gards it. Comparative philologists hold up their hands at the ob- tuseness of men of science, who maintain that races have had differ- ent origins, whose languages render it clear to demonstration that they have been derived from a common stock. Considerino- the overwhelming weight of evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures, and the unspeakable importance of that authority being maintained over the minds and hearts of men, it evinces fearful recklessness on the part of those who wantonly impugn its teach- ings. On the other hand, it is unwise in theologians to array themselves needlessly against the teachings of science. Romanists and Protestants vainly resisted the adoption of the Copernican the- ory of our solar system. They interpreted the Bible in a sense con- tradictory to that theory. So far as in them lay, they staked the authority of the Bible on the correctness of their interpretation. The theory proved to be true, and the received interpretation had to be given up. The Bible, however, has received no injury, although theologians have been taught an important lesson ; that is, to let science take its course, assured that the Scriptures will accommodate themselves to all well-authenticated scientific facts ia time to come, as they have in time past.
The Authority of Facts.
6. The relation between Revelation and Philosophy (taking the word in its restricted sense) is different from that between Reve- lation and Science. Or, to express the same idea in different words, the relation between revelation and facts is one thing; and the relation between revelation and tlieories another thing. Facts do not admit of denial. They are determined by the wisdom and will of God. To deny facts, is to deny what God affirms to be true. This the Bible cannot do. It cannot contradict God. The theo- logian, therefore, acknowledges that the Scriptures must be inter- preted in accordance with established facts. He has a right, how- ever, to demand that those facts should be verified beyond the possibility of doubt. Scientific men in one age or country aflSrm the truth of facts, which others deny or disprove. It would be a lamentable spectacle to see the Church changing its doctrines, or its interpretation of Scripture, to suit the constantly changing rep- resentations of scientific men as to matters of fact.
While acknowledging their obligation to admit undeniable facts, theologians are at liberty to receive or reject the theories deduced from those facts. Such theories are human speculations, and can have no higher authorit}^ than their own inherent probability.
58 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. IH. — Katioxalism.
The facts of light, electricity, magnetism, are permanent. The theories concerning them are constantly changing. The facts of geology are to be admitted ; the theories of geologists have no coercive authority. The facts of physiology and comparative anat- omy may be received ; but no man is bound to receive any of the various conflicting theories of development. Obvious as this dis- tinction between facts and theories is, it is nevertheless often disre- garded. Scientific men are disposed to demand for their theories, the authority due only to established facts. And theologians, be- cause at liberty to reject theories, are sometimes led to assert their independence of facts.
The Authority of the Bible higher than that of Philosophy. 7. Philosophy, in its widest sense, being the conclusions of the human intelligence as to what is true, and the Bible being the declaration of God, as to what is true, it is plain that >vhere the two contradict each other, philosophy must yield to revelation ; man must yield to God. It has been admitted that revelation cannot contradict facts ; that the Bible must be interpreted in ac- cordance witu what God has clearly made known in the constitu- tion of our nature and in the outward world. But the great body of what passes for philosophy or science, is merely human specula- tion. What is the philosophy of the Orientals, of Brahmins and Buddhists, of the early Gnostics, of the Platonists, of the Scotists in the Middle Ages ; of Leibnitz with his monads and preestablished harmony ; of Des Cartes and his vortices ; of Kant and his catego- ries ; of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, with their different theories of idealistic pantheism ? The answer to that question is, that these systems of philosophy are so many forms of human speculation ; and consequently that so far as these speculations agree with the Bible they are true ; and so far as they differ from it, they are false and worthless. This is the ground which every believer, learned or unlearned, is authorized and bound to take. If the Bible teaches that God is a person, the philosophy that teaches that an infinite being cannot be a person, is false. If the Bible teaches that God creates, conti'ols, regenerates, the philosophy that forbids the as- sumption that He acts in time, is to be rejected. If the Bible teaches that the soul exists after the dissolution of the body, the philosophy which teaches that man is only the ephemeral manifes- tation of a generic life in connection with a given corporeal organ- ization, is to be dismissed without further examination. In shoi't, the Bible teaches certain doctrines concerning the nature of God