how the moral man is acted upon and\nchanged continuously by the influences, secret and open, of his\nsurroundings, by the tone of society, by the company he keeps, by his\noccupation, by the books he reads, by Nature, by all, in short, that\nconstitutes the habitual atmosphere of his thoughts and the little world\nof his daily choice. Or one might go deeper still and prove how the\nspiritual life also is modified from outside sources--its health or\ndisease, its growth or decay, all its changes for better or for worse\nbeing determined by the varying and successive circumstances in which\nthe religious habits are cultivated. But we must rather transfer our\nattention to a second aspect of Environment, not perhaps so fascinating\nbut yet more important.\n\nSo much of the modern discussion of Environment revolves round the mere\nquestion of Variation that one is apt to overlook a previous question.\nEnvironment as a factor in life is not exhausted when we have realized\nits modifying influence. Its significance is scarcely touched. The great\nfunction of Environment is not to modify but to _sustain_. In sustaining\nlife, it is true, it modifies. But the latter influence is incidental,\nthe former essential. Our Environment is that in which we live and move\nand have our being. Without it we should neither live or move nor have\nany being. In the organism lies the principle of life; in the\nEnvironment are the conditions of life. Without the fulfillment of these\nconditions, which are wholly supplied by Environment, there can be no\nlife. An organism in itself is but a part; Nature is its complement.\nAlone, cut off from its surroundings, it is not. Alone, cut off from my\nsurroundings, I am not--physically I am not. I am, only as I am\nsustained. I continue only as I receive. My Environment may modify me,\nbut it has first to keep me. And all the time its secret transforming\npower is indirectly moulding body and mind it is directly active in the\nmore open task of ministering to my myriad wants and from hour to hour\nsustaining life itself.\n\nTo understand the sustaining influence of Environment in the animal\nworld, one has only to recall what the biologist terms the extrinsic or\nsubsidiary conditions of vitality. Every living thing normally requires\nfor its development an Environment containing air, light, heat, and\nwater. In addition to these, if vitality is to be prolonged for any\nlength of time, and if it is to be accompanied with growth and the\nexpenditure of energy, there must be a constant supply of food. When we\nsimply remember how indispensable food is to growth and work, and when\nwe further bear in mind that the food-supply is solely contributed by\nthe Environment, we shall realize at once the meaning and the truth of\nthe proposition that without Environment there can be no life. Seventy\nper cent. at least of the human body is made of pure water, the rest of\ngases and earth. These have all come from Environment. Through the\nsecret pores of the skin two pounds of water are exhaled daily from\nevery healthy adult. The supply is kept up by Environment. The\nEnvironment is really an unappropriated part of ourselves. Definite\nportions are continuously abstracted from it and added to the organism.\nAnd so long as the organism continues to grow, act, think, speak, work,\nor perform any other function demanding a supply of energy, there is a\nconstant, simultaneous, and proportionate drain upon its surroundings.\n\nThis is a truth in the physical, and therefore in the spiritual, world\nof so great importance that we shall not mis-spend time if we follow it,\nfor further confirmation, into another department of nature. Its\nsignificance in Biology is self-evident; let us appeal to Chemistry.\n\nWhen a piece of coal is thrown on the fire, we say that it will radiate\ninto the room a certain quantity of heat. This heat, in the popular\nconception, is supposed to reside in the coal and to be set free during\nthe process of combustion. In reality, however, the heat energy is only\nin part contained in the coal. It is contained just as truly in the\ncoal's Environment--that is to say, in the oxygen of the air. The atoms\nof carbon which compose the coal have a powerful affinity for the oxygen\nof the air. Whenever they are made to approach within a certain\ndistance of one another, by the initial application of heat, they rush\ntogether with inconceivable velocity. The heat which appears at this\nmoment, comes neither from the carbon alone, nor from the oxygen alone.\nThese two substances are really inconsumable, and continue to exist,\nafter they meet in a combined form, as carbonic acid gas. The heat is\ndue to the energy developed by the chemical embrace, the precipitate\nrushing together of the molecules of carbon and the molecules of oxygen.\nIt comes, therefore, partly from the coal and partly from the\nEnvironment. Coal alone never could produce heat, neither alone could\nEnvironment. The two are mutually dependent. And although in nearly all\nthe arts we credit everything to the substance which we can weigh and\nhandle, it is certain that in the most cases the larger debt is due to\nan invisible Environment.\n\nThis is one of those great commonplaces which slip out of general\nreckoning by reason of their very largeness and simplicity. How\nprofound, nevertheless, are the issues which hang on this elementary\ntruth, we shall discover immediately. Nothing in this age is more needed\nin every department of knowledge than the rejuvenescence of the\ncommonplace. In the spiritual world especially, he will be wise who\ncourts acquaintance with the most ordinary and transparent facts of\nNature; and in laying the foundations for a religious life he will make\nno unworthy beginning who carries with him an impressive sense of so\nobvious a truth as that without Environment there can be no life.\n\nFor what does this amount to in the spiritual world? Is it not merely\nthe scientific re-statement of the reiterated aphorism of Christ,\n\"Without Me ye can do nothing?\" There is in the spiritual organism a\nprinciple of life; but that is not self-existent. It requires a second\nfactor, a something in which to live and move and have its being, an\nEnvironment. Without this it cannot live or move or have any being.\nWithout Environment the soul is as the carbon without the oxygen, as\nthe fish without the water, as the animal frame without the extrinsic\nconditions of vitality.\n\nAnd what is the spiritual Environment? It is God. Without this,\ntherefore, there is no life, no thought, no energy, nothing--\"without Me\nye can do nothing.\"\n\nThe cardinal error in the religious life is to attempt to live without\nan Environment. Spiritual experience occupies itself, not too much, but\ntoo exclusively, with one factor--the soul. We delight in dissecting\nthis much tortured faculty, from time to time, in search of a certain\nsomething which we call our faith--forgetting that faith is but an\nattitude, an empty hand for grasping an environing Presence. And when we\nfeel the need of a power by which to overcome the world, how often do we\nnot seek to generate it within ourselves by some forced process, some\nfresh girding of the will, some strained activity which only leaves the\nsoul in further exhaustion? To examine ourselves is good; but useless\nunless we also examine Environment. To bewail our weakness is right, but\nnot remedial. The cause must be investigated as well as the result. And\nyet, because we never see the other half of the problem, our failures\neven fail to instruct us. After each new collapse we begin our life\nanew, but on the old conditions; and the attempt ends as usual in the\nrepetition--in the circumstances the inevitable repetition--of the old\ndisaster. Not that at times we do not obtain glimpses of the true state\nof the case. After seasons of much discouragement, with the sore sense\nupon us of our abject feebleness, we do confer with ourselves, insisting\nfor the thousandth time, \"My soul, wait thou only upon God.\" But the\nlesson is soon forgotten. The strength supplied we speedily credit to\nour own achievement; and even the temporary success is mistaken for a\nsymptom of improved inward vitality. Once more we become self-existent.\nOnce more we go on living without an Environment. And once more, after\ndays of wasting without repairing, of spending without replenishing, we\nbegin to perish with hunger, only returning to God again, as a last\nresort, when we have reached starvation point.\n\nNow why do we do this? Why do we seek to breathe without an atmosphere,\nto drink without a well? Why this unscientific attempt to sustain life\nfor weeks at a time without an Environment? It is because we have never\ntruly seen the necessity for an Environment. We have not been working\nwith a principle. We are told to \"wait only upon God,\" but we do not\nknow why. It has never been as clear to us that without God the soul\nwill die as that without food the body will perish. In short, we have\nnever comprehended the doctrine of the Persistence of Force. Instead of\nbeing content to transform energy we have tried to create it.\n\nThe Law of Nature here is as clear as Science can make it. In the words\nof Mr. Herbert Spencer, \"It is a corollary from that primordial truth\nwhich, as we have seen, underlies all other truths, that whatever amount\nof power an organism expends in any shape is the correlate and\nequivalent of a power that was taken into it from without,\"[82] We are\ndealing here with a simple question of dynamics. Whatever energy the\nsoul expends must first be \"taken into it from without.\" We are not\nCreators, but creatures; God is our refuge _and strength_. Communion\nwith God, therefore, is a scientific necessity; and nothing will more\nhelp the defeated spirit which is struggling in the wreck of its\nreligious life than a common-sense hold of this plain biological\nprinciple that without Environment he can do nothing. What he wants is\nnot an occasional view, but a principle--a basal principle like this,\nbroad as the universe, solid as nature. In the natural world we act upon\nthis law unconsciously. We absorb heat, breathe air, draw on Environment\nall but automatically for meat and drink, for the nourishment of the\nsenses, for mental stimulus, for all that, penetrating us from without,\ncan prolong, enrich, and elevate life. But in the spiritual world we\nhave all this to learn. We are new creatures, and even the bare living\nhas to be acquired.\n\nNow the great point in learning to live is to live naturally. As closely\nas possible we must follow the broad, clear lines of the natural life.\nAnd there are three things especially which it is necessary for us to\nkeep continually in view. The first is that the organism contains within\nitself only one-half of what is essential to life; the second is that\nthe other half is contained in the Environment; the third, that the\ncondition of receptivity is simple union between the organism and the\nEnvironment.\n\nTranslated into the language of religion these propositions yield, and\nplace on a scientific basis, truths of immense practical interest. To\nsay, first, that the organism contains within itself only one-half of\nwhat is essential to life, is to repeat the evangelical confession, so\nworn and yet so true to universal experience, of the utter helplessness\nof man. Who has not come to the conclusion that he is but a part, a\nfraction of some larger whole? Who does not miss at every turn of his\nlife an absent God? That man is but a part, he knows, for there is room\nin him for more. That God is the other part, he feels, because at times\nHe satisfies his need. Who does not tremble often under that sicklier\nsymptom of his incompleteness, his want of spiritual energy, his\nhelplessness with sin? But now he understands both--the void in his\nlife, the powerlessness of his will. He understands that, like all other\nenergy, spiritual power is contained in Environment. He finds here at\nlast the true root of all human frailty, emptiness, nothingness, sin.\nThis is why \"without Me ye can do nothing.\" Powerlessness is the normal\nstate not only of this but of every organism--of every organism apart\nfrom its Environment.\n\nThe entire dependence of the soul upon God is not an exceptional\nmystery, nor is man's helplessness an arbitrary and unprecedented\nphenomenon. It is the law of all Nature. The spiritual man is not taxed\nbeyond the natural. He is not purposely handicapped by singular\nlimitations or unusual incapacities. God has not designedly made the\nreligious life as hard as possible. The arrangements for the spiritual\nlife are the same as for the natural life. When in their hours of\nunbelief men challenge their Creator for placing the obstacle of human\nfrailty in the way of their highest development, their protest is\nagainst the order of nature. They object to the sun for being the source\nof energy and not the engine, to the carbonic acid being in the air and\nnot in the plant. They would equip each organism with a personal\natmosphere, each brain with a private store of energy; they would grow\ncorn in the interior of the body, and make bread by a special apparatus\nin the digestive organs. They must, in short, have the creature\ntransformed into a Creator. The organism must either depend on his\nenvironment, or be self-sufficient. But who will not rather approve the\narrangement by which man in his creatural life may have unbroken access\nto an Infinite Power? What soul will seek to remain self-luminous when\nit knows that \"The Lord God is a _Sun_?\" Who will not willingly exchange\nhis shallow vessel for Christ's well of living water? Even if the\norganism, launched into being like a ship putting out to sea, possessed\na full equipment, its little store must soon come to an end. But in\ncontact with a large and bounteous Environment its supply is limitless.\nIn every direction its resources are infinite.\n\nThere is a modern school which protests against the doctrine of man's\ninability as the heartless fiction of a past theology. While some forms\nof that dogma, to any one who knows man, are incapable of defence, there\nare others which, to any one who knows Nature, are incapable of denial.\nThose who oppose it, in their jealousy for humanity, credit the organism\nwith the properties of Environment. All true theology, on the other\nhand, has remained loyal to at least the root-idea in this truth. The\nNew Testament is nowhere more impressive than where it insists on the\nfact of man's dependence. In its view the first step in religion is for\nman to feel his helplessness. Christ's first beatitude is to the poor in\nspirit. The condition of entrance into the spiritual kingdom is to\npossess the child-spirit--that state of mind combining at once the\nprofoundest helplessness with the most artless feeling of dependence.\nSubstantially the same idea underlies the countless passages in which\nChrist affirms that He has not come to call the righteous, but sinners\nto repentance. And in that farewell discourse into which the Great\nTeacher poured the most burning convictions of His life, He gives to\nthis doctrine an ever increasing emphasis. No words could be more solemn\nor arresting than the sentence in the last great allegory devoted to\nthis theme, \"As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide\nin the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in Me.\" The word here, it\nwill be observed again, is _cannot_. It is the imperative of natural\nlaw. Fruit-bearing without Christ is not an improbability, but an\nimpossibility. As well expect the natural fruit to flourish without air\nand heat, without soil and sunshine. How thoroughly also Paul grasped\nthis truth is apparent from a hundred pregnant passages in which he\nechoes his Master's teaching. To him life was hid with Christ in God.\nAnd that he embraced this not as a theory but as an experimental truth\nwe gather from his constant confession, \"When I am weak, then am I\nstrong.\"\n\nThis leads by a natural transition to the second of the three points we\nare seeking to illustrate. We have seen that the organism contains\nwithin itself only one half of what is essential to life. We have next\nto observe, as the complement of this, how the second half is contained\nin the Environment.\n\nOne result of the due apprehension of our personal helplessness will be\nthat we shall no longer waste our time over the impossible task of\nmanufacturing energy for ourselves. Our science will bring to an abrupt\nend the long series of severe experiments in which we have indulged in\nthe hope of finding a perpetual motion. And having decided upon this\nonce for all, our first step in seeking a more satisfactory state of\nthings must be to find a new source of energy. Following Nature, only\none course is open to us. We must refer to Environment. The natural life\nowes all to Environment, so must the spiritual. Now the Environment of\nthe spiritual life is God. As Nature therefore forms the complement of\nthe natural life, God is the complement of the spiritual.\n\nThe proof of this? That Nature is not more natural to my body than God\nis to my soul. Every animal and plant has its own Environment. And the\nfurther one inquires into the relations of the one to the other, the\nmore one sees the marvelous intricacy and beauty of the adjustments.\nThese wonderful adaptations of each organism to its surroundings--of the\nfish to the water, of the eagle to the air, of the insect to the forest\nbed; and of each part of every organism--the fish's swim-bladder, the\neagle's eye, the insect's breathing tubes--which the old argument from\ndesign brought home to us with such enthusiasm, inspire us still with a\nsense of the boundless resources and skill of Nature in perfecting her\narrangements for each single life. Down to the last detail the world is\nmade for what is in it; and by whatever process things are as they are,\nall organisms find in surrounding Nature the ample complement of\nthemselves. Man, too, finds in his Environment provision for all\ncapacities, scope for the exercise of every faculty, room for the\nindulgence of each appetite, a just supply for every want. So the\nspiritual man at the apex of the pyramid of life finds in the vaster\nrange of his Environment a provision, as much higher, it is true, as he\nis higher, but as delicately adjusted to his varying needs. And all\nthis is supplied to him just as the lower organisms are ministered to by\nthe lower environment, in the same simple ways, in the same constant\nsequence, as appropriately and as lavishly. We fail to praise the\nceaseless ministry of the great inanimate world around us only because\nits kindness is unobtrusive. Nature is always noiseless. All her\ngreatest gifts are given in secret. And we forget how truly every good\nand perfect gift comes from without, and from above, because no pause in\nher changeless beneficence teaches us the sad lesson of deprivation.\n\nIt is not a strange thing, then, for the soul to find its life in God.\nThis is its native air. God as the Environment of the soul has been from\nthe remotest age the doctrine of all the deepest thinkers in religion.\nHow profoundly Hebrew poetry is saturated with this high thought will\nappear when we try to conceive of it with this left out. True poetry is\nonly science in another form. And long before it was possible for\nreligion to give scientific expression to its greatest truths, men of\ninsight uttered themselves in psalms which could not have been truer to\nNature had the most modern light controlled the inspiration. \"As the\nhart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O\nGod.\" What fine sense of the analogy of the natural and the spiritual\ndoes not underlie these words. As the hart after its Environment, so man\nafter his; as the water-brooks are fitly designed to meet the natural\nwants, so fitly does God implement the spiritual need of man. It will be\nnoticed that in the Hebrew poets the longing for God never strikes one\nas morbid, or unnatural to the men who utter it. It is as natural to\nthem to long for God as for the swallow to seek her nest. Throughout all\ntheir images no suspicion rises within us that they are exaggerating. We\nfeel how truly they are reading themselves, their deepest selves. No\nfalse note occurs in all their aspiration. There is no weariness even in\ntheir ceaseless sighing, except the lover's weariness for the\nabsent--if they would fly away, it is only to be at rest. Men who have\nno soul can only wonder at this. Men who have a soul, but with little\nfaith, can only envy it. How joyous a thing it was to the Hebrews to\nseek their God! How artlessly they call upon Him to entertain them in\nHis pavilion, to cover them with His feathers, to hide them in His\nsecret place, to hold them in the hollow of His hand or stretch around\nthem the everlasting arms! These men were true children of Nature. As\nthe humming-bird among its own palm-trees, as the ephemera in the\nsunshine of a summer evening, so they lived their joyous lives. And even\nthe full share of the sadder experience of life which came to all of\nthem but drove them the further into the Secret Place, and led them with\nmore consecration to make, as they expressed it, \"the Lord their\nportion.\" All that has been said since from Marcus Aurelius to\nSwedenborg, from Augustine to Schleiermacher of a besetting God as the\nfinal complement of humanity is but a repetition of the Hebrew poets'\nfaith. And even the New Testament has nothing higher to offer man than\nthis. The psalmist's \"God is our refuge and strength\" is only the\nearlier form, less defined, less practicable, but not less noble, of\nChrist's \"Come unto Me, and I will give you rest.\"\n\nThere is a brief phrase of Paul's which defines the relation with almost\nscientific accuracy--\"Ye are complete in Him.\" In this is summed up the\nwhole of the Bible anthropology--the completeness of man in God, his\nincompleteness apart from God.\n\nIf it be asked, In what is man incomplete, or, In what does God complete\nhim? the question is a wide one. But it may serve to show at least the\ndirection in which the Divine Environment forms the complement of human\nlife if we ask ourselves once more what it is in life that needs\ncomplementing. And to this question we receive the significant answer\nthat it is in the higher departments alone, or mainly, that the\nincompleteness of our life appears. The lower departments of Nature are\nalready complete enough. The world itself is about as good a world as\nmight be. It has been long in the making, its furniture is all in, its\nlaws are in perfect working order; and although wise men at various\ntimes have suggested improvements, there is on the whole a tolerably\nunanimous vote of confidence in things as they exist. The Divine\nEnvironment has little more to do for this planet so far as we can see,\nand so far as the existing generation is concerned. Then the lower\norganic life of the world is also so far complete. God, through\nEvolution or otherwise, may still have finishing touches to add here and\nthere, but already it is \"all very good.\" It is difficult to conceive\nanything better of its kind than a lily or a cedar, an ant or an\nant-eater. These organisms, so far as we can judge, lack nothing. It\nmight be said of them, \"they are complete in Nature.\" Of man also, of\nman the animal, it may be affirmed that his Environment satisfies him.\nHe has food and drink, and good food and good drink. And there is in him\nno purely animal want which is not really provided for, and that\napparently in the happiest possible way.\n\nBut the moment we pass beyond the mere animal life we begin to come upon\nan incompleteness. The symptoms at first are slight, and betray\nthemselves only by an unexplained restlessness or a dull sense of want.\nThen the feverishness increases, becomes more defined, and passes slowly\ninto abiding pain. To some come darker moments when the unrest deepens\ninto a mental agony of which all the other woes of earth are\nmockeries--moments when the forsaken soul can only cry in terror for the\nLiving God. Up to a point the natural Environment supplies man's wants,\nbeyond that it only derides him. How much in man lies beyond that point?