Christians, therefore, concede to reason all the prerogatives it can rightfully claim. God requires nothing irrational of his ra- tional creatures. He does not require faith without knowledge, or faith in the impossible, or faith without evidence. Christianity is equally opposed to superstition and Rationalism. The one is faith without appropriate evidence, the other refuses to believe what it does not understand, in despite of evidence which should command belief. The Christian, conscious of his imbecility as a creature, and his ignorance and blindness as a sinner, places himself before God, in the posture of a child, and receives as true everything which a God of infinite intelligence and goodness declares to be worthy of confidence. And in thus submitting to be taught, he acts on the highest principles of reason.
§ 6. Relation of Philosophy and Revelation.
Cicero ^ defines philosophy as " Rerum divinarum et humana- rum, causarumque quibus hse res continentur, scientia." Peemans^ says, " Philosophia est scientia rerum per causas primas, recto rationis usu comparata." Or, as Ferrier ^ more concisely expresses it, "Philosophy is the attainment of truth by the way of reason." These and other definitions are to be found in Fleming's " Vo- cabulary of Philosophy."
There is, however, a philosophia prima, or first philosophy, which is concerned not so much with what is to be known, as with the faculty of knowledge, which examines the cognitive faculty, determines its laws and its limits. It is the philosophy of phil- osophy.
Whether we take the word to mean the knowledge of God and nature attained by reason, or the principles which should guide all efforts for the attainment of knowledge, the word is intended to cover the whole domain of human intelligence. Popularly, we distinguish between philosophy and science ; the foi'mer having for its sphere the spiritual, the latter, the material. Commonly, phi- losophy is understood as comprising both departments. Hence we speak of natui-al philosophy as well as of the philosophy of mind. Such being the compass of the domain which philosophers claim as their own, the proper relation between philosophy and theology becomes a question of vital importance. This is, indeed, the great question at issue in the RationaUstic controversy ; and therefore, at the conclusion of this chapter, all that remains to be done is to give a concise statement of familiar principles.
1 Le Officiis, lib. ii, c. 2. 2 Mrod. ad Philosophiam, sect. 107
8 Jnst. of Metapliys. p. 2.
66 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. m. — Rationalism.
Philosophy and Theology occupy Common Ciround.
1. Philosophy and Theology occupy common ground. Both as- sume to teach what is true concerning God, man, the world, and the relation in which God stands to his creatures.
2. While their objects are so far identical, both striving to at- tain a knowledge of the same truths, their methods are essentially different. Philosophy seeks to attain knowledge by speculation and induction, or by the exercise of our own intellectual faculties. Theology relies upon authority, receiving as truth whatever God in his Word has revealed.
3. Both these methods are legitimate. Christians do not deny that our senses and reason are reliable informants ; that they en- able us to arrive at certainty as to what lies within their sphere.
4. God is the author of our nature and the maker of heaven and earth, therefore nothing which the laws of our nature or the facts of the external world prove to be true, can contradict the teach- ing of God's Word. Neither can the Scriptures contradict the truths of philosophy or science.
Philosophers and Theologians should Strive after Unity.
5. As these two great sources of knowledge must be consistent in their valid teachings, it is the duty of all parties to endeavor to exhibit that consistency. Philosophers should not ignore the teach- ings of the Bible, and theologians should not ignore the teachings of science. Much less should either class needlessly come into collision with the other. It is unreasonable and irreligious for philosophers to adopt and promulgate theories inconsistent with the facts of the Bible, when those theories are sustained by only plausi- ble evidence, which does not command the assent even of the body of scientific men themselves. On the other hand, it is unwise for theologians to insist on an interpretation of Scri])ture which brings it into collision with the facts of science. Both of these mistakes are often made. The Bible, for example, clearly teaches the unity of the existing races of men, both as to origin and species. Many Naturalists, however, insist that they are diverse, some say, both in origin and kind, and others, in origin if not in species. This is done not only on merely plausible evidence, being one of several possible ways of accounting for acknowledged diversities, but in opposition to the most decisive proof to the contrary. This proof, so far as it is historical and philological, does not fall within the sphere of natural science, and therefore the mere Naturalist disre-