212

ESSAY VIII.

NATURAL THEOLOGY.

I WISH to bespeak your patience while I address you on a subject, which, if it cannot be made amusing, may at least be made interesting and certainly is deeply important-I mean Natural Theology.

It is a subject which connects itself easily and simply with the work of a scientific society. The members of a scientific society may, without going much out of their way, very easily and very profitably permit their thoughts occasionally to slip-nay, their thoughts must almost certainly slip now and theninto the subject upon which I propose to speak.

What is Natural Theology? It may be defined to be the knowledge of God as it can be obtained from the knowledge of Nature. It is expressed in the wellknown words of St. Paul: 'The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even

This essay contains the substance of an address delivered to the 'Carlisle Scientific Society and Field Naturalist Club,' revised from a newspaper report (1878).

His eternal power and Godhead.'1

If the observation

of nature leads up to belief, or at all tends to assist and strengthen belief, in the being of God, then it may be asserted with some confidence that nature has been observed to the best and highest purpose possible. But it should be borne in mind, and this is, I think, an important remark, that theology is one thing, and natural science is another. It is most desirable that each of these great subjects should keep its own road. It is desirable that theology should not intrude upon nor obstruct the path of natural science; and it is equally desirable that natural science should not scowl upon theology. The scientific man, as such, is necessarily not a theologian. The man who studies science, as science, does not regard nature as the work of God; he regards it simply as that which he can see and observe, which he can reason about, which he can deal with perhaps by means of mathematical formulæ. Great mechanical discoverers, like Newton, for example, or like Laplace, begin with certain principles of mechanics which they lay down. Then they apply these principles to observed facts, such as those which are expressed by Kepler's laws; and by a combination of their assumed mechanical principles with their observed facts, through the medium of mathematical processes, they deduce results which constitute the science of the motion of the bodies of which the material universe consists, or, as Laplace has called it, 'celestial

1 Romans i. 20.

mechanics.' If, on coming to any difficulty in his processes, Laplace should introduce the consideration of God having done this or that, the suggestion might be true in a theological sense, but it would affect the scientific reasoning with a fatal flaw. A scientific man, in his character of scientific man, cannot, by the necessity of his science, introduce into his reasonings any reference to the idea of God.

Nevertheless, the scientific investigator and discoverer may be a very religious, God-fearing man. Everybody knows, at least I suppose everybody knows, that no man had a more profound belief in God than Sir Isaac Newton. And, in truth, though science is not theology, and though, as I have said, it is of extreme importance that they should be kept distinct, and that neither should interfere with the other, still it is possible to make use of the knowledge of nature which has been gained by observation and investigation, for the purpose of looking back upon theology from the position in which science has placed us, and of gaining illustrations of theology from what we have observed and consequently know: in other words, though science may not be confounded with theology, the truths which scientific investigation establishes may be used to help us in knowing more of God, and understanding Him better, than might otherwise have been possible.

If the remarks which have been now made indicate, as I believe they do, the proper relation in which

science and religion stand towards each other, we shall find in them ground upon which we may secure a good foundation for the subject which is described as Natural Theology. And I think it will be manifest that it is a subject to which either a scientific man or a theologian, or a man who is either both or neither, may very suitably devote some little serious attention. Certainly, if in any one place more than another, Natural Theology can claim respectful consideration, it will be in the city of Carlisle, one of whose brightest ornaments, Archdeacon Paley, is so closely identified with the name and exposition of the subject.

Archdeacon Paley's treatise on Natural Theology is, perhaps, the greatest and most original of all his works it was the last important production of his mind and pen. It was not composed in Carlisle. The preface shows that it was written at Bishopwearmouth, in the year 1802. The preface is a very touching one. Paley tells us that the Bishop of Durham, who had presented him to Bishopwearmouth, had laid upon him the task of writing a book in addition to those which he had already produced; and he says that he was glad to do so, because his health was failing and he was unable to perform satisfactorily the ordinary duties of his clerical profession. In fact, he was confined to his study and his books. He suffered much pain, being an invalid for nine years before his death; and it was in this invalided, suffering condition that he wrote his remarkable treatise on Natural Theology.

This book may be said to be in a certain sense out of date. People sometimes talk in a rather flippant way concerning the great works of our forefathers. They affect to look down upon them, to patronise them, and perhaps acknowledge with kindly condescension that they were very good considering the time when they were written. But I venture to assert that in some respects there never has been a book, and perhaps there never will be a book, more permanent in its character than this of Paley. It may be antiquated; and in a certain sense it is so; and that for a very good reason. The extent of natural science is now almost infinite, as compared with what it was at the beginning of this century. Paley's observations and instances were confined to a small field: whole sciences have come into existence since his time; had he been able to explore the fields which are now open, it cannot be doubted but that his work would have been more complete than in fact it is. And not only is science more extended than it was in Paley's days, but it is more accurate: observers have been more numerous and more cautious, and each generation of students has had the advantage of entering upon the labours of its predecessors. Moreover, the book is antiquated in another sense, namely, that difficulties have been raised, or have raised themselves, in connection with the subject of which Paley treated, which were unknown to him, may even be said not to have existed, with which, therefore, he could not deal;