\nVery much--almost all, all that makes man man. The first suspicion of\nthe terrible truth--so for the time let us call it--wakens with the\ndawn of the intellectual life. It is a solemn moment when the\nslow-moving mind reaches at length the verge of its mental horizon, and,\nlooking over, sees nothing more. Its straining makes the abyss but more\nprofound. Its cry comes back without an echo. Where is the Environment\nto complete this rational soul? Men either find one--_One_--or spend the\nrest of their days in trying to shut their eyes. The alternatives of the\nintellectual life are Christianity or Agnosticism. The Agnostic is right\nwhen he trumpets his incompleteness. He who is not complete in Him must\nbe forever incomplete. Still more grave becomes man's case when he\nbegins further to explore his moral and social nature. The problems of\nthe heart and conscience are infinitely more perplexing than those of\nthe intellect. Has love no future? Has right no triumph? Is the\nunfinished self to remain unfinished? Again, the alternatives are two,\nChristianity or Pessimism. But when we ascend the further height of the\nreligious nature, the crisis comes. There, without Environment, the\ndarkness is unutterable. So maddening now becomes the mystery that men\nare compelled to construct an Environment for themselves. No Environment\nhere is unthinkable. An altar of some sort men must have--God, or\nNature, or Law. But the anguish of Atheism is only a negative proof of\nman's incompleteness. A witness more overwhelming is the prayer of the\nChristian. What a very strange thing, is it not, for man to pray? It is\nthe symbol at once of his littleness and of his greatness. Here the\nsense of imperfection, controlled and silenced in the narrower reaches\nof his being, becomes audible. Now he must utter himself. The sense of\nneed is so real, and the sense of Environment, that he calls out to it,\naddressing it articulately, and imploring it to satisfy his need. Surely\nthere is nothing more touching in Nature than this? Man could never so\nexpose himself, so break through all constraint, except from a dire\nnecessity. It is the suddenness and unpremeditatedness of Prayer that\ngives it a unique value as an apologetic.\n\nMan has three questions to put to his Environment, three symbols of his\nincompleteness. They come from three different centers of his being. The\nfirst is the question of the intellect, What is Truth? The natural\nEnvironment answers, \"Increase of Knowledge increaseth Sorrow,\" and\n\"much study is a Weariness.\" Christ replies, \"Learn of Me, and ye shall\nfind Rest.\" Contrast the world's word \"Weariness\" with Christ's word\n\"Rest.\" No other teacher since the world began has ever associated\n\"learn\" with \"Rest.\" Learn of me, says the philosopher, and you shall\nfind Restlessness. Learn of Me, says Christ, and ye shall find Rest.\nThought, which the godless man has cursed, that eternally starved yet\never living specter, finds at last its imperishable glory; Thought is\ncomplete in Him. The second question is sent up from the moral nature,\nWho will show us any good? And again we have a contrast: the world's\nverdict, \"There is none that doeth good, no, not one;\" and Christ's,\n\"There is none good but God only.\" And finally, there is the lonely cry\nof the spirit, most pathetic and most deep of all, Where is he whom my\nsoul seeketh? And the yearning is met as before, \"I looked on my right\nhand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me; refuge failed\nme; no man cared for my soul. I cried unto Thee, O Lord: I said, Thou\nare my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.\"[83]\n\nAre these the directions in which men in these days are seeking to\ncomplete their lives? The completion of Life is just now a supreme\nquestion. It is important to observe how it is being answered. If we ask\nScience or Philosophy they will refer us to Evolution. The struggle for\nLife, they assure us, is steadily eliminating imperfect forms, and as\nthe fittest continue to survive we shall have a gradual perfecting of\nbeing. That is to say, that completeness is to be sought for in the\norganism--we are to be complete in Nature and in ourselves. To\nEvolution, certainly, all men will look for a further perfecting of\nLife. But it must be an Evolution which includes all the factors.\nCivilization, it may be said, will deal with the second factor. It will\nimprove the Environment step by step as it improves the organism, or the\norganism as it improves the Environment. This is well, and it will\nperfect Life up to a point. But beyond that it cannot carry us. As the\npossibilities of the natural Life become more defined, its\nimpossibilities will become the more appalling. The most perfect\ncivilization would leave the best part of us still incomplete. Men will\nhave to give up the experiment of attempting to live in half an\nEnvironment. Half an Environment will give but half a Life. Half an\nEnvironment? He whose correspondences are with this world alone has only\na thousandth part, a fraction, the mere rim and shade of an Environment,\nand only the fraction of a Life. How long will it take Science to\nbelieve its own creed, that the material universe we see around us is\nonly a fragment of the universe we do not see? The very retention of the\nphrase \"Material Universe,\" we are told, is the confession of our\nunbelief and ignorance; since \"matter is the less important half of the\nmaterial of the physical universe.\"[84]\n\nThe thing to be aimed at is not an organism self-contained and\nself-sufficient, however high in the scale of being, but an organism\ncomplete in the whole Environment. It is open to any one to aim at a\nself-sufficient Life, but he will find no encouragement in Nature. The\nLife of the body may complete itself in the physical world; that is its\nlegitimate Environment. The Life of the senses, high and low, may\nperfect itself in Nature. Even the Life of thought may find a large\ncomplement in surrounding things. But the higher thought, and the\nconscience, and the religious Life, can only perfect themselves in God.\nTo make the influence of Environment stop with the natural world is to\ndoom the spiritual nature to death. For the soul, like the body, can\nnever perfect itself in isolation. The law for both is to be complete in\nthe appropriate Environment. And the perfection to be sought in the\nspiritual world is a perfection of relation, a perfect adjustment of\nthat which is becoming perfect to that which is perfect.\n\nThe third problem, now simplified to a point, finally presents itself.\nWhere do organism and Environment meet? How does that which is becoming\nperfect avail itself of its perfecting Environment? And the answer is,\njust as in Nature. The condition is simple receptivity. And yet this is\nperhaps the least simple of all conditions. It is so simple that we will\nnot act upon it. But there is no other condition. Christ has condensed\nthe whole truth into one memorable sentence, \"As the branch cannot bear\nfruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye\nabide in Me.\" And on the positive side, \"He that abideth in Me the same\nbringeth forth much fruit.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[81] _Vide_ Karl Semper's \"The Natural Conditions of Existence as they\naffect Animal Life;\" Wallace's \"Tropical Nature;\" Weismann's \"Studies in\nthe Theory of Descent;\" Darwin's \"Animals and Plants under\nDomestication.\"\n\n[82] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 57.\n\n[83] Ps. cxlii. 4, 5.\n\n[84] The \"Unseen Universe,\" 6th Ed., p. 100.\n\n\n\n\nCONFORMITY TO TYPE.\n\n        \"'So careful of the type?' but no.\n          From scarped cliff and quarried stone\n          She cries, 'A thousand types are gone:\n        I care for nothing, all shall go.\n\n        'Thou makest thine appeal to me;\n          I bring to life, I bring to death:\n          The spirit does but mean thy breath:\n        I know no more.' And he, shall he,\n\n        Man, her last work, who seem'd so fair,\n          Such splendid purpose in his eyes,\n          Who roll'd the psalm to wintry skies,\n        Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,\n\n        Who trusted God was love indeed\n          And love Creation's final law--\n          Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw\n        With ravine, shriek'd against his creed--\n\n        Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,\n          Who battled for the True, the Just,\n          Be blown about the desert dust\n        Or seal'd within the iron hills?\"\n                                                --_In Memoriam._\n\n    \"Until Christ be formed in you.\"--_Paul._\n\n    \"The one end to which, in all living beings, the formative impulse\n    is tending--the one scheme which the Archaeus of the old speculators\n    strives to carry out, seems to be to mould the offspring into the\n    likeness of the parent. It is the first great law of reproduction,\n    that the offspring tends to resemble its parent or parents more\n    closely than anything else.\"--_Huxley._\n\n\nIf a botanist be asked the difference between an oak, a palm-tree and a\nlichen, he will declare that they are separated from one another by the\nbroadest line known to classification. Without taking into account the\noutward differences of size and form, the variety of flower and fruit,\nthe peculiarities of leaf and branch, he sees even in their general\narchitecture types of structure as distinct as Norman, Gothic and\nEgyptian. But if the first young germs of these three plants are placed\nbefore him and he is called upon to define the difference, he finds it\nimpossible. He cannot even say which is which. Examined under the\nhighest powers of the microscope they yield no clue. Analyzed by the\nchemist with all the appliances of his laboratory they keep their\nsecret.\n\nThe same experiment can be tried with the embryos of animals. Take the\novule of the worm, the eagle, the elephant, and of man himself. Let the\nmost skilled observer apply the most searching tests to distinguish one\nfrom the other and he will fail. But there is something more surprising\nstill. Compare next the two sets of germs, the vegetable and the animal.\nAnd there is still no shade of difference. Oak and palm, worm and man\nall start in life together. No matter into what strangely different\nforms they may afterward develop, no matter whether they are to live on\nsea or land, creep or fly, swim or walk, think or vegetate, in the\nembryo as it first meets the eye of Science they are indistinguishable.\nThe apple which fell in Newton's garden, Newton's dog Diamond, and\nNewton himself, began life at the same point.[85]\n\nIf we analyze this material point at which all life starts, we shall\nfind it to consist of a clear structureless jelly-like substance\nresembling albumen or white of egg. It is made of Carbon, Hydrogen,\nOxygen and Nitrogen. Its name is protoplasm. And it is not only the\nstructural unit with which all living bodies start in life, but with\nwhich they are subsequently built up. \"Protoplasm,\" says Huxley, \"simple\nor nucleated, is the formal basis of all life. It is the clay of the\nPotter.\" \"Beast and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusk, worm and polype are\nall composed of structural units of the same character, namely, masses\nof protoplasm with a nucleus.\"[86]\n\nWhat then determines the difference between different animals? What\nmakes one little speck of protoplasm grow into Newton's dog Diamond, and\nanother, exactly the same, into Newton himself? It is a mysterious\nsomething which has entered into this protoplasm. No eye can see it. No\nscience can define it. There is a different something for Newton's dog\nand a different something for Newton; so that though both use the same\nmatter they build it up in these widely different ways. Protoplasm being\nthe clay, this something is the Potter. And as there is only one clay\nand yet all these curious forms are developed out of it, it follows\nnecessarily that the difference lies in the potters. There must in short\nbe as many potters as there are forms. There is the potter who segments\nthe worm, and the potter who builds up the form of the dog, and the\npotter who moulds the man. To understand unmistakably that it is really\nthe potter who does the work, let us follow for a moment a description\nof the process by a trained eye-witness. The observer is Mr. Huxley.\nThrough the tube of his microscope he is watching the development, out\nof a speck of protoplasm, of one of the commonest animals: \"Strange\npossibilities,\" he says, \"lie dormant in that semi-fluid globule. Let a\nmoderate supply of warmth reach its watery cradle and the plastic matter\nundergoes changes so rapid and yet so steady and purposelike in their\nsuccession that one can only compare them to those operated by a skilled\nmodeler upon a formless lump of clay. As with an invisible trowel the\nmass is divided and subdivided into smaller and smaller portions, until\nit is reduced to an aggregation of granules not too large to build\nwithal the finest fabrics of the nascent organism. And, then, it is as\nif a delicate finger traced out the line to be occupied by the spinal\ncolumn, and moulded the contour of the body; pinching up the head at one\nend, the tail at the other, and fashioning flank and limb into due\nproportions in so artistic a way, that, after watching the process hour\nby hour, one is almost involuntarily possessed by the notion, that some\nmore subtle aid to vision than an achromatic would show the hidden\nartist, with his plan before him, striving with skillful manipulation to\nperfect his work.\"[87]\n\nBesides the fact, so luminously brought out here, that the artist is\ndistinct from the \"semi-fluid globule\" of protoplasm in which he works,\nthere is this other essential point to notice, that in all his \"skillful\nmanipulation\" the artist is not working at random, but according to law.\nHe has \"his plan before him.\" In the zoological laboratory of Nature it\nis not as in a workshop where a skilled artisan can turn his hand to\nanything--where the same potter one day moulds a dog, the next a bird,\nand the next a man. In Nature one potter is set apart to make each. It\nis a more complete system of division of labor. One artist makes all the\ndogs, another makes all the birds, a third makes all the men. Moreover,\neach artist confines himself exclusively to working out his own plan. He\nappears to have his own plan somehow stamped upon himself, and his work\nis rigidly to reproduce himself.\n\nThe Scientific Law by which this takes place is the Law of Conformity to\nType. It is contained, to a large extent, in the ordinary Law of\nInheritance; or it may be considered as simply another way of stating\nwhat Darwin calls the Laws of Unity of Type. Darwin defines it thus: \"By\nUnity of Type is meant that fundamental agreement in structure which we\nsee in organic beings of the same class, and which is quite independent\nof their habits of life.\"[88] According to this law every living thing\nthat comes into the world is compelled to stamp upon its offspring the\nimage of itself. The dog, according to its type, produces a dog; the\nbird a bird.\n\nThe artist who operates upon matter in this subtle way and carries out\nthis law is Life. There are a great many different kinds of Life. If one\nmight give the broader meaning to the words of the apostle: \"All life is\nnot the same life. There is one kind of life of men, another life of\nbeasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.\" There is the Life, or\nthe Artist, or the Potter who segments the worm, the potter who forms\nthe dog, the potter who moulds the man.[89]\n\nWhat goes on then in the animal kingdom is this--the Bird-Life seizes\nupon the bird-germ and builds it up into a bird, the image of itself.\nThe Reptile Life seizes upon another germinal speck, assimilates\nsurrounding matter, and fashions it into a reptile. The Reptile-Life\nthus simply makes an incarnation of itself. The visible bird is simply\nan incarnation of the invisible Bird-Life.\n\nNow we are nearing the point where the spiritual analogy appears. It is\na very wonderful analogy, so wonderful that one almost hesitates to put\nit into words. Yet Nature is reverent; and it is her voice to which we\nlisten. These lower phenomena of life, she says, are but an allegory.\nThere is another kind of Life of which Science as yet has taken little\ncognizance. It obeys the same laws. It builds up an organism into its\nown form. It is the Christ-Life. As the Bird-Life builds up a bird, the\nimage of itself, so the Christ-Life builds up a Christ, the image of\nHimself, in the inward nature of man. When a man becomes a Christian the\nnatural process is this: The Living Christ enters into his soul.\nDevelopment begins. The quickening Life seizes upon the soul,\nassimilates surrounding elements, and begins to fashion it. According to\nthe great Law of Conformity to Type this fashioning takes a specific\nform. It is that of the Artist who fashions. And all through Life this\nwonderful, mystical, glorious, yet perfectly definite process, goes on\n\"until Christ be formed\" in it.\n\nThe Christian Life is not a vague effort after righteousness--an\nill-defined pointless struggle for an ill-defined pointless end.\nReligion is no dishevelled mass of aspiration, prayer, and faith. There\nis no more mystery in Religion as to its processes than in Biology.\nThere is much mystery in Biology. We know all but nothing of Life yet,\nnothing of development. There is the same mystery in the spiritual Life.\nBut the great lines are the same, as decided, as luminous; and the laws\nof natural and spiritual are the same, as unerring, as simple. Will\neverything else in the natural world unfold its order, and yield to\nScience more and more a vision of harmony, and Religion, which should\ncomplement and perfect all, remain a chaos? From the standpoint of\nRevelation no truth is more obscure than Conformity to Type. If Science\ncan furnish a companion phenomenon from an every-day process of the\nnatural life, it may at least throw this most mystical doctrine of\nChristianity into thinkable form. Is there any fallacy in speaking of\nthe Embryology of the New Life? Is the analogy invalid? Are there not\nvital processes in the Spiritual as well as in the Natural world? The\nBird being an incarnation of the Bird-Life, may not the Christian be a\nspiritual incarnation of the Christ-Life? And is here not a real\njustification in the processes of the New-Birth for such a parallel?\n\nLet us appeal to the record of these processes.\n\nIn what terms does the New Testament describe them? The answer is\nsufficiently striking. It uses everywhere the language of Biology. It is\nimpossible that the New Testament writers should have been familiar with\nthese biological facts. It is impossible that their views of this great\ntruth should have been as clear as Science can make them now. But they\nhad no alternative. There was no other way of expressing this truth. It\nwas a biological question. So they struck out unhesitatingly into the\nnew fields of words, and, with an originality which commands both\nreverence and surprise, stated their truth with such light, or darkness,\nas they had. They did not mean to be scientific, only to be accurate,\nand their fearless accuracy has made them scientific.\n\nWhat could be more original, for instance, than the Apostle's\nreiteration that the Christian was a new creature, a new man, a\nbabe?[90] Or that this new man was \"begotten of God,\" God's\nworkmanship?[91] And what could be a more accurate expression of the law\nof Conformity to Type than this: \"Put on the new man, which is renewed\nin knowledge after the image of Him that created him?\"[92] Or this, \"We\nare changed into the same image from glory to glory?\"[93] And elsewhere\nwe are expressly told by the same writer that this Conformity is the end\nand goal of the Christian life. To work this Type in us is the whole\npurpose of God for man. \"Whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate\nto be conformed to the image of His Son.\"[94]\n\nOne must confess that the originality of this entire New Testament\nconception is most startling. Even for the nineteenth century it is the\nmost startling. But when one remembers that such an idea took form in\nthe first, one cannot fail to be impressed with a deepening wonder at\nthe system which begat and cherished it. Men seek the origin of\nChristianity among philosophies of that age. Scholars contrast it still\nwith these philosophies, and scheme to fit it in to those of later\ngrowth. Has it never occurred to them how much more it is than a\nphilosophy, that it includes a science, a Biology pure and simple? As\nwell might naturalists contrast zoology with chemistry, or seek to\nincorporate geology with botany--the living with the dead--as try to\nexplain the spiritual life in terms of mind alone. When will it be seen\nthat the characteristic of the Christian Religion is its Life, that a\ntrue theology must begin with a Biology? Theology is the Science of God.\nWhy will men treat God as inorganic?\n\nIf this analogy is capable of being worked out, we should expect answers\nto at least three questions.\n\nFirst: What corresponds to the protoplasm in the spiritual sphere?\n\nSecond: What is the Life, the Hidden Artist who fashions it?\n\nThird: What do we know of the process and the plan?\n\nFirst: The Protoplasm.\n\nWe should be forsaking the lines of nature were we to imagine for a\nmoment that the new creature was to be found out of nothing. _Ex nihilo\nnihil_--nothing can be made out of nothing. Matter is uncreatable and\nindestructible; Nature and man can only form and transform. Hence when a\nnew animal is made, no new clay is made. Life merely enters into already\nexisting matter, assimilates more of the same sort and re-builds it. The\nspiritual Artist works in the same way. He must have a peculiar kind of\nprotoplasm, a basis of life, and that must be already existing.\n\nNow we find this in the materials of character with which the natural\nman is previously provided. Mind and character, the will and the\naffections, the moral nature--these form the bases of spiritual life. To\nlook in this direction for the protoplasm of the spiritual life is\nconsistent with all analogy. The lowest or mineral world mainly supplies\nthe material--and this is true even for insectivorous species--for the\nvegetable kingdom. The vegetable supplies the material for the animal.\nNext in turn, the animal furnishes material for the mental, and lastly\nthe mental for the spiritual. Each member of the series is complete only\nwhen the steps below it are complete; the highest demands all. It is not\nnecessary for the immediate purpose to go so far into the psychology\neither of the new creature or of the old as to define more clearly what\nthese moral bases are. It is enough to discover that in this womb the\nnew creature is to be born, fashioned out of the mental and moral parts,\nsubstance, or essence of the natural man. The only thing to be insisted\nupon is that in the natural man this mental and moral substance or basis\nis spiritually lifeless. However active the intellectual or moral life\nmay be, from the point of view of this other Life it is dead. That which\nis flesh is flesh. It wants, that is to say, the kind of Life which\nconstitutes the difference between the Christian and the\nnot-a-Christian. It has not yet been \"born of the Spirit.\"\n\nTo show further that this protoplasm possesses the necessary properties\nof a normal protoplasm it will be necessary to examine in passing what\nthese properties are. They are two in number, the capacity for life and\nplasticity. Consider first the capacity for life. It is not enough to\nfind an adequate supply of material. That must be of the right kind. For\nall kinds of matter have not the power to be the vehicle of life--all\nkinds of matter are not even fitted to be the vehicle of electricity.