and his relation to the world ; concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of man ; concerning the nature of virtue, the ground of moral obligation, human liberty and responsibility ; what is the rule of duty, what is right and what is wrong in all our relations to God and to our fellow creatures. These are subjects on whicli philoso- phy undertakes to speculate and dogmatize ; if in any case these speculations come into conflict with what is taught or necessarily implied in the Bible, they are thereby refuted, as by a reductio ad absurdum. And the disposition which refuses to give up these speculations in obedience to the teaching of the Bible, is inconsist- ent with Christianity. It is the indispensable condition of salvation through the gospel, that we receive as true whatever God has revealed in his Word. We must make our choice between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. The wisdom of men is foolishness with God ; and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the wise of this world.
The relation, therefore, between philosophy and revelation, as determined by the Scriptures themselves, is what every right- minded man must approve. Everything is conceded to philosophy and science, which they can rightfully demand. It is admitted that they have a large and important sphere of investigation. It is admitted that within that sphere they are entitled to the greatest deference. It is cheerfully conceded that they have accomplished much, not only as means of mental discipline, but in the enlarge- ment of the sphere of human knowledge, and in promoting the re- finement and well-being of men. It is admitted that theologians are not infallible, in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, there- fore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpreta- tions of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in his works. This change of view as to the true meaning of the Bible may be a painful trial to the Church, but it does not in the least impair the authority of the Scriptures. They remain infalli- ble ; we are merely convicted of having mistaken their meaning.
§ 7. Office of the Senses in Matters of Faith. The question. What authority is due to the senses in matters of faith, arose out of the controversy between Romanists and Prot- estants. The doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught by the Romish Church, contradicts the testimony of our senses of sight, taste, and touch. It was natural for Protestants to appeal to this contradiction as decisive evidence against the doctrine. Romanists
60 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. HI. — Rationalism.
reply by denying the competency o£ the senses to bear testimony in such cases.
Protestants maintain the validity of that testimon}' on the fol- lowing grounds : (1.) Confidence in the well-authenticated testi- mony of our senses, is one of those laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature ; from the authority of those laws it is impossible that we should emancipate ourselves. (2.) Confidence in our senses is, therefore, one form of confidence in God. It sup- poses him to have placed us under the necessity of error, to assume that we cannot safely trust the guides in which, by a law of our nature, he constrains us to confide. (3.) All ground of certainty in matters either of faith or knowledge, is destroyed, if confidence in the laws of our nature be abandoned. Nothing is then pos- sible but absolute skepticism. We, in that case, cannot know- that we ourselves exist, or that the world exists, or that there is a God, or a moral law, or any responsibility for character or conduct. (4.) All external supernatural revelation is addressed to the senses. Those who heard Christ had to trust to their sense of hearing ; those who read the Bible have to trust to their sense of sight; those who receive the testimony of the Church, receive it through their senses. It is suicidal, therefore, in the Romanists to say that the senses are not to be trusted in matters of faith.
All the arguments dei'ived from the false judgments of men when misled by the senses, are answered by the simple statement of the proposition, that the senses are to be trusted only Avithin their legit- imate sphere. The eye may indeed deceive us when the condi- tions of correct vision are not present ; but this does not prove that it is not to be trusted within its appropriate limts.