\nWhat peculiarity there is in Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen,\nwhen combined in a certain way, to receive life, we cannot tell. We only\nknow that life is always associated in Nature with this particular\nphysical basis and never with any other. But we are not in the same\ndarkness with regard to the moral protoplasm. When we look at this\ncomplex combination which we have predicted as the basis of spiritual\nlife, we do find something which gives it a peculiar qualification for\nbeing the protoplasm of the Christ-Life. We discover one strong reason\nat least, not only why this kind of life should be associated with this\nkind of protoplasm, but why it should never be associated with other\nkinds which seem to resemble it--why, for instance, this spiritual life\nshould not be engrafted upon the intelligence of a dog or the instincts\nof an ant.\n\nThe protoplasm in man has a something in addition to its instincts or\nits habits. It has a capacity for God. In this capacity for God lies its\nreceptivity; it is the very protoplasm that was necessary. The chamber\nis not only ready to receive the new Life, but the Guest is expected,\nand, till He comes, is missed. Till then the soul longs and yearns,\nwastes and pines, waving its tentacles piteously in the empty air,\nfeeling after God if so be that it may find Him. This is not peculiar to\nthe protoplasm of the Christian's soul. In every land and in every age\nthere have been altars to the Known or Unknown God. It is now agreed as\na mere question of anthropology that the universal language of the human\nsoul has always been \"I perish with hunger.\" This is what fits it for\nChrist. There is a grandeur in this cry from the depths which makes its\nvery unhappiness sublime.\n\nThe other quality we are to look for in the soul is mouldableness,\nplasticity. Conformity demands conformability. Now plasticity is not\nonly a marked characteristic of all forms of life, but in a special\nsense of the highest forms. It increases steadily as we rise in the\nscale. The inorganic world, to begin with, is rigid. A crystal of silica\ndissolved and redissolved a thousand times will never assume any other\nform than the hexagonal. The plant next, though plastic in its elements,\nis comparatively insusceptible of change. The very fixity of its sphere,\nthe imprisonment for life in a single spot of earth, is the symbol of a\ncertain degradation. The animal in all parts is mobile, sensitive, free;\nthe highest animal, man, is the most mobile, the most at leisure from\nroutine, the most impressionable, the most open for change. And when we\nreach the mind and soul, this mobility is found in its most developed\nform. Whether we regard its susceptibility to impressions, its\nlightning-like response even to influences the most impalpable and\nsubtle, its power of instantaneous adjustment, or whether we regard the\ndelicacy and variety of its moods, or its vast powers of growth, we are\nforced to recognize in this the most perfect capacity for change. This\nmarvellous plasticity of mind contains at once the possibility and\nprophecy of its transformation. The soul, in a word, is made to be\n_converted_.\n\nSecond: The Life.\n\nThe main reason for giving the Life, the agent of this change, a\nseparate treatment, is to emphasize the distinction between it and the\nnatural man on the one hand, and the spiritual man on the other. The\nnatural man is its basis, the spiritual man is its product, the Life\nitself is something different. Just as in an organism we have these\nthree things--formative matter, formed matter, and the forming principle\nor life; so in the soul we have the old nature, the renewed nature, and\nthe transforming Life.\n\nThis being made evident, little remains here to be added. No man has\never seen this Life. It cannot be analyzed, or weighed, or traced in its\nessential nature. But this is just what we expected. This invisibility\nis the same property which we found to be peculiar to the natural life.\nWe saw no life in the first embryos, in oak, in palm, or in bird. In the\nadult it likewise escapes us. We shall not wonder if we cannot see it in\nthe Christian. We shall not expect to see it. _A fortiori_ we shall not\nexpect to see it, for we are further removed from the coarser\nmatter--moving now among ethereal and spiritual things. It is because it\nconforms to the law of this analogy so well that men, not seeing it,\nhave denied its being. Is it hopeless to point out that one of the most\nrecognizable characteristics of life is its unrecognizableness, and that\nthe very token of its spiritual nature lies in its being beyond the\ngrossness of our eyes?\n\nWe do not pretend that Science can define this Life to be Christ. It has\nno definition to give even of its own life, much less of this. But there\nare converging lines which point, at least, in the direction that it is\nChrist. There was One whom history acknowledges to have been the Truth.\nOne of His claims was this, \"I am the Life.\" According to the doctrine\nof Biogenesis, life can only come from life. It was His additional claim\nthat His function in the world was to give men Life. \"I am come that ye\nmight have Life, and that ye might have it more abundantly.\" This could\nnot refer to the natural life, for men had that already. He that hath\nthe Son hath another Life. \"Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus\nChrist is in you.\"\n\nAgain, there are men whose characters assume a strange resemblance to\nHim who was the Life. When we see the bird-character appear in an\norganism we assume that the Bird-Life has been there at work. And when\nwe behold Conformity to Type in a Christian, and know moreover that the\ntype-organization can be produced by the type-life alone does this not\nlend support to the hypothesis that the Type-Life also has been here at\nwork? If every effect demands a cause, what other cause is there for the\nChristian? When we have a cause, and an adequate cause, and no other\nadequate cause; when we have the express statement of that Cause that he\nis that cause, what more is possible? Let not Science, knowing nothing\nof its own life, go further than to say it knows nothing of this Life.\nWe shall not dissent from its silence. But till it tells us what it is,\nwe wait for evidence that it is not this.\n\nThird: The Process.\n\nIt is impossible to enter at length into any details of the great\nmiracle by which this protoplasm is to be conformed to the Image of the\nSon. We enter that province now only so far as this Law of Conformity\ncompels us. Nor is it so much the nature of the process we have to\nconsider as its general direction and results. We are dealing with a\nquestion of morphology rather than of physiology.\n\nIt must occur to one on reaching this point, that a new element here\ncomes in which compels us, for the moment, to part company with zoology.\nThat element is the conscious power of choice. The animal in following\nthe type is blind. It does not only follow the type involuntarily and\ncompulsorily, but does not know that it is following it. We might\ncertainly have been made to conform to the Type in the higher sphere\nwith no more knowledge or power of choice than animals or automata. But\nthen we should not have been men. It is a possible case, but not\npossible to the kind of protoplasm with which men are furnished. Owing\nto the peculiar characteristics of this protoplasm an additional and\nexceptional provision is essential.\n\nThe first demand is that being conscious and having this power of\nchoice, the mind should have an adequate knowledge of what it is to\nchoose. Some revelation of the Type, that is to say, is necessary. And\nas that revelation can only come from the Type, we must look there for\nit.\n\nWe are confronted at once with the Incarnation. There we find how the\nChrist-Life has clothed Himself with matter, taken literal flesh, and\ndwelt among us. The Incarnation is the Life revealing the Type. Men are\nlong since agreed that this is the end of the Incarnation--the revealing\nof God. But why should God be revealed? Why, indeed, but for man? Why\nbut that \"beholding as in a glass the glory of the only begotten we\nshould be changed into the same image?\"\n\nTo meet the power of choice, however, something more was necessary than\nthe mere revelation of the Type--it was necessary that the Type should\nbe the highest conceivable Type. In other words, the Type must be an\nIdeal. For all true human growth, effort, and achievement, an ideal is\nacknowledged to be indispensable. And all men accordingly whose lives\nare based on principle, have set themselves an ideal, more or less\nperfect. It is this which first deflects the will from what is based,\nand turns the wayward life to what is holy. So much is true as mere\nphilosophy. But philosophy failed to present men with their ideal. It\nhas never been suggested that Christianity has failed. Believers and\nunbelievers have been compelled to acknowledge that Christianity holds\nup to the world the missing Type, the Perfect Man.\n\nThe recognition of the Ideal is the first step in the direction of\nConformity. But let it be clearly observed that it is but a step. There\nis no vital connection between merely seeing the Ideal and being\nconformed to it. Thousands admire Christ who never become Christians.\n\nBut the great question still remains, How is the Christian to be\nconformed to the Type, or as we should now say, dealing with\nconsciousness, to the Ideal? The mere knowledge of the Ideal is no more\nthan a motive. How is the process to be practically accomplished? Who is\nto do it? Where, when, how? This is the test question of Christianity.\nIt is here that all theories of Christianity, all attempts to explain it\non natural principles, all reductions of it to philosophy, inevitably\nbreak down. It is here that all imitations of Christianity perish. It is\nhere, also, that personal religion finds its most fatal obstacle. Men\nare all quite clear about the Ideal. We are all convinced of the duty of\nmankind regarding it. But how to secure that willing men shall attain\nit--that is the problem of religion. It is the failure to understand the\ndynamics of Christianity that has most seriously and most pitifully\nhindered its growth both in the individual and in the race.\n\nFrom the standpoint of biology this practical difficulty vanishes in a\nmoment. It is probably the very simplicity of the law regarding it that\nhas made men stumble. For nothing is so invisible to most men as\ntransparency. The law here is the same biological law that exists in the\nnatural world. For centuries men have striven to find out ways and means\nto conform themselves to this type. Impressive motives have been\npictured, the proper circumstances arranged, the direction of effort\ndefined, and men have toiled, struggled, and agonized to conform\nthemselves to the Image of the Son. Can the protoplasm _conform itself_\nto its type? Can the embryo _fashion itself_? Is Conformity to Type\nproduced by the matter _or by the life_, by the protoplasm or by the\nType? Is organization the cause of life or the effect of it? It is the\neffect of it. Conformity to Type, therefore, is secured by the type.\nChrist makes the Christian.\n\nMen need only reflect on the automatic processes of their natural body\nto discover that this is the universal law of Life. What does any man\nconsciously do, for instance, in the matter of breathing? What part does\nhe take in circulating the blood, in keeping up the rhythm of his heart?\nWhat control has he over growth? What man by taking thought can add a\ncubit to his stature? What part voluntarily does man take in secretion,\nin digestion, in the reflex actions? In point of fact is he not after\nall the veriest automaton, every organ of his body given him, every\nfunction arranged for him, brain and nerve, thought and sensation, will\nand conscience, all provided for him ready made? And yet he turns upon\nhis soul and wishes to organize that himself! O preposterous and vain\nman, thou who couldest not make a finger-nail of thy body, thinkest thou\nto fashion this wonderful, mysterious, subtle soul of thine after the\nineffable Image? Wilt thou ever permit thyself _to be_ conformed to the\nImage of the Son? Wilt thou, who canst not add a cubit to thy stature,\nsubmit _to be_ raised by the Type-Life within thee to the perfect\nstature of Christ?\n\nThis is a humbling conclusion. And therefore men will resent it. Men\nwill still experiment \"by works of righteousness which they have done\"\nto earn the Ideal life. The doctrine of Human Inability, as the Church\ncalls it, has always been objectionable to men who do not know\nthemselves. The doctrine itself, perhaps, has been partly to blame.\nWhile it has been often affirmed in such language as rightly to humble\nmen, it has also been stated and cast in their teeth with words which\ncould only insult them. Merely to assert dogmatically that man has no\npower to move hand or foot to help himself toward Christ, carries no\nreal conviction. The weight of human authority is always powerless, and\nought to be, where the intelligence is denied a rationale. In the light\nof modern science when men seek a reason for every thought of God or\nman, this old doctrine with its severe and almost inhuman aspect--till\nrightly understood--must presently have succumbed. But to the biologist\nit cannot die. It stands to him on the solid ground of Nature. It has a\nreason in the laws of life which must resuscitate it and give it another\nlease of years. Bird-Life makes the Bird. Christ-Life makes the\nChristian. No man by taking thought can add a cubit to his stature.\n\nSo much for the scientific evidence. Here is the corresponding statement\nof the truth from Scripture. Observe the passive voice in these\nsentences: \"_Begotten_ of God;\" \"The new man which _is renewed_ in\nknowledge after the Image of Him that created him;\" or this, \"We _are\nchanged_ into the same Image;\" or this, \"Predestinate _to be conformed_\nto the Image of His Son;\" or again, \"Until Christ _be formed_ in you;\"\nor \"Except a man _be born again_ he cannot see the Kingdom of God;\"\n\"Except a man _be born_ of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the\nKingdom of God.\" There is one outstanding verse which seems at first\nsight on the other side: \"Work out your own salvation with fear and\ntrembling;\" but as one reads on he finds, as if the writer dreaded the\nvery misconception, the complement, \"For it is God which worketh in you\nboth to will and to do of His good pleasure.\"\n\nIt will be noticed in these passages, and in others which might be\nnamed, that the process of transformation is referred indifferently to\nthe agency of each Person of the Trinity in turn. We are not concerned\nto take up this question of detail. It is sufficient that the\ntransformation is wrought. Theologians, however, distinguish thus: the\nindirect agent is Christ, the direct influence is the Holy Spirit. In\nother words, Christ by his Spirit renews the souls of men.\n\nIs man, then, out of the arena altogether? Is he mere clay in the hands\nof the potter, a machine, a tool, an automaton? Yes and No. If he were a\ntool he would not be a man. If he were a man he would have something to\ndo. One need not seek to balance what God does here, and what man does.\nBut we shall attain to a sufficient measure of truth on a most delicate\nproblem if we make a final appeal to the natural life. We find that in\nmaintaining this natural life Nature has a share and man has a share. By\nfar the larger part is done for us--the breathing, the secreting, the\ncirculating of the blood, the building up of the organism. And although\nthe part which man plays is a minor part, yet, strange to say, it is not\nless essential to the well being, and even to the being, of the whole.\nFor instance, man has to take food. He has nothing to do with it after\nhe has once taken it, for the moment it passes his lips it is taken in\nhand by reflex actions and handed on from one organ to another, his\ncontrol over it, in the natural course of things, being completely lost.\nBut the initial act was his. And without that nothing could have been\ndone. Now whether there be an exact analogy between the voluntary and\ninvoluntary functions in the body, and the corresponding processes in\nthe soul, we do not at present inquire. But this will indicate, at\nleast, that man has his own part to play. Let him choose Life; let him\ndaily nourish his soul; let him forever starve the old life; let him\nabide continuously as a living branch in the Vine, and the True-Vine\nLife will flow into his soul, assimilating, renewing, conforming to\nType, till Christ, pledged by His own law, be formed in him.\n\nWe have been dealing with Christianity at its most mystical point. Mark\nhere once more its absolute naturalness. The pursuit of the Type is just\nwhat all Nature is engaged in. Plant and insect, fish and reptile, bird\nand mammal--these in their several spheres are striving after the Type.\nTo prevent its extinction, to ennoble it, to people earth and sea and\nsky with it; this is the meaning of the Struggle for Life. And this is\nour life--to pursue the Type, to populate the world with it.\n\nOur religion is not all a mistake. We are not visionaries. We are not\n\"unpractical,\" as men pronounce us, when we worship. To try to follow\nChrist is not to be \"righteous overmuch.\" True men are not rhapsodizing\nwhen they preach; nor do those waste their lives who waste themselves in\nstriving to extend the Kingdom of God on earth. This is what life is\nfor. The Christian in his life-aim is in strict line with Nature. What\nmen call his supernatural is quite natural.\n\nMark well also the splendor of this idea of salvation. It is not merely\nfinal \"safety,\" to be forgiven sin, to evade the curse. It is not,\nvaguely, \"to get to heaven.\" It is to be conformed to the Image of the\nSon. It is for these poor elements to attain to the Supreme Beauty. The\norganizing Life being Eternal, so must this Beauty be immortal. Its\nprogress toward the Immaculate is already guaranteed. And more than all\nthere is here fulfilled the sublimest of all prophecies; not Beauty\nalone but Unity is secured by the Type--Unity of man and man, God and\nman, God and Christ and man till \"all shall be one.\"\n\nCould Science in its most brilliant anticipations for the future of its\nhighest organism ever have foreshadowed a development like this? Now\nthat the revelation is made to it, it surely recognizes it as the\nmissing point in Evolution, the climax to which all Creation tends.\nHitherto Evolution had no future. It was a pillar with marvelous\ncarving, growing richer and finer toward the top, but without a capital;\na pyramid, the vast base buried in the inorganic, towering higher and\nhigher, tier above tier, life above life, mind above mind, ever more\nperfect in its workmanship, more noble in its symmetry, and yet withal\nso much the more mysterious in its aspiration. The most curious eye,\nfollowing it upward, saw nothing. The cloud fell and covered it. Just\nwhat men wanted to see was hid. The work of the ages had no apex. But\nthe work begun by Nature is finished by the Supernatural--as we are wont\nto call the higher natural. And as the veil is lifted by Christianity it\nstrikes men dumb with wonder. For the goal of Evolution is Jesus Christ.\n\nThe Christian life is the only life that will ever be completed. Apart\nfrom Christ the life of man is a broken pillar, the race of men an\nunfinished pyramid. One by one in sight of Eternity all human Ideals\nfall short, one by one before the open grave all human hopes dissolve.\nThe Laureate sees a moment's light in Nature's jealousy for the Type;\nbut that too vanishes.\n\n    \"'So careful of the type?' but no.\n      From scarped cliff and quarried stone\n      She cries, 'A thousand types are gone:\n    I care for nothing, all shall go.'\"\n\nAll shall go? No, one Type remains. \"Whom He did foreknow He also did\npredestinate to be conformed to the Image of His Son.\" And \"when Christ\nwho is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in\nglory.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[85] \"There is, indeed, a period in the development of every tissue and\nevery living thing known to us when there are actually no _structural_\npeculiarities whatever--when the whole organism consists of transparent,\nstructureless, semi-fluid living bioplasm--when it would not be possible\nto distinguish the growing moving matter which was to evolve the oak\nfrom that which was the germ of a vertebrate animal. Nor can any\ndifference be discerned between the bioplasm matter of the lowest,\nsimplest, epithelial scale of man's organism and that from which the\nnerve cells of his brain are to be evolved. Neither by studying bioplasm\nunder the microscope nor by any kind of physical or chemical\ninvestigation known, can we form any notion of the nature of the\nsubstance which is to be formed by the bioplasm, or what will be the\nordinary results of the living.\"--\"Bioplasm,\" Lionel S. Beale, F.R.S.,\npp. 17, 18.\n\n[86] Huxley: \"Lay Sermons,\" 6th Ed., pp. 127, 129.\n\n[87] Huxley: \"Lay Sermons,\" 6th Ed., p. 261.\n\n[88] \"Origin of Species,\" p. 166.\n\n[89] There is no intention here to countenance the old doctrine of the\npermanence of species. Whether the word species represent a fixed\nquantity or the reverse does not affect the question. The facts as\nstated are true in contemporary zoology if not in palaeontology. It may\nalso be added that the general conception of a definite Vital Principle\nis used here simply as a working hypothesis. Science may yet have to\ngive up what the Germans call the \"ontogenetic directive Force.\" But in\nthe absence of any proof to the contrary, and especially of any\nsatisfactory alternative, we are justified in working still with the old\ntheory.\n\n[90] 2 Cor. v. 17.\n\n[91] 1 John v. 18; 1 Pet. i. 3.\n\n[92] Col. iii. 9, 10.\n\n[93] 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n[94] Rom. viii. 29.\n\n\n\n\nSEMI-PARASITISM.\n\n    \"The Situation that has not its Duty, its Ideal, was never yet\n    occupied by man. Yes, here, in this poor, miserable, hampered,\n    despicable Actual, wherein thou even now standest, here or nowhere\n    is thy Ideal: work it out therefrom; and working, believe, live, be\n    free.\"--_Carlyle._\n\n    \"Work out your own salvation.\"--_Paul._\n\n    \"Any new set of conditions occurring to an animal which render its\n    food and safety very easily attained, seem to lead as a rule to\n    degeneration.\"--_E. Ray Lankester._\n\n\nParasites are the paupers of Nature. They are forms of life which will\nnot take the trouble to find their own food, but borrow or steal it from\nthe more industrious. So deep-rooted is this tendency in Nature, that\nplants may become parasitic--it is an acquired habit--as well as\nanimals; and both are found in every state of beggary, some doing a\nlittle for themselves, while others, more abject, refuse even to prepare\ntheir own food.\n\nThere are certain plants--the Dodder, for instance--which begin life\nwith the best intentions, strike true roots into the soil, and really\nappear as if they meant to be independent for life. But after supporting\nthemselves for a brief period they fix curious sucking discs into the\nstem and branches of adjacent plants. And after a little experimenting,\nthe epiphyte finally ceases to do anything for its own support,\nthenceforth drawing all its supplies ready-made from the sap of its\nhost. In this parasitic state it has no need for organs of nutrition of\nits own, and Nature therefore takes them away. Henceforth, to the\nbotanist, the adult Dodder presents the degraded spectacle of a plant\nwithout a root, without a twig, without a leaf, and having a stem so\nuseless as to be inadequate to bear its own weight.\n\nIn the Mistletoe the parasitic habit has reached a stage in some\nrespects lower still. It has persisted in the downward course for so\nmany generations that the young forms even have acquired the habit and\nusually begin life at once as parasites. The Mistletoe berries, which\ncontain the seed of the future plant, are developed especially to\nminister to this degeneracy, for they glue themselves to the branches of\nsome neighboring oak or apple, and there the young Mistletoe starts as a\ndependent from the first.\n\nAmong animals these _lazzaroni_ are more largely represented still.\nAlmost every animal is a living poor-house, and harbors one or more\nspecies of _epizoa_ or _entozoa_, supplying them gratis, not only with a\npermanent home, but with all the necessaries and luxuries of life.\n\nWhy does the naturalist think hardly of the parasites? Why does he speak\nof them as degraded, and despise them as the most ignoble creatures in\nNature? What more can an animal do than eat, drink, and die to-morrow?\nIf under the fostering care and protection of a higher organism it can\neat better, drink more easily, live more merrily, and die, perhaps, not\ntill the day after, why should it not do so? Is parasitism, after all,\nnot a somewhat clever _ruse_? Is it not an ingenious way of securing the\nbenefits of life while evading its responsibilities? And although this\nmode of livelihood is selfish, and possibly undignified, can it be said\nthat it is immoral?\n\nThe naturalist's reply to this is brief. Parasitism, he will say, is one\nof the gravest crimes in Nature. It is a breach of the law of Evolution.\nThou shalt evolve, thou shalt develop all thy faculties to the full,\nthou shalt attain to the highest conceivable perfection of thy race--and\nso perfect thy race--this is the first and greatest commandment of\nnature. But the parasite has no thought for its race, or for perfection\nin any shape or form. It wants two things--food and shelter. How it gets\nthem is of no moment. Each member lives exclusively on its own account,\nan isolated, indolent, selfish, and backsliding life.\n\nThe remarkable thing is that Nature permits the community to be taxed in\nthis way apparently without protest. For the parasite is a consumer pure\nand simple. And the \"Perfect Economy of Nature\" is surely for once at\nfault when it encourages species numbered by thousands which produce\nnothing for their own or for the general good, but live, and live\nluxuriously, at the expense of others?\n\nNow when we look into the matter, we very soon perceive that instead of\nsecretly countenancing this ingenious device by which parasitic animals\nand plants evade the great law of the Struggle for Life, Nature sets her\nface most sternly against it. And, instead of allowing the transgressors\nto slip through her fingers, as one might at first suppose, she visits\nupon them the most severe and terrible penalties. The parasite, she\nargues, not only injures itself, but wrongs others. It disobeys the\nfundamental law of its own being, and taxes the innocent to contribute\nto its disgrace. So that if Nature is just, if Nature has an avenging\nhand, if she holds one vial of wrath more full and bitter than another,\nit shall surely be poured out upon those who are guilty of this double\nsin. Let us see what form this punishment takes.\n\nObservant visitors to the sea-side, or let us say to an aquarium, are\nfamiliar with those curious little creatures known as Hermit-crabs. The\npeculiarity of the Hermits is that they take up their abode in the\ncast-off shell of some other animal, not unusually the whelk; and here,\nlike Diogenes in his tub, the creature lives a solitary, but by no means\nan inactive life.\n\nThe _Pagurus_, however, is not a parasite. And yet although in no sense\nof the word a parasite, this way of inhabiting throughout life a house\nbuilt by another animal approaches so closely the parasitic habit, that\nwe shall find it instructive as a preliminary illustration, to consider\nthe effect of this free-house policy on the occupant. There is no\ndoubt, to begin with, that, as has been already indicated, the habit is\nan acquired one. In its general anatomy the Hermit is essentially a\ncrab. Now the crab is an animal which, from the nature of its\nenvironment, has to lead a somewhat rough and perilous life. Its days\nare spent among jagged rocks and boulders. Dashed about by every wave,\nattacked on every side by monsters of the deep, the crustacean has to\nprotect itself by developing a strong and serviceable coat of mail.\n\nHow best to protect themselves has been the problem to which the whole\ncrab family have addressed themselves; and, in considering the matter,\nthe ancestors of the Hermit-crab hit on the happy device of re-utilizing\nthe habitations of the molluscs which lay around them in plenty,\nwell-built, and ready for immediate occupation. For generations and\ngenerations accordingly, the Hermit-crab has ceased to exercise itself\nupon questions of safety, and dwells in its little shell as proudly and\nsecurely as if its second-hand house were a fortress erected especially\nfor its private use.\n\nWherein, then, has the Hermit suffered for this cheap, but real solution\nof a practical difficulty? Whether its laziness costs it any moral\nqualms, or whether its cleverness becomes to it a source of\ncongratulation, we do not know; but judged from the appearance the\nanimal makes under the searching gaze of the zoologist, its expedient is\ncertainly not one to be commended. To the eye of Science its sin is\nwritten in the plainest characters on its very organization. It has\nsuffered in its own anatomical structure just by as much as it has\nborrowed from an external source. Instead of being a perfect crustacean\nit has allowed certain important parts of its body to deteriorate. And\nseveral vital organs are partially or wholly atrophied.\n\nIts sphere of life also is now seriously limited; and by a cheap\nexpedient to secure safety, it has fatally lost its independence. It is\nplain from its anatomy that the Hermit-crab was not always a\nHermit-crab. It was meant for higher things. Its ancestors doubtless\nwere more or less perfect crustaceans, though what exact stage of\ndevelopment was reached before the hermit habit became fixed in the\nspecies we cannot tell. But from the moment the creature took to relying\non an external source, it began to fall. It slowly lost in its own\nperson all that it now draws from external aid.\n\nAs an important item in the day's work, namely, the securing of safety\nand shelter, was now guaranteed to it, one of the chief inducements to a\nlife of high and vigilant effort was at the same time withdrawn. A\nnumber of functions, in fact, struck work. The whole of the parts,\ntherefore, of the complex organism which ministered to these functions,\nfrom lack of exercise, or total disuse, became gradually feeble; and\nultimately, by the stern law that an unused organ must suffer a slow but\ninevitable atrophy, the creature not only lost all power of motion in\nthese parts, but lost the parts themselves, and otherwise sank into a\nrelatively degenerate condition.\n\nEvery normal crustacean, on the other hand, has the abdominal region of\nthe body covered by a thick chitinous shell. In the Hermits this is\nrepresented only by a thin and delicate membrane--of which the sorry\nfigure the creature cuts when drawn from its foreign hiding-place is\nsufficient evidence. Any one who now examines further this half-naked\nand woe-begone object, will perceive also that the fourth and fifth pair\nof limbs are either so small and wasted as to be quite useless or\naltogether rudimentary; and, although certainly the additional\ndevelopment of the extremity of the tail into an organ for holding on to\nits extemporized retreat may be regarded as a slight compensation, it is\nclear from the whole structure of the animal that it has allowed itself\nto undergo severe Degeneration.\n\nIn dealing with the Hermit-crab, in short, we are dealing with a case of\nphysiological backsliding. That the creature has lost anything by this\nprocess from a practical point of view is not now argued. It might\nfairly be shown, as already indicated, that its freedom is impaired by\nits cumbrous exoskeleton, and that, in contrast with other crabs, who\nlead a free and roving life, its independence generally is greatly\nlimited. But from the physiological standpoint, there is no question\nthat the Hermit tribe have neither discharged their responsibilities to\nNature nor to themselves. If the end of life is merely to escape death,\nand serve themselves, possibly they have done well; but if it is to\nattain an ever increasing perfection, then are they backsliders indeed.\n\nA zoologist's verdict would be that by this act they have forfeited to\nsome extent their place in the animal scale. An animal is classed as a\nlow or high according as it is adapted to less or more complex\nconditions of life. This is the true standpoint from which to judge all\nliving organisms. Were perfection merely a matter of continual eating\nand drinking, the Am[oe]ba--the lowest known organism--might take rank\nwith the highest, Man, for the one nourishes itself and saves its skin\nalmost as completely as the other. But judged by the higher standard of\nComplexity, that is, by greater or lesser adaption to more or less\ncomplex conditions, the gulf between them is infinite.\n\nWe have now received a preliminary idea, although not from the study of\na true parasite, of the essential principles involved in parasitism. And\nwe may proceed to point out the correlative in the moral and spiritual\nspheres. We confine ourselves for the present to one point. The\ndifference between the Hermit-crab and a true parasite is, that the\nformer has acquired a semi-parasitic habit only with reference to\n_safety_. It may be that the Hermit devours as a preliminary the\naccommodating mollusc whose tenement it covets; but it would become a\nreal parasite only on the supposition that the whelk was of such size as\nto keep providing for it throughout life, and that the external and\ninternal organs of the crab should disappear, while it lived henceforth,\nby simple imbibition, upon the elaborated juices of its host. All the\nmollusc provides, however, for the crustacean in this instance is\nsafety, and, accordingly in the meantime we limit our application to\nthis. The true parasite presents us with an organism so much more\ndegraded in all its parts, that its lessons may well be reserved until\nwe have paved the way to understand the deeper bearings of the subject.\n\nThe spiritual principle to be illustrated in the meantime stands thus:\n_Any principle which secures the safety of the individual without\npersonal effort or the vital exercise of faculty is disastrous to moral\ncharacter._ We do not begin by attempting to define words. Were we to\ndefine truly what is meant by safety or salvation, we should be spared\nfurther elaboration, and the law would stand out as a sententious\ncommon-place. But we have to deal with the ideas of safety as these are\npopularly held, and the chief purpose at this stage is to expose what\nmay be called the Parasitic Doctrine of Salvation. The phases of\nreligious experience about to be described may be unknown to many. It\nremains for those who are familiar with the religious conceptions of the\nmasses to determine whether or not we are wasting words.\n\nWhat is meant by the Parasitic Doctrine of Salvation one may, perhaps,\nbest explain by sketching two of its leading types. The first is the\ndoctrine of the Church of Rome; the second, that represented by the\nnarrower Evangelical Religion. We take these religions, however, not in\ntheir ideal form, with which possibly we should have little quarrel, but\nin their practical working, or in the form in which they are held\nespecially by the rank and file of those who belong respectively to\nthese communions. For the strength or weakness of any religious system\nis best judged from the form in which it presents itself to, and\ninfluences the common mind.\n\nNo more perfect or more sad example of semi-parasitism exists than in\nthe case of those illiterate thousands who, scattered everywhere\nthroughout the habitable globe, swell the lower ranks of the Church of\nRome. Had an organization been specially designed, indeed, to induce the\nparasitic habit in the souls of men, nothing better fitted to its\ndisastrous end could be established than the system of Roman\nCatholicism. Roman Catholicism offers to the masses a molluscan shell.\nThey have simply to shelter themselves within its pale, and they are\n\"safe.\" But what is this \"safe?\" It is an external safety--the safety of\nan institution. It is a salvation recommended to men by all that appeals\nto the motives in most common use with the vulgar and the superstitious,\nbut which has as little vital connection with the individual soul as the\ndead whelk's shell with the living Hermit. Salvation is a relation at\nonce vital, personal, and spiritual. This is mechanical and purely\nexternal. And this is of course the final secret of its marvelous\nsuccess and world-wide power. A cheap religion is the desideratum of the\nhuman heart; and an assurance of salvation at the smallest possible cost\nforms the tempting bait held out to a conscience-stricken world by the\nRomish Church. Thousands, therefore, who have never been taught to use\ntheir faculties in \"working out their own salvation,\" thousands who will\nnot exercise themselves religiously, and who yet cannot be without the\nexercise of religion, intrust themselves in idle faith to that venerable\nhouse of refuge which for centuries has stood between God and man. A\nChurch which has harbored generations of the elect, whose archives\nenshrine the names of saints whose foundations are consecrated with\nmartyrs' blood--shall it not afford a sure asylum still for any soul\nwhich would make its peace with God? So, as the Hermit into the\nmolluscan shell, creeps the poor soul within the pale of Rome, seeking,\nlike Adam in the garden, to hide its nakedness from God.\n\nWhy does the true lover of men restrain not his lips in warning his\nfellows against this and all other priestly religions? It is not because\nhe fails to see the prodigious energy of the Papal See, or to appreciate\nthe many noble types of Christian manhood nurtured within its pale. Nor\nis it because its teachers are often corrupt and its system of doctrine\ninadequate as a representation of the Truth--charges which have to be\nmade more or less against all religions. But it is because it ministers\nfalsely to the deepest need of man, reduces the end of religion to\nselfishness, and offers safety without spirituality. That these,\ntheoretically, are its pretensions, we do not affirm; but that its\npractical working is to induce in man, and in its worst forms, the\nparasitic habit, is testified by results. No one who has studied the\nreligion of the Continent upon the spot, has failed to be impressed with\nthe appalling spectacle of tens of thousands of unregenerated men\nsheltering themselves, as they conceive it for Eternity, behind the\nSacraments of Rome.\n\nThere is no stronger evidence of the inborn parasitic tendency in man in\nthings religious than the absolute complacency with which even cultured\nmen will hand over their eternal interests to the care of a Church. We\ncan never dismiss from memory the sadness with which we once listened to\nthe confession of a certain foreign professor: \"I used to be concerned\nabout religion,\" he said in substance, \"but religion is a great subject.\nI was very busy; there was little time to settle it for myself. A\nprotestant, my attention was called to the Roman Catholic religion. It\nsuited my case. And instead of dabbling in religion for myself I put\nmyself in its hands. Once a year,\" he concluded, \"I go to mass.\" These\nwere the words of one whose work will live in the history of his\ncountry, one, too, who knew all about parasitism. Yet, though he thought\nit not, this is parasitism in its worst and most degrading form. Nor, in\nspite of its intellectual, not to say moral sin, is this an extreme or\nexceptional case. It is a case, which is being duplicated every day in\nour own country, only here the confessing is expressed with a candor\nwhich is rare in company with actions betraying so signally the want of\nit.\n\nThe form of parasitism exhibited by a certain section of the narrower\nEvangelical school is altogether different from that of the Church of\nRome. The parasite in this case seeks its shelter, not in a Church, but\nin a Doctrine or a Creed. Let it be observed again that we are not\ndealing with the Evangelical Religion, but only with one of its\nparasitic forms--a form which will at once be recognized by all who know\nthe popular Protestantism of this country. We confine ourselves also at\npresent to that form which finds its encouragement in a single doctrine,\nthat doctrine being the Doctrine of the Atonement--let us say, rather, a\nperverted form of this central truth.\n\nThe perverted Doctrine of the Atonement, which tends to beget the\nparasitic habit, may be defined in a single sentence--it is very much\nbecause it can be defined in a single sentence that it is a perversion.\nLet us state it in a concrete form. It is put to the individual in the\nfollowing syllogism: \"You believe Christ died for sinners; you are a\nsinner; therefore Christ died for you; _and hence you are saved_.\" Now\nwhat is this but another species of molluscan shell? Could any trap for\na benighted soul be more ingeniously planned? It is not superstition\nthat is appealed to this time; it is reason. The agitated soul is\ninvited to creep into the convolutions of a syllogism, and entrench\nitself behind a Doctrine more venerable even than the Church. But words\nare mere chitin. Doctrines may have no more vital contact with the soul\nthan priest or sacrament, no further influence on life and character\nthan stone and lime. And yet the apostles of parasitism pick a\nblackguard from the streets, pass him through this plausible formula,\nand turn him out a convert in the space of as many minutes as it takes\nto tell it.\n\nThe zeal of these men, assuredly, is not to be questioned: their\ninstincts are right, and their work is often not in vain. It is\npossible, too, up to a certain point, to defend this Salvation by\nFormula. Are these not the very words of Scripture? Did not Christ\nHimself say, \"It is finished?\" And is it not written, \"By grace are ye\nsaved through faith,\" \"Not of works, lest any man should boast,\" and \"He\nthat believeth on the Son hath everlasting life?\" To which, however,\none might also answer in the words of Scripture, \"The Devils also\nbelieve,\" and \"Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of\nGod.\" But without seeming to make text refute text, let us ask rather\nwhat the supposed convert possesses at the end of the process. That\nChrist saves sinners, even blackguards from the streets, is a great\nfact; and that the simple words of the street evangelist do sometimes\nbring this home to man with convincing power is also a fact. But in\nordinary circumstances, when the inquirer's mind is rapidly urged\nthrough the various stages of the above piece of logic, he is left to\nface the future and blot out the past with a formula of words.\n\nTo be sure these words may already convey a germ of truth, they may yet\nbe filled in with a wealth of meaning and become a life-long power. But\nwe would state the case against Salvation by Formula with ignorant and\nunwarranted clemency did we for a moment convey the idea that this is\nalways the actual result. The doctrine plays too well into the hands of\nthe parasitic tendency to make it possible that in more than a minority\nof cases the result is anything but disastrous. And it is disastrous not\nin that, sooner or later, after losing half their lives, those who rely\non the naked syllogism come to see their mistake, but in that thousands\nnever come to see it all. Are there not men who can prove to you and to\nthe world, by the irresistible logic of texts, that they are saved, whom\nyou know to be not only unworthy of the Kingdom of God--which we all\nare--but absolutely incapable of entering it? The condition of\nmembership in the Kingdom of God is well known; who fulfill this\ncondition and who do not, is not well known. And yet the moral test, in\nspite of the difficulty of its applications, will always, and rightly,\nbe preferred by the world to the theological. Nevertheless, in spite of\nthe world's verdict, the parasite is content. He is \"safe.\" Years ago\nhis mind worked through a certain chain of phrases in which the words\n\"believe\" and \"saved\" were the conspicuous terms. And from that moment,\nby all Scriptures, by all logic, and by all theology, his future was\nguaranteed. He took out, in short, an insurance policy, by which he was\ninfallibly secured eternal life at death. This is not a matter to make\nlight of. We wish we were caricaturing instead of representing things as\nthey are. But we carry with us all who intimately know the spiritual\ncondition of the Narrow Church in asserting that in some cases at least\nits members have nothing more to show for their religion than a formula,\na syllogism, a cant phrase or an experience of some kind which happened\nlong ago, and which men told them at the time was called Salvation. Need\nwe proceed to formulate objections to the parasitism of Evangelicism?\nBetween it and the Religion of the Church of Rome there is an affinity\nas real as it is unsuspected. For one thing these religions are\nspiritually disastrous as well as theologically erroneous in propagating\na false conception of Christianity. The fundamental idea alike of the\nextreme Roman Catholic and extreme Evangelical Religions is Escape.\nMan's chief end is to \"get off.\" And all factors in religion, the\nhighest and most sacred, are degraded to this level. God, for example,\nis a Great Lawyer. Or He is the Almighty Enemy; it is from Him we have\nto \"get off.\" Jesus Christ is the One who gets us off--a theological\nfigure who contrives so to adjust matters federally that the way is\nclear. The Church in the one instance is a kind of conveyancing office\nwhere the transaction is duly concluded, each party accepting the\nothers' terms; in the other case, a species of sheep-pen where the flock\nawaits impatiently and indolently the final consummation. Generally, the\nmeans are mistaken for the end, and the opening-up of the possibility of\nspiritual growth becomes the signal to stop growing.\n\nSecond, these being cheap religions, are inevitably accompanied by a\ncheap life. Safety being guaranteed from the first, there remains\nnothing else to be done. The mechanical way in which the transaction is\neffected, leaves the soul without stimulus, and the character remains\nuntouched by the moral aspects of the sacrifice of Christ. He who is\nunjust is unjust still; he who is unholy is unholy still. Thus the whole\nscheme ministers to the Degeneration of Organs. For here, again, by just\nas much as the organism borrows mechanically from an external source, by\nso much exactly does it lose in its own organization. Whatever rest is\nprovided by Christianity for the children of God, it is certainly never\ncontemplated that it should supersede personal effort. And any rest\nwhich ministers to indifference is immoral and unreal--it makes\nparasites and not men. Just because God worketh in him, as the evidence\nand triumph of it, the true child of God works out his own\nsalvation--works it out having really received it--not as a light thing,\na superfluous labor, but with fear and trembling as a reasonable and\nindispensable service.\n\nIf it be asked, then, shall the parasite be saved or shall he not, the\nanswer is that the idea of salvation conveyed by the question makes a\nreply all but hopeless. But if by salvation is meant, a trusting in\nChrist _in order to likeness to Christ_, in order to that _holiness_\nwithout which no man shall see the Lord, the reply is that the\nparasite's hope is absolutely vain. So far from ministering to growth,\nparasitism ministers to decay. So far from ministering to holiness, that\nis to _wholeness_, parasitism ministers to exactly the opposite. One by\none the spiritual faculties droop and die, one by one from lack of\nexercise the muscles of the soul grow weak and flaccid, one by one the\nmoral activities cease. So from him that hath not, is taken away that\nwhich he hath, and after a few years of parasitism there is nothing left\nto save.\n\nIf our meaning up to this point has been sufficiently obscure to make\nthe objection now possible that this protest against Parasitism is\nopposed to the doctrines of Free Grace, we cannot hope in a closing\nsentence to free the argument from a suspicion so ill-judged. The\nadjustment between Faith and Works does not fall within our province\nnow. Salvation truly is the free gift of God, but he who really knows\nhow much this means knows--and just because it means so much--how much\nof consequent action it involves. With the central doctrines of grace\nthe whole scientific argument is in too wonderful harmony to be found\nwanting here. The natural life, not less than the eternal, is the gift\nof God. But life in either case is the beginning of growth and not the\nend of grace. To pause where we should begin, to retrograde where we\nshould advance, to seek a mechanical security that we may cover inertia\nand find a wholesale salvation in which there is no personal\nsanctification--this is Parasitism.\n\n\n\n\nPARASITISM.\n\n                      \"And so I live, you see,\n        Go through the world, try, prove, reject,\n        Prefer, still struggling to effect\n        My warfare; happy that I can\n        Be crossed and thwarted as a man,\n        Not left in God's contempt apart,\n        With ghastly smooth life, dead at heart,\n        Tame in earth's paddock as her prize.\n        ...     ...     ...     ...     ...\n        Thank God, no paradise stands barred\n        To entry, and I find it hard\n        To be a Christian, as I said.\"--_Browning._\n\n    \"Work out your own salvation.\"--_Paul._\n\n    \"Be no longer a chaos, but a World, or even Worldkin. Produce!\n    Produce! Were it but the pitifullest infinitesimal fraction of a\n    Product, produce it, in God's name!\"--_Carlyle._\n\n\nFrom a study of the habits and organization of the family of\nHermit-crabs we have already gained some insight into the nature and\neffects of parasitism. But the Hermit-crab, be it remembered, is in no\nreal sense a parasite. And before we can apply the general principle\nfurther we must address ourselves briefly to the examination of a true\ncase of parasitism.\n\nWe have not far to seek. Within the body of the Hermit-crab a minute\norganism may frequently be discovered resembling, when magnified, a\nminiature kidney-bean. A bunch of root-like processes hangs from one\nside, and the extremities of these are seen to ramify in delicate films\nthrough the living tissues of the crab. This simple organism is known to\nthe naturalist as a Sacculina; and though a full-grown animal, it\nconsists of no more parts than those just named. Not a trace of\nstructure is to be detected within this rude and all but inanimate\nframe; it possesses neither legs, nor eyes, nor mouth, nor throat, nor\nstomach, nor any other organs, external or internal. This Sacculina is a\ntypical parasite. By means of its twining and theftuous roots it imbibes\nautomatically its nourishment ready-prepared from the body of the crab.\nIt boards indeed entirely at the expense of its host, who supplies it\nliberally with food and shelter and everything else it wants. So far as\nthe result to itself is concerned this arrangement may seem at first\nsight satisfactory enough; but when we inquire into the life history of\nthis small creature we unearth a career of degeneracy all but\nunparalleled in nature.\n\nThe most certain clue to what nature meant any animal to become is to be\nlearned from its embryology. Let us, therefore, examine for a moment the\nearliest positive stage in the development of the Sacculina. When the\nembryo first makes its appearance it bears not the remotest resemblance\nto the adult animal. A different name even is given to it by the\nbiologist, who knows it at this period as a Nauplius. This minute\norganism has an oval body, supplied with six well-jointed feet by means\nof which it paddles briskly through the water. For a time it leads an\nactive and independent life, industriously securing its own food and\nescaping enemies by its own gallantry. But soon a change takes place.\nThe hereditary taint of parasitism is in its blood, and it proceeds to\nadapt itself to the pauper habits of its race. The tiny body first\ndoubles in upon itself, and from the two front limbs elongated filaments\nprotrude. Its four hind limbs entirely disappear, and twelve\nshort-forked swimming organs temporarily take their place. Thus\nstrangely metamorphosed the Sacculina sets out in search of a suitable\nhost, and in an evil hour, by that fate which is always ready to\naccommodate the transgressor, is thrown into the company of the\nHermit-crab. With its two filamentary processes--which afterward develop\ninto the root-like organs--it penetrates the body; the sac-like form is\ngradually assumed; the whole of the swimming feet drop off--they will\nnever be needed again--and the animal settles down for the rest of its\nlife as a parasite.\n\nOne reason which makes a zoologist certain that the Sacculina is a\ndegenerate type is, that in almost all other instances of animals which\nbegin life in the Nauplius-form--and there are several--the Nauplius\ndevelops through higher and higher stages, and arrives finally at the\nhigh perfection displayed by the shrimp, lobster, crab, and other\ncrustaceans. But instead of rising to its opportunities, the sacculine\nNauplius having reached a certain point turned back. It shrunk from the\nstruggle for life, and beginning probably by seeking shelter from its\nhost went on to demand its food; and so falling from bad to worse,\nbecame in time an entire dependant.\n\nIn the eyes of Nature this was a twofold crime. It was first a disregard\nof evolution, and second, which is practically the same thing, an\nevasion of the great law of work. And the revenge of Nature was\ntherefore necessary. It could not help punishing the Sacculina for\nviolated law, and the punishment, according to the strange and\nnoteworthy way in which Nature usually punishes, was meted but by\nnatural processes, carried on within its own organization. Its\npunishment was simply that it was a Sacculina--that it was a Sacculina\nwhen it might have been a Crustacean. Instead of being a free and\nindependent organism high in structure, original in action, vital with\nenergy, it deteriorated into a torpid and all but amorphous sac confined\nto perpetual imprisonment and doomed to a living death. \"Any new set of\nconditions,\" says Ray Lankester, \"occurring to an animal which render\nits food and safety very easily attained, seem to lead as a rule to\ndegeneration; just as an active healthy man sometimes degenerates when\nhe becomes suddenly possessed of a fortune; or as Rome degenerated when\npossessed of the riches of the ancient world. The habit of parasitism\nclearly acts upon animal organization in this way. Let the parasitic\nlife once be secured, and away go legs, jaws, eyes, and ears; the\nactive, highly-gifted crab, insect or annelid may become a mere sac,\nabsorbing nourishment and laying eggs.\"[95]\n\nThere could be no more impressive illustration than this of what with\nentire appropriateness one might call \"the physiology of backsliding.\"\nWe fail to appreciate the meaning of spiritual degeneration or detect\nthe terrible nature of the consequences only because they evade the eye\nof sense. But could we investigate the spirit as a living organism, or\nstudy the soul of the backslider on principles of comparative anatomy,\nwe should have a revelation of the organic effects of sin, even of the\nmere sin of carelessness as to growth and work, which must revolutionize\nour ideas of practical religion. There is no room for the doubt even\nthat what goes on in the body does not with equal certainty take place\nin the spirit under the corresponding conditions.\n\nThe penalty of backsliding is not something unreal and vague, some\nunknown quantity which may be measured out to us disproportionately, or\nwhich perchance, since God is good, we may altogether evade. The\nconsequences are already marked within the structure of the soul. So to\nspeak, they are physiological. The thing affected by our indifference or\nby our indulgence is not the book of final judgment but the present\nfabric of the soul. The punishment of degeneration is simply\ndegeneration--the loss of functions, the decay of organs, the atrophy of\nthe spiritual nature. It is well known that the recovery of the\nbackslider is one of the hardest problems in spiritual work. To\nreinvigorate an old organ seems more difficult and hopeless than to\ndevelop a new one; and the backslider's terrible lot is to have to\nretrace with enfeebled feet each step of the way along which he strayed;\nto make up inch by inch the lee-way he has lost, carrying with him a\ndead-weight of acquired reluctance, and scarce knowing whether to be\nstimulated or discouraged by the oppressive memory of the previous fall.\n\nWe are not, however, to discuss at present the physiology of\nbacksliding. Nor need we point out at greater length that parasitism is\nalways and indissolubly accompanied by degeneration. We wish rather to\nexamine one or two leading tendencies of the modern religious life which\ndirectly or indirectly induce the parasitic habit and bring upon\nthousands of unsuspecting victims such secret and appalling penalties as\nhave been named.\n\nTwo main causes are known to the biologist as tending to induce the\nparasitic habit. These are, first, the temptation to secure safety\nwithout the vital exercise of faculties, and, second, the disposition to\nfind food without earning it. The first, which we have formally\nconsidered, is probably the preliminary stage in most cases. The animal,\nseeking shelter, finds unexpectedly that it can also thereby gain a\ncertain measure of food. Compelled in the first instance, perhaps by\nstress of circumstances, to rob its host of a meal or perish, it\ngradually acquires the habit of drawing all its supplies from the same\nsource, and thus becomes in time a confirmed parasite. Whatever be its\norigin, however, it is certain that the main evil of parasitism is\nconnected with the further question of food. Mere safety with Nature is\na secondary, though by no means an insignificant, consideration. And\nwhile the organism forfeits a part of its organization by any method of\nevading enemies which demands no personal effort, the most entire\ndegeneration of the whole system follows the neglect or abuse of the\nfunctions of nutrition.\n\nThe direction in which we have to seek the wider application of the\nsubject will now appear. We have to look into those cases in the moral\nand spiritual sphere in which the functions of nutrition are either\nneglected or abused. To sustain life, physical, mental, moral, or\nspiritual, some sort of food is essential. To secure an adequate supply\neach organism also is provided with special and appropriate faculties.\nBut the final gain to the organism does not depend so much on the\nactual amount of food procured as on the exercise required to obtain it.\nIn one sense the exercise is only a means to an end, namely, the finding\nfood; but in another and equally real sense, the exercise is the end,\nthe food the means to attain that. Neither is of permanent use without\nthe other, but the correlation between them is so intimate that it were\nidle to say that one is more necessary than the other. Without food\nexercise is impossible, but without exercise food is useless.\n\nThus exercise is in order to food, and food is in order to exercise--in\norder especially to that further progress and maturity which only\nceaseless activity can promote. Now food too easily acquired means food\nwithout that accompaniment of discipline which is infinitely more\nvaluable than the food itself. It means the possibility of a life which\nis a mere existence. It leaves the organism _in statu quo_, undeveloped,\nimmature, low in the scale of organization and with a growing tendency\nto pass from the state of equilibrium to that of increasing\ndegeneration. What an organism is depends upon what it does; its\nactivities make it. And if the stimulus to the exercise of all the\ninnumerable faculties concerned in nutrition be withdrawn by the\nconditions and circumstances of life becoming, or being made to become,\ntoo easy, there is first an arrest of development, and finally a loss of\nthe parts themselves. If, in short, an organism does nothing, in that\nrelation it is nothing.\n\nWe may, therefore, formulate the general principle thus: _Any principle\nwhich secures food to the individual without the expenditure of work is\ninjurious, and accompanied by the degeneration and loss of parts._\n\nThe social and political analogies of this law, which have been casually\nreferred to already, are sufficiently familiar to render any further\ndevelopment in these directions superfluous. After the eloquent\npreaching of the Gospel of Work by Thomas Carlyle, this century at least\ncan never plead that one of the most important moral bearings of the\nsubject has not been duly impressed upon it. All that can be said of\nidleness generally might be fitly urged in support of this great\npractical truth. All nations which have prematurely passed away, buried\nin graves dug by their own effeminacy; all those individuals who have\nsecured a hasty wealth by the chances of speculation; all children of\nfortune; all victims of inheritance; all social sponges; all satellites\nof the court; all beggars of the market-place--all these are living and\nunlying witness to the unalterable retributions of the law of\nparasitism. But it is when we come to study the working of the principle\nin the religious sphere there we discover the full extent of the ravages\nwhich the parasitic habit can make on the souls of men. We can only hope\nto indicate here one or two of the things in modern Christianity which\nminister most subtly and widely to this as yet all but unnamed sin.\n\nWe begin in what may seem a somewhat unlooked-for quarter. One of the\nthings in the religious world which tends most strongly to induce the\nparasitic habit is _Going to Church_. Church-going itself every\nChristian will rightly consider an invaluable aid to the ripe\ndevelopment of the spiritual life. Public worship has a place in the\nnational religious life so firmly established that nothing is ever\nlikely to shake its influence. So supreme indeed, is the ecclesiastical\nsystem in all Christian countries that with thousands the religion of\nthe Church and the religion of the individual are one. But just because\nof its high and unique place in religious regard, does it become men\nfrom time to time to inquire how far the Church is really ministering to\nthe spiritual health of the immense religious community which looks to\nit as its foster-mother. And if it falls to us here reluctantly to\nexpose some secret abuses of this venerable system, let it be well\nunderstood that these are abuses, and not that the sacred institution\nitself is being violated by the attack of an impious hand.\n\nThe danger of church-going largely depends on the form of worship, but\nit may be affirmed that even the most perfect Church affords to all\nworshipers a greater or less temptation to parasitism. It consists\nessentially in the deputy-work or deputy-worship inseparable from the\nchurch or chapel ministrations. One man is set apart to prepare a\ncertain amount of spiritual truth for the rest. He, if he is a true man,\ngets all the benefits of original work. He finds the truth, digests it,\nis nourished and enriched by it before he offers it to his flock. To a\nlarge extent it will nourish and enrich in turn a number of his hearers.\nBut still they will lack something. The faculty of selecting truth at\nfirst hand and appropriating it for one's self is a lawful possession to\nevery Christian. Rightly exercised it conveys to him truth in its\nfreshest form; it offers him the opportunity of verifying doctrines for\nhimself; it makes religion personal; it deepens and intensifies the only\nconvictions that are worth deepening, those, namely, which are honest;\nand it supplies the mind with a basis of certainty in religion. But if\nall one's truth is derived by imbibition from the Church, the faculties\nfor receiving truth are not only undeveloped but one's whole view of\ntruth becomes distorted. He who abandons the personal search for truth,\nunder whatever pretext, abandons truth. The very word truth, by becoming\nthe limited possession of a guild, ceases to have any meaning; and\nfaith, which can only be founded on truth, gives way to credulity,\nresting on mere opinion.\n\nIn those churches especially where all parts of the worship are\nsubordinated to the sermon, this species of parasitism is peculiarly\nencouraged. What is meant to be a stimulus to thought becomes the\nsubstitute for it. The hearer never really learns, he only listens. And\nwhile truth and knowledge seem to increase, life and character are left\nin arrear. Such truth, of course, and such knowledge, are a mere\nseeming. Having cost nothing, they come to nothing. The organism\nacquires a growing immobility, and finally exists in a state of entire\nintellectual helplessness and inertia. So the parasitic Church-member,\nthe literal \"adherent,\" comes not merely to live only within the circle\nof ideas of his minister, but to be content that his minister has these\nideas--like the literary parasite who fancies he knows everything\nbecause he has a good library.\n\nWhere the worship, again, is largely liturgical the danger assumes an\neven more serious form, and it acts in some such way as this. Every\nsincere man who sets out in the Christian race begins by attempting to\nexercise the spiritual faculties for himself. The young life throbs in\nhis veins, and he sets himself to the further progress with earnest\npurpose and resolute will. For a time he bids fair to attain a high and\noriginal development. But the temptation to relax the always difficult\neffort at spirituality is greater than he knows. The \"carnal mind\"\nitself is \"enmity against God,\" and the antipathy, or the deadlier\napathy within, is unexpectedly encouraged from that very outside source\nfrom which he anticipates the greatest help. Connecting himself with a\nChurch he is no less interested than surprised to find how rich is the\nprovision there for every part of his spiritual nature. Each service\nsatisfies or surfeits. Twice, or even three times a week, this feast is\nspread for him. The thoughts are deeper than his own, the faith keener,\nthe worship loftier, the whole ritual more reverent and splendid. What\nmore natural than that he should gradually exchange his personal\nreligion for that of the congregation? What more likely than that a\npublic religion should by insensible stages supplant his individual\nfaith? What more simple than to content himself with the warmth of\nanother's soul. What more tempting than to give up private prayer for\nthe easier worship of the liturgy or of the church? What, in short, more\nnatural than for the independent, free-moving, growing Sacculina to\ndegenerate into the listless, useless, pampered parasite of the pew? The\nvery means he takes to nurse his personal religion often come in time\nto wean him from it. Hanging admiringly, or even enthusiastically, on\nthe lips of eloquence, his senses now stirred by ceremony, now soothed\nby music, the parasite of the pew enjoys his weekly worship--his\ncharacter untouched, his will unbraced, his crude soul unquickened and\nunimproved. Thus, instead of ministering to the growth of individual\nmembers, and very often just in proportion to the superior excellence of\nthe provision made for them by another, does this gigantic system of\ndeputy-nutrition tend to destroy development and arrest the genuine\nculture of the soul. Our churches overflow with members who are mere\nconsumers. Their interest in religion is purely parasitic. Their only\nspiritual exercise is the automatic one of imbibition, the clergyman\nbeing the faithful Hermit-crab who is to be depended on every Sunday for\nat least a week's supply.\n\nA physiologist would describe the organism resulting from such a\nprogress as a case of \"arrested development.\" Instead of having learned\nto pray, the ecclesiastical parasite becomes satisfied with being prayed\nfor. His transactions with the Eternal are effected by commission. His\nwork for Christ is done by a paid deputy. His whole life is a prolonged\nindulgence in the bounties of the Church; and surely--in some cases at\nleast the crowning irony--he sends for the minister when he lies down to\ndie.\n\nOther signs and consequences of this species of parasitism soon become\nvery apparent. The first symptom is idleness. When a Church is off its\ntrue diet it is off its true work. Hence one explanation of the hundreds\nof large and influential congregations ministered to from week to week\nby men of eminent learning and earnestness, which yet do little or\nnothing in the line of these special activities for which all churches\nexist. An outstanding man at the head of a huge, useless and torpid\ncongregation is always a puzzle. But is the reason not this, that the\ncongregation gets too good food too cheap? Providence has mercifully\ndelivered the Church from too many great men in her pulpits, but there\nare enough in every country-side to play the host disastrously to a\nlarge circle of otherwise able-bodied Christian people, who, thrown on\ntheir own resources, might fatten themselves and help others. There are\ncompensations to a flock for a poor minister after all. Where the fare\nis indifferent those who are really hungry will exert themselves to\nprocure their own supply.\n\nThat the Church has indispensable functions to discharge to the\nindividual is not denied; but taking into consideration the universal\ntendency to parasitism in the human soul it is a grave question whether\nin some cases it does not really effect more harm than good. A dead\nchurch certainly, a church having no reaction on the community, a church\nwithout propagative power in the world, cannot be other than a calamity\nto all within its borders. Such a church is an institution, first for\nmaking, then for screening parasites; and instead of representing to the\nworld the Kingdom of God on earth, it is despised alike by godly and by\ngodless men as the refuge for fear and formalism and the nursery of\nsuperstition.\n\nAnd this suggests a second and not less practical evil of a parasitic\npiety--that it presents to the world a false conception of the religion\nof Christ. One notices with a frequency which may well excite alarm that\nthe children of church-going parents often break away as they grow in\nintelligence, not only from church-connection but from the whole system\nof family religion. In some cases this is doubtless due to natural\nperversity, but in others it certainly arises from the hollowness of the\noutward forms which pass current in society and at home for vital\nChristianity. These spurious forms, fortunately or unfortunately, soon\nbetray themselves. How little there is in them becomes gradually\napparent. And rather than indulge in a sham the budding sceptic, as the\nfirst step, parts with the form and in nine cases out of ten concerns\nhimself no further to find a substitute. Quite deliberately, quite\nhonestly, sometimes with real regret and even at personal sacrifice he\ntakes up his position, and to his parent's sorrow and his church's\ndishonor forsakes forever the faith and religion of his fathers. Who\nwill deny that this is a true account of the natural history of much\nmodern scepticism? A formal religion can never hold its own in the\nnineteenth century. It is better that it should not. We must either be\nreal or cease to be. We must either give up our Parasitism or our sons.\n\nAny one who will take the trouble to investigate a number of cases where\nwhole families of outwardly godly parents have gone astray, will\nprobably find that the household religion had either some palpable\ndefect, or belonged essentially to the parasitic order. The popular\nbelief that the sons of clergymen turn out worse than those of the laity\nis, of course, without foundation; but it may also probably be verified\nthat in the instances where clergymen's sons notoriously discredit their\nfather's ministry, that ministry in a majority of cases, will be found\nto be professional and theological rather than human and spiritual.\nSequences in the moral and spiritual world follow more closely than we\nyet discern the great law of Heredity. The Parasite begets the\nParasite--only in the second generation the offspring are sometimes\nsufficiently wise to make the discovery, and honest enough to proclaim\nit.\n\nWe now pass on to the consideration of another form of Parasitism which\nthough closely related to that just discussed, is of sufficient\nimportance to justify a separate reference. Appealing to a somewhat\nsmaller circle, but affecting it not less disastrously, is the\nParasitism induced by certain abuses of _Systems of Theology_.\n\nIn its own place, of course, Theology is no more to be dispensed with\nthan the Church. In every perfect religious system three great\ndepartments must always be represented--criticism, dogmatism, and\nevangelism. Without the first there is no guarantee of truth, without\nthe second no defence of truth, and without the third no propagation of\ntruth. But when these departments become mixed up, when their separate\nfunctions are forgotten, when one is made to do duty for another, or\nwhere either is developed by the church or the individual at the expense\nof the rest, the result is fatal. The particular abuse, however, of\nwhich we have now to speak, concerns the tendency in orthodox\ncommunities, first to exalt orthodoxy above all other elements in\nreligion, and secondly to make the possession of sound beliefs\nequivalent to the possession of truth.\n\nDoctrinal preaching, fortunately, as a constant practice is less in\nvogue than in a former age, but there are still large numbers whose only\ncontact with religion is through theological forms. The method is\nsupported by a plausible defence. What is doctrine but a compressed form\nof truth, systematized by able and pious men, and sanctioned by the\nimprimatur of the Church? If the greatest minds of the Church's past,\nhaving exercised themselves profoundly upon the problems of religion,\nformulated as with one voice a system of doctrine, why should the humble\ninquirer not gratefully accept it? Why go over the ground again? Why\nwith his dim light should he betake himself afresh to Bible study and\nwith so great a body of divinity already compiled, presume himself to be\nstill a seeker after truth? Does not Theology give him Bible truth in\nreliable, convenient, and moreover, in logical propositions? There it\nlies extended to the last detail in the tomes of the Fathers, or\nabridged in a hundred modern compendia, ready-made to his hand, all cut\nand dry, guaranteed sound and wholesome, why not use it?\n\nJust because it is all cut and dry. Just because it is ready-made. Just\nbecause it lies there in reliable, convenient and logical propositions.\nThe moment you appropriate truth in such a shape you appropriate a\nform. You cannot cut and dry truth. You cannot accept truth ready-made\nwithout it ceasing to nourish the soul as the truth. You cannot live on\ntheological forms without becoming a Parasite and ceasing to be a man.\n\nThere is no worse enemy to a living Church than a propositional\ntheology, with the latter controlling the former by traditional\nauthority. For one does not then receive the truth for himself, he\naccepts it bodily. He begins the Christian life set up by his Church\nwith a stock-in-trade which has cost him nothing, and which, though it\nmay serve him all his life, is just exactly worth as much his belief in\nhis Church. This possession of truth, moreover, thus lightly won, is\ngiven to him as infallible. It is a system. There is nothing to add to\nit. At his peril let him question or take from it. To start a convert in\nlife with such a principle is unspeakably degrading. All through life\ninstead of working toward truth he must work from it. An infallible\nstandard is a temptation to a mechanical faith. Infallibility always\nparalyzes. It gives rest; but it is the rest of stagnation. Men perform\none great act of faith at the beginning of their life, then have done\nwith it forever. All moral, intellectual and spiritual effort is over;\nand a cheap theology ends in a cheap life.\n\nThe same thing that makes men take refuge in the Church of Rome makes\nthem take refuge in a set of dogmas. Infallibility meets the deepest\ndesire of man, but meets it in the most fatal form. Men deal with the\nhunger after truth in two ways. First by Unbelief--which crushes it by\nblind force; or, secondly, by resorting to some external source credited\nwith Infallibility--which lulls it to sleep by blind faith. The effect\nof a doctrinal theology is the effect of Infallibility. And the\nwholesale belief in such a system, however accurate it may be--grant\neven that it were infallible--is not Faith though it always gets that\nname. It is mere Credulity. It is a complacent and idle rest upon\nauthority, not a hard-earned, self-obtained, personal possession. The\nmoral responsibility here, besides, is reduced to nothing. Those who\nframed the Thirty-nine Articles or the Westminster Confession are\nresponsible. And anything which destroys responsibility, or transfers\nit, cannot be other than injurious in its moral tendency and useless in\nitself.\n\nIt may be objected perhaps that this statement of the paralysis\nspiritual and mental induced by Infallibility applies also to the Bible.\nThe answer is that though the Bible is infallible, the Infallibility is\nnot in such a form as to become a temptation. There is the widest\npossible difference between the form of truth in the Bible and the form\nin theology.\n\nIn theology truth is propositional--tied up in neat parcels,\nsystematized, and arranged in logical order. The Trinity is an intricate\ndoctrinal problem. The Supreme Being is discussed in terms of\nphilosophy. The Atonement is a formula which is to be demonstrated like\na proposition in Euclid. And Justification is to be worked out as a\nquestion of jurisprudence. There is no necessary connection between\nthese doctrines and the life of him who holds them. They make him\northodox, not necessarily righteous. They satisfy the intellect but need\nnot touch the heart. It does not, in short, take a religious man to be a\ntheologian. It simply takes a man with fair reasoning powers. This man\nhappens to apply these powers to theological subjects--but in no other\nsense than he might apply them to astronomy or physics. But truth in the\nBible is a fountain. It is a diffused nutriment, so diffused that no one\ncan put himself off with the form. It is reached not by thinking, but by\ndoing. It is seen, discerned, not demonstrated. It cannot be bolted\nwhole, but must be slowly absorbed into the system. Its vagueness to the\nmere intellect, its refusal to be packed into portable phrases, its\nsatisfying unsatisfyingness, its vast atmosphere, its finding of us,\nits mystical hold of us, these are the tokens of its infinity.\n\nNature never provides for man's wants in any direction, bodily, mental,\nor spiritual, in such a form as that he can simply accept her gifts\nautomatically. She puts all the mechanical powers at his disposal--but\nhe must make his lever. She gives him corn, but he must grind it. She\nelaborates coal, but he must dig for it. Corn is perfect, all the\nproducts of Nature are perfect, but he has everything to do to them\nbefore he can use them. So with truth; it is perfect, infallible. But he\ncannot use it as it stands. He must work, think, separate, dissolve,\nabsorb, digest; and most of these he must do for himself and within\nhimself. If it be replied that this is exactly what theology does, we\nanswer it is exactly what it does not. It simply does what the\ngreen-grocer does when he arranges his apples and plums in his shop\nwindow. He may tell me a magnum bonum from a Victoria, or a Baldwin from\na Newtown Pippin. But he does not help me to eat it. His information is\nuseful, and for scientific horticulture essential. Should a sceptical\npomologist deny that there was such a thing as a Baldwin, or mistake it\nfor a Newtown Pippin, we should be glad to refer to him; but if we were\nhungry, and an orchard were handy, we should not trouble him. Truth in\nthe Bible is an orchard rather than a museum. Dogmatism will be very\nvaluable to us when scientific necessity makes us go to the museum.\nCriticism will be very useful in seeing that only fruit-bearers grow in\nthe orchard. But truth in the doctrinal form is not natural, proper,\nassimilable food for the soul of man.\n\nIs this a plea then for doubt? Yes, for that philosophic doubt which is\nthe evidence of a faculty doing its own work. It is more necessary for\nus to be active than to be orthodox. To be orthodox is what we wish to\nbe, but we can only truly reach it by being honest, by being original,\nby seeing with our own eyes, by believing with our own heart. \"An idle\nlife,\" says Goethe, \"is death anticipated.\" Better far be burned at the\nstake of Public Opinion than die the living death of Parasitism. Better\nan aberrant theology than a suppressed organization. Better a little\nfaith dearly won, better launched alone on the infinite bewilderment of\nTruth, than perish on the splendid plenty of the richest creeds. Such\nDoubt is no self-willed presumption. Nor, truly exercised, will it prove\nitself, as much doubt does, the synonym for sorrow. It aims at a\nlife-long learning, prepared for any sacrifice of will yet for none of\nindependence; at that high progressive education which yields rest in\nwork and work in rest, and the development of immortal faculties in\nboth; at that deeper faith which believes in the vastness and variety of\nthe revelations of God, and their accessibility to all obedient\nhearts.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[95] \"Degeneration,\" by E. Ray Lankester, p. 33.\n\n\n\n\nCLASSIFICATION.\n\n    \"I judge of the order of the world, although I know not its end,\n    because to judge of this order I only need mutually to compare the\n    parts, to study their functions, their relations, and to remark\n    their concert. I know not why the universe exists, but I do not\n    desist from seeing how it is modified; I do not cease to see the\n    intimate agreement by which the beings that compose it render a\n    mutual help. I am like a man who should see for the first time an\n    open watch, who should not cease to admire the workmanship of it,\n    although he knows not the use of the machine, and had never seen\n    dials. I do not know, he would say, what all this is for, but I see\n    that each piece is made for the others; I admire the worker in the\n    detail of his work, and I am very sure that all these wheelworks\n    only go thus in concert for a common end which I cannot\n    perceive.\"--_Rousseau._\n\n    \"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of\n    the Spirit is spirit.\"--_Christ._\n\n    \"In early attempts to arrange organic beings in some systematic\n    manner, we see at first a guidance by conspicuous and simple\n    characters, and a tendency toward arrangement in linear order. In\n    successively later attempts, we see more regard paid to combinations\n    of character which are essential but often inconspicuous; and a\n    gradual abandonment of a linear arrangement.\"--_Herbert Spencer._\n\n\nOn one of the shelves in a certain museum lie two small boxes filled\nwith earth. A low mountain in Arran has furnished the first; the\ncontents of the second came from the Island of Barbadoes. When examined\nwith a pocket lens, the Arran earth is found to be full of small\nobjects, clear as crystal, fashioned by some mysterious geometry into\nforms of exquisite symmetry. The substance is silica, a natural glass;\nand the prevailing shape is a six-sided prism capped at either end by\nlittle pyramids modeled with consummate grace.\n\nWhen the second specimen is examined, the revelation is, if possible,\nmore surprising. Here, also, is a vast assemblage of small glassy or\nporcelaneous objects built up into curious forms. The material,\nchemically, remains the same, but the angles of pyramid and prism have\ngiven place to curved lines, so that the contour is entirely different.\nThe appearance is that of a vast collection of microscopic urns,\ngoblets, and vases, each richly ornamented with small sculptured discs\nor perforations which are disposed over the pure white surface in\nregular belts and rows. Each tiny urn is chiseled into the most\nfaultless proportion, and the whole presents a vision of magic beauty.\n\nJudged by the standard of their loveliness there is little to choose\nbetween these two sets of objects. Yet there is one cardinal difference\nbetween them. They belong to different worlds. The last belong to the\nliving world, the former to the dead. The first are crystals, the last\nare shells.\n\nNo power on earth can make these little urns of the _Polycystina_ except\nLife. We can melt them down in the laboratory, but no ingenuity of\nchemistry can reproduce their sculptured forms. We are sure that Life\nhas formed them, however, for tiny creatures allied to those which made\nthe Barbadoes' earth are living still, fashioning their fairy palaces of\nflint in the same mysterious way. On the other hand, chemistry has no\ndifficulty in making these crystals. We can melt down this Arran earth\nand reproduce the pyramids and prisms in endless numbers. Nay, if we do\nmelt it down, we cannot help reproducing the pyramid and the prism.\nThere is a six-sidedness, as it were, in the very nature of this\nsubstance which will infallibly manifest itself if the crystallizing\nsubstance only be allowed fair play. This six-sided tendency is its Law\nof Crystallization--a law of its nature which it cannot resist. But in\nthe crystal there is nothing at all corresponding to Life. There is\nsimply an inherent force which can be called into action at any moment,\nand which cannot be separated from the particles in which it resides.\nThe crystal may be ground to pieces, but this force remains intact. And\neven after being reduced to powder, and running the gauntlet of every\nprocess in the chemical laboratory, the moment the substance is left to\nitself under possible conditions it will proceed to recrystallize anew.\nBut if the Polycystine urn be broken, no inorganic agency can build it\nup again. So far as any inherent urn-building power, analogous to the\ncrystalline force, is concerned, it might lie there in a shapeless mass\nforever. That which modeled it at first is gone from it. It was Vital;\nwhile the force which built the crystal was only Molecular.\n\nFrom an artistic point of view this distinction is of small importance.\nAEsthetically, the Law of Crystallization is probably as useful in\nministering to natural beauty as Vitality. What are more beautiful than\nthe crystals of a snowflake? Or what frond of fern or feather of bird\ncan vie with the tracery of the frost upon a window-pane? Can it be said\nthat the lichen is more lovely than the striated crystals of the granite\non which it grows, or the moss on the mountain side more satisfying than\nthe hidden amethyst and cairngorm in the rock beneath? Or is the\nbotanist more astonished when his microscope reveals the architecture of\nspiral tissue in the stem of a plant, or the mineralogist who beholds\nfor the first time the chaos of beauty in the sliced specimen of some\ncommon stone? So far as beauty goes the organic world and the inorganic\nare one.\n\nTo the man of science, however, this identity of beauty signifies\nnothing. His concern, in the first instance, is not with the forms but\nwith the natures of things. It is no valid answer to him, when he asks\nthe difference between the moss and the cairngorm, the frost-work and\nthe fern, to be assured that both are beautiful. For no fundamental\ndistinction in Science depends upon beauty. He wants an answer in terms\nof chemistry, are they organic or inorganic? or in terms of biology, are\nthey living or dead? But when he is told that the one is living and the\nother dead, he is in possession of a characteristic and fundamental\nscientific distinction. From this point of view, however much they may\npossess in common of material substance and beauty, they are separated\nfrom one another by a wide and unbridged gulf. The classification of\nthese forms, therefore, depends upon the standpoint, and we should\npronounce them like or unlike, related or unrelated, according as we\njudged them from the point of view of Art or of Science.\n\nThe drift of these introductory paragraphs must already be apparent. We\npropose to inquire whether among men, clothed apparently with a common\nbeauty of character, there may not yet be distinctions as radical as\nbetween the crystal and the shell; and, further, whether the current\nclassification of men, based upon Moral Beauty, is wholly satisfactory\neither from the standpoint of Science or of Christianity. Here, for\nexample, are two characters, pure and elevated, adorned with conspicuous\nvirtues, stirred by lofty impulses, and commanding a spontaneous\nadmiration from all who look on them--may not this similarity of outward\nform be accompanied by a total dissimilarity of inward nature? Is the\nexternal appearance the truest criterion of the ultimate nature? Or, as\nin the crystal and the shell, may there not exist distinctions more\nprofound and basal? The distinctions drawn between men, in short, are\ncommonly based on the outward appearance of goodness or badness, on the\nground of moral beauty or moral deformity--is this classification\nscientific? Or is there a deeper distinction between the Christian and\nthe not-a-Christian as fundamental as that between the organic and the\ninorganic?\n\nThere can be little doubt, to begin with, that with the great majority\nof people religion is regarded as essentially one with morality. Whole\nschools of philosophy have treated the Christian Religion as a question\nof beauty, and discussed its place among other systems of ethics. Even\nthose systems of theology which profess to draw a deeper distinction\nhave rarely succeeded in establishing it upon any valid basis, or seem\neven to have made that distinction perceptible to others. So little,\nindeed, has the rationale of the science of religion been understood\nthat there is still no more unsatisfactory province in theology than\nwhere morality and religion are contrasted, and the adjustment attempted\nbetween moral philosophy and what are known as the doctrines of grace.\n\nExamples of this confusion are so numerous that if one were to proceed\nto proof he would have to cite almost the entire European philosophy of\nthe last three hundred years. From Spinoza downward through the whole\nnaturalistic school, Moral Beauty is persistently regarded as synonymous\nwith religion and the spiritual life. The most earnest thinking of the\npresent day is steeped in the same confusion. We have even the\nremarkable spectacle presented to us just now of a sublime\nMorality-Religion divorced from Christianity altogether, and wedded to\nthe baldest form of materialism. It is claimed, moreover, that the moral\nscheme of this high atheism is loftier and more perfect than that of\nChristianity, and men are asked to take their choice as if the morality\nwere everything, the Christianity or the atheism which nourished it\nbeing neither here nor there. Others, again, studying this moral beauty\ncarefully, have detected a something in its Christian forms which has\ncompelled them to declare that a distinction certainly exists. But in\nscarcely a single instance is the gravity of the distinction more than\ndimly apprehended. Few conceive of it as other than a difference of\ndegree, or could give a more definite account of it than Mr. Matthew\nArnold's \"Religion is morality touched by Emotion\"--an utterance\nsignificant mainly as the testimony of an acute mind that a distinction\nof some kind does exist. In a recent Symposium, where the question as to\n\"The influence upon Morality of a decline in Religious Belief,\" was\ndiscussed at length by writers of whom this century is justly proud,\nthere appears scarcely so much as a recognition of the fathomless chasm\nseparating the leading terms of debate.\n\nIf beauty is the criterion of religion, this view of the relation of\nreligion to morality is justified. But what if there be the same\ndifference in the beauty of two separate characters that there is\nbetween the mineral and the shell? What if there be a moral beauty and a\nspiritual beauty? What answer shall we get if we demand a more\nscientific distinction between characters than that based on mere\noutward form? It is not enough from the standpoint of biological\nreligion to say of two characters that both are beautiful. For, again,\nno fundamental distinction in Science depends upon beauty. We ask an\nanswer in terms of biology, are they flesh or spirit; are they living or\ndead?\n\nIf this is really a scientific question, if it is a question not of\nmoral philosophy only, but of biology, we are compelled to repudiate\nbeauty as the criterion of spirituality. It is not, of course, meant by\nthis that spirituality is not morally beautiful. Spirituality must be\nmorally very beautiful--so much so that popularly one is justified in\njudging of religion by its beauty. Nor is it meant that morality is not\n_a_ criterion. All that is contended for is that, from the scientific\nstandpoint, it is not _the_ criterion. We can judge of the crystal and\nthe shell from many other standpoints besides those named, each\nclassification having an importance in its own sphere. Thus we might\nclass them according to their size and weight, their percentage of\nsilica, their use in the arts, or their commercial value. Each science\nor art is entitled to regard them from its own point of view; and when\nthe biologist announces his classification he does not interfere with\nthose based on other grounds. Only, having chosen his standpoint, he is\nbound to frame his classification in terms of it.\n\nIt may be well to state emphatically, that in proposing a new\nclassification--or rather, in reviving the primitive one--in the\nspiritual sphere we leave untouched, as of supreme value in its own\nprovince, the test of morality. Morality is certainly a test of\nreligion--for most practical purposes the very best test. And so far\nfrom tending to depreciate morality, the bringing into prominence of the\ntrue basis is entirely in its interests--in the interests of a moral\nbeauty, indeed, infinitely surpassing the highest attainable perfection\non merely natural lines.\n\nThe warrant for seeking a further classification is twofold. It is a\nprinciple in science that classification should rest on the most basal\ncharacteristics. To determine what these are may not always be easy, but\nit is at least evident that a classification framed on the ultimate\nnature of organisms must be more distinctive than one based on external\ncharacters. Before the principles of classification were understood,\norganisms were invariably arranged according to some merely external\nresemblance. Thus plants were classed according to size as Herbs,\nShrubs, and Trees; and animals according to their appearance as Birds,\nBeasts, and Fishes. The Bat upon this principle was a bird, the Whale a\nfish; and so thoroughly artificial were these early systems that animals\nwere often tabulated among the plants, and plants among the animals. \"In\nearly attempts,\" says Herbert Spencer, \"to arrange organic beings in\nsome systematic matter, we see at first a guidance by conspicuous and\nsimple characters, and a tendency toward arrangement in linear order. In\nsuccessively later attempts, we see more regard paid to combinations of\ncharacters which are essential but often inconspicuous; and a gradual\nabandonment of a linear arrangement for an arrangement in divergent\ngroups and re-divergent sub-groups.\"[96] Almost all the natural sciences\nhave already passed through these stages; and one or two which rested\nentirely on external characters have all but ceased to exist--Conchology,\nfor example, which has yielded its place to Malacology. Following in the\nwake of the other sciences, the classifications of Theology may have to\nbe remodeled in the same way. The popular classification, whatever its\nmerits from a practical point of view, is essentially a classification\nbased on Morphology. The whole tendency of science now is to include\nalong with morphological considerations the profounder generalizations\nof Physiology and Embryology. And the contribution of the latter science\nespecially has been found so important that biology henceforth must look\nfor its classification largely to Embryological characters.\n\nBut apart from the demand of modern scientific culture it is palpably\nforeign to Christianity, not merely as a Philosophy but as a Biology, to\nclassify men only in terms of the former. And it is somewhat remarkable\nthat the writers of both the Old and New Testaments seem to have\nrecognized the deeper basis. The favorite classification of the Old\nTestament was into \"the nations which knew God\" and \"the nations which\nknew not God\"--a distinction which we have formerly seen to be, at\nbottom, biological. In the New Testament again the ethical characters\nare more prominent, but the cardinal distinctions based on regeneration,\nif not always actually referred to, are throughout kept in view, both in\nthe sayings of Christ and in the Epistles.\n\nWhat then is the deeper distinction drawn by Christianity? What is the\nessential difference between the Christian and the not-a-Christian,\nbetween the spiritual beauty and the moral beauty? It is the distinction\nbetween the Organic and the Inorganic. Moral beauty is the product of\nthe natural man, spiritual beauty of the spiritual man. And these two,\naccording to the law of Biogenesis, are separated from one another by\nthe deepest line known to Science. This Law is at once the foundation of\nBiology and of Spiritual religion. And the whole fabric of Christianity\nfalls into confusion if we attempt to ignore it. The Law of Biogenesis,\nin fact, is to be regarded as the equivalent in biology of the First Law\nof motion in physics: _Every body continues in its state of rest or of\nuniform motion in a straight line, except in so far as it is compelled\nby force to change that state._ The first Law of biology is: That which\nis Mineral is Mineral; that which is Flesh is Flesh; that which is\nSpirit is Spirit. The mineral remains in the inorganic world until it\nis seized upon by a something called Life outside the inorganic world;\nthe natural man remains the natural man, until a Spiritual Life from\nwithout the natural life seizes upon him, regenerates him, changes him\ninto a spiritual man. The peril of the illustration from the law of\nmotion will not be felt at least by those who appreciate the distinction\nbetween Physics and biology, between Energy and Life. The change of\nstate here is not as in physics a mere change of direction, the\naffections directed to a new object, the will into a new channel. The\nchange involves all this, but is something deeper. It is a change of\nnature, a regeneration, a passing from death into life. Hence relatively\nto this higher life the natural life is no longer Life, but Death, and\nthe natural man from the standpoint of Christianity is dead. Whatever\nassent the mind may give to this proposition, however much it has been\noverlooked in the past, however it compares with casual observation, it\nis certain that the Founder of the Christian religion intended this to\nbe the keystone of Christianity. In the proposition _That which is flesh\nis flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit_, Christ formulates the\nfirst law of biological religion, and lays the basis for a final\nclassification. He divides men into two classes, the living and the\nnot-living. And Paul afterward carries out the classification\nconsistently, making his entire system depend on it, and throughout\narranging men, on the one hand as {pneumatikos}--spiritual, on the other\nas {psychikos}--carnal, in terms of Christ's distinction.\n\nSuppose now it be granted for a moment that the character of the\nnot-a-Christian is as beautiful as that of the Christian. This is simply\nto say that the crystal is as beautiful as the organism. One is quite\nentitled to hold this; but what he is not entitled to hold is that both\nin the same sense are living. _He that hath the Son hath Life, and he\nthat hath not the Son of God hath not Life._ And in the face of this\nlaw, no other conclusion is possible than that that which is flesh\nremains flesh. No matter how great the development of beauty, that\nwhich is flesh is withal flesh. The elaborateness or the perfection of\nthe moral development in any given instance can do nothing to break down\nthis distinction. Man is a moral animal, and can, and ought to, arrive\nat great natural beauty of character. But this is simply to obey the law\nof his nature--the law of his flesh; and no progress along that line can\nproject him into the spiritual sphere. If any one choose to claim that\nthe mineral beauty, the fleshly beauty, the natural moral beauty, is all\nhe covets, he is entitled to his claim. To be good and true, pure and\nbenevolent in the moral sphere, are high and, so far, legitimate objects\nof life. If he deliberately stop here, he is at liberty to do so. But\nwhat he is not entitled to do is to call himself a Christian, or to\nclaim to discharge the functions peculiar to the Christian life. His\nmorality is mere crystallization, the crystallizing forces having had\nfair play in his development. But these forces have no more touched the\nsphere of Christianity than the frost on the window-pane can do more\nthan simulate the external forms of life. And if he considers that the\nhigh development to which he has reached may pass by an insensible\ntransition into spirituality, or that his moral nature of itself may\nflash into the flame of regenerate Life, he has to be reminded that in\nspite of the apparent connection of these things from one standpoint,\nfrom another there is none at all, or none discoverable by us. On the\none hand, there being no such thing as Spontaneous Generation, his moral\nnature, however it may encourage it, cannot generate Life; while, on the\nother, his high organization can never in itself result in Life, Life\nbeing always the cause of organization and never the effect of it.\n\nThe practical question may now be asked, is this distinction palpable?\nIs it a mere conceit of Science, or what human interests attach to it?\nIf it cannot be proved that the resulting moral or spiritual beauty is\nhigher in the one case than in the other, the biological distinction is\nuseless. And if the objection is pressed that the spiritual man has\nnothing further to effect in the direction of morality, seeing that the\nnatural man can successfully compete with him, the questions thus raised\nbecome of serious significance. That objection would certainly be fatal\nwhich could show that the spiritual world was not as high in its demand\nfor a lofty morality as the natural; and that biology would be equally\nfalse and dangerous which should in the least encourage the view that\n\"without holiness\" a man could \"see the Lord.\" These questions\naccordingly we must briefly consider. It is necessary to premise,\nhowever, that the difficulty is not peculiar to the present position.\nThis is simply the old difficulty of distinguishing spirituality and\nmorality.\n\nIn seeking whatever light Science may have to offer as to the difference\nbetween the natural and the spiritual man, we first submit the question\nto Embryology. And if its actual contribution is small, we shall at\nleast be indebted to it for an important reason why the difficulty\nshould exist at all. That there is grave difficulty in deciding between\ntwo given characters, the one natural, the other spiritual, is conceded.\nBut if we can find a sufficient justification for so perplexing a\ncircumstance, the fact loses weight as an objection, and the whole\nproblem is placed on a different footing.\n\nThe difference on the score of beauty between the crystal and the shell,\nlet us say once more, is imperceptible. But fix attention for a moment,\nnot upon their appearance, but upon their possibilities, upon their\nrelation to the future, and upon their place in evolution. The crystal\nhas reached its ultimate stage of development. It can never be more\nbeautiful than it is now. Take it to pieces and give it the opportunity\nto beautify itself afresh, and it will just do the same thing over\nagain. It will form itself into a six-sided pyramid, and go on repeating\nthis same form _ad infinitum_ as often as it is dissolved and without\never improving by a hair's breadth. Its law of crystallization allows it\nto reach this limit, and nothing else within its kingdom can do any more\nfor it. In dealing with the crystal, in short, we are dealing with the\nmaximum beauty of the inorganic world. But in dealing with the shell, we\nare not dealing with the maximum achievement of the organic world. In\nitself it is one of the humblest forms of the invertebrate sub-kingdom\nof the organic world; and there are other forms within this kingdom so\ndifferent from the shell in a hundred respects that to mistake them\nwould simply be impossible.\n\nIn dealing with a man of fine moral character, again, we are dealing\nwith the highest achievement of the organic kingdom. But in dealing with\na spiritual man we are dealing with _the lowest form of life in the\nspiritual world_. To contrast the two, therefore, and marvel that the\none is apparently so little better than the other, is unscientific and\nunjust. The spiritual man is a mere unformed embryo, hidden as yet in\nhis earthly chrysalis-case, while the natural man has the breeding and\nevolution of ages represented in his character. But what are the\npossibilities of this spiritual organism? What is yet to emerge from\nthis chrysalis-case? The natural character finds its limits within the\norganic sphere. But who is to define the limits of the spiritual? Even\nnow it is very beautiful. Even as an embryo it contains some prophecy of\nits future glory. But the point to mark is, that _it doth not yet appear\nwhat it shall be_.\n\nThe want of organization, thus, does not surprise us. All life begins at\nthe Am[oe]boid stage. Evolution is from the simple to the complex; and\nin every case it is some time before organization is advanced enough to\nadmit of exact classification. A naturalist's only serious difficulty in\nclassification is when he comes to deal with low or embryonic forms. It\nis impossible, for instance, to mistake an oak for an elephant; but at\nthe bottom of the vegetable series, and at the bottom of the animal\nseries, there are organisms of so doubtful a character that it is\nequally impossible to distinguish them. So formidable, indeed, has been\nthis difficulty that Haeckel has had to propose an intermediate _regnum\nprotisticum_ to contain those forms the rudimentary character of which\nmakes it impossible to apply to the determining tests.\n\nWe mention this merely to show the difficulty of classification and not\nfor analogy; for the proper analogy is not between vegetal and animal\nforms, whether high or low, but between the living and the dead. And\nhere the difficulty is certainly not so great. By suitable tests it is\ngenerally possible to distinguish the organic from the inorganic. The\nordinary eye may fail to detect the difference, and innumerable forms\nare assigned by the popular judgment to the inorganic world which are\nnevertheless undoubtedly alive. And it is the same in the spiritual\nworld. To a cursory glance these rudimentary spiritual forms may not\nseem to exhibit the phenomena of Life, and therefore the living and the\ndead may be often classed as one. But let the appropriate scientific\ntests be applied. In the almost amorphous organism, the physiologist\nought already to be able to detect the symptoms of a dawning life. And\nfurther research might even bring to light some faint indication of the\nlines along which the future development was to proceed. Now it is not\nimpossible that among the tests for Life there may be some which may\nfitly be applied to the spiritual organism. We may therefore at this\npoint hand over the problem to Physiology.\n\nThe tests for Life are of two kinds. It is remarkable that one of them\nwas proposed, in the spiritual sphere, by Christ. Foreseeing the\ndifficulty of determining the characters and functions of rudimentary\norganisms, He suggested that the point be decided by a further\nevolution. Time for development was to be allowed, during which the\nmarks of Life, if any, would become more pronounced, while in the\nmeantime judgment was to be suspended. \"Let both grow together,\" He\nsaid, \"until the harvest.\" This is a thoroughly scientific test.\nObviously, however, it cannot assist us for the present--except in the\nway of enforcing extreme caution in attempting any classification at\nall.\n\nThe second test is at least not so manifestly impracticable. It is to\napply the ordinary methods by which biology attempts to distinguish the\norganic from the inorganic. The characteristics of Life, according to\nPhysiology, are four in number--Assimilation, Waste, Reproduction, and\nSpontaneous Action. If an organism is found to exercise these functions,\nit is said to be alive. Now these tests, in a spiritual sense, might\nfairly be applied to the spiritual man. The experiment would be a\ndelicate one. It might not be open to every one to attempt it. This is a\nscientific question; and the experiment would have to be conducted under\nproper conditions and by competent persons. But even on the first\nstatement it will be plain to all who are familiar with spiritual\ndiagnosis that the experiment could be made, and especially on one's\nself, with some hope of success. Biological considerations, however,\nwould warn us not to expect too much. Whatever be the inadequacy of\nMorphology, Physiology can never be studied apart from it; and the\ninvestigation of function merely as function is a task of extreme\ndifficulty. Mr. Herbert Spencer affirms, \"We have next to no power of\ntracing up the genesis of a function considered purely as a function--no\nopportunity of observing the progressively-increasing quantities of a\ngiven action that have arisen in any order of organisms. In nearly all\ncases we are able only to establish the greater growth of the part which\nwe have found performs the action, and to infer that greater action of\nthe part has accompanied greater growth of it.\"[97] Such being the case,\nit would serve no purpose to indicate the details of a barely possible\nexperiment. We are merely showing, at the moment, that the question\n\"How do I know that I am alive\" is not, in the spiritual sphere,\nincapable of solution. One might, nevertheless, single out some\ndistinctively spiritual function and ask himself if he consciously\ndischarged it. The discharging of that function is, upon biological\nprinciples, equivalent to being alive, and therefore the subject of the\nexperiment could certainly come to some conclusion as to his place on a\nbiological scale. The real significance of his actions on the moral\nscale might be less easy to determine, but he could at least tell where\nhe stood as tested by the standard of life--he would know whether he\nwere living or dead. After all, the best test for Life is just _living_.\nAnd living consists, as we have formerly seen, in corresponding with\nEnvironment. Those therefore who find within themselves, and regularly\nexercise, the faculties for corresponding with the Divine Environment,\nmay be said to live the Spiritual Life.\n\nThat this Life also, even in the embryonic organism, ought already to\nbetray itself to others, is certainly what one would expect. Every\norganism has its own reaction upon Nature, and the reaction of the\nspiritual organism upon the community must be looked for. In the absence\nof any such reactions in the absence of any token that it lived for a\nhigher purpose, or that its real interests were those of the Kingdom to\nwhich it professed to belong, we should be entitled to question its\nbeing in that Kingdom. It is obvious that each Kingdom has its own ends\nand interests, its own functions to discharge in Nature. It is also a\nlaw that every organism lives for its Kingdom. And man's place in\nNature, or his position among the Kingdoms, is to be decided by the\ncharacteristic functions habitually discharged by him. Now when the\nhabits of certain individuals are closely observed, when the total\neffect of their life and work, with regard to the community, is\ngauged--as carefully observed and gauged as the influence of certain\nindividuals in a colony of ants might be observed and gauged by Sir\nJohn Lubbock--there ought to be no difficulty in deciding whether they\nare living for the Organic or for the Spiritual; in plainer language,\nfor the world or for God. The question of Kingdoms, at least, would be\nsettled without mistake. The place of any given individual in his own\nKingdom is a different matter. That is a question possibly for ethics.\nBut from the biological standpoint, if a man is living for the world it\nis immaterial how well he lives for it. He ought to live well for it.\nHowever important it is for his own Kingdom, it does not affect his\nbiological relation to the other Kingdom whether his character is\nperfect or imperfect. He may even to some extent assume the outward form\nof organisms belonging to the higher Kingdom; but so long as his\nreaction upon the world is the reaction of his species, he is to be\nclassed with his species, so long as the bent of his life is in the\ndirection of the world, he remains a worldling.\n\nRecent botanical and entomological researches have made Science familiar\nwith what is termed _Mimicry_. Certain organisms in one Kingdom assume,\nfor purposes of their own, the outward form of organisms belonging to\nanother. This curious hypocrisy is practiced both by plants and animals,\nthe object being to secure some personal advantage, usually safety,\nwhich would be denied were the organism always to play its part in\nNature _in propria persona_. Thus the _Ceroxylus laceratus_ of Borneo\nhas assumed so perfectly the disguise of a moss-covered branch as to\nevade the attack of insectivorous birds; and others of the walking-stick\ninsects and leaf-butterflies practice similar deceptions with great\neffrontery and success. It is a startling result of the indirect\ninfluence of Christianity or of a spurious Christianity, that the\nreligious world has come to be populated--how largely one can scarce\nventure to think--with mimetic species. In few cases, probably, is this\na conscious deception. In many doubtless it is induced, as in\n_Ceroxylus_, by the desire for _safety_. But in a majority of instances\nit is the natural effect of the prestige of a great system upon those\nwho, coveting its benedictions, yet fail to understand its true nature,\nor decline to bear its profounder responsibilities. It is here that the\ntest of Life becomes of supreme importance. No classification on the\nground of form can exclude mimetic species, or discover them to\nthemselves. But if man's place among the Kingdoms is determined by his\nfunctions, a careful estimate of his life in itself and in its reaction\nupon surrounding lives, ought at once to betray his real position. No\nmatter what may be the moral uprightness of his life, the honorableness\nof his career, or the orthodoxy of his creed, if he exercises the\nfunction of loving the world, that defines his world--he belongs to the\nOrganic Kingdom. He cannot in that case belong to the higher Kingdom.\n\"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.\" After\nall, it is by the general bent of a man's life, by his heart-impulses\nand secret desires, his spontaneous actions and abiding motives, that\nhis generation is declared.\n\nThe exclusiveness of Christianity, separation from the world,\nuncompromising allegiance to the Kingdom of God, entire surrender of\nbody, soul, and spirit to Christ--these are truths which rise into\nprominence from time to time, become the watch-words of insignificant\nparties, rouse the church to attention and the world to opposition, and\ndie down ultimately for want of lives to live them. The few enthusiasts\nwho distinguish in these requirements the essential conditions of\nentrance into the Kingdom of Christ are overpowered by the weight of\nnumbers, who see nothing more in Christianity than a mild religiousness,\nand who demand nothing more in themselves or in their fellow-Christians\nthan the participation in a conventional worship, the acceptance of\ntraditional beliefs, and the living of an honest life. Yet nothing is\nmore certain than that the enthusiasts are right. Any impartial\nsurvey--such as the unique analysis in \"Ecce Homo\"--of the claims of\nChrist and of the nature of His society, will convince any one who\ncares to make the inquiry of the outstanding difference between the\nsystem of Christianity in the original contemplation and its\nrepresentations in modern life. Christianity marks the advent of what is\nsimply a new Kingdom. Its distinctions from the Kingdom below it are\nfundamental. It demands from its members activities and responses of an\naltogether novel order. It is, in the conception of its Founder, a\nKingdom for which all its adherents must henceforth exclusively live and\nwork, and which opens its gates alone upon those who, having counted the\ncost, are prepared to follow it if need be to the death. The surrender\nChrist demanded was absolute. Every aspirant for membership must seek\n_first_ the Kingdom of God. And in order to enforce the demand of\nallegiance, or rather with an unconsciousness which contains the finest\nevidence for its justice, He even assumed the title of King--a claim\nwhich in other circumstances, and were these not the symbols of a higher\nroyalty, seems so strangely foreign to one who is meek and lowly in\nheart.\n\nBut this imperious claim of a Kingdom upon its members is not peculiar\nto Christianity. It is the law in all departments of Nature that every\norganism must live for its Kingdom. And in defining living _for_ the\nhigher Kingdom as the condition of living in it, Christ enunciates a\nprinciple which all Nature has prepared us to expect. Every province has\nits peculiar exactions, every Kingdom levies upon its subjects the tax\nof an exclusive obedience, and punishes disloyalty always with death. It\nwas the neglect of this principle--that every organism must live for its\nKingdom if it is to live in it--which first slowly depopulated the\nspiritual world. The example of its Founder ceased to find imitators,\nand the consecration of His early followers came to be regarded as a\nsuperfluous enthusiasm. And it is this same misconception of the\nfundamental principle of all Kingdoms that has deprived modern\nChristianity of its vitality. The failure to regard the exclusive claims\nof Christ as more than accidental, rhetorical, or ideal; the failure to\ndiscern the essential difference between His Kingdom and all other\nsystems based on the lines of natural religion, and therefore merely\nOrganic; in a word, the general neglect of the claims of Christ as the\nFounder of a new and higher Kingdom--these have taken the very heart\nfrom the religion of Christ and left its evangel without power to\nimpress or bless the world. Until even religious men see the uniqueness\nof Christ's society, until they acknowledge to the full extent its claim\nto be nothing less than a new Kingdom, they will continue the hopeless\nattempt to live for two Kingdoms at once. And hence the value of a more\nexplicit Classification. For probably the most of the difficulties of\ntrying to live the Christian life arise from attempting to half-live it.\n\nAs a merely verbal matter, this identification of the Spiritual World\nwith what are known to Science as Kingdoms, necessitates an explanation.\nThe suggested relation of the Kingdom of Christ to the Mineral and\nAnimal Kingdoms does not, of course, depend upon the accident that the\nSpiritual World is named in the sacred writings by the same word. This\ncertainly lends an appearance of fancy to the generalization; and one\nfeels tempted at first to dismiss it with a smile. But, in truth, it is\nno mere play on the word _Kingdom_. Science demands the classification\nof every organism. And here is an organism of a unique kind, a living\nenergetic spirit, a new creature which, by an act of generation, has\nbeen begotten of God. Starting from the point that the spiritual life is\nto be studied biologically, we must at once proceed, as the first step\nin the scientific examination of this organism, to enter it in its\nappropriate class. Now two Kingdoms, at the present time, are known to\nScience--the Inorganic and the Organic. It does not belong to the\nInorganic Kingdom, because it lives. It does not belong to the Organic\nKingdom, because it is endowed with a kind of Life infinitely removed\nfrom either the vegetal or animal. Where then shall it be classed? We\nare left without an alternative. There being no Kingdom known to\nScience which can contain it, we must construct one. Or rather we must\ninclude in the programme of Science a Kingdom already constructed but\nthe place of which in science has not yet been recognized. That Kingdom\nis the _Kingdom of God_.\n\nTaking now this larger view of the content of science, we may leave the\ncase of the individual and pass on to outline the scheme of nature as a\nwhole. The general conception will be as follows:\n\nFirst, we find at the bottom of everything the Mineral or Inorganic\nKingdom. Its characteristics are, first, that so far as the sphere above\nit is concerned it is dead; second, that although dead it furnishes the\nphysical basis of life to the Kingdom next in order. It is thus\nabsolutely essential to the Kingdom above it. And the more minutely the\ndetailed structure and ordering of the whole fabric are investigated it\nbecomes increasingly apparent that the Inorganic Kingdom is the\npreparation for, and the prophecy of, the Organic.\n\nSecond, we come to the world next in order, the world containing plant,\nand animal, and man, the Organic Kingdom. Its characteristics are,\nfirst, that so far as the sphere above it is concerned it is dead; and,\nsecond, although dead it supplies in turn the basis of life to the\nKingdom next in order. And the more minutely the detailed structure and\nordering of the whole fabric are investigated, it is obvious, in turn,\nthat the Organic Kingdom is the preparation for, and the prophecy of the\nSpiritual.\n\nThird, and highest, we reach the Spiritual Kingdom, or the Kingdom of\nHeaven. What its characteristics are, relatively to any hypothetical\nhigher Kingdom, necessarily remain unknown. That the Spiritual, in turn,\nmay be the preparation for, and the prophecy of, something still higher\nis not impossible. But the very conception of a Fourth Kingdom\ntranscends us, and if it exists, the Spiritual organism, by the analogy,\nmust remain at present wholly dead to it.\n\nThe warrant for adding this Third Kingdom consists, as just stated, in\nthe fact that there are organisms which from their peculiar origin,\nnature, and destiny cannot be fitly entered in either of the two\nKingdoms now known to science. The Second Kingdom is proclaimed by the\nadvent upon the stage of the First, of _once-born_ organisms. The Third\nis ushered in by the appearance, among these once-born organisms, of\nforms of life which have been born again--_twice-born_ organisms. The\nclassification, therefore, is based, from the scientific side on certain\nfacts of embryology and on the Law of Biogenesis; and from the\ntheological side on certain facts of experience and on the doctrine of\nRegeneration. To those who hold either to Biogenesis or to Regeneration,\nthere is no escape from a Third Kingdom.[98]\n\nThere is in this conception of a high and spiritual organism rising out\nof the highest point of the Organic Kingdom, in the hypothesis of the\nSpiritual Kingdom itself, a Third Kingdom following the Second in\nsequence as orderly as the Second follows the First, a Kingdom utilizing\nthe materials of both the Kingdoms beneath it, continuing their laws,\nand, above all, accounting for these lower Kingdoms in a legitimate way\nand complementing them in the only known way--there is in all this a\nsuggestion of the greatest of modern scientific doctrines, the Evolution\nhypothesis, too impressive to pass unnoticed. The strength of the\ndoctrine of Evolution, at least in its broader outlines, is now such\nthat its verdict on any biological question is a consideration of\nmoment. And if any further defence is needed for the idea of a Third\nKingdom it may be found in the singular harmony of the whole conception\nwith this great modern truth. It might even be asked whether a complete\nand consistent theory of Evolution does not really demand such a\nconception? Why should Evolution stop with the Organic? It is surely\nobvious that the complement of Evolution is Advolution, and the inquiry,\nWhence has all this system of things come, is, after all, of minor\nimportance compared with the question, Whither does all this tend?\nScience, as such, may have little to say on such a question. And it is\nperhaps impossible, with such faculties as we now possess, to imagine an\nEvolution with a future as great as its past. So stupendous is the\ndevelopment from the atom to the man that no point can be fixed in the\nfuture as distant from what man is now as he is from the atom. But it\nhas been given to Christianity to disclose the lines of a further\nEvolution. And if Science also professes to offer a further Evolution,\nnot the most sanguine evolutionist will venture to contrast it, either\nas regards the dignity of its methods, the magnificence of its aims, or\nthe certainty of its hopes, with the prospects of the Spiritual Kingdom.\nThat Science has a prospect of some sort to hold out to man, is not\ndenied. But its limits are already marked. Mr. Herbert Spencer, after\ninvestigating its possibilities fully, tells us, \"Evolution has an\nimpassable limit.\"[99] It is the distinct claim of the Third Kingdom\nthat this limit is not final. Christianity opens a way to a further\ndevelopment--a development apart from which the magnificent past of\nNature has been in vain, and without which Organic Evolution, in spite\nof the elaborateness of its processes and the vastness of its\nachievements, is simply a stupendous _cul de sac_. Far as nature carries\non the task, vast as is the distance between the atom and the man, she\nhas to lay down her tools when the work is just begun. Man, her most\nrich and finished product, marvelous in his complexity, all but Divine\nin sensibility, is to the Third Kingdom not even a shapeless embryo. The\nold chain of processes must begin again on the higher plane if there is\nto be a further Evolution. The highest organism of the Second\nKingdom--simple, immobile, dead as the inorganic crystal, toward the\nsphere above--must be vitalized afresh. Then from a mass of all but\nhomogeneous \"protoplasm\" the organism must pass through all the stages\nof differentiation and integration, growing in perfectness and beauty\nunder the unfolding of the higher Evolution, until it reaches the\nInfinite Complexity, the Infinite Sensibility, God. So the spiritual\ncarries on the marvelous process to which all lower Nature ministers,\nand perfects it when the ministry of lower Nature fails.\n\nThis conception of a further Evolution carries with it the final answer\nto the charge that, as regards morality, the Spiritual world has nothing\nto offer man that is not already within his reach. Will it be contended\nthat a perfect morality is already within the reach of the natural man?\nWhat product of the organic creation has ever attained to the fullness\nof the stature of Him who is the Founder and Type of the Spiritual\nKingdom? What do men know of the qualities enjoined in His Beatitudes,\nor at what value do they estimate them? Proved by results, it is surely\nalready decided that on merely natural lines moral perfection is\nunattainable. And even Science is beginning to awaken to the momentous\ntruth that Man, the highest product of the Organic Kingdom, is a\ndisappointment. But even were it otherwise, if even in prospect the\nhopes of the Organic Kingdom could be justified, its standard of beauty\nis not so high, nor, in spite of the dreams of Evolution, is its\nguarantee so certain. The goal of the organisms of the Spiritual World\nis nothing less than this--to be \"holy as He is holy, and pure as He is\npure.\" And by the Law of Conformity to Type, their final perfection is\nsecured. The inward nature must develop out according to its Type, until\nthe consummation of oneness with God is reached.\n\nThese proposals of the Spiritual Kingdom in the direction of Evolution\nare at least entitled to be carefully considered by Science.\nChristianity defines the highest conceivable future for mankind. It\nsatisfies the Law of Continuity. It guarantees the necessary conditions\nfor carrying on the organism successfully, from stage to stage. It\nprovides against the tendency to Degeneration. And finally, instead of\nlimiting the yearning hope of final perfection to the organisms of a\nfuture age--an age so remote that the hope for thousands of years must\nstill be hopeless--instead of inflicting this cruelty on intelligences\nmature enough to know perfection and earnest enough to wish it,\nChristianity puts the prize within immediate reach of man.\n\nThis attempt to incorporate the Spiritual Kingdom in the scheme of\nEvolution, may be met by what seems at first sight a fatal objection. So\nfar from the idea of a Spiritual Kingdom being in harmony with the\ndoctrine of Evolution, it may be said that it is violently opposed to\nit. It announces a new Kingdom starting off suddenly on a different\nplane and in direct violation of the primary principle of development.\nInstead of carrying the organic evolution further on its own lines,\ntheology at a given point interposes a sudden and hopeless barrier--the\nbarrier between the natural and the spiritual--and insists that the\nevolutionary process must begin again at the beginning. At this point,\nin fact, Nature acts _per saltum_. This is no Evolution, but a\nCatastrophe--such a Catastrophe as must be fatal to any consistent\ndevelopment hypothesis.\n\nOn the surface this objection seems final--but it is only on the\nsurface. It arises from taking a too narrow view of what Evolution is.\nIt takes evolution in zoology for Evolution as a whole. Evolution\nbegan, let us say, with some primeval nebulous mass in which lay\npotentially all future worlds. Under the evolutionary hand, the\namorphous cloud broke up, condensed, took definite shape, and in the\nline of true development assumed a gradually increasing complexity.\nFinally there emerged the cooled and finished earth, highly\ndifferentiated, so to speak, complete and fully equipped. And what\nfollowed? Let it be well observed--a Catastrophe. Instead of carrying\nthe process further, the Evolution, if this is Evolution, here also\nabruptly stops. A sudden and hopeless barrier--the barrier between the\nInorganic and the Organic--interposes, and the process has to begin\nagain at the beginning with the creation of Life. Here then is a barrier\nplaced by Science at the close of the Inorganic similar to the barrier\nplaced by Theology at the close of the Organic. Science has used every\neffort to abolish this first barrier, but there it still stands\nchallenging the attention of the modern world, and no consistent theory\nof Evolution can fail to reckon with it. Any objection, then, to the\nCatastrophe introduced by Christianity between the Natural and Spiritual\nKingdoms applies with equal force against the barrier which Science\nplaces between the Inorganic and the Organic. The reserve of Life in\neither case is a fact, and a fact of exceptional significance.\n\nWhat then becomes of Evolution? Do these two great barriers destroy it?\nBy no means. But they make it necessary to frame a larger doctrine. And\nthe doctrine gains immeasurably by such an enlargement. For now the case\nstands thus: Evolution, in harmony with its own law that progress is\nfrom the simple to the complex, begins itself to pass toward the\ncomplex. The materialistic Evolution, so to speak, is a straight line.\nMaking all else complex, it alone remains simple--unscientifically\nsimple. But, as Evolution unfolds everything else, it is now seen to be\nitself slowly unfolding. The straight line is coming out gradually in\ncurves. At a given point a new force appears deflecting it; and at\nanother given point a new force appears deflecting that. These points\nare not unrelated points; these forces are not unrelated forces. The\narrangement is still harmonious, and the development throughout obeys\nthe evolutionary law in being from the general to the special, from the\nlower to the higher. What we are reaching, in short, is nothing less\nthan the _evolution of Evolution_.\n\nNow to both Science and Christianity, and especially to Science, this\nenrichment of Evolution is important. And, on the part of Christianity,\nthe contribution to the system of Nature of a second barrier is of real\nscientific value. At first it may seem merely to increase the\ndifficulty. But in reality it abolishes it. However paradoxical it\nseems, it is nevertheless the case that two barriers are more easy to\nunderstand than one--two mysteries are less mysterious than a single\nmystery. For it requires two to constitute a harmony. One by itself is a\nCatastrophe. But, just as the recurrence of an eclipse at different\nperiods makes an eclipse no breach of Continuity; just as the fact that\nthe astronomical conditions necessary to cause a Glacial Period will in\nthe remote future again be fulfilled constitutes the Great Ice Age a\nnormal phenomenon; so the recurrence of two periods associated with\nspecial phenomena of Life, the second higher, and by the law necessarily\nhigher, is no violation of the principle of Evolution. Thus even in the\nmatter of adding a second to the one barrier of Nature, the Third\nKingdom may already claim to complement the Science of the Second. The\noverthrow of Spontaneous Generation has left a break in Continuity which\ncontinues to put Science to confusion. Alone, it is as abnormal and\nperplexing to the intellect as the first eclipse. But if the Spiritual\nKingdom can supply Science with a companion-phenomenon, the most\nexceptional thing in the scientific sphere falls within the domain of\nLaw. This, however, is no more than might be expected from a Third\nKingdom. True to its place as the highest of the Kingdoms, it ought to\nembrace all that lies beneath and give to the First and Second their\nfinal explanation.\n\nHow much more in the under-Kingdoms might be explained or illuminated\nupon this principle, however tempting might be the inquiry, we cannot\nturn aside to ask. But the rank of the Third Kingdom in the order of\nEvolution implies that it holds the key to much that is obscure in the\nworld around--much that, apart from it, must always remain obscure. A\nsingle obvious instance will serve to illustrate the fertility of the\nmethod. What has this Kingdom to contribute to Science with regard to\nthe Problem of the origin of Life itself? Taking this as an isolated\nphenomenon, neither the Second Kingdom, nor the Third apart from\nrevelation, has anything to pronounce. But when we observe the\ncompanion-phenomenon in the higher Kingdom, the question is simplified.\nIt will be disputed by none that the source of Life in the Spiritual\nWorld is God. And as the same Law of Biogenesis prevails in both\nspheres, we may reason from the higher to the lower and affirm it to be\nat least likely that the origin of life there has been the same.\n\nThere remains yet one other objection of a somewhat different order, and\nwhich is only referred to because it is certain to be raised by those\nwho fail to appreciate the distinctions of Biology. Those whose\nsympathies are rather with Philosophy than with Science may incline to\ndispute the allocation of so high an organism as man to the merely\nvegetal and animal Kingdom. Recognizing the immense moral and\nintellectual distinctions between him and even the highest animal, they\nwould introduce a third barrier between man and animal--a barrier even\ngreater than that between the Inorganic and the Organic. Now, no science\ncan be blind to these distinctions. The only question is whether they\nare of such a kind as to make it necessary to classify man in a separate\nKingdom. And to this the answer of Science is in the negative. Modern\nScience knows only two Kingdoms--the Inorganic and the Organic. A\nbarrier between man and animal there may be, but it is a different\nbarrier from that which separates Inorganic from Organic. But even were\nthis to be denied, and in spite of all science it will be denied, it\nwould make no difference as regards the general question. It would\nmerely interpose another Kingdom between the Organic and the Spiritual,\nthe other relations remaining as before. Any one, therefore, with a\ntheory to support as to the exceptional creation of the Human Race will\nfind the present classification elastic enough for his purpose.\nPhilosophy, of course, may propose another arrangement of the Kingdoms\nif it chooses. It is only contended that this is the order demanded by\nBiology. To add another Kingdom mid-way between the Organic and the\nSpiritual, could that be justified at any future time on scientific\ngrounds, would be a mere question of further detail.\n\nStudies in Classification, beginning with considerations of quality,\nusually end with a reference to quantity. And though one would willingly\nterminate the inquiry on the threshold of such a subject, the example of\nRevelation not less than the analogies of Nature press for at least a\ngeneral statement.\n\nThe broad impression gathered from the utterances of the Founder of the\nSpiritual Kingdom is that the number of organisms to be included in it\nis to be comparatively small. The outstanding characteristic of the new\nSociety is to be its selectness. \"Many are called,\" said Christ, \"but\nfew are chosen.\" And when one recalls, on the one hand, the conditions\nof membership, and, on the other, observes the lives and aspirations of\naverage men, the force of the verdict becomes apparent. In its bearing\nupon the general question, such a conclusion is not without\nsuggestiveness. Here again is another evidence of the radical nature of\nChristianity. That \"few are chosen\" indicates a deeper view of the\nrelation of Christ's Kingdom to the world, and stricter qualifications\nof membership, than lie on the surface or are allowed for in the\nordinary practice of religion.\n\nThe analogy of Nature upon this point is not less striking--it may be\nadded, not less solemn. It is an open secret, to be read in a hundred\nanalogies from the world around, that of the millions of possible\nentrants for advancement in any department of Nature the number\nultimately selected for preferment is small. Here also \"many are called\nand few are chosen.\" The analogies from the waste of seed, of pollen, of\nhuman lives, are too familiar to be quoted. In certain details,\npossibly, these comparisons are inappropriate. But there are other\nanalogies, wider and more just, which strike deeper into the system of\nNature. A comprehensive view of the whole field of Nature discloses the\nfact that the circle of the chosen slowly contracts as we rise in the\nscale of being. Some mineral, but not all, becomes vegetable; some\nvegetable, but not all, becomes animal; some animal, but not all,\nbecomes human; some human, but not all, becomes Divine. Thus the area\nnarrows. At the base is the mineral, most broad and simple; the\nspiritual at the apex, smallest, but most highly differentiated. So form\nrises above form, Kingdom above Kingdom. _Quantity decreases as quality\nincreases._\n\nThe gravitation of the whole system of nature toward quality is surely a\nphenomenon of commanding interest. And if among the more recent\nrevelations of Nature there is one thing more significant for religion\nthan another, it is the majestic spectacle of the rise of Kingdoms\ntoward scarcer yet nobler forms, and simpler yet diviner ends. Of the\nearly stage, the first development of the earth from the nebulous matrix\nof space, Science speaks with reserve. The second, the evolution of each\nindividual from the simple protoplasmic cell to the formed adult, is\nproved. The still wider evolution, not of solitary individuals, but of\nall the individuals within each province--in the vegetal world from the\nunicellular cryptogam to the highest phanerogam, in the animal world\nfrom the amorphous am[oe]ba to Man--is at least suspected, the gradual\nrise of types being at all events a fact. But now, at last, we see the\nKingdoms themselves evolving. And that supreme law which has guided the\ndevelopment from simple to complex in matter, in individual, in\nsub-Kingdom, and in Kingdom, until only two or three great Kingdoms\nremain, now begins at the beginning again, directing the evolution of\nthese million-peopled worlds as if they were simple cells or organisms.\nThus, what applies to the individual applies to the family, what applies\nto the family applies to the Kingdom, what applies to the Kingdom\napplies to the Kingdoms. And so, out of the infinite complexity there\nrises an infinite simplicity, the foreshadowing of a final unity, of\nthat\n\n    \"One God, one law, one element,\n      And one far-off divine event,\n    To which the whole creation moves.\"[100]\n\nThis is the final triumph of Continuity, the heart secret of Creation,\nthe unspoken prophecy of Christianity. To Science, defining it as a\nworking principle, this mighty process of amelioration is simply\n_Evolution_. To Christianity, discerning the end through the means, it\nis _Redemption_. These silent and patient processes, elaborating,\neliminating, developing all from the first of time, conducting the\nevolution from millennium to millennium with unaltering purpose and\nunfaltering power, are the early stages in the redemptive work--the\nunseen approach of that Kingdom whose strange mark is that it \"cometh\nwithout observation.\" And these Kingdoms rising tier above tier in ever\nincreasing sublimity and beauty, their foundations visibly fixed in the\npast, their progress, and the direction of their progress, being facts\nin Nature still, are the signs which, since the Magi saw His star in the\nEast, have never been wanting from the firmament of truth, and which in\nevery age with growing clearness to the wise, and with ever-gathering\nmystery to the uninitiated, proclaim that \"the Kingdom of God is at\nhand.\"\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[96] \"Principles of Biology,\" p. 294.\n\n[97] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. ii. pp. 222, 223.\n\n[98] Philosophical classifications in this direction (see for instance\nGodet's \"Old Testament Studies,\" pp. 2-40), owing to their neglect of\nthe facts of Biogenesis can never satisfy the biologist--any more than\nthe above will wholly satisfy the philosopher. Both are needed. Rothe,\nin his \"Aphorisms,\" strikingly notes one point: \"Es ist beachtenswerth,\nwie in der Schoepfung immer aus der Aufloesung der naechst neideren Stufe\ndie naechst hoehere hervorgeht, so dass jene immer das Substrat zur\nErzeugung dieser Kraft der schoepferischen Einwirkung bildet. (Wie es\ndenn nicht anders sein kann bei einer Entwicklung der Kreatur aus sich\nselbst.) Aus den zersetzten Elementen erheben sich das Mineral, aus dem\nverwitterten Material die Pflanze, aus der verwesten Pflanze das Thier.\nSo erhebt sich auch aus dem in die Elemente zuruecksinkenden Materiellen\nMenschen der Geist, das geistige Geschoepf.\"--\"Stille Stunden,\" p. 64.\n\n[99] \"First Principles,\" p. 440.\n\n[100] \"In Memoriam.\"\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Endnote:\n\n    Two significant typographical errors have been corrected in the\n    Greek text on Page 263. The sentence originally read:\n\n        \"And Paul afterward carries out the classification consistently,\n        making his entire system depend on it, and throughout arranging\n        men, on the one hand as {pyenmatikos}--spiritual, on the other\n        as {phychikos}--carnal, in terms of Christ's distinction.\"\n\n    The amended text replaces {pyenmatikos} with {pneumatikos}, whilst\n    {phychikos} now reads as {psychikos}.","title":"Natural Law in the Spiritual World","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":92